PDA

View Full Version : Catholics Should Believe Their First Pope



Pages : [1] 2

serpentdove
July 1st, 2015, 08:52 AM
[Catholics Should Believe Their First Pope Proclaiming the Gospel Ministries] "The apostle Peter played a prominent role in the early church. Soon after he abandoned his career as a fisherman to follow Christ, he became a fisher of men. Several of his sermons were recorded in the Book of Acts, and his two epistles are included in the divinely inspired Scriptures. Since Catholics :olinger: have been taught that Peter was their first pope, I have developed some questions to shed some light on his theology, ecclesiology, and soteriology. All of the answers come directly from his writings and sermons. It is my prayer that those of us who have been sanctified by the truth will share these glorious truths with our Catholic friends and loved ones. :Poly:

Peter, were you the first pope and the supreme head of the first century church?

"As a fellow elder, I exhort the elders among you... to shepherd the flock of God." (1 Pet. 5:1-3)

Are you the rock upon which Jesus would build His church?

Jesus is "a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God, chosen and precious... The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone and a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense. They stumble because they disobey the word." (1 Pet. 2:4,7-8)

Were you infallible?

Paul opposed me to my face because I was not in step with the truth of the Gospel.(Gal. 2:11,14)

Should we confess our sins to priests?

Repent of your wickedness and pray to God that your sins may be forgiven. (Acts 8:22)

Should we pray to Mary and the saints?

Pray to God. (Acts 8:22)

Can anyone be saved apart from the Lord Jesus Christ?

"There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:12)

What would you say to Pope Francis who teaches that atheists can follow their conscience into heaven?

"There will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction." "The ignorant and unstable twist Paul's letters to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures." (2 Peter 2:1; 3:16)

Can anyone be certain that they have inherited eternal life?

God has caused believers to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven and protected by the power of God through faith. (1 Pet. 1:3-5)

Is it possible for God's grace or indulgences to be purchased for the remission of sins?

God ransoms us "not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ." (1 Pet. 1:18-19)

Can a person be born again through water baptism?

The only way to be regenerated is to be "born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God." (1 Pet. 1:23)

Should Jesus Christ be made a sin offering during the sacrifice of the Mass?

Christ suffered "once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit" (1 Pet. 3:18).

Is the Catholic priesthood necessary to mediate between God and man?

Every believer, who is called out of darkness into Christ's marvelous light, is made a priest for the purpose of offering spiritual sacrifices to God and proclaiming His perfections (1 Pet. 2:9).

Should Jesus continue to be pictured as a dead man hanging on a cross or as a baby in Mary's arms?

The resurrected Christ has "gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him." (1 Pet. 3:21-22)

What should we do in these days of great deception?

Take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability. But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. (2 Pet 3:17-18)

There is a profound contrast between the divinely inspired teachings of Peter and the fallible, ungodly opinions of Pope Francis. The enormous disparity between the instruction of these two men Catholics call "pope" shows how far the Roman Catholic Church has departed from the faith of the apostles. May God give us all a greater compassion for the many victims of religious deception. Read more contrasts between Peter and Francis here (http://www.proclaimingthegospel.org/site/cpage.asp?cpage_id=180066646&sec_id=180014816)." Pro-Gospel.org

chrysostom
July 1st, 2015, 09:09 AM
we have only one pope

long live francis

glassjester
July 1st, 2015, 01:16 PM
There is a profound contrast between the divinely inspired teachings of Peter and the fallible, ungodly opinions of Pope Francis.

And you get to decide what's divinely inspired and what isn't, right?

serpentdove
July 1st, 2015, 03:36 PM
And you get to decide what's divinely inspired and what isn't, right?

:yawn: Truth is truth independent from me (Ac 5:29, Mt 15:9).

Cruciform
July 1st, 2015, 04:43 PM
[...Proclaiming the Gospel Ministries]
A claim is only as good as its source. Try again (http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=620200).


...I have developed some questions...
I'll answer, say, the first four of these to show the faulty reasoning and poor exegesis behind these questions...


Peter, were you the first pope and the supreme head of the first century church?

