Religious

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by boxcar

And I told you I won't consult anything outside the bible. I'm not interested in wasting my time wading through the muck and mire of RC heresy. Quote me chapter and verse from the bible. Since you cannot do that, you have lost this debate. And we both know that a third priesthood in not found in scripture. And the Melchizedek priesthood is NOT a type of black robe priesthood. It's a type of Christ's High Priesthood. Hebrews is very clear on this issue.

Is it? Show me where a Melchizedek priesthood is banned in Hebrews? Hebrews is very clear on the elimination of the Levitical priesthood and nothing else.

The burden is yours, not mine. Since you can't prove your original claim, you factually lost the debate. Once you lose you cannot expect the other party to help you with your claim. I have no obligation to justify anything to you and neither does anyone else as you are not the pillar and foundation of truth.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Where is the glory of God in the Cross. I asked you to provide scripture. Believer can glory in the Cross because of the benefit rendered to them. But where does scripture teach that God's glory "surrounds the Cross"? Where is that teaching specifically in scripture?

I did provide Scripture, which according to you is demon-possessed. So now according to you there is glory in the cross for the believer. Great so there is glory in the cross. Thanks for playing.

All you proved with your raving about me being demon-possessed, is you do not know Scripture. Now you have to scramble to rationalize your ignorance.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

NDEs to me are not religious claims, ...

Then what are they?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

I did provide Scripture, which according to you is demon-possessed. So now according to you there is glory in the cross for the believer. Great so there is glory in the cross. Thanks for playing.

All you proved with your raving about me being demon-possessed, is you do not know Scripture. Now you have to scramble to rationalize your ignorance.

You're lying again. You never provided scripture that says God's glory "surrounds the cross". God's glory is one thing. What Paul glories in is another. Get busy and provide the proof text for the former.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Is it? Show me where a Melchizedek priesthood is banned in Hebrews? Hebrews is very clear on the elimination of the Levitical priesthood and nothing else.

The burden is yours, not mine. Since you can't prove your original claim, you factually lost the debate. Once you lose you cannot expect the other party to help you with your claim. I have no obligation to justify anything to you and neither does anyone else as you are not the pillar and foundation of truth.

I never said the Melchizedek priesthood was banned. Why do you bring this non sequitur discussion? I have clearly several times that Jesus' High Priesthood in this New Covenant era is the antitype to the OT Melchizedek priesthood.. What part of this didn't you understand? In other words for all bible illiterates like yourself: Melchizedek in the OT is a type of Christ -- and NOT a type of black robe priesthood.. Hebrews is crystal clear on this subject, teaching all those who can read that Christ's priesthood is after the order of Melchizedek.

Heb 5:9-10
9 And having been made perfect, He became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation, 10 being designated by God as a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek.
NASB

And,

Heb 6:19-20
19 This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure and steadfast and one which enters within the veil, 20 where Jesus has entered as a forerunner for us, having become a high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.
NASB

Three things: God did not designate any black robes or any men for that matter as priests after the order of Melchizedek. He designated only the Son of God.

Secondly, the black robes of the RCC, theologically, cannot possibly be priests after the order of Melchizedek because then the church would have numerous high priests -- but scripture teaches that the Church has only ONE High Priest -- him being Jesus Christ. This order of Melchizedek pertains only to the High Priest -- of which there is only one.

And thirdly, all Christ's disciples (true believers) serve God as priests under Christ their High Priest. So, why would the black robe priesthood be necessary? All believers today, under the New Covenant, are types of Levitical priests.

So...I ask once again...where is this third level of priesthood taught in the NT? Chapter and verse, please. And you can't logically say the burden is on me to prove its non-existence! The burden is on you to prove its existence in the bible. Suppose you had a friend who was thinking of becoming a Catholic and he got very curious about this priesthood in the RCC and he asked you to show him from scripture where it is sanctioned, what would you do: Tell him to prove for it for himself!? Or perhaps you would point him to RCC literature to try to prove the validity of such a priesthood like you tried to do with me? But what if he insisted that he wanted to see it in scripture? What would you do: Tell him to take a hike like you're essentially telling me?

Why don't you just wax honest for once in your religious life and just admit that the there is no third level of priesthood taught in the NT and that this is just another religious, man-made tradition of men? You don't have to be embarrassed. We all know that you believe the bible takes a back seat to all RCC-created dogma. Just be honest for once.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Actor

Then what are they?

A near-death experience is a conscious experience in which the individual experiences a sense of being detached from the physical world during the process of physiological dying. Individuals may experience their own physiological dyings and deaths and at the same time become aware of their disembodied existences in an altered state where they may experience a sense of peace, a separation of consciousness from the body, entering darkness, seeing a light, meeting spiritual entities, having a panoramic life review, and a sense of judging their lives. Moody, 1975; Morse, 1990, Ring, 1980

Near-death experiences could be considered "transpersonal" experiences due to their nature of transcending the usual "personal" physical and mental realms of human consciousness. Transpersonal experiences are those incidents that are of the highest or ultimate human potential and beyond the ego or personal self. Lajoie & Shapiro, 1992, p. 9

It is testimony of an experience from people who have experienced disembodied existences in an altered state where they may experience a sense of peace, a separation of consciousness from the body, entering darkness, seeing a light, meeting spiritual entities, having a panoramic life review, and a sense of judging their lives. An experience reported by atheists, agnostics, non-spiritual people, people holding different religion dogmas, and people holding spiritual views.

