Comments by "George Albany" (@Spartan322) on "The Japan Reporter"
channel.
-
@vanderwallstronghold8905 No, for man-made religions its all about works and feeling, with God such things are worthless.
"For who sees anything different in you? What do you have that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if you did not receive it?" - 1 Corinthians 4:7
For it is not by our relationship that we are saved but by faith.
"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." - Hebrews 11:1
No idols are to be made before God, no making ourselves look better before man for it is not man we seek to please but God, but all of man's religions do such things.
"For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ." - Galatians 1:10
"Instead, we speak as those approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, not in order to please men but God, who examines our hearts." - 1 Thessalonians 2:4
We set ourselves before Christ as our savior not that we wish to be saved but knowing we are saved for we already know nothing could save us, no works and no morals, but only through Christ's sacrifice. It is in realizing we are worthless before God but that we have been redeemed out of love and mercy despite such.
"These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life." - 1 John 5:13
"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." - Ephesians 2:8-9
"But God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." - Romans 5:8
"Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." - John 14:6
"The one who speaks on his own authority seeks his own glory; but the one who seeks the glory of him who sent him is true, and in him there is no falsehood." - John 7:18
"Truly no man can ransom another, or give to God the price of his life," - Psalm 49:7
We are required to die for the sake of Christ. We are to die for Christ from inception of being born again, for we carry our cross and lay it down before Him. In this we submit before Christ.
"Whoever loves his life loses it, and whoever hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life." - John 12:25
"I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me." - Galatians 2:20
Religion does not promote this, its traditions speak nothing to Christ, to Truth, to Righteousness, to Authority, to Justice, to Mercy, and to Love all simultaneously. Only in Christ is the demand for such things capable. In all the others they create idols and worship this Earth, whether it be themselves, the creatures below, those on land, those of the sky, or even those that reside in the heavens. But with God there are no idols for they are despised, they are burned and destroyed, temples set to ruin. Man's religions set such things, but under God such things are now left to ruin.
31
-
4
-
"but those who merely seek to make their club larger by recruiting new members, without any respect for the intellects of those who they are trying to recruit, are ruining the very same message that they are trying to spread."
Reach people where they are at. Too often such a loving position is ignored. But it the message must be spread, not for the sake of your church, but for the church, for we are to make disciples of all the nations.
"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," - Matthew 28:19
Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses need to be shown as a cult and rebuked and corrected for such.
"Justice would be if Japan sends those who come in the name of Christ, but act merely on personal interest, home, for good."
Now that's not a loving position, even in them acting wicked we are neither to hate nor desire the death of a sinner. We are to love them in their sins for Christ so loved us in our wickedness that He died for us so that we would never die.
4
-
4
-
@danielyounker5371
"If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations— “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh." - Colossians 2:20-23
"Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats. It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble. The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves. But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin." - Romans 14:20-23
“Monastic vows rest on the false assumption that there is a special calling, a vocation, to which superior Christians are invited to observe the counsels of perfection while ordinary Christians fulfill only the commands; but there simply is no special religious vocation since the call of God comes to each at the common tasks.” - Martin Luther
"Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith— just as Abraham “believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”?" - Galatians 3:2-6
Paul makes it quite clear as does Martin Luther that asceticism is wrong. Its also made quite clear here by Jesus that partaking in celibacy is not a trait of devotees of a pastoral profession but of those few that God has given the gift to.
"And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.” The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.” - Matthew 19:9-12
Here is Paul explaining the purpose and function of celibacy, notice it opposes monasticism and asceticism quite vehemently.
"Now concerning the betrothed, I have no command from the Lord, but I give my judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy. I think that in view of the present distress it is good for a person to remain as he is. Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife. But if you do marry, you have not sinned, and if a betrothed woman marries, she has not sinned. Yet those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. This is what I mean, brothers: the appointed time has grown very short. From now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none, and those who mourn as though they were not mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy as though they had no goods, and those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings with it. For the present form of this world is passing away. I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. But the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried or betrothed woman is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit. But the married woman is anxious about worldly things, how to please her husband. I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord. If anyone thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry—it is no sin. But whoever is firmly established in his heart, being under no necessity but having his desire under control, and has determined this in his heart, to keep her as his betrothed, he will do well. So then he who marries his betrothed does well, and he who refrains from marriage will do even better. A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord. Yet in my judgment she is happier if she remains as she is. And I think that I too have the Spirit of God." - 1 Corinthians 7:25-40
This describes a rare case for most men and beyond becoming a widow an exclusive case against unmarried women given the exegetical text, God established among the priests of His people to take a woman into marriage, you would not find single unmarried priests among those who performed the priestly practices among the Hebrews for it would not promote good to do such among most of them. Even less will you find women who were not to be wed for even less was it good as women were put under leadership of man. So the question stands how can a faith be righteous if it opposes half the New Testament? For Paul has spoken against that for which the Catholic Church preaches and practices, who has written much of the New Testament, how can it hope to be a righteous path then? Romans, Corinthians and Colossians alone condemn it.
3
-
@strykerbobby3873
"that’s not how that works. If someone asks not to be visited we can do something about it. If someone poses a difficult question there is no “blacklist” as you state. Know your facts before you comment."
