Rapture September 2015

[Homeless Nutter]

[...]I listed Five Minimal Facts...just five. See what you can do with them.

Yeah... I tried wiping my ar*e with them and sadly I have to inform you - they're not good for that either...

[Homeless Nutter]

I'm late to the party again, and I see it went into a tailspin.
Let me get this straight... Randy is an atheist ex catholic and is standing up for them?
Are you SERIOUS?

By the way Randy, what part of "Because you have kept the word of my patience- I will keep you from (eck- out of) the hour of testing that is coming on the whole world"  that is in the bible, do you not understand?
Or,
"I tell you a mystery- we shall not all sleep (die), in a moment- at the last trump, the dead shall rise first and WE which remain shall be caught up together with them in the air.."
Catholicism does not accept biblical statements like that because someone among them might recognize their organization as the whore of Babylon that she is.

I've got 5 bucks on professor.

[Minimalist]

You listed 5 non-facts, you dumb fuck.  It's not your fault.  Habermas has been peddling that shit for years and it remains shit.

[NoFaith2Burn4]

LOL, how much should we really care about accuracy when dealing with Randy, for whom reality enters one of the holes, and gets blown out the A-hole? I was just trying to have a little fun with him, and maybe bring his arrogance down a peg. 

Well, maybe it has something to do with self respect. I for one don't feel the need to answer one verbal fart with an even louder one. It also has something to do with honesty.

Hey, you don't know me well enough to be calling me dishonest, and I was being perfectly honest by arguing according to Randy's own ideas, thereby I was attempting to make a point  which even he couldn't argue wtih.

While his asinine trolling plagues every single thread on this network, it remains impossible for most of us to carry on any meaningful discussion on account of his distractions, therefore I don't think it harms us all more than it helps to point out the nonsense which even he can't effectively deny.

That the story in question on which I was arguing probably didn't happen at all is a moot point. The historical veracity of the bible as a whole is overwhelmingly negative, but it is known to be based on at least a few true events, or partial truths, and not knowing otherwise regarding this particular story, I presumed for Randy's benefit that it is at least partially so. It's not dishonest at all that the story of Peter, Ananias, and his wife Saphira is in his bible, and he doesn't question that story. It's honest to take a good hard look at the likelihood that a bit of historical revisionism took place between the original telling of that story, the original writing, and the numerous written versions between then and the time that King James did his own transcription of it. In all honesty, a hard look at Randy's book of truths reveals that Peter wasn't really so nice a guy, although his violent loyalty to Jesus made him the favorite of the same. Looking that way at Randy's bible, it's a perfectly sensible conclusion that Peter killed that half-committed couple himself, in a fit of rage.

In my experience, the only way to get through to people like Randy is to give him the benefit of the doubt that the basis of his ideas is true, and then unpack the faults in his arguments based on that. I think it can work because when you accept the basis idea with little or no thought, you won't give much thought to the veracity of its derivative ideas either.

[Randy Carson]

Your patron saint Peter is still a murderous thug. You know it's true on account of his bad-tempered nature, as the bible has described in no uncertain terms. That he was selected as the leader of his new church by Jesus should not be surprising, for when you xtians yammer about being "Christ-like", you consistently ignore the bad-tempered side of Jesus himself, when he went on a violent rampage through the Jewish temple. Obviously, Jesus knew what he was doing - he knew that it takes a ruthless thug to bring a small group of believers to power over millions, and then eventually billions. But he was still a thug, as is you.

[Randy Carson]

I'm late to the party again, and I see it went into a tailspin.
Let me get this straight... Randy is an atheist ex catholic and is standing up for them?
Are you SERIOUS?

Do you believe that I am an atheist because I am a member of this forum? Or because I am a Catholic?

In case you haven't noticed, professor, I'm the one who is in here preaching the gospel and quoting from God's Word almost singlehandedly.

So, what gives?

By the way Randy, what part of "Because you have kept the word of my patience- I will keep you from (eck- out of) the hour of testing that is coming on the whole world"  that is in the bible, do you not understand?
Or,
"I tell you a mystery- we shall not all sleep (die), in a moment- at the last trump, the dead shall rise first and WE which remain shall be caught up together with them in the air.."
Catholicism does not accept biblical statements like that because someone among them might recognize their organization as the whore of Babylon that she is.

