Catholic Preist Sings Song About Lucifer

[Father Jim]

I have been pondering for days whether or not I should put this on the Forum. I cannot get it off of my mind, so here it is. Google "Catholic priest sings song about Lucifer" and see for yourself. I didn't think much about the song, but when he said that "Jesus was the son of Lucifer" that did it for me. I knew then that I was going to have to say something about this. First there was the Chrislam thing and now the Lucifer song. Maybe there are some Catholics that will come out of Catholicism as the results of the Lucifer song.

The devil will do anything to divide followers of Jesus, ANYTHING…

Have any of you deluded anti-Catholic jerks done a fact check? This has been debunked years ago! You are walking in the footsteps of Satan.

I can't see myself lasting here among such divisive and hateful people.

Did Pope Francis Really Praise Lucifer? | Why Catholic

 

[Robert Pate]

The devil will do anything to divide followers of Jesus, ANYTHING…

Have any of you deluded anti-Catholic jerks done a fact check? This has been debunked years ago! You are walking in the footsteps of Satan.

I can't see myself lasting here among such divisive and hateful people.

Did Pope Francis Really Praise Lucifer? | Why Catholic

What really divides Christians from unbelievers is the Gospel. In the Gospel Jesus justifies the ungodly (Us) and reconciles us to God, 2 Corinthians 5:18, 19. In the Catholic religion it is the Catholic church that reconciles us and the world unto God. Good luck with that.

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

I can't see myself lasting here among such divisive and hateful people.

Jesus said call no man on earth Father

Matthew 23:9
And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

WHY would anyone desire others to disobey Jesus... and call them Father? I know, I';ve heard catholics say they don't go by justy what God says in His Word... jhey have their own traditions that they adhere to... which Jesus said makes the Word of God is no effect (Mark 7:13).

There are catholic talk boards where they are all friendly to extra biblical catholic doctrine... you know, teaching that the Lord and His Apostles never taught to anybody that the catholics embrace.

Just because others put what the Lord teaches in His Word first and foremost in their lives... does not mean they "hate" anybody... they just aren't willing to be deceived by 'ol slewfoot whether he is representing the catholics or some other false religious cult.

Not too many here will agree with catholic doctrine for obvious reasons.

 

[Mink57]

Jesus said call no man on earth Father

Oh geez...SERIOUSLY

Matthew 23:9
And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

WHY would anyone desire others to disobey Jesus... and call them Father? I know, I';ve heard catholics say they don't go by justy what God says in His Word... jhey have their own traditions that they adhere to... which Jesus said makes the Word of God is no effect (Mark 7:13).

This is what happens when one takes the word of the Bible literally. According to you, NO ONE should even refer to their own biological/earthly male parent as "father."

And, I suppose that no student can refer to his/her high school History instructor as "teacher".

...which is ridiculous.

Wisdom of discernment is needed here, Big Boy, and that's something that you and some others seem to lack. It's something that Christ tried to teach.

There are catholic talk boards where they are all friendly to extra biblical catholic doctrine... you know, teaching that the Lord and His Apostles never taught to anybody that the catholics embrace.

And you know this...how? May I remind you that the Bible we have today is very different from 2000 years ago. And while some consider some books to be the "apocrypha", they tend to ignore those books altogether.

Just because others put what the Lord teaches in His Word first and foremost in their lives... does not mean they "hate" anybody... they just aren't willing to be deceived by 'ol slewfoot whether he is representing the catholics or some other false religious cult.

Not too many here will agree with catholic doctrine for obvious reasons.

Not too many will agree with Catholic doctrine because they don't want to actually spend the time investigating. They depend on all of the myth's they've heard about Catholics...and go no farther than what they've heard...or read...by anti-Catholics.

 

[Robert Pate]

Oh geez...SERIOUSLY

This is what happens when one takes the word of the Bible literally. According to you, NO ONE should even refer to their own biological/earthly male parent as "father."

And, I suppose that no student can refer to his/her high school History instructor as "teacher".

...which is ridiculous.

Wisdom of discernment is needed here, Big Boy, and that's something that you and some others seem to lack. It's something that Christ tried to teach.