I've been long time friends with JWs before, I asked them about it and they all responded exactly the same, we used to get JWs every month or so but not one has shown up at our house in over 5 years. We used to not answer the door and they only stopped coming when my dad, who listens to Dr. James White, Doug Wilson, Jeff Durbin, John MacArthur, and such other reformed minsters, spoke to them and start reading the Bible to them. So two forms of evidence suggest a blacklist here. They still traveled to other local homes but would avoid us.
"are you on drugs? We believe in the holy trinity too, you know?"
Jesus isn't a created being, He isn't the brother of Lucifier, what do you mean by Trinity? Do believe in Colossians 1:15-20?
"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross." - Colossians 1:15-20
"my mans said hol’ up, wait a minute. Let me copy and paste from Wikipedia real quick."
Not even, I'm literally quoting the Bible performing both exegetical analysis on it and interpreting via the Holy Spirit what God says in accordance with the Scriptures. Read the Scriptures and see that I speak no lie as it says:
"The one who speaks on his own authority seeks his own glory; but the one who seeks the glory of him who sent him is true, and in him there is no falsehood." - John 7:18
3
-
@tobehski Do you not understand what James had said? For he did not disagree with Paul but in fact agreed with Paul that the works do not define the faith, but that without the works the faith has shown no fruit and is not truly of the faith. For faith without works is dead because faith itself must demonstrate works to demonstrate faith. It is not these works however that make the faith, they do not save and do not give you life. But those who claim faith but do no fruitful works are not demonstrating the faith, if we know them by their fruits and the fruits of their labor are not of faith, they are known by the faith as to be discerned from it. This is what James had said, where Paul says that faith is most important, he was speaking on the outlook we must carry, James clarified on the behavior we are called for in following this outlook.
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits." - Matthew 7:15-20
3
-
3
-
@strykerbobby3873
"I’ve been a JW for 22 years. I was raised one and have been in service hundreds of times."
Had a few friends who were born into it and reached the age of early to mid 20s too. (and as far as was aware did not leave it, least they did not tell me such) Also dealt with speaking the Biblical text to them for years.
"So I’m sure I know more than some guy who asks someone some questions."
Aside from that you also make an appeal to accomplishment fallacy by claiming your experience defines what actually happens. Its also anecdotal and does not demonstrate a truth which by pointing back to is a reiteration of said fallacy.
"And yes we believe in God the father Jesus the son and the Holy Spirit. Now may not believe it in the same way as some."
"Like Jesus isn’t directly God because if he was why would he pray to God which would be himself."
Because of the Trinity, One being in Three persons, Jesus is not the Father who is not the Holy Spirit who is not Jesus, but they are all God, you can't even use the word Trinity unless you accept that, and Jesus was demonstrating the glory of God and the instruction for man, and that's only the tip of the iceberg of why Jesus did such. Jesus was 100% man and 100% God, He was given to us so that we may follow Him, so He had to be like us just as He was to be God.
To believe otherwise means you can't believe in Jesus because the translation literally says:
"Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.” - John 10:25-30
“Let not your hearts be troubled. Believe in God; believe also in me. In my Father’s house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also. And you know the way to where I am going.” Thomas said to him, “Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way?” Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.” Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves. “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father. Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it." - John 14:1-14
We know this is reliable because scholars of Aramaic validate the translation word for word, and multiple different variation translations alongside historical demonstration of the text in its oldest forms demonstrate that it was saying just that. Dr. James White is one of the many scholars that not only speaks to the authenticity of the Biblical text as translated among the versions like the ESV and NKJV logically and rationally, but also can and loves to read the text in its original languages, (for he knows Aramaic and Koine Greek) the variants for which we have access to all say the same and reiterate the same language. There are plenty of translations that were formulated as personal interpretations of the text but none of them had investigation upon the original forms of the text from their original languages, and were heavily criticized for failing to account for any of the documented text even in their time.
"That just doesn’t make any sense."
If something you read can not be understood by you, that doesn't make it untrue, that merely means you don't understand it. You are not allowed to make an assumption that something does not make sense because you can't make sense of it, you are polluted by the world and have a bias among the world for which understanding may be hidden from you. Do not by taken by a philosophy of your own understanding for your reason is not God's reason, do not make God into your own image. God has done such things many times, hidden truth and wisdom from man, both in and outside the faith, for there are times for wisdom to be granted and times for it to be hidden. It is wisdom itself to understand such things. Jesus demonstrates many times in his ministry where He hides Himself from the people as they try to kill Him. This is God concealing Jesus from the eyes of the wicked for it was not His time. God will conceal many things, including His own glory (Proverbs 25:2, Deuteronomy 29:29) just Moses and the Prophets had done for the sake of the people.
"I doubt you’ve ever been to a Kingdom Hall or out to service as a JW so don’t talk like you know something."
You attack me but do not refute me with reasonableness. Proclaiming yourself as authoritative but without reason does not speak to truth.
"You talking about me copy and pasting lol you literally copy and pasted your whole comment."
I don't see where I said that. Would you happen to have a quote of what I said? Also the only things I copy into my comments are the Word of God, the Bible, which all things must spawn knowledge and wisdom from to conceive understanding, and comments for which I refer to in order to respond. So unless you want to argue that God's Word doesn't speak truth and should not be referenced in which case you'd have no argument, or that speaking to arguments and context should not be done, which would make discussion pointless as it would undermine a capability to understand what I am speaking to, I have done nothing wrong in copying text. After all they are both for reference and understanding.