Ah...it was bound to come up sooner or later.

First, what part of "You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church" do you not understand, professor? I have quotes from TWO DOZEN Protestant scholars and Bible commentaries admitting that Peter - not Peter's confession, not Jesus - is the rock.

Second, perhaps you might take a moment and examine the connection between Mt. 16:18-19 and Is. 22:20...a passage which even Protestant scholars acknowledge as establishing Peter in the role of Royal Steward. Here are just three quotes...I have lots more:

Protestant Scholars and Commentaries on Peter as Royal Steward

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown

[The steward is] the king's friend, or principal officer of the court (1 Kings 4:5; 18:3; 1 Chronicles 27:33, the king's counsellor) . . .

Keys are carried sometimes in the East hanging from the kerchief on the shoulder. But the phrase is rather figurative for sustaining the government on one's shoulders. Eliakim, as his name implies, is here plainly a type of the God-man Christ, the son of "David," of whom Isaiah (ch. 9:6) uses the same language as the former clause of this verse [and the government will be upon his shoulder] (Jamieson, Robert, Andrew R. Fausset & David Brown, Commentary on the Whole Bible, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1961 [orig. 1864; Fausset and Brown were Anglicans, Brown Presbyterian], 536 -- on Isaiah 22:15,22).

New Bible Dictionary

In the . . . exercise of the power of the keys, in ecclesiastical discipline, the thought is of administrative authority (Is 22:22) with regard to the requirements of the household of faith. The use of censures, excommunication, and absolution is committed to the Church in every age, to be used under the guidance of the Spirit . . .

So Peter, in T.W. Manson's words, is to be 'God's vicegerent . . . The authority of Peter is an authority to declare what is right and wrong for the Christian community. His decisions will be confirmed by God' (The Sayings of Jesus, 1954, p.205). (New Bible Dictionary, ed. J.D. Douglas, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1962, 1018)

In the Old Testament a steward is a man who is 'over a house' (Gen 43:19, 44:4; Is 22:15, etc). In the New Testament there are two words translated steward: 'epitropos' (Mt 20:8; Gal 4:2), i.e. one to whose care or honour one has been entrusted, a curator, a guardian; and 'oikonomos' (Lk 16:2-3; 1 Cor 4:1-2; Titus 1:7; 1 Pet 4:10), i.e. a manager, a superintendent -- from 'oikos' ('house') and 'nemo' ('to dispense' or 'to manage'). The word is used to describe the function of delegated responsibility. (New Bible Dictionary, ed. J.D. Douglas, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1962, 1216)

Eerdman’s Bible Dictionary

In accordance with Matthew's understanding of the kingdom of heaven (i.e., of God) as anywhere God reigns, the keys here represent authority in the Church. (Eerdmans Bible Dictionary, ed. Allen C. Myers, Grabd Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, rev. ed., 1975, 622)

Now, about the Catholic Church being the "whore of Babylon", I'll let you read this article which is chock full of scripture and explanations of them for your edification (but I'll hide it for the benefit of everyone else since it is long):

The Whore of Babylon

---

The Whore of Babylon
http://www.catholic.com/library/Whore_of_Babylon.asp

In another tract, Hunting the Whore of Babylon, we looked at nine arguments given by fundamentalist Dave Hunt for his claim that the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon from Revelation 17–18. His arguments are typical of those used by fundamentalist anti-Catholics and are easily proven wrong. (See that tract for details).

But we can go beyond a mere critique of the shallow anti-Catholic arguments like Hunt’s. There is irrefutable evidence in Revelation 17–18 (the chapters Fundamentalists love to quote against the Catholic Church) that proves that it is impossible for the Catholic Church to be the Whore.
 
A Vision in the Wilderness

When John introduces the Whore in Revelation 17, he tells us: "Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and said to me, ‘Come, I will show you the judgment of the great harlot who is seated upon many waters, with whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and with the wine of whose fornication the dwellers on earth have become drunk.’ And he carried me away in the Spirit into a wilderness, and I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast which was full of b.asphemous names, and it had seven heads and ten horns. The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet, and bedecked with gold and jewels and pearls, holding in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the impurities of her fornication; and on her forehead was written a name of mystery: ‘Babylon the great, mother of harlots and of earth’s abominations.’ And I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints and the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. When I saw her I marveled greatly" (Rev. 17:1–6).