And you know this...how? May I remind you that the Bible we have today is very different from 2000 years ago. And while some consider some books to be the "apocrypha", they tend to ignore those books altogether.

Not too many will agree with Catholic doctrine because they don't want to actually spend the time investigating. They depend on all of the myth's they've heard about Catholics...and go no farther than what they've heard...or read...by anti-Catholics.

You will say and do anything to protect your Catholic God. Catholicism is the religion of man. It's all about you and your works, piety and obedience. It will disappear like a puff of smoke in the judgment.

 

[Mink57]

You will say and do anything to protect your Catholic God. Catholicism is the religion of man. It's all about you and your works, piety and obedience. It will disappear like a puff of smoke in the judgment.

L.O.L. My "Catholic" God? How about your NON-Catholic God?

Does your non-Catholic god tell you to be insulting to others who don't believe as YOU do? Does 'it' tell you to judge others as going to hell because they don't believe...or practice...as YOU do? Because my Catholic God tells me NOT to judge. That only GOD can judge!

If your non-Catholic God tells you to insult, and condemn...

...what is your non-Catholic satan like?

 

[Robert Pate]

L.O.L. My "Catholic" God? How about your NON-Catholic God?

Does your non-Catholic god tell you to be insulting to others who don't believe as YOU do? Does 'it' tell you to judge others as going to hell because they don't believe...or practice...as YOU do? Because my Catholic God tells me NOT to judge. That only GOD can judge!

If your non-Catholic God tells you to insult, and condemn...

...what is your non-Catholic satan like?

I don't have a religion because there is no need for a religion. Jesus is the one that reconciled us and the whole world unto God, 2 Corinthians 5:18-19. "All things are of God, who has reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ" 2 Corinthians 5:18. What you need is a reconciler, not a religion.

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

I don't have a religion because there is no need for a religion. Jesus is the one that reconciled us and the whole world unto God, 2 Corinthians 5:18-19. "All things are of God, who has reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ" 2 Corinthians 5:18. What you need is a reconciler, not a religion.

Sounds like the message from the demon of universalism!

 

[Mink57]

I don't have a religion because there is no need for a religion. Jesus is the one that reconciled us and the whole world unto God, 2 Corinthians 5:18-19. "All things are of God, who has reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ" 2 Corinthians 5:18. What you need is a reconciler, not a religion.

Why can't I have both? Wait a minute...

...I DO have both!

Why do you believe that religion is so bad?

 

[Robert Pate]

Why can't I have both? Wait a minute...

...I DO have both!

Why do you believe that religion is so bad?

If Jesus atoned for our sins and Jesus reconciled us and the world unto God, then why do you need a religion? Why do you need to go to mass? Why do you need a pope? Why do you need a religion? Here is the answer. You don't have faith in Jesus and what he has accomplished on your behalf. Religion is not an indication of faith; religion is an indication of the absence of faith.

 

[Robert Pate]

Sounds like the message from the demon of universalism! View attachment 37430

I do not believe that everyone is going to be saved. The only ones that are going to be saved are those that are "In Christ". To be in Christ, means that you are trusting in the work and the person of Jesus Christ for your salvation plus nothing.

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

I do not believe that everyone is going to be saved. The only ones that are going to be saved are those that are "In Christ". To be in Christ, means that you are trusting in the work and the person of Jesus Christ for your salvation plus nothing.

Plus, being obedience to the Lord... living separated from this world which is walking in holiness.

Hebrews 12:14
Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord:

Faith without corresponding action is dead... as in no saving faith (Read the book of James!)

James 1:22
But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.


The Lord says the following thru the Apostle James:

James 2:24
Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

James 2:20
But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

James 1:21,22
Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness (walking after the flesh – see Gal 6:7,8), and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls. But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.

Apparently one is justified by faith AND by works.... and the man that believes justification is by faith only is a "vain" man.

Sounds like either Jesus is wrong or the so called reformers are wrong since they teach an partial truth and leave the part out about works leaving the door open to sinful living (license to sin).

Martin Luther was a known drunk so I can see how he would want to leave the part about works out so he could continue drinking his beloved booze which is living in sin! (see 1 Corinthians 6:9-13)

Quite the quandary here... who shall we say is in error the Lord or the reformers??? That tis the question!