"As a fellow elder, I exhort the elders among you... to shepherd the flock of God." (1 Pet. 5:1-3)
Non Sequitur Fallacy and poor exegesis. The fact that Peter calls himself a "fellow elder" in no way negates the fact that he held a position of authority (http://www.catholic.com/tracts/peter-and-the-papacy) among the apostles, any more than the U.S. President saying "My fellow Americans..." negates the greater authority of his office. Try again.


Are you the rock upon which Jesus would build His church?

Jesus is "a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God, chosen and precious... The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone and a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense. They stumble because they disobey the word." (1 Pet. 2:4,7-8)
Non Sequitur Fallacy and poor exegesis. I've already decisively answered this here (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4319820&postcount=279). Try again.


Were you infallible?

Paul opposed me to my face because I was not in step with the truth of the Gospel.(Gal. 2:11,14)
Straw Man Fallacy and poor exegesis. Here it's clear that you utterly fail to comprehend the doctrine of papal infallibility. You confuse infallibility (the inability to teach error in matters of doctrine and morals) with impeccability (the inability to commit personal sins). The Catholic Church teaches the former, not the latter.

Regarding the text you quoted, it should be noted that Peter is rebuked not for his doctrine or teaching, but for failing to follow his own infallible teaching of the Gospel. Thus, Paul corrected Peter regarding his (Peter's) behavior, not his (Peter's) doctrine. Therefore, Paul's confrontation with Peter had nothing to do with Peter's infallibility as a teacher, but only with his personal behavior (sin) that contradicted that infallible teaching. Try again.


Should we confess our sins to priests?

Repent of your wickedness and pray to God that your sins may be forgiven. (Acts 8:22)
Non Sequitur Fallacy and poor exegesis. The mere fact that we can receive forgiveness from God directly does not negate the normative sacramental means established by Christ for dealing with serious sins and for being reconciled to the Lord. For example, see this (http://scripturecatholic.com/confession.html) and this (http://www.integratedcatholiclife.org/2012/04/deacon-bickerstaff-catholic-response-to-common-objections-to-sacrament-of-confession/). Try again.


So much for Gendron's/serpent's ability to think according to sound logic, and to exegete the Bible accurately. His entire OP, therefore, may simply be dismissed as demonstrably irrational and strightforwardly unbiblical.

Moving on... :yawn:



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

serpentdove
July 1st, 2015, 04:46 PM
A claim is only as good as its source.

:yawn: God's word is the final word (Ps. 119:160).

See:

No Papal Authority (http://vananne.com/culttoasters/No%20Papal%20Authority.htm)

Puppet
July 1st, 2015, 05:14 PM
Peter was an apostle. RCC thinks St Linus might be the first pope. Lots of "could be", "might be", "possibly the first", "may be". With all those second guessing, apostolic succession got broken on day one.

Cruciform
July 1st, 2015, 05:15 PM
God's word is the final word (Ps. 119:160).
Not when you glaringly misinterpret it, as you've done in the OP (see Post #5).

chrysostom
July 1st, 2015, 05:29 PM
we listen to francis

he has the power to bind and loose

Puppet
July 1st, 2015, 05:57 PM
we listen to francis

he has the power to bind and loose

Good for you

Shubee
July 1st, 2015, 06:17 PM
And you get to decide what's divinely inspired and what isn't, right? Why not? I have that authority also.

Cruciform
July 1st, 2015, 06:45 PM
Why not? I have that authority also.
Post your proof.

Shubee
July 1st, 2015, 07:19 PM
Post your proof.
"The spiritual person evaluates everything but is subject to no one else's evaluation." 1 Corinthians 2:15. Please post your rebuttal.

Cruciform
July 1st, 2015, 07:23 PM
"The spiritual person evaluates everything but is subject to no one else's evaluation." 1 Corinthians 2:15. Please post your rebuttal.
Then every individual who claims to be "spiritual" has the very same "authority" that you claim to possess---including the countless Christian believers who would categorically disagree with you on any given point of doctrine. Correct?