2
-
@hglundahl
"Which is heretical. The Scriptura herself accepts Scriptura in Ecclesia cum Traditione. Therefore, accepting Sola Scriptura is in itself problematic.""
How and where? You don't get to just claim this and not actually present this fact. Also by what standard? Who is the authority?
"However, the Lutherans do much worse than that when attacking "works salvation" aka as "sola fide" and "sola gratia".""
The Bible does not describe salvation in works, James didn't argue with this (people fallaciously read into the text without an exegetical analysis, they don't understand why the fathers of the faith, who were inspired by the Holy Spirit directly, would keep James and Paul right next to each other) but people make the claim that when he says "faith without works is dead" that he is saying you must do works to have faith. Well no, foremost James does not describe that you must have works to have faith, this is not a logical statement that James makes, (in fact it makes little sense for you can not do works of faith without faith for said works) even further Paul refutes this while agreeing with James in that "faith without works is dead" in Galatians. Jesus had also said it in Matthew when He said "You will know them by their fruits" (Matthew 7:16) for He was speaking about the works to discern both evil and good. There is no where in the Bible for which it says you are saved by works, there is constant reiteration that by faith you will be saved.
"Yeah, Sola Fide started the Lutheran cult, as an offshot of Catholicism, some time between 1517 when Luther was more Jansenist than Lutheran, and 1522, when he really started to reform Wittenberg."
You don't even attempt to be fair to your opposition. That's insulting. Its not an offshoot, also there's a different between heretical and apostate, heretics can't be saved in their faith, apostates can be.
"It has made Catholic martyrs in Sweden, Denmark, and via Anglicanism (only partly inspired by Luther) in England too."
The Catholic church killed many people unjustly too, Jan Hus being only one of many martyr for heresy, if opposition to killing or murderous acts of those who claimed to be anything of in a faith were to decide anything for me I could not have a single faith, even the Hebrews killed people both justly and unjustly, they martyred many prophets and they killed Jesus, that included some who followed Jesus, or if we're truly honest, WE KILLED JESUS DIRECTLY. If that decided who I was to believe in then there's no reason to believe. This is a plead to emotion argument and is an irrelevant fallacy. Also it violates the understanding of context and being of the time, you will not find a many people of those times that did not support killing of heretics. (which does violate what Jesus spoke about, never once did He preach evil upon heretics and heathens) The opposition of executing heresy and heathenry is a new concept that only came out of the Reformed churches first.
"they don't believe the original Biblical text as it was written in the first century in the original languages was inspired by God, they had to modify the text to get their cult behaviors."
"Both they and Tyndale and Luther all modified the text,"
Where? At what point did they not refer to the translations of the text they had access to, which was starting to include the Greek versions over the Latin. This result in more variants alternate to the Latin which clarified and specified the text better.
"and all of above also claim to give a translation directly from the original languages. Why do you believe Martin Luther but not Nathan H. Knorr?
Because Nathan violates the nature of Scripture and is not a Koine Greek and Aramaic scholar and he didn't build the original texts the JW used, they're older then 1922, there is no reason he'd be relevant. Luther made everything he claimed in accordance with Scripture and made reference to Scripture and Faith. He was capable to reference the languages he was translating from.
"and to get rid of a proof text Mary was totally free from sin."
Where is it claimed she is? There is nowhere in the text that collaborate that she was free of sin, being a virgin is not a lacking of sin, she was still born of a man, and sin comes from the inheritance of being born of the First Adam, hence one of the just descriptions God gives for Jesus' body to be born without sin, he was not born as a descendant of Adam.
"I read his "Sendbrief vom Dolmetschen" while still a Lutheran, helped to decide my conversion.""
I'm not a Lutheran and I agree that there were still plenty things Luther got wrong, but what he got right and wrong doesn't justify saying he wasn't inspired by God, you can't make that claim by what he said.
I rather claim all versions of Protestantism are cults, outside the true Church. Also true of Judaism, Islam and Freemasonry.
That's just wrong, you don't know what the definition of a cult is then. Again disingenuous and deceptive.
"I wasn't speaking about bravery as a God-given grace-virtue, I was speaking about bravery as a human quality. Beowulf did not know his Maker either, and yet he was brave."
"See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ." - Colossians 2:8
God has no regard for human evaluations. It is irrelevant to topic at hand.
"For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ." - Galatians 1:10
"Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect." - Romans 12:2
“Listen to me, you who know righteousness, the people in whose heart is my law; fear not the reproach of man, nor be dismayed at their revilings." - Isaiah 51:7
"Nevertheless, many even of the authorities believed in him, but for fear of the Pharisees they did not confess it, so that they would not be put out of the synagogue; for they loved the glory that comes from man more than the glory that comes from God." - John 12:42-43
"I'm aware Lutherans are not iconoclasts, but Calvinists are. I am sorry I presumed you were Calvinist. My bad."
I am a Calvinist but I also don't entirely agree with Calvin (as an example he wished the death of heretics, which is not the love for which Jesus spoke, there were Calvinist associates of Calvin at that time that disagreed with Calvin on seeking the death of Jacobus Arminius, and other heretics) just as I don't entirely agree with Luther, I relegate in accordance by the Holy Spirit what is and is not right for me to have and do which is to what some of them spoke of, another example being Augustine who was also wrong about many things, I do not judge those that came before me as lacking an inspiration and faith even when they sinned, for they have helped bring me to faith, for who am I to tell God they were condemned if I too am a man of my time? I do not have authority over the heart and will not condemn someone simply because of the acts they took in time, condemnation can not be retroactively applied to the heart in man, I will condemn the acts themselves and the thoughts they had, but I can't condemn the heart, only God has that capability. I am produced as a part of subject of those that come before for which I am entered not into a church but The Church which is the Bride of Jesus who is the Bridegroom for the Church.