 

[Robert Pate]

Plus, being obedience to the Lord... living separated from this world which is walking in holiness.

Hebrews 12:14
Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord:

Faith without corresponding action is dead... as in no saving faith (Read the book of James!)

James 1:22
But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.


The Lord says the following thru the Apostle James:

James 2:24
Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

James 2:20
But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

James 1:21,22
Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness (walking after the flesh – see Gal 6:7,8), and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls. But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.

Apparently one is justified by faith AND by works.... and the man that believes justification is by faith only is a "vain" man.

Sounds like either Jesus is wrong or the so called reformers are wrong since they teach an partial truth and leave the part out about works leaving the door open to sinful living (license to sin).

Martin Luther was a known drunk so I can see how he would want to leave the part about works out so he could continue drinking his beloved booze which is living in sin! (see 1 Corinthians 6:9-13)

Quite the quandary here... who shall we say is in error the Lord or the reformers??? That tis the question!

A lot of religious people like yourself are always quoting James. Many Christian scholars believe that the book of James should not have been included into the Cannons.

1. The book of James was not directed to Gentile Christians. It was directed to law keeping Jews, James 1:1.
2. James was a Judaizer. A Judaizer believes in Jesus, but also believes that you must keep the law of Moses.
3. James wanted to circumcise Gentile believers, Acts 15:1-21.
4. James sent men to spy on Peter and Barnabas to see if they were eating with Gentiles, Galatians 2:11-21.

I think that you may have a lot in common with James.

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

Many Christian scholars believe that the book of James should not have been included into the Cannons.

Yeah, the ones listening to the devil!

1. The book of James was not directed to Gentile Christians. It was directed to law keeping Jews, James 1:1.
2. James was a Judaizer. A Judaizer believes in Jesus, but also believes that you must keep the law of Moses.
3. James wanted to circumcise Gentile believers, Acts 15:1-21.
4. James sent men to spy on Peter and Barnabas to see if they were eating with Gentiles, Galatians 2:11-21.

All false... only the gnositcs believe this garbage.

Under the New Testament... we are called to live IN Christ which is living under the Law of Christ, aka the law of liberty, but you don't know scripture very well and wouldn't know anything about this having been indoctrinated by gnostics cl;aiming "special revelation" nobody else has that isn't in scripture.

Law of Christ
see Galatians 6:2, 1 Corinthians 9:21, James 2:12, James 1:25, Romans 8:2

Jesus Christ is the new High Priest, not Moses.

In the New Testament, many mentions of “the law” is actually referring to Law of Christ (aka the Law of
Liberty) and is not talking about the old testament law. Christians are NOT called to keep or live under the old testament law, but we ARE called to live under the Law of Christ.

Ultimately this means we are called to abide In Christ which is living after the Spirit and not after the flesh, or to be spiritually minded and not carnally minded (see Romans 8). As we see in Romans 8, to be spiritually minded is life and peace but to be carnally minded is death which is separation from the Lord.

Galatians 6:2
Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.

1 Corinthians 9:21
To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.

James 2:12
So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.

James 1:25
But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.

Romans 8:2
For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

Law of Christ
The phrase "the law of Christ" appears only in Galatians 6:2, although it is implied by the wording of 1 Corinthians 9:21 as well. In both places, its precise meaning is difficult to fix. In Galatians, Paul argues vigorously that the law given at Sinai makes no claim on those who believe in Christ, whether Gentile or Jew ( 2:15-21 ; Galatians 3:10-14 Galatians 3:23-26 ; 4:4-5 ; 4:21-5:6).

He then appeals to the Galatians to engage in ethical behavior by walking in the Spirit ( 5:16 Galatians 16 ), being lead by the Spirit ( 5:18 ), and fulfilling "the law of Christ" (ho nomos tou Christou) through bearing one another's burdens ( 6:2 ). In 1 Corinthians 9 Paul demonstrates how Christians should, out of love for the weaker brother or sister, refrain from demanding their rights.

By way of illustration Paul says in verses 19-23 that he adopts certain Jewish customs when among Jews, although he is not under the Jewish law, and that he adopts some Gentile customs when among Gentiles, although he is not without the law of God but rather "in the law of Christ" (ennomos Christou).

