Winchester Posted October 2, 2009 Posted October 2, 2009 The premise of StPr is that Satan cannot design moving gates.
Nihil Obstat Posted October 2, 2009 Posted October 2, 2009 [quote name='Stormstopper' date='02 October 2009 - 12:39 AM' timestamp='1254461943' post='1976108'] "Christ told us that His enemies (running like a football player, those amazing, moooooving gates of hell) will never prevail over us and make touchdown because we have the Lord to intercept those nasty, mooooving gates." [/quote] I'm especially fond of this quote. Maybe he knows Dairygirl. Or maybe he just likes to moo. Also I can't figure out who is running like a football player. Is it Jesus? That would be pretty cool. Or is it the gates? A big gate would make a darn good offensive linebacker.
Winchester Posted October 2, 2009 Author Posted October 2, 2009 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='02 October 2009 - 12:00 PM' timestamp='1254499206' post='1976232'] Also I can't figure out who is running like a football player. Is it Jesus? That would be pretty cool. [/quote] ALAKAZAM! [img]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_bQ7Md3HjXGU/R3Kfte_eg4I/AAAAAAAAAew/olEOALZsG_g/s200/Jesus+football.gif[/img]
Winchester Posted October 2, 2009 Author Posted October 2, 2009 I have high hopes. StPr's position is unassailable.
HisChildForever Posted October 2, 2009 Posted October 2, 2009 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='02 October 2009 - 12:00 PM' timestamp='1254499206' post='1976232'] Maybe he knows Dairygirl. [/quote] Then he could tell us what "her" gender is.
Winchester Posted October 2, 2009 Author Posted October 2, 2009 (edited) I keep imagining this 300 pound, 45 year old hairy behemoth in his parents' basement. Dressed like a dairy maid. [img]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_CarNcodpCMA/SJ-Ro3FiKPI/AAAAAAAABjY/PolngUG8fXM/s400/dairymaid.JPG[/img] Edited October 2, 2009 by Winchester
Stormstopper Posted October 2, 2009 Posted October 2, 2009 [quote name='Winchester' date='02 October 2009 - 11:56 AM' timestamp='1254502570' post='1976266'] I have high hopes. StPr's position is unassailable. [/quote] A compliment, Winchester? Catch me while I faint. The only thing I can think of to say would be to take up Papal Pretentions 101. Since even Bill GATES would not agree with the Catholic laity's bent on that particular portion of Matt 16, then it stands to reason that what Catholicism says about Peter being assigned the first pope in that verse might also be suspect. At Vatican 1, we are told that Jesus bestowed on "Peter in his single person...immediately and directly" the primacy of the whole church. One might wonder why then did Paul say that the care of all the churches comes upon him DAILY" (2 Cor 11:20). Anyway, Protestants believe quite logically that it was Peter's FAITH that was the rock the church was to built on, not on Peter the man. In case you didn't know, the CCC says the same thing: "On the rock of faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church." (#424). The only problem is that they assert that Jesus only meant that in a secondary way. Baloney. The evidence is quite strong that He meant it PRIMARILY. I am convinced that the biblical evidence DEMANDS that Peter (as the CONFESSING apostle) --confessing what he did about the truth of Jesus being the Messiah, is the foundation rock of the church, and NOT Peter, the man, personally, contra Vatican 1. This interpretation is pristine in its clarity by the sequel in the passage which follows. Perhaps you never considered it. There, Jesus calls Peter by another name: SATAN. Now just as Peter had spoken by revelation from the Father, he now becomes the mouthpiece of the Devil..... You absolutely CAN say that by confessing Jesus as the Messiah, he certainly is "a" rock....as he speaks for God. But in tempting Jesus to refuse the cross, he is "a" Satan...as he speaks for Satan. The point is this: Peter is called Satan only in direct reference to his words of seduction. You and I would both agree that apart from that expression, the designation does not apply. That being so, we can agree that the Lord is not declaring that Peter THE MAN is "a Satan" in terms of all his personal qualities and character. Peter is Satan only as he speaks for Satan. If you agree with that, as I'm sure you would, then you must take the next step. THIS WOULD REQUIRE, BY ANALOGY, THAT WE UNDERSTAND THAT PETER IS THE ROCK ONLY AS HE SPEAKS FOR GOD IN HIS OFFICE AS A CONFESSING APOSTLE, and NOT that Peter the Man, with all his personal qualities and character, is the Rock on which the church is to be built. This air-tight analogy is further confirmed when we remember that Christ did NOT say to Peter that "upon YOU (that is, upon your personal qualities and character) will I build my church." And therefore we see that the church was never intended to be built upon Peter the Man as Roman Catholicism imagines, but rather CHRIST THE MAN and Lord Our God. Talk about a biblical commentary on a particular verse.....1 Cor 10:4 swings the wrecking ball at the RC perspective: "And THAT ROCK WAS CHRIST" (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!). As if that wasn't enough, the Lord is referred to as a "Rock of scandal" (Rms 9:33), but more significatly, by Peter HIMSELF (!!!) our Lord is referred to as "a Living Stone", the "chief corner stone", "the stone which the builder's disallowed", "a stone of stumbling" and ......(watch it!) a ROCK of offence (1 Pet 2:4-8). It is a forgone conclusion that Peter very well knew WHO the Rock was in M-16, and it certainly wasn't himself! Add to this, the O.T. is replete with references to the Lord being our Rock and the subject is closed: (see Ps 18:2, 18:46, 62:2, 62:6-7, 78:35, 89:26, 94:22, 95:1, Isa 17:10.) Thus, the madness of Catholic theology building their church on a MAN, and believing in a dynastic succession of MEN as a REQUIREMENT for heaven itself--also per Vatican 1, is also totally opposed to the Word of God: "It is better to trust in the Lord than put confidence in man" --"Put not your trust in princes, in whom there is no help" --- "Cursed be the man that trusteth in man." (Ps 118:8; 146:3, Jer 17:5).