"Giving latreia to angels or to symbols (meaning symbols like icons or crosses, a Lutheran cannot pretend the Eucharist is "a symbol" and nothing more!) would be idolatry, you have failed to show Catholics guilty thereof."
Latreia is reverence, which you aren't supposed to give to any before God.
As an example, if you pray to Saint Anthony, for that's what it is, you don't get to manipulate definitions, if you bow your head in submission to something and give it reverence, you are praying to it, to find something you lost, you have committed idolatry, my father and I were once Catholic, they give reverence to the image of Mary as though she was without blame and was God. She is indistinguishable in character, being, and person from the rest of mankind, for she was still of man and was filled with sin, just as her sons were. Only Jesus was without sin, and He says much same.
"And as he was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him and asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone." - Mark 10:17-18
2
-
“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it." - Matthew 10:34-39
Also the non-church movement is not a good way to live, the establishment of the Church was given for us to take fellowship in and keep us upright, communion and baptism was neither a western tradition, it was a calling for our sake by Christ, for as Jesus had said "Do this in remembrance of me" (Luke 22:19) Uchimura seems to have completely disregarded exegetical study and focused instead on "cultural Christianity" and eisegesis, there is no way Christ can be received in the Holy Spirit by a nation of such people.
2
-
1
-
1
-
@hglundahl
"Lot's of what you say about JW's and Mormons is just a follow up on Protestantism in general."
How and where? And by what authority can you make such claims? See you don't get to say this and then leave it as if it isn't an inherent claim, JWs and Mormons are heretics, Protestants (which means you're referring to Lutherans and Lutheran adjacent mostly) are not even apostate, they accept Sola Scriptura and don't modify the Biblical text in accordance with English translations, they too read from the old translations, now there are some break offs of Lutherans (many who claim to be Lutherans but reject many basic concepts of Luther himself) which do violate these standards, but they're already not Protestants anyway because they reject the core foundation of Protestant doctrine, that being Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide. JW and Mormons reject both of those, they don't believe the original Biblical text as it was written in the first century in the original languages was inspired by God, they had to modify the text to get their cult behaviors.
"For me, those two groups are just two of many other groups which are also very wrong, and their members show a bit more heroism than some other guys."
If your argument is that there are many cults that claim to be Protestant, that's an irrelevant conslusion, we're not arguing about other groups because you didn't bring them up and they're not under addressment, if they were I would likely refute them too. (or contemplate a refutation in the apologetics) And God cares nothing for courage when it lacks belief in Jesus as God, He can't be the brother of Satan and He was there in the beginning in which all things were made through Him, the Gospel of John refutes any alternative interpretations. God does not grant bravery as a virtue if you don't stand in the truth, and they don't.
"Making "ban on images" a separate II commandment and pretend Catholics break it is also adding to the Bible."
Once again an irrelevant conclusion, nobody brought this up and there was no reason to assume it was. If you want me to make an addressment I never supported a concept of Iconoclasm so long as we understand the image itself is a representation for the sake of knowledge and understanding, it has no power and should not be treated with reverence. This is where the Catholics screw up, they treat Mary with reverence and every image of her with reverence, they worship angels and symbols which is idolatry. They pray to angels and saints despite every angel sent by God in the Bible that saw that yelling at people to stop immediately. We are not to give any reverence to the imagery, the concepts, or things of the air, Earth, or sea, nor anything given into Heaven, only to God Himself. Anyone who does not agree with that is making themselves at war with God. But under that mindset its an individual that should understand that, and the church should warn men not to do such things, unless the one who made the image made it for that purpose (any image made to be worshiped or assault the faith, for which we own, must be destroyed which is constantly described as part of actors upon the Law, the only exception would be for theological discussion and demonstration, most commonly being books of evil for arguing against) there is no offense to God that does not otherwise offend the sensibilities He gives in the Holy Spirit. The Catholics violate this not because its a new command like you claim, its a command the same as the Golden Calf spoken in the Exodus, to God such things are indistinguishable, you do not pray to angels, we will be made judge over them, we do not pray to the beasts and creatures of this realm for we are in dominion over them, they are given by God as service and duty that we have rule over. The one above us in our charge (not in our morality) is God, where the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are harmonious and perfect. That is our charge.
1
-
@hglundahl "Giving douleia to them, and relative worship to symbols (relative latreia in images of God in the flesh, relative douleia in images of St. Michael or of a Guardian angel, is also not idolatry."
If you bow in submission and give something prayer you are doing the exact same thing the Hebrews committed with the Golden Calf in Exodus, they did much the same claiming that it was revering God. You don't claim you are honoring God when you bow your head into submission to anything other then God. We are above them in standard and value, they are below us just as the Earthly domain is below us, we can not pray to them because they are in submission to us, this is demonstrated even in Genesis. Those who have claimed such things have not examined either Paul nor have they examined any of the first four chapters of Genesis.
"As you are a Lutheran, you are at least not abusing verses 4 to 6 of Exodus 20 as a separate commandment, so what is your prooftext?"