This passage tells us several things about the Whore: (1) She is an international power, since she "sits on many waters," representing different peoples (17:15), and she has committed fornication with "the kings of the earth," and she has inflamed "the dwellers on earth" with her fornication. (2) She is connected with the seven-headed Beast from Revelation 13:1–10. That Beast was a major pagan empire, since its symbolism combined animal elements from four other major pagan empires (compare Rev. 13:1–2 with Dan. 7:1–8). (3) The Woman is connected with royalty, since she is dressed in the royal color purple. (4) The Woman is rich, for she is "bedecked with gold and jewels and pearls, holding in her hand a golden cup." (5) She has committed some kind of fornication, which in Scripture is often a symbol of false religion—lack of fidelity to the God who created heaven and earth. (6) She is symbolically known as Babylon. (7) She is a central cause of "abominations" in the land, abominations being a reference to practices, especially religious practices, that are offensive to God. And (8) she persecutes Christians "the saints and . . . martyrs of Jesus."

While the rest of her description could refer to a number of things, the symbolic designation "Babylon" narrows it down to two: pagan Rome and apostate Jerusalem. It is well known that the early Church Fathers referred to pagan Rome as "Babylon"; however, there are also indications in Revelation that the Whore might be apostate Jerusalem. Historically, a number of commentators, both Protestant and Catholic, have adopted this interpretation.
 
The Seven Heads

Continuing in Revelation, the angel begins to explain to John the woman’s symbolism: "This calls for a mind with wisdom: the seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman is seated; they are also seven kings, five of whom have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come, and when he comes he must remain only a little while" (Rev. 17:9–10).

Fundamentalists argue that these seven mountains must be the seven hills of ancient Rome. However the Greek word here, horos, is almost always translated "mountain" in Scripture. Mountains are often symbols of kingdoms in Scripture (cf. Ps. 68:15; Dan. 2:35; Obad. 8–21; Amos 4:1, 6:1), which might be why the seven heads also symbolize seven kings. The mountains could stand for a series of seven kings, five of whom have already fallen.

This passage gives us a key rule of Bible interpretation which is often denied by Fundamentalists: A symbol does not have to refer to one and only one thing. Here Scripture itself tells us that the heads refer both to seven mountains and seven kings, meaning the symbol has multiple fulfillments. Thus there is not a one-to-one correspondence in the Bible between symbols and their referents.

Also, the mountains could be a reference to pagan Rome, yet the Whore could still be a reference to apostate Jerusalem. In this case, her sitting on the Beast would not indicate a geographical location but an alliance between the two powers. The Whore (Jerusalem) would be allied with the Beast (Rome) in persecuting "the saints and . . . martyrs of Jesus." (Note that the Whore also sits on many waters, which we are told are many peoples, [cf. 17:15]. The context makes it clear that here her "sitting" on something does not refer to a geographical location.)

This passage gives us one reason why the Catholic Church cannot be the Whore. We are told that the heads "are also seven kings, five of whom have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come." If five of these kings had fallen in John’s day and one of them was still in existence, then the Whore must have existed in John’s day. Yet Christian Rome and Vatican City did not. However, pagan Rome did have a line of emperors, and the majority of commentators see this as the line of kings to which 17:10 refers. Five of these emperors are referred to as having already fallen, one as still reigning in John’s time, and another yet to come. Since Jerusalem had no such line of kings in the first century, this gives us evidence that the Beast (though not the Whore) is Rome.
 
The Ten Horns

The angel also interprets for John the meaning of the Beast’s ten horns: "And the ten horns that you saw are ten kings who have not yet received royal power, but they are to receive authority as kings for one hour, together with the beast. These are of one mind and give over their power and authority to the beast; they will make war on the Lamb, and the Lamb will conquer them, for he is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those with him are called and chosen and faithful" (17:12–14).