What is interesting is a common result of these NDEs. These people are less concerned with organized religion and formal ritual, and express a sense of religious tolerance and religious universalism. The effect of this spiritual awakening on the experiencer is a more positive attitude towards life, a lack of fear of dying, and a sense of service towards others (Moody, 1977, 1980, 1988; Ring, 1980, 1985).

To many experiencers it becomes less important to be a member of a specific religious group than to practice a more spiritual life not based upon specific religious doctrine. (Dr. David San Filippo).

It is an experience. An experience of peacefulness while being detached from the physical world. NFEs are not proof of religious dogma or proof that any specific religion is factually true, per the people who have had the experience.

[Show Me the Wire]

Hebrews is crystal clear on this subject, teaching all those who can read that Christ's priesthood is after the order of Melchizedek.

That is correct boxcar. So cite me chapter and verse in Scripture that a third level priesthood (your description) is not allowed. You keep on making this claim.

Three things: God did not designate any black robes or any men for that matter as priests after the order of Melchizedek. He designated only the Son of God.

You are the one who wants us to believe your interpretation of Scripture, so you must justify, to us, your position.

Secondly, the black robes of the RCC, theologically, cannot possibly be priests after the order of Melchizedek because then the church would have numerous high priests -- but scripture teaches that the Church has only ONE High Priest -- him being Jesus Christ. This order of Melchizedek pertains only to the High Priest -- of which there is only one

There is only one high priest. The existence of one high priest does not preclude the existence of other priests. Look at the structure of the Levitical priesthood. There was only one high priest, with other priest under him and the people themselves were a nation of priesthood. Eliminating the Levitical priesthood, which is a specific type of priesthood does not eliminate a similar structure for the Melchizedek priesthood under the one high priest, Jesus. You are trying to use a false equivalency as proof, which it is not.

If it was not theologically possible a third level priesthood would not exist in any Church, the Protestant liturgical Churches, the Orthodox Churches and other Catholic Church not in communion to Rome. The existence of these Churches is proof it is theologically possible per Scripture. You may believe, according to your personal interpretation, it is not theologically possible, but your belief is meaningless. Again boxcar, you are not the pillar and foundation of truth.

Either cite chapter and verse of Scripture, which proves and justifies your claim that all these Churches are wrong in their theological beliefs per Scripture or be quiet.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I know exactly what you asked. And now you have my answer: Can anyone truly be saved and not love the Lord? My bible tells me that faith works through love. What does yours tell you?

If you know exactly what I asked, why do you deflect with a non sequitur question about loving God after being saved. Why are you afraid to address the question about loving Godin order to be saved?

I am not interested what the Bible you hold between your ears says, but what actual written Scripture states.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

A near-death experience is a conscious experience in which the individual experiences a sense of being detached from the physical world during the process of physiological dying. Individuals may experience their own physiological dyings and deaths and at the same time become aware of their disembodied existences in an altered state where they may experience a sense of peace, a separation of consciousness from the body, entering darkness, seeing a light, meeting spiritual entities, having a panoramic life review, and a sense of judging their lives. Moody, 1975; Morse, 1990, Ring, 1980

Near-death experiences could be considered "transpersonal" experiences due to their nature of transcending the usual "personal" physical and mental realms of human consciousness. Transpersonal experiences are those incidents that are of the highest or ultimate human potential and beyond the ego or personal self. Lajoie & Shapiro, 1992, p. 9

It is testimony of an experience from people who have experienced disembodied existences in an altered state where they may experience a sense of peace, a separation of consciousness from the body, entering darkness, seeing a light, meeting spiritual entities, having a panoramic life review, and a sense of judging their lives. An experience reported by atheists, agnostics, non-spiritual people, people holding different religion dogmas, and people holding spiritual views.

What is interesting is a common result of these NDEs. These people are less concerned with organized religion and formal ritual, and express a sense of religious tolerance and religious universalism. The effect of this spiritual awakening on the experiencer is a more positive attitude towards life, a lack of fear of dying, and a sense of service towards others (Moody, 1977, 1980, 1988; Ring, 1980, 1985).

To many experiencers it becomes less important to be a member of a specific religious group than to practice a more spiritual life not based upon specific religious doctrine. (Dr. David San Filippo).

It is an experience. An experience of peacefulness while being detached from the physical world. NFEs are not proof of religious dogma or proof that any specific religion is factually true, per the people who have had the experience.

Those all sound like religious claims to me.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

If you know exactly what I asked, why do you deflect with a non sequitur question about loving God after being saved. Why are you afraid to address the question about loving Godin order to be saved?

I am not interested what the Bible you hold between your ears says, but what actual written Scripture states.

Go back and read question. You asked me can anyone be saved without loving God? Your question had NOTHING to do about anyone not loving God AFTER being saved!