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

serpentdove
July 1st, 2015, 07:29 PM
[:yawn: God's word is the final word (Ps. 119:160).] Not when you glaringly misinterpret it, as you've done in the OP...

:yawn: "Every verse of the Bible means exactly what the author intended it to mean..." Full text: How to Interpret the Bible by Darrell Ferguson (http://vananne.com/applesofgold/Hermeneutics%20How%20to%20Interpret%20the%20Bible. htm) Eph 4:14

See:

Hermeneutics (http://vananne.com/applesofgold/#Hermeneutics)

Cruciform
July 1st, 2015, 07:38 PM
"Every verse of the Bible means exactly what the author intended it to mean..."
Amen (see Post #5).

everready
July 1st, 2015, 10:51 PM
Post your proof.


You reject our proof, even though it be Gods word, we have no more proof than that. We post scriptures all of the time and you just keep rejecting them just go through all of the threads on Catholicism.

Revelation 1:6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

According to Gods word we have authority through Christ our Lord.


everready

glassjester
July 2nd, 2015, 06:11 AM
You reject our proof, even though it be Gods word, we have no more proof than that. We post scriptures all of the time and you just keep rejecting them just go through all of the threads on Catholicism.

Isn't it arrogant to assume that if everyone could just understand things as well as you do, they would come to your same conclusions?

It implies that you understand things better than anyone else - that disagreement is just error on the part of your opposition.

serpentdove
July 2nd, 2015, 08:01 AM
[Mike Gendron's TV Interview Challenges "Infallible" Pope Proclaiming the Gospel Ministries] "Mike was interviewed by Dr. David Reagan on the impact Pope Francis is having on the growing ecumenical movement and his attempt to rebuild the religious "Tower of Babel." The interview was featured on the Christ in Prophecy TV program that was broadcast on the Trinity Broadcasting Network and Daystar.

Since the programs aired, we have taken orders for thousands of our Gospel tracts and hundreds of copies of my book Preparing for Eternity and DVDs to reach Catholics. Jane and I have had many encouraging phone conversations with people, especially with Catholics who have been challenged by what they saw and heard! What a joy it has been to minister to so many people and to glorify our great God and Savior! One elderly man called to say he is a Catholic Christian and has been teaching Bible studies in his Catholic Church. He said my interview made him realize that he must call Catholics to repent of everything that has been added to the Gospel. I discipled him for nearly an hour, and he now knows that he can no longer participate in the Sacrifice of the Mass or the sacraments. He is also now aware that he may be asked to leave the church when he starts proclaiming Christ as the all-sufficient Savior and distributes our resources in his Bible studies. You can view the program here: TV Interview on Pope's Ungodly Statements (http://www.proclaimingthegospel.org/site/cpage.asp?sec_id=180014816&cpage_id=180065219)." Pro-Gospel.org

chrysostom
July 2nd, 2015, 08:05 AM
According to Gods word we have authority through Christ our Lord.


everready

over whom?

serpentdove
July 2nd, 2015, 08:08 AM
We post scriptures all of the time and you just keep rejecting them...

...Revelation 1:6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

According to Gods word we have authority through Christ our Lord.

Titus 2:15

heir
July 2nd, 2015, 08:14 AM
we have only one pope

long live francisYou don't need a pope. You're to follow Paul 1 Corinthians 4:15-16 KJV.

heir
July 2nd, 2015, 08:17 AM
There is a profound contrast between the divinely inspired teachings of Peter and the fallible, ungodly opinions of Pope Francis.Neither Peter nor the pope preached/preach the gospel of Christ as the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth. You have to go to Paul for that.

heir
July 2nd, 2015, 08:19 AM
We post scriptures all of the time and you just keep rejecting them just go through all of the threads on Catholicism.

Revelation 1:6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
You're not a priest. Paul never uses the term to describe a member of the Body of Christ. And Paul is the apostle OF the Gentiles Romans 11:13 KJV.

Sancocho
July 2nd, 2015, 08:24 AM
It boggles my mind in the internet age how Christians can post half truths and even lies about the RCC while not having the simple courtesy to check them.

I have to wonder if there is something devious going on or are they brainwashed.

serpentdove
July 2nd, 2015, 08:29 AM
You're not a priest..."