This shows us that the Beast is allied with ten lower rulers and with their own territories. Some Fundamentalists bent on making this apply to modern times and the Catholic Church have argued that the horns refer to the European Community (EC) and a revived Roman empire with the Catholic Church at its head. The problem is that there are ten kings, but there are now many more than ten nations in the EC.

However, what we are told about the horns does fit one of the other candidates we have for the Whore—apostate Jerusalem. The angel tells John: "And the ten horns that you saw, they and the beast will hate the harlot; they will make her desolate and naked, and devour her flesh and burn her up with fire, for God has put it into their hearts to carry out his purpose by being of one mind and giving over their royal power to the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled" (17:16–17).

If the Whore is Jerusalem and the Beast is Rome (with the ten horns as vassal states), then the prophecy makes perfect sense. The alliance between the two in persecuting Christians broke down in A.D. 66–70, when Rome and its allied forces conquered Israel and then destroyed, sacked, and burned Jerusalem, just as Jesus prophesied (Luke 21:5–24).
 
The Whore’s Authority

Finally the angel tells John: "And the woman that you saw is the great city which has dominion over the kings of the earth" (17:18). This again points to pagan Rome or apostate Jerusalem. In the case of the former, the dominion would be political; in the case of the latter, it could be a number of things. It could be spiritual dominion in that Jerusalem held the religion of the true God. It could be a reference to the manipulation by certain Jews and Jewish leaders of gentiles into persecuting Christians.

It could even be political, since Jerusalem was the center of political power in Canaan and, under the authority of the Romans, it ruled a considerable amount of territory and less powerful peoples. On this thesis "the kings of the earth" would be "the kings of the land" (the Greek phrase can be translated either way). Such local rulers of the land of Canaan would naturally resent Jerusalem and wish to cooperate with the Romans in its destruction—just as history records they did. Local non-Jewish peoples were used by the Romans in the capture of Jerusalem.

The hub of world commerce

Continuing in chapter 18, John sees the destruction of the Whore, and a number of facts are revealed which also show that she cannot be the Catholic Church. For one, she is depicted as a major center of international trade and commerce. When it is destroyed in chapter 18, we read that "the merchants of the earth [or land] weep and mourn for her, since no one buys their cargo any more" (18:11) and "all shipmasters and seafaring men, sailors and all whose trade is on the sea . . . wept and mourned, crying out, ‘Alas, alas, for the great city, where all who had ships at sea grew rich by her wealth!’" (18:17–19).

Pagan Rome was indeed the hub of world commerce in its day, supported by its maritime trading empire around the Mediterranean, but Christian Rome is not the hub of world commerce. After the Reformation, the economic center of power was located in Germany, Holland, England, and more recently, in the United States and Japan.
 
Persecuting apostles and prophets

When the Whore falls we read, "‘Rejoice over her, O heaven! Rejoice, saints and apostles and prophets! God has judged her for the way she treated you’. . . . In her was found the blood of prophets and of the saints, and of all who have been killed on the earth" (18:20, 24). This shows that the Whore persecuted not just Christians, but apostles and prophets. Apostles existed only in the first century, since one of the requirements for being an apostle was seeing the risen Christ (1 Cor. 9:1). Prophets existed as a group only in the Old Testament and in the first century (Acts 11:27–28, 13:1, 15:32, 21:10).

Since the Whore persecuted apostles and prophets, the Whore must have existed in the first century. This totally demolishes the claim that Christian Rome or Vatican City is the Whore. Rome was not a Christian city at that time, and Vatican City did not even exist, so neither of them could be the Whore. Furthermore, Fundamentalists continually (though wrongly) claim that Catholicism itself did not exist in the first century, meaning that based on their very own argument Catholicism could not be the Whore!

Fundamentalists are fond of conjecturing that in the last days there will be a "revived Roman empire," such as the one that persecuted Christians in the first century. Yet they never draw the inference that this empire would be headed by a revived pagan Rome, with the bishop of Rome leading the Christian underground, just as he did in the first century.

Still, Revelation 18:20 and 18:24 prove that the Whore had to be a creature of the first century, which, in the Fundamentalist view, the Catholic Church was not. Thus, on their own view, their identification of the Catholic Church with the Whore is completely impossible! Only ancient, pagan Rome or apostate Jerusalem could possibly be the Whore.
 