I'm not a Lutheran. Do the Psalms demonstrate a violation of that command? Did not God form us as a demonstration of the art to glorify Himself? If we are given in the Imago Dei and God beloved the creative nature as is demonstrated in our formation and the formation of creation itself, is that not a clear demonstration, especially in our desire to form and create, that we have natural revelation to speak to being creative creatures to us? What does Romans 12:6 say? What about Exodus 35? Philippians 4:8? 2 Timothy 1:6? Ephesians 2:10? 1 Peter 4:10? These are merely some cases of the array of Scripture that says to us that our gifts are to give glory and be under use for the sake of God, this includes the creative, for we were made in the Image of God to give glory to God, which we do in our works and gifts. We don't do it by praying to those works or bowing to those works, nor the works for which God made, there is no charge by God to bow our heads to created works, never once is reverence reserved for them. What do the angels do when they come? They see man bow his face before them but he tells them "do not be afraid" and has them stop bowing their heads, when angels saw man pray and bow before them they would call everyone to stop. Yet you insist that you must bow your head before the created beings, that you put yourself under them instead of having all created beings put under us lovingly.
"It would seem St. John could have been so overwhelmed by the splendour of the angel, that he took him for God, which would be a case for yelling "stop"."
"No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known." - John 1:18
Literal start of John. He was struck with fear, had he met God he wouldn't have been alive, even Moses did not get to see God and that was known. His fear is what was leading him there, not reverence, that's why he wasn't punished.
"Wait ... are you abusing verses 4 to 6 as a separate commandment?"
I don't get what you are saying? It is a command separate from verse 3 and verse 7. Where do you claim that its not a commandment separate from worshiping other gods and taking the name in vain?
"things of the air, Earth, or sea, nor anything given into Heaven,"
"We do NOT worship Pachamama or Ceres (by the way, a certain guy who did worship Pachamama is not a Catholic in my book)"
If you bow your head in submission you are worshiping, also no true scotsman fallacy.
"we do not worship the angelic or demonic beings who make lightning and rain, we do not worship either waves or fish fertility, we do not worship the angels that move sun and moon, their place in the liturgy is when we tell them to bless the Lord."
You can't bless the Lord for He is above all, it is receiving blessing from the Lord for which is given.
"Actually, created persons and even man made objects have been worshipped because of their relation to God."
That's not a moral validation. That's irrelevant statement.
"The Ark of the Covenant by King David"
Foremost you need to quote this and secondly, if that even were true, (which I have a high suspicion that you are performing eisegetical analysis again) who said David was right with everything he did? Did he not kill a man to get at his wife? Was he more perfect then Peter who rejected Jesus three times?
"and the Blessed Virgin Mary by Elisabeth"
Now this one I know is bad eisegetical claims, no where in what she said does she revere Mary as anything but blessed by God, she does not describe her as above the rest of men nor does she worship her. She is given a role for which God had loved and blessed her much like any believer. Where is she demonstrate to be above man?
Also Colossians 2:18:
"Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind,"
"both expressing words like "how is this for me, that X comes to me?"
Again that doesn't demonstrate a worship, that demonstrates a blessing that they would be so gifted with God's plan that they'd have first hand account to it.
"The Catholics violate this not because its a new command like you claim, its a command the same as the Golden Calf spoken in the Exodus,"
"Ah, you ARE really abusing verses 4 to 6 as a second (not new, but number 2 out of 10) command! These verses are in fact, and Luther knew this, part of the FIRST commandment, which extends over verses 2 to 6! The "do not worship them" does not refer to "images" in the previous verse, but to "strange gods" in the verse before that!"
And where is your proof to this claim? The text is translated as is, you are reading into the text not reading out of it. Scripture describes this image before and after continuously, it is a command reiterated multiple times.
"How quickly they have turned aside from the way that I commanded them! They have made for themselves a molten calf and have bowed down to it. They have sacrificed to it and said, 'These, O Israel, are your gods, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt.'" - Exodus 32:28
"You shall make no molten gods for yourselves." - Exodus 34:17
"Do not turn to idols or make for yourselves molten gods. I am the LORD your God." - Leviticus 19:4
"You must not make idols for yourselves or set up a carved image or sacred pillar; you must not place a sculpted stone in your land to bow down to it. For I am the LORD your God." - Leviticus 26:1
"that you do not act corruptly and make an idol for yourselves of any form or shape, whether in the likeness of a male or female," - Deuteronomy 4:16
There is a notable distinction between calling upon gods and images in each of these texts. In Leviticus 26:1 it specifically refers to imagery and not an aspect of any god given here. Are you gonna argue that the original text doesn't say this? In which case do you know what the original text says explicitly? Can you translate it for me directly word for word while I watch? If you can not then you have no ground to stand for this. Either text says what it says in the translations we have or you are required to demonstrate how the translation is wrong, but as it stands now the contextual analysis of the text can not be used to argue in support of your claim. That is not an exegetical analysis of the text.
"We will certainly be made judges over some angelic beings ... in one Catholic reading, I presume, that verse means we are by exorcism judging fallen angels."
No, Paul is speaking about God's angels, the context doesn't let you claim "fallen angels" because Paul doesn't refer to demons as angels, the context violates that interpretation, so the exegetical analysis says that's wrong. Its quite evidence in the context that Paul is referring to the angels that love God and man. It also doesn't make any sense given that he's speaking about making right judgement among the church and to the world, so the standard for good being done needs to be higher then the church which he calls upon the angels as a reference for the angels of God do good in a manner superior to the church among the sinful ways as we are, for they fully follow God unlike man who is not fully capable to do so yet, so both contextually of Paul and logically in accordance with the subject and context you are objectively wrong about this.