Understand the priesthood of all believers.

See:

Does the Bible teach the priesthood of all believers? (http://www.compellingtruth.org/priesthood-believers.html)

Shubee
July 2nd, 2015, 08:55 AM
Then every individual who claims to be "spiritual" has the very same "authority" that you claim to possess---including the countless Christian believers who would categorically disagree with you on any given point of doctrine. Correct?



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+ Merely claiming to be spiritual is no proof of spirituality. Everyone agrees on that. But if I had a billion followers that called me the effulgence of God, would you accept that as proof of spirituality?

heir
July 2nd, 2015, 09:02 AM
Understand the priesthood of all believers.

See:

Does the Bible teach the priesthood of all believers? (http://www.compellingtruth.org/priesthood-believers.html)

You are applying that which was and will be to Israel to us and you err when you do. Paul never used the term "priests" to describe the BoC and Paul is the apostle of the Gentiles. Get with Paul in Romans through Philemon.

heir
July 2nd, 2015, 09:06 AM
It boggles my mind in the internet age how Christians can post half truths and even lies about the RCC while not having the simple courtesy to check them. Then correct the alleged errors. You can start by telling us what the RCC preaches about salvation. What is required to be saved/how is one saved?

heir
July 2nd, 2015, 09:07 AM
Understand the priesthood of all believers.

See:

Does the Bible teach the priesthood of all believers? (http://www.compellingtruth.org/priesthood-believers.html)

I understand who the priesthood is and it isn't the church which is Christ's Body.

Shubee
July 2nd, 2015, 10:12 AM
You're not a priest. Paul never uses the term to describe a member of the Body of Christ. And Paul is the apostle OF the Gentiles Romans 11:13 KJV. Why do you repudiate the words of the Apostle John and exalt the Apostle Paul over the Apostle John?

serpentdove
July 2nd, 2015, 10:22 AM
[:yawn: "Every verse of the Bible means exactly what the author intended it to mean..." Full text: How to Interpret the Bible by Darrell Ferguson (http://vananne.com/applesofgold/Hermeneutics%20How%20to%20Interpret%20the%20Bible. htm) Eph 4:14 See: Hermeneutics (http://vananne.com/applesofgold/#Hermeneutics)] Amen...

:yawn: Intensional Ga 5:9, Eph 4:14

Sancocho
July 2nd, 2015, 10:23 AM
Then correct the alleged errors. You can start by telling us what the RCC preaches about salvation. What is required to be saved/how is one saved?

I heard all the claims and was concerned enough to attend Protestant churches for many years and even be baptized again even though I was raised Catholic and never officially left. However, after researching the claims and verifying Catholic beliefs with the Catechism I saw they were either lies or half truths. Throw in recorded history and simple logic and there was little choice but to embrace the truth.

Here are some examples of illogic from Protestants and half truths that were easily verified by doing simple research.

1. the pope is infallible.
2. Catholics believe in three gods.
3. sins can be removed by payment
4. sola scritpura when it didn't exist for centuries if not a milenia for most of the church.
5. It is ok to preach sola scripture and not venerate Mary or believe she is a virgin.
6. sola scritpura and the theory that the RCC departed from the Body of Christ at the time of Constantine are compatible.
7. Rejection of any denominations using a BIBLE to justify that claim (good grief).
8. Claiming Jesus didn't want a church community or hierarchy when JESUS HIMSELF told Paul he would be the head of the church and the same word for church is used to describe a community.

My advice to anyone is do what I did. Accept any challenges to one's faith and take the time to verify them one by one. After all since I already knew Jesus there was little to be afraid of.

Puppet
July 2nd, 2015, 12:23 PM
It boggles my mind in the internet age how Christians can post half truths and even lies about the RCC while not having the simple courtesy to check them.

I have to wonder if there is something devious going on or are they brainwashed.

I can vouch half of them cause I checked them. The other half, protestants are just as guilty with thier big bag of traditions. Arminians and "works before faith" are just as bad as roman catholicism. Both are in error.

everready
July 2nd, 2015, 01:00 PM
It boggles my mind in the internet age how Christians can post half truths and even lies about the RCC while not having the simple courtesy to check them.