It seems fairly clear from these two texts that Paul uses the phrase to mean something other than the law given to Israel at Sinai and considered by most Jews to be their special possession.

Help is found in the prophets. In Isaiah 42:1-4 we read that God's chosen servant will one day establish justice throughout the earth and that "the coastlands will wait expectantly for His law" (NASB). If we take this passage to refer to the Messiah, then we could paraphrase it by saying that the Christ, when he comes, will teach God's law to the Gentiles ("the coastlands"). Jeremiah 31:31-34 similarly predicts the coming of a time in which disobedient Israel will receive a new covenant, consisting of a law written on the heart and therefore obeyed (cf. Ezek 36:26-27 ).

Jesus' teaching, although standing in continuity with the law given at Sinai, nevertheless sovereignly fashions a new law. In some instances Jesus sharpens commandments ( Matt 5:17-48 ) and in others considers them obsolete ( Mark 7:17-19 ). On one occasion, having been asked to identify the greatest commandment, Jesus concurs with the Jewish wisdom of his time ( Mark 12:32-33 ) that the greatest commandments are to love God supremely and to love one's neighbor as oneself ( Mark 12:28-31 ). He breaks with tradition, however, by defining the term "neighbor" to mean even the despised Samaritan ( Luke 10:29-37 ).

Paul believed that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ marked the beginning point of God's new covenant ( 2 Cor 3:1-18 ; Gal 4:21-31 ; cf. Rom 8:2 ). Like Isaiah, he believed that this covenant included the Gentiles ( Gal 3:7-20 ), and like Jeremiah he believed that it offered Israel a remedy for the curse that the old Sinaitic covenant pronounced on Israel's disobedience ( Gal 3:10-13 ).

In light of this, Paul may have understood the teaching of Christ as a new law. If so, then the correspondence between the ethical teaching of Jesus and Paul on many points (e.g., 1 Cor 7:10-11 / Mark 10:2-9 ; 1 Cor 9:14 / Luke 10:7 ; Rom 14:1-23 / Mark 7:18-19 ) is a matter of Paul's intention rather than happy accident. Paul's own admonition to fulfill the law of Christ by bearing one another's burdens provides both a pithy restatement of Jesus' summary of the law and an indication that Jesus' teaching fulfills prophetic expectations.

 

[Mink57]

If Jesus atoned for our sins and Jesus reconciled us and the world unto God, then why do you need a religion?

Depends on how people see "religion." For me, religion is about fellowship.

Matthew 18:20: "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." I don't take the "two or three" to be literal. After all, Jesus preached to his 12 Apostles quite often, AND, he also preached to crowds of thousands.

For me, it's about gathering together in his name.

Why do you need to go to mass?

I go to mass for different reasons. When Christ was at the Last Supper, he told his Apostles, "DO THIS IN MEMORY OF ME." The priest at mass acts as if an Apostle.

After Christ's ascension into Heaven, the Apostles, along with others, gathered together in each other's homes and "broke bread" together. (See Acts). Hence, the first "Mass."

Have you even been to a Catholic Mass before?

Why do you need a pope?

Why do we need a President? Or a Queen? Or a CEO for that matter? Why does a married man have to be the "head" of his family?

Why did Christ "need" Apostles? Why did Apostles appoint others to lead churches?

You seem to think that Catholics do whatever the Pope says. Yeah, uh...no.

If the Pope told us to go out and kill everyone who doesn't "believe" do ya REALLY think that MOST Catholics would do what he says?

Agains, yeah, uh, no...

The Pope is supposed to go by the bible. But *your* bible isn't the same as ours. More about that in another post below this one...

Why do you need a religion? Here is the answer. You don't have faith in Jesus and what he has accomplished on your behalf. Religion is not an indication of faith; religion is an indication of the absence of faith.

Again, that's *YOUR* opinion.

Perhaps a better question is, why do YOU think you DON'T need 'religion'?

 

[Mink57]

I do not believe that everyone is going to be saved. The only ones that are going to be saved are those that are "In Christ". To be in Christ, means that you are trusting in the work and the person of Jesus Christ for your salvation plus nothing.

Ummm, no. Sorry, but *WE* have a stake in this, too.

The FIRST way that we become "in Christ" is to REPENT.