Resurrexi Posted October 2, 2009 Posted October 2, 2009 (edited) [quote name='Stormstopper' date='02 October 2009 - 04:16 PM' timestamp='1254518199' post='1976416'] The only thing I can think of to say would be to take up Papal Pretentions 101. Since even Bill GATES would not agree with the Catholic laity's bent on that particular portion of Matt 16, then it stands to reason that what Catholicism says about Peter being assigned the first pope in that verse might also be suspect.[/quote] What about Luke 22 and John 21? [quote name='Stormstopper' date='02 October 2009 - 04:16 PM' timestamp='1254518199' post='1976416'] At Vatican 1, we are told that Jesus bestowed on "Peter in his single person...immediately and directly" the primacy of the whole church. [/quote] Thank God for Vatican I! What a great ecumenical council! Edited October 2, 2009 by Resurrexi
HisChildForever Posted October 2, 2009 Posted October 2, 2009 [quote name='Resurrexi' date='02 October 2009 - 05:57 PM' timestamp='1254520631' post='1976440'] What about Luke 22 and John 21? [/quote] Hm, I'm more curious as to why he emphasized "Gates" as opposed to emphasizing the entire name.
sacredheartandbloodofjesus Posted October 2, 2009 Posted October 2, 2009 God Bless the Catholic Faith!! Thank you Jesus! Thank you for founding only one Church which developed into the Roman Catholic Church! Praised be your Name through the Immaculatta! Praised be YHWH!
Stormstopper Posted October 2, 2009 Posted October 2, 2009 [quote name='HisChildForever' date='02 October 2009 - 05:00 PM' timestamp='1254520837' post='1976445'] Hm, I'm more curious as to why he emphasized "Gates" as opposed to emphasizing the entire name. [/quote] We were referring to the gates of hell as being stationary by defintion (contrary to the Catholic laity's belief that they move)--which was on the other thread re: original sin. I was using Bill's last name only to be a little amusing.
Stormstopper Posted October 2, 2009 Posted October 2, 2009 (edited) [quote name='sacredheartandbloodofjesus' date='02 October 2009 - 05:43 PM' timestamp='1254523430' post='1976463'] God Bless the Catholic Faith!! Thank you Jesus! Thank you for founding only one Church which developed into the Roman Catholic Church! Praised be your Name through the Immaculatta! Praised be YHWH! [/quote] Edited October 2, 2009 by Stormstopper
Stormstopper Posted October 3, 2009 Posted October 3, 2009 [quote name='sacredheartandbloodofjesus' date='02 October 2009 - 05:43 PM' timestamp='1254523430' post='1976463'] God Bless the Catholic Faith!! Thank you Jesus! Thank you for founding only one Church which developed into the Roman Catholic Church! Praised be your Name through the Immaculatta! Praised be YHWH! [/quote] [font="Arial"][size="2"]Although I was unaware that Jesus posed for photographers, I do thank you, Sacred for submitting the picture. It shows that Jesus really did believe in Sola Scriptura afterall.[/size][/font]
Stormstopper Posted October 3, 2009 Posted October 3, 2009 [quote name='Resurrexi' date='02 October 2009 - 04:57 PM' timestamp='1254520631' post='1976440'] What about Luke 22 and John 21? [/quote] Rez.... I can't recall what verse you are alluding to in Luke 22, so kindly clarify. As for John 21, I assume you are trying to put some sort of papal primacy into Christ telling Pete to feed His sheep. D[font="Arial"][size="2"]o you seriously think that THAT is a proof for the papacy???? If so, you need to take a wake up pill. Paul also told the elders of the church to "watch over the flock which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to feed the church of God" (Ax 20:17; 28). And Peter Himself says to, "feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight" (1 Peter 5:1). Thus, your argument disappears into nothingness.[/size][/font]
Apotheoun Posted October 3, 2009 Posted October 3, 2009 [quote name='Stormstopper' date='02 October 2009 - 06:02 PM' timestamp='1254528121' post='1976482'] [font="Arial"][size="2"]Although I was unaware that Jesus posed for photographers, I do thank you, Sacred for submitting the picture. It shows that Jesus really did believe in Sola Scriptura afterall.[/size][/font] [/quote] This post makes no sense. Sincerely, Apollo, your friendly Phatmass sun god
HisChildForever Posted October 3, 2009 Posted October 3, 2009 [quote name='Apotheoun' date='02 October 2009 - 08:07 PM' timestamp='1254528450' post='1976484'] This post makes no sense. [/quote] Correction, none of them do.
Winchester Posted October 3, 2009 Author Posted October 3, 2009 Satan means "adversary". It's really a title, not a name. Try again.
Jesus_lol Posted October 3, 2009 Posted October 3, 2009 you know when they translated the bible it's too bad they left out some of the more crucial verses. like the 11th commandment "thou shalt not overuse the Caps lock button" and the clause that renders the 6th commandment moot if an opponent breaks the 11th.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now