"Totally correct. And Catholics do not pray to Bastet or to any other Cat goddess, however much we love cats!"
Bowing to an image is putting yourself in submission to the creatures of the Earth for they were created, specifically if the image is organic in nature or mere representation of something of a actable nature, that often being man and angels.
"It's very true that YOUR sensei is not in charge of me, and shouldn't be in charge of you either, given the number of errors on Catholicism he spreads."
This is irrelevant.
1
-
@hglundahl
"Whose definition? A religious definition simply involves "wrong religion collectively pursued with group pressure", and sociological definitions involve certain types of group pressure."
There is no "religious definition" of cult, there is only one form of definitions, that being the result of the linguistic definition that is in common use in society for language is defined by the common people who partake of said language.
The freedictionary (one of the better dictionary sources, though not sure they're the best these days) says:
"1. a. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader. b. The followers of such a religion or sect. 2. A system or community of religious worship and ritual. 3. The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious ceremony and ritual. 4. A usually nonscientific method or regimen claimed by its originator to have exclusive or exceptional power in curing a particular disease. 5. a. Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing. b. The object of such devotion. 6. An exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric, usually artistic or intellectual interest."
If we examine these definitions, we can't use 2 as it would be so broad as to include Catholicism, it can't be used as a demeaning substance if we refer to definition 2 because that describes distinctions between religious rituals and worship. Same thing to definition 3. The rest could be used but 5 doesn't exactly apply unless we say that about Jesus in which case yes but that makes the demeaning use once again useless, and 6 is irrelevant. So the only definitions we can use for demeaning purposes are 1 and 4. Neither of which define Protestant or Reformed theology. So which this is mind Protestant and Reformed doctrine is cult-like in nature and can not be objectively described as a cult.
"Not really. If we speak about JW's "irritating" we are speaking of precisely a human evaluation."
No, they're not especially condemned by their actions, (for everyone is condemned by Original Sin already, their acts are not more condemned then Original Sin already makes them) they're condemned by their theology which commits thievery to the body of the Bride of Jesus, being The Church. The worst sin is that which adds or takes away from the Word. (Deuteronomy 4:2, Revelation 22:18-19)
"No, douleia is reverence, as we show saints. Latreia is adoration, which we only give to God."
You bow your head in submission to them, you treat the saints as special but all brothers and sisters are made saints in Christ. And angels are below us in stature, they are not to be revered, they are to be respected, just as we're to be shown respect to both nature and man. Anymore is idolatry.
"But not adoring it. It's still douleia, not latreia."
Alright, lets accept the premise then that such a separation is valid, so lets see what happens if we walk in those ways. You may know such the concept perfectly well enough not to sin perhaps, but most others can not and will not understand it and will specifically never bother, they will commit to those claims under sinful ways, worshiping them as idols because of their sinful nature, they just as well will say that it doesn't matter to understand it because its the priests job to do such. So even if we accept that premise it consequently will result in sin by the human nature. God does not give ways that tempt people, He does not tempt man, (James 1:13) so the premise must be flawed.
"She was. Luke 1:28 says She is blessed among women. This being a military decoration as per OT usage (reserved for two women who had killed enemy generals), and Luke 1:42 is such an echo of Genesis 3:15 that the only enemy she could have completely defeated was Satan,"
Nowhere in these references does it say she was without sin however. This is reading into the text, not reading out of the text. Also nowhere in the text is she described as being capable to defeat Satan, there is no reason that she would be made without the necessity of the sacrifice of Jesus and there is no demonstration of that. She refutes that when she says:
"and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior," - Luke 1:47
Pray tell me, why would she need a Savior if she was inherently without sin?
"just as Her Son had (and was going to). Therefore She must have been a perfect enemy of Satan, impossible if God had found any blame in Her."
This is a complete non sequitur, even if aspects of your assumptive position were sound, to which by itself they are not, it would not follow immediately that such a position is correct inherently based on that position. There is no correlation that any of what you said would demonstrate that she was a perfect enemy of Satan and was left without sin. Also the only ones referred to as blameless in that passage isn't Mary, its Aaron and Elizabeth, and it only makes that in context to the commandments and statues of the Lord.
"Mark 10 quote doesn't preclude a created person being so filled with God as to be without sin. Remember what you are supposed to be when you get to heaven? Right ... so full of God you are without sin, for eternity."
But that's not what we are now, so that detail is irrelevant, you can't use a future promise to describe your current state, else the assumption would also be a lack of necessity to be married in violation of what Jesus and Paul taught for most. (Matthew 10:11-12, 1 Corinthians 7:9) This logic is flawed because it treats time as irrelevant for us when we live in time. It also ignores another statement that Jesus makes about the stature of righteousness being only of God. (Mark 10:18, Luke 18:19) For Mary to have been without sin alongside this statement would require that she either be God or that Jesus was wrong. Not to mention its opposed to Romans 3:10-11 which by nature must include Mary.
"The Golden Calf is not a saint of the true God, nor an image of either Himself or a saint."
Where is that standard described in the Scriptures? Not a context surrounding the Scriptures or a reading into the Scriptures, where do the Scriptures specifically refer to that standard? Point to me the book, chapter, and verses.