I have to wonder if there is something devious going on or are they brainwashed.

Why does it boggle your mind, just compare Gods word to the dogmas of your church and it will become crystal clear.


everready

Sancocho
July 2nd, 2015, 03:16 PM
Why does it boggle your mind, just compare Gods word to the dogmas of your church and it will become crystal clear.


everready

Somehow you missed the part that I was a member of a Protestant church even though I was born Catholic. Unlike you apparently I will accept any challenges to my beliefs. However, after doing the research I'm back in the RCC.

Cruciform
July 2nd, 2015, 03:32 PM
You reject our proof...
So, then, no proof whatsoever. That's what I thought.


...even though it be Gods word, we have no more proof than that.
"...even though it be everready's preferred interpretations of God's word," you mean. You have no more "proof" than that. (And, of course, that's really no proof at all, is it.)


According to Gods word we have authority through Christ our Lord.
According to God's word, the Church's ordained apostles and bishops (http://scripturecatholic.com/apostolic_succession.html) have doctrinal authority through Christ (Mt. 16:18-19; 28:18-20; Lk. 10:16; Ac. 15:2; 16:4; 2 Thess. 3:4; 1 Jn. 4:6) You, by contrast, have no doctrinal authority whatsoever. Try again.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Cruciform
July 2nd, 2015, 03:35 PM
[Mike Gendron... Proclaiming the Gospel Ministries]
Post #5.

Cruciform
July 2nd, 2015, 03:37 PM
Merely claiming to be spiritual is no proof of spirituality.
My point exactly. :thumb:

Cruciform
July 2nd, 2015, 03:39 PM
Intensional
Post #5.


Ga 5:9, Eph 4:14
You can go ahead and apply those to yourself.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Shubee
July 2nd, 2015, 03:59 PM
My point exactly. :thumb: Again, what if I had a billion followers that called me the effulgence of God? Would you accept that as proof of spirituality? If that wouldn't be good enough, throw in a popemobile, some gorgeous pontifical robes and a funny looking hat that looks like a fish head. Would that persuade you?

Cruciform
July 2nd, 2015, 04:11 PM
Again, what if I had a billion followers that called me the effulgence of God? Would you accept that as proof of spirituality?
No. It would take solid corroboration from the record of ecclesiastical history that you are in fact the rightful successor of St. Peter, the Rock (http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/PeterRockKeysPrimacyRome.htm) upon whom Jesus Christ himself founded his one historic Church (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html), and against which he declared that the gates of hell would never prevail (Mt. 16:18-19; 1 Tim. 3:15).



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

everready
July 2nd, 2015, 05:26 PM
Somehow you missed the part that I was a member of a Protestant church even though I was born Catholic. Unlike you apparently I will accept any challenges to my beliefs. However, after doing the research I'm back in the RCC.

No i didn't miss that part i just don't understand why you joined yourself to his body.

"We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty."
--Pope Leo XIII, in an Encyclical Letter, June 20, 1894.

"For thou art another God on earth."
--History of the Councils, Vol. XIV, p. 109.

"We define that the Holy Apostolic See (the Vatican) and the Roman Pontiff hold the primacy over the whole world."
--A Decree of the Council of Trent, quoted in Philippe Labbe and Gabriel Cossart, The Most Holy Councils, Vol. 13, col. 1167.

"Take thou the tiara adorned with the triple crown, and know that thou art the Father of princes and of kings, and art the Governor of the world."
--Coronation Service of the Pontiffs.

"The Pope is the Supreme Judge... He is the vicegerent of Christ, who is not only a priest forever, but also King of kings and Lord of lords."
--Vatican Council, p. 220.

"The Pope is not only the representative of Jesus Christ, but he is Jesus Christ Himself, hidden under veil of flesh."
--The Catholic National, July, 1895.


everready

everready
July 2nd, 2015, 05:33 PM
No. It would take solid corroboration from the record of ecclesiastical history that you are in fact the rightful successor of St. Peter, the Rock upon whom Jesus Christ himself founded his one historic Church (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html), and against which he declared that the gates of hell would never prevail (Mt. 16:18-19; 1 Tim. 3:15).