If Not the Whore, the Bride

The fact that the Catholic Church is singled out by Fundamentalists as the Whore reveals that they intuit the fact it has an important role in God’s plan. No other church gets accused of being the Whore—only the Catholic Church. And it is understandable why: The Catholic Church is the largest Christian body, larger than all other Christian bodies put together, suggesting a prominent place in God’s plan. Fundamentalists assume, without objectively looking at the evidence, that the Catholic Church cannot be the Bride of Christ, so it must be the Whore of Babylon.

Yet the evidence for its true role is plain. The First Vatican Council taught that "the Church itself . . . because of its marvelous propagation, its exceptional holiness, and inexhaustible fruitfulness in all good works; because of its Catholic unity and invincible stability, is a very great and perpetual motive of credibility and an incontestable witness of its own divine mission" (On the Catholic Faith 3).

So why is the Bride maligned as the Whore? Jesus himself answered the question: "If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign those of his household" (Matt. 10:25). "If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world . . . the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you" (John 15:18–20).

---

Man up or shut up, professor. You either read it and respond or you have nothing more to say.

[Iroscato]

Yay, Christian fight!

[abaris]

Yay, Christian fight!

Kind of funny, isn't it?

[Randy Carson]

I'm not known to be in Randy's fanclub, but based on what was Peter a murderous thug?

And if he's supposed to be one, he's on the same lines as Freddy Krueger. Prove that he even existed for starters.

I'm not studied enough to offer proof on Peter's existence, but you know it was somebody who led the first church. He is said to be buried in the Vatican, and those who succeeded him were regarded as Popes, not that his church ruled consistently from the Vatican until centuries after.

My stipulation is from Acts, Chapter 4, and presuming that the story of Ananias and his wife Saphira was true. If not, then it's still no win for Randy's side. The foundation of Randy's Catholic's Cannot Be Wrong arrogance is that the church was commissioned by Jesus to Peter, and that Peter's successors are right necessarily because they are Peter's successors, not the rebels who later challenged Peter's successors. Are you yawning yet? My point of this is that Randy isn't just an arrogant asshole for Xtiandom, but an all-around Catholic bigot.

Anyway, Peter told everyone following him to sell off all of their property and bring him all the money from the transactions. Ananias and his wife Saphira decided to keep some of their own money for themselves. Peter pressed them on whether they gave him all of their money, and Ananias lied. Peter knew they were lying. According to Acts 4, Ananias, and later his wife suddenly dropped dead in front of Peter for that lie. Now I don't believe that even Randy is stupid enough to believe they "just died", especially with Peter being known for his violent temper - fuck that, you know that if this scene with these people took place at all, it was Peter killing them in cold blood. Jesus had a violent side too, as told by his violent rampage through the Jewish temple, therefore it's unsurprising if in fact he chose Peter. Therefore, presuming that the bible is true at all, Peter was a murderous thug.

Is that what the bible ACTUALLY says, NoBrains2Use?

Here's the actual passage:

32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.

36 Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means “son of encouragement”), 37 sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles’ feet.

Notice that part in bold? People sold their property voluntarily - not because Peter told them to. And why did they do this? Quite possibly because they were being led by the Spirit to liquidate their landholdings because the temple was going to be destroyed (which occurred in AD 70). Let's continue:

5 Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. 2 With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet.

3 Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4 Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”

5 When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. 6 Then some young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him.

7 About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8 Peter asked her, “Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?”

“Yes,” she said, “that is the price.”

9 Peter said to her, “How could you conspire to test the Spirit of the Lord? Listen! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also.”

10 At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11 Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.

Again, check out the bolded passages. I wonder if Peter himself was not shocked when Ananias died, but when Saphira also lied, Peter knew how God would respond.

So, NoKnowledgeofGod, what is it about this passage that makes Peter a "murderous thug"? Nothing.

However, the verse bolded in blue suggests that just as He did in the Old Testament, God powerfully supported His chosen NT leaders and taught the people a lesson that dramatically benefited the early Church.

[Randy Carson]

Yay, Christian fight!

Yay, Christian fight!

Kind of funny, isn't it?

One round. Two tops.