"Elijah did not say no when Abdias bowed down to him, neither Daniel when Nebuchadnezzar bowed down to him."
So both Elijah and Daniel were perfect beings that never made a mistake? The Bible is only full of perfect beings that don't stumble? Clearly it doesn't keep everything it describes as acceptable acts to God, it does not look kindly on Lot's daughters when they rape their father yet it describes just that act in fair amount of detail, there are many cases of whoring and other violations again God that it does describe in rather fair amount of detail. And there are plenty of preceding events for which it describes, many cases of even considered men of God committing wrong or evil acts to which it does not always address explicitly in the text, (specifically in the OT) as its a historical documentation just as much as a moral instruction. We are not to emulate Elijah, Obadiah, Daniel, or Nebuchadnezzar. Who is the Lord of our faith? Jesus. Who are we to emulate? Jesus.
"We are under God, not just when we directly honour God, but also when we do so by honouring a person He has honoured, because He has done so."
Alright I'm gonna stop with this circular addressment nonsense because its turning into the purest form of he said/she said, so long as I leave it like this its like playing wack-a-mole for theology without getting to the root. Here is the basic question: What would Jesus have believed? What would the Apostles have believed? That is the core of everything, anything outside that question is irrelevant. In order to be saved in the Catholic religion you have to believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary, the bodily assumption, and the infallibility of the Pope, but lets ask: would Jesus and the Apostles have believed in that? What would Jesus have believed about that?
1
-
@hglundahl
"Looking on Jesus, the author and finisher of faith, who having joy set before him, endured the cross, despising the shame, and now sitteth on the right hand of the throne of God.
We have our eyes on Jesus, when we have our eyes on Abel, Henoch and so on, according to St. Paul, unless you consider it was St. Barnabas who wrote Hebrews."
You literally didn't answer the question, what did Jesus (who was never addressed of the question) and the Apostles (who you never answered in regard to but least quoted me in asking) believe? Its a simple question, to be saved in the Catholic church you must first believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary, the bodily assumption, and the infallibility of the Pope. According to Catholic doctrine that they set up if one of these things are not believed you can not be saved in the Catholic church. How did the Apostles believe all three things and how did Jesus believe all three things?
1
-
1
-
@hglundahl
"First of all, Gideon's fleece being a symbol of the Virgin mother, conceived without sin"
But how?
"As this exceeds the text length of the NT,"
Is the Bible God-Breathed?
"the very few direct instances that are given in NT are NOT exhaustive of His lessons."
How do you know that? Where does it say such things in the Scriptures?
"So, where are they? Lost, in tradition, or reconstituted by you?"
Given by the Holy Spirit, Romans 1:18-23 actually speaks to evidences which pertain to lesson in faith without any tradition. John 14:15-31 also refutes understanding in tradition because the Holy Spirit is sent to them before all else. There is no where that only these three requirements are sustained, its made quite clear that the Holy Spirit gives understanding. You provided an incomplete set for claims of choice and arbitrarily decided of them the one most capable to read traditions out of.
"Lost and reconstituted by you would both go against Christ's promise to be with the Apostles (and their successors) every day until the consummation of all time."
Why you assume it was either lost or reconstituted is irrational, there is no case presented for which God would not sustain truth and truthseekers even among apostates, He had done it many times with the Hebrews before, there is no reason to assume He would not do so again.
"Therefore in tradition."
Which is a false conclusion.
"Which means, if all the Church Fathers and all four other denominations laying claims to being the Apostolic Church in unbroken continuity agree, obviously this means it is so, and they agree that the Virgin remained so."
The church is not described as an organization of man, but as one from God for man, so why must it have a lineage among men? Also you have not show me a reference Biblically for any of this. Where in the text does it substantiate any of your claims?
"We have not denied their existence any more than we have taken away Exodus 20:4. First of all, they were not full siblings"
There are one of two ways this statement goes, either its the cousin claim, which is flippant disregard for the original languages of the text, or the half-sibling only claim, which doesn't work if any of the siblings are younger then Jesus which there were.
"Second, if He was considered son of St. Joseph (which we know from Luke he was, socially), He would have been considered their halfsibling if St. Joseph was a widower before marrying the Blessed Virgin and they were his children from a previous marriage"
This is deflecting the argument, Joseph had more children after Jesus with Mary. This is historically evident and presented among the text.
"Remember that neither Abel nor King David were the oldest brothers."
Irrelevant, I never made this assumption, you are assuming my position in a strawman.
"This is what the Proto-Gospel of St. James says."
Its not part of canon, the author can't be validated historically and it contradicts both the OT and rest of the NT. It is part of the pseudepigrapha.
"could have a point that a cousin would be called "brother" or "sister""
No you can't, none of the original languages contextually support this translation. Hence why the translations are always made so strict.
"If after the Old Alliance was sealed, people who were not Moses could write reliable and even inerrant Church History of the Jewish Church from Joshua to Maccabees, why would successors of the Apostles, coming after the New Covenant was sealed, not be able to write reliable Church history for events after the Gospels end? And it would still be reliable, even if all was not canonic as Acts is/"
You don't understand what canon is, how its defined, and how it was collected, because it has absolutely nothing to do with that. From historical and Scriptural standpoint that which is not canon violates everything preceding it and does not have an author which would be validated as eyewitness accounts of the case they present. As a result by contradiction it is known the Holy Spirit did not inspire the words and most of those books all claim to be written by some it could not have been written by or for which there is no account in documentation that they could be associated with the work, often times this its validated by investigating earlier manuscripts to validate the later variants. This is also how we can nail down general time periods for common variations often found in the Apocrypha.