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Your saying the pope is the rock of our salvation? That would explain this.

"We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty."
--Pope Leo XIII, in an Encyclical Letter, June 20, 1894.


everready

Cruciform
July 2nd, 2015, 09:18 PM
Your saying the pope is the rock of our salvation?
No. Try again.

Sancocho
July 2nd, 2015, 09:36 PM
"For thou art another God on earth."
--History of the Councils, Vol. XIV, p. 109.

The translation comes from:

Cura denique, ut salutem quam dedisti nobis, & vitam & spiritum non amittamus. Tu enim pastor, tu medicus, tu gubernator, tu cultor, tu denique alter Deus in terris.

which translated correctly is:

Finally, it takes to the salvation which you have given us, the spirit of his life and not to lose. For you are a pastor, you a doctor, you are a pilot, for you to worship, you, in short, no other God on earth.

I have to wonder if some Christians hate is stronger than their love of Christ?

everready
July 2nd, 2015, 10:13 PM
The translation comes from:

Cura denique, ut salutem quam dedisti nobis, & vitam & spiritum non amittamus. Tu enim pastor, tu medicus, tu gubernator, tu cultor, tu denique alter Deus in terris.

which translated correctly is:

Finally, it takes to the salvation which you have given us, the spirit of his life and not to lose. For you are a pastor, you a doctor, you are a pilot, for you to worship, you, in short, no other God on earth.

I have to wonder if some Christians hate is stronger than their love of Christ?

Its more like this.

“It is the bounden duty of every Christian to pray against Antichrist and as to what Antichrist is no sane man ought to raise a question. If it be not the Popery in the Church of Rome, there is nothing in the world that can be called by that name. . .It wounds Christ, because it robs Christ of His glory, because it puts sacramental efficacy in the place of His atonement and lifts a piece of bread into the place of the Savior and a few drops of water into the place of the Holy Spirit and puts a mere fallible man like ourselves up as the Vicar of Christ on earth.

If we pray against it, because it is against Him, we shall love the persons though we hate their errors; we shall love their souls though we loathe and detest their dogmas. And so the breath of our prayers will be sweetened because we turn our faces toward Christ when we pray.”

– Charles H. Spurgeon (1834-1892)


everready

heir
July 2nd, 2015, 10:23 PM
Why do you repudiate the words of the Apostle John and exalt the Apostle Paul over the Apostle John?I accept and do not deny the truth of what John wrote, but recognize that John wasn't talking to me. John was commanded to go not in the way of the Gentiles,...but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (IOW, he wasn't talking to me (Matthew 10:5-6 KJV).

Paul is the apostle of the Gentiles (Romans 11:13 KJV).
I follow Paul not John (1 Corinthians 4:15-16 KJV).

heir
July 2nd, 2015, 10:32 PM
I heard all the claims

My advice to anyone is do what I did. Accept any challenges to one's faith and take the time to verify them one by one. After all since I already knew Jesus there was little to be afraid of.This is how the RCC must be tested: by the word of God in a King James Bible!

It can be shown that they are 2 Corinthians 11:13-15 KJV) as they preach an other gospel than that which Paul preached unto us (Galatians 1:8-12 KJV). Anyone who has spent any amount of time in the catholic church (and many of us have) knows that they do not preach the gospel of Christ (1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV) as the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth. They do not teach by grace are we saved through faith (Ephesians 2:8-9 KJV). They do not teach that we have been forgiven all trespasses (Colossians 2:13 KJV). They are deceitful workers in funny hats and robes ( 2 Corinthians 11:13-15 KJV) as they preach an other gospel than that which Paul preached unto us (Galatians 1:8-12 KJV). Let them be accursed.

1Mind1Spirit
July 2nd, 2015, 10:35 PM
I accept and do not deny the truth of what John wrote, but recognize that John wasn't talking to me. John was commanded to go not in the way of the Gentiles,...but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (IOW, he wasn't talking to me (Matthew 10:5-6 KJV).