Were you a liar? REPENT.
Were you an adulterer? REPENT.
Were you unkind? REPENT!
Were you greedy? Selfish? A lover of self? Lover of money before God? Re-PENT!
How about sexual sins? REPENT!

The list goes on. You can't just say that you repent; you have to LIVE it.

Matthew 3:8: "Produce good works as evidence of your repentance." (emphasis added). That means there's action on *YOUR* part.

I DO trust Jesus for my salvation...

...IF I repent.

 

[Mink57]

A lot of religious people like yourself are always quoting James. Many Christian scholars believe that the book of James should not have been included into the Cannons.

MANY? No...SOME, yes. Then again, Martin Luther also didn't believe that ANY of the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) should be in the Bible, because the true authors are unknown.

1. The book of James was not directed to Gentile Christians. It was directed to law keeping Jews, James 1:1.
2. James was a Judaizer. A Judaizer believes in Jesus, but also believes that you must keep the law of Moses.
3. James wanted to circumcise Gentile believers, Acts 15:1-21.
4. James sent men to spy on Peter and Barnabas to see if they were eating with Gentiles, Galatians 2:11-21.

I think that you may have a lot in common with James.

Martin Luther wanted other books to be dismissed from the Bible, including Hebrews...and Romans. He successfully convinced others to dismiss Books such as Tobit, Sirach, Wisdom...and a few others.

Ironically, I've seen a number of non-Catholic Christians complain about how something "isn't in the BIble." And yet, the very question they're pondering IS in the Bible. The CATHOLIC Bible.

Keep reading beyond your 66 Books. You might learn something...

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

Keep reading beyond your 66 Books. You might learn something...

Reading beyond what's in God's official canon... is how people get deceived by the devil concerning doctrine.

There are other books that may be useful for historical accounts, but not for doctrine.

Those that believe Jesus Christ is not powerful and influential enough to control what went in to His official canon... are disrespecting the Lord which is an open door for satan to deceive them, which they are!

 

[Robert Pate]

Depends on how people see "religion." For me, religion is about fellowship.

Matthew 18:20: "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." I don't take the "two or three" to be literal. After all, Jesus preached to his 12 Apostles quite often, AND, he also preached to crowds of thousands.

For me, it's about gathering together in his name.

I go to mass for different reasons. When Christ was at the Last Supper, he told his Apostles, "DO THIS IN MEMORY OF ME." The priest at mass acts as if an Apostle.

After Christ's ascension into Heaven, the Apostles, along with others, gathered together in each other's homes and "broke bread" together. (See Acts). Hence, the first "Mass."

Have you even been to a Catholic Mass before?

Why do we need a President? Or a Queen? Or a CEO for that matter? Why does a married man have to be the "head" of his family?

Why did Christ "need" Apostles? Why did Apostles appoint others to lead churches?

You seem to think that Catholics do whatever the Pope says. Yeah, uh...no.

If the Pope told us to go out and kill everyone who doesn't "believe" do ya REALLY think that MOST Catholics would do what he says?

Agains, yeah, uh, no...

The Pope is supposed to go by the bible. But *your* bible isn't the same as ours. More about that in another post below this one...

Again, that's *YOUR* opinion.

Perhaps a better question is, why do YOU think you DON'T need 'religion'?

There is not going to be any religion in heaven. In John's vision of heaven there was no temple, Revelation 21:22. What are you going to do? No cathedrals, no priest, no holy water, no candles, no popes, no crucifixes, no incense, no chanting, no mass. I don't think that you are going to like it there.

 

[Robert Pate]

MANY? No...SOME, yes. Then again, Martin Luther also didn't believe that ANY of the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) should be in the Bible, because the true authors are unknown.

Martin Luther wanted other books to be dismissed from the Bible, including Hebrews...and Romans. He successfully convinced others to dismiss Books such as Tobit, Sirach, Wisdom...and a few others.

Ironically, I've seen a number of non-Catholic Christians complain about how something "isn't in the BIble." And yet, the very question they're pondering IS in the Bible. The CATHOLIC Bible.

Keep reading beyond your 66 Books. You might learn something...

Now you have resorted to lying. Where did you get your information about Martin Luther? Chances are it was written by a Catholic.