And by the way, the bible "I hold between my ears" is the same as the hard copy. And my hard copy and digital copies all say that nothing matters except faith working through love. Do you doubt this, you bible-illiterate!?

Now, let's frame your question another way: When Jesus asked Peter three times if he loved Him, and if Peter had answered no, would you believe that Peter was a true disciple of Christ?

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Actor

Those all sound like religious claims to me.

: the belief in a god or in a group of gods
: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods
: an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:
the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices:
a world council of religions.
4.
the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/religion
to enter religion.
5.
the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6.
something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:

Since NDEs are personal experiences and they are not based on the belief of God or gods (atheists and agnostics), not based on a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs or an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods they are not religious claims.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

That is correct boxcar. So cite me chapter and verse in Scripture that a third level priesthood (your description) is not allowed. You keep on making this claim.

You might as well ask me to prove that there weren't really 24 apostles instead of only the 12 acknowledged in scripture.
It is you who believes that scripture "allows" a third kind of priesthood, yet the NT only recognizes and acknowledges two levels of priesthood. Where is the this 3rd level of priesthood sanctioned the NT? Surely, you're not going to justify the RCC heresy of the black robe priesthood based on an argument from silence, are you?

And I don't care what liturgical Protestants believe. They're just as wrong as the RCC is.

Also, you have failed to answer another highly important question I put to you earlier: Since all disciples of Christ comprise the Royal Priesthood and as priests minister to God, to each other and to unbelievers under their High Priest Jesus Christ, why is the black robe priesthood even necessary? What purpose does it serve? And if it serves a purpose, prove it from scripture.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Go back and read question. You asked me can anyone be saved without loving God? Your question had NOTHING to do about anyone not loving God AFTER being saved!

And by the way, the bible "I hold between my ears" is the same as the hard copy. And my hard copy and digital copies all say that nothing matters except faith working through love. Do you doubt this, you bible-illiterate!?

Now, let's frame your question another way: When Jesus asked Peter three times if he loved Him, and if Peter had answered no, would you believe that Peter was a true disciple of Christ?

My original question was do you (general you) need to love God to be saved. The question you never answered. Your only response was Can anyone truly be saved and not love the Lord?

In your syntax "saved" means the person is saved, the past tense as it already has happened. A total non sequitur to my question.

My question is: Do you need to love God to be saved or put another way, Do you need to love God as a prerequisite?

Since I am a Bible illiterate why are you not citing me chapter and verse? I've noticed a dearth of Scriptural support from you when you make claims to me.

I really want to understand Scripture. Since you think I am an unsaved person, what do I have to do to become saved? Do I need to love God to become saved?

Are you going to give a straight answer this time?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

My original question was do you (general you) need to love God to be saved. The question you never answered. Your only response was Can anyone truly be saved and not love the Lord?

In your syntax "saved" means the person is saved, the past tense as it already has happened. A total non sequitur to my question.

My question is: Do you need to love God to be saved or put another way, Do you need to love God as a prerequisite?

Since I am a Bible illiterate why are you not citing me chapter and verse? I've noticed a dearth of Scriptural support from you when you make claims to me.

I really want to understand Scripture. Since you think I am an unsaved person, what do I have to do to become saved? Do I need to love God to become saved?

Are you going to give a straight answer this time?

You don't want to understand anything but what the RCC has spoon-fed you for God only knows how long.

As I have repeatedly stated faith works through love. Faith doesn't occur in an emotionless vacuum. If you weren't so ignorant of scripture you would be familiar with what Paul taught in Gal 5:6.

So now I ask you again: If Peter had denied that he loved Jesus, would you have considered Peter to have been a true disciple of Christ?

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You might as well ask me to prove that there weren't really 24 apostles instead of only the 12 acknowledged in scripture.
It is you who believes that scripture "allows" a third kind of priesthood, yet the NT only recognizes and acknowledges two levels of priesthood. Where is the this 3rd level of priesthood sanctioned the NT? Surely, you're not going to justify the RCC heresy of the black robe priesthood based on an argument from silence, are you?

And I don't care what liturgical Protestants believe. They're just as wrong as the RCC is.

Also, you have failed to answer another highly important question I put to you earlier: Since all disciples of Christ comprise the Royal Priesthood and as priests minister to God, to each other and to unbelievers under their High Priest Jesus Christ, why is the black robe priesthood even necessary? What purpose does it serve? And if it serves a purpose, prove it from scripture.

It is not what you care. You said it is theologically impossible to have an ordained priesthood. The existence of ordained priesthood throughout a vast spectrum of Christian Churches is direct proof against your personal assertion.

If you don't care what others believe, why do you think others care about what you believe to be theologically possible or not?

For example your question is not a highly important question. What makes it important? Is it important because you asked it?

What is pertinent is that you want us to believe you and your interpretations. If you want us to believe you, you need to justify to us why we should believe you. So far you have not justified anything you claimed. All you do is piss and moan that you can't prove a negative. You put yourself in that position and that is on you.

As I said before, either prove your claim or be quiet about an ordained priesthood.

The one important question, I posed to you about becoming saved, you refuse to give a straight forward answer too.