No Revelation for you then.



Revelation 10:11 KJV


11 And he said unto me, Thou must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings.

heir
July 2nd, 2015, 10:37 PM
No Revelation for you then.



Revelation 10:11 KJV


11 And he said unto me, Thou must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings.

No "my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, but now is made manifest,..." (Romans 16:25-26 KJV) for you, then? We're in the but now!

1 Corinthians 13:8-13 KJV

Shubee
July 2nd, 2015, 10:54 PM
John wasn't talking to me. John was commanded to go not in the way of the Gentiles,...but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (IOW, he wasn't talking to me (Matthew 10:5-6 KJV).

Paul is the apostle of the Gentiles (Romans 11:13 KJV).
I follow Paul not John (1 Corinthians 4:15-16 KJV). So in John's letter to the seven churches in the province of Asia, you believe that all those churches that John addressed were entirely Jewish without any Gentiles?

Sancocho
July 2nd, 2015, 11:26 PM
This is how the RCC must be tested: by the word of God in a King James Bible!

It can be shown that they are 2 Corinthians 11:13-15 KJV) as they preach an other gospel than that which Paul preached unto us (Galatians 1:8-12 KJV). Anyone who has spent any amount of time in the catholic church (and many of us have) knows that they do not preach the gospel of Christ (1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV) as the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth. They do not teach by grace are we saved through faith (Ephesians 2:8-9 KJV). They do not teach that we have been forgiven all trespasses (Colossians 2:13 KJV). They are deceitful workers in funny hats and robes ( 2 Corinthians 11:13-15 KJV) as they preach an other gospel than that which Paul preached unto us (Galatians 1:8-12 KJV). Let them be accursed.

Those who wrote the KJR honored Mary and believed she was conceived without sin (Immaculate Conception) and was a Virgin, so can we assume you believe the same?

Cruciform
July 3rd, 2015, 04:06 PM
This is how the RCC must be tested: by the word of God in a King James Bible!
:darwinsm:... Thanks, I really needed that!

everready
July 3rd, 2015, 04:52 PM
:darwinsm:... Thanks, I really needed that!

What's so funny, you really do need that.


everready

Cruciform
July 3rd, 2015, 09:41 PM
What's so funny, you really do need that.
Yes, I definitely needed a good laugh. I much appreciated heir's help on that score. :thumb:

Sancocho
July 3rd, 2015, 09:54 PM
Its more like this.

“It is the bounden duty of every Christian to pray against Antichrist and as to what Antichrist is no sane man ought to raise a question. If it be not the Popery in the Church of Rome, there is nothing in the world that can be called by that name. . .It wounds Christ, because it robs Christ of His glory, because it puts sacramental efficacy in the place of His atonement and lifts a piece of bread into the place of the Savior and a few drops of water into the place of the Holy Spirit and puts a mere fallible man like ourselves up as the Vicar of Christ on earth.

If we pray against it, because it is against Him, we shall love the persons though we hate their errors; we shall love their souls though we loathe and detest their dogmas. And so the breath of our prayers will be sweetened because we turn our faces toward Christ when we pray.”

– Charles H. Spurgeon (1834-1892)


everready

So you think a quote from another Protestant who doesn't know the Bible much less Christian history much less the origin of his own church would somehow convince me to believe half-truths???

Where is the logic in that? I embraced Protestantism and what I learned about doctrine was make a lot of claims and hope something sticks. Not exactly the manifestations of the Holy Spirit, to say the least.

I believe Protestants, as demonstrated by yourself and others on this forum daily, will not address any serious challenges because they are afraid of the implications and that is why you guys disappear frequently.

everready
July 4th, 2015, 02:31 AM
So you think a quote from another Protestant who doesn't know the Bible much less Christian history much less the origin of his own church would somehow convince me to believe half-truths???

Where is the logic in that? I embraced Protestantism and what I learned about doctrine was make a lot of claims and hope something sticks. Not exactly the manifestations of the Holy Spirit, to say the least.

I believe Protestants, as demonstrated by yourself and others on this forum daily, will not address any serious challenges because they are afraid of the implications and that is why you guys disappear frequently.