"Yes, and yes, for the other part, even you believe that two of his writings are infallible. I and II Peter."
Inerrancy is because of the Holy Spirit, not because of the man. Peter was not infallible, and we don't believe his writings to be infallible, we believe those that were left in the Bible were inerrant because of the Holy Spirit who was speaking the words, not Peter, Peter was merely a vessel and tool of the Holy Spirit, to God he was not necessary. (after all "For nothing will be impossible with God.” - Luke 1:37) Everything else he wrote that wasn't in the Bible was either utterly fallible or was only capably usable for the context of those he spoke to, God did not put anything not meant for every generation and people to receive in the Bible for it would cause stumbling and confusion and would result in being read into the Scriptures instead of being read out of it.
"Like the non-hagiographers who also handed it down."
Where and how is any of that historical account of them validated?
"1) You worship on Sunday of Resurrection, not on Saturday of Creation, I presume (there are Biblical hints, but no direct command in the Bible to change it)"
The only specific command required is to worship among the fellowship in the church, the specific day is irrelevant, the only reason I and my association use Sunday is out of agreed convenience, if it became more convenient to use any other day of the week I would do that for the fellowship is to be practical in manners that lack a moral doctrine. This is much like how the Law regarding cleanliness was abolished and all things were made clean in Jesus.
"2) St. Paul references a tradition from Moses' time which does not come from Exodus directly, naming the magicians of the Pharao as Iannes and Mambres or Iannes and Iambres."
I don't see how that validates tradition to be followed, the writings and knowledge given at that time that gave such information (which could also be tradition) have since ceased to exist, why does it have to be tradition alone that validated the information? Could they not have commentary and documents regarding those events of the both the Gentiles and Hebrews for which that information could be gleamed that had later been destroyed or even merely failed to be copied. Don't make the assumption that all cases of lacking historical knowledge that was shown to be known is a case of tradition, it could just as much be recorded in that time and lost in the times following. This happened all the time with Plato and Aristotle and historical accounts surrounding those times. Its not the first case of a historical document referencing a historical subject with knowledge we have since lost to history.
And that aside that isn't a case of tradition that is outside the Bible, its literally in the Biblical text, if the Holy Spirit is speaking through Paul then it is incapable to lie and it can not make mistakes.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Maybe its the language and cultural barrier, but it kinda feels like a very weak message in regards to the church, too much hope put into worldly institutions and worldly thinking. This is not how a man of Christ should be speaking about Him.
Yes, we do hope for these many good things to come about in our works, but not by our works, it is not by our works that nations are saved and people are reborn. Works without faith is also dead, many people misunderstand Luke in what he is saying in "faith without works is dead" as it already precursors that works without faith is dead. We do not hope for the nations to be saved, we do not hope for a better society or a cleaner society. We do not speak of these things as hopes because if they are within God's providence they will happen but if they are not they shall not.
"He makes nations great, and he destroys them; he enlarges nations, and leads them away. " - Job 12:23
"Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” - John 18:36
I'm not very sure that he's emphasizing the worthlessness of man and the greatness and mercy of Christ. Most especially since he points to the Apostles as being the ones to change the world, maybe that's poor translation or poor cultural understanding or such but if that was a perfect English understanding being translated that I warn makes for very horrible theology. They would be horrified if that was an accurate and proper understanding of what was said. Again I'm assuming that the translation is both accurate to both what is being literally said and being understood to an English speaker. I am fully willing to grant that I could be wrong in understanding him but what I do know is nothing here speaks about a hardline necessity of Jesus Christ, it really appears to have little Sola Fide in the message said here.
And yeah, there isn't supposed to be quarrel in the church but if you are teaching unsound or what appears to be unsound doctrine it needs to be corrected and rebuked. (or otherwise explained) Men of Christ can not be silent if the doctrine isn't solid and proper, out of love for those who are or could be perishing and those who may be saved.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Of course that outlook is father issues, and now she blames all men for something her father did and resents men, this is what we call androphobia, and every single experience where she thinks of men she blames the problems solely on the men. I feel both sad and indignant for what she's doing. I can tell you as a dude majority of men do want a relationship, some men aren't taught properly and thus don't reflect the right perspective, others are completely scared to approach or be approached by women, (specifically because of selfish behavior like this where we actively believe this is exactly what they're trying to do to us) but even the men that want sex, 75% of them still want a relationship. It doesn't help her perspective that aside from being a complete degenerate that she also destroyed her capability to pair bond, if she had a child, she would likely be incapable of loving it even if it was a girl, she'd become the abuse one to any child she spawns just like her father, she has become exactly like her father. I can tell you now she is gonna hate her 40s and 50s, she is going to be seen as the old spinster that everyone hates. Remember girls, your value only lasts into your early 40s if you're lucky, please for the love of God don't waste it being a bitch.
As an aside, I know for a fact that she's not gonna be able to get away with as much, men will probably screw her over, justifiably so, she may very well be raped or murdered for this type of stuff in some places, folks from Japan generally aren't ever prepared for the true American experience where people do in fact beat you back. I can tell you now, her story will not be a happy ending likely before she hits her 40s.
1
-
1