Your running from one religion to the other religion won't save you only Jesus Christ can do that, no church, no religion, only Jesus.

Revelation 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.


everready

Puppet
July 4th, 2015, 05:29 AM
So you think a quote from another Protestant who doesn't know the Bible much less Christian history much less the origin of his own church would somehow convince me to believe half-truths???

Where is the logic in that? I embraced Protestantism and what I learned about doctrine was make a lot of claims and hope something sticks. Not exactly the manifestations of the Holy Spirit, to say the least.

I believe Protestants, as demonstrated by yourself and others on this forum daily, will not address any serious challenges because they are afraid of the implications and that is why you guys disappear frequently.


Salvation is instantaneously without all those made made rituals you mentioned and no masters degree in history from Yale is required. "Instant" is a lot quicker than you have any clue about. Thats why you don't need RCC to ordain you and autorize to to preach and lead. RCC is a denomination like all others. Thay are the same.

Sancocho
July 4th, 2015, 09:21 AM
Your running from one religion to the other religion won't save you only Jesus Christ can do that, no church, no religion, only Jesus.

Revelation 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.


everready

So you are the only one that can change denominations and yet still know Christ??

everready
July 4th, 2015, 03:46 PM
So you are the only one that can change denominations and yet still know Christ??

How does one unknow Jesus?

Psalm 139:7 Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?

8 If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.

9 If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea;

10 Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me.

11 If I say, Surely the darkness shall cover me; even the night shall be light about me.

12 Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to thee.

13 For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.

14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.


everready

Dona Bate
July 4th, 2015, 09:42 PM
This is how the RCC must be tested: by the word of God in a King James Bible!

It can be shown that they are 2 Corinthians 11:13-15 KJV) as they preach an other gospel than that which Paul preached unto us (Galatians 1:8-12 KJV)....Any other gospel like heir's MAD proposes St. Paul allegedly taught makes St. Paul a heretic and so would have to have been rejected from the start.*

Since scripture*tells us that NOT even Jesus Christ Himself can be his own witness (John 8:18). It is therefore patently obvious that St. Paul cannot be his own witness to a so called 'secret gospel'. Which begs the question from heir here who supports this new and recent invention of man...


WHO TESTIFIES FOR A 'SECRET' GOSPEL NOT GIVEN TO ANYBODY ELSE BUT ST.PAUL?*


A. St. Paul? (Whoops! Nocando See John 8:18)

B. The Apostles? (Nope!... MAD itself says that they didn't know).

C. Any other witnesses? (Nope! Otherwise it wouldn't be a secret).

D. Scripture (Whoops again! Definitely wouldn't be a secret anymore would it?).

E. Christian Tradition?

(Nope! Absolutely nobody for the best part of 2,000 years even hints at a so called 'secret gospel' taught the apostles or their successors. You would have thought that somebody, or anybody in early Christian history would be bursting to mention at least once the biggest well kept secret EVER ...if anybody knew!?).


Stick a fork in it heir...


I assure you that you will find it's stuffed and well and truly COOKED!


God Bless!

kayaker
July 5th, 2015, 01:35 AM
Any other gospel like heir's MAD proposes St. Paul allegedly taught makes St. Paul a heretic and so would have to have been rejected from the start.*

Since scripture*tells us that NOT even Jesus Christ Himself can be his own witness (John 8:18). It is therefore patently obvious that St. Paul cannot be his own witness to a so called 'secret gospel'. Which begs the question from heir here who supports this new and recent invention of man...


WHO TESTIFIES FOR A 'SECRET' GOSPEL NOT GIVEN TO ANYBODY ELSE BUT ST.PAUL?*


A. St. Paul? (Whoops! Nocando See John 8:18)

B. The Apostles? (Nope!... MAD itself says that they didn't know).

C. Any other witnesses? (Nope! Otherwise it wouldn't be a secret).

D. Scripture (Whoops again! Definitely wouldn't be a secret anymore would it?).

E. Christian Tradition?

(Nope! Absolutely nobody for the best part of 2,000 years even hints at a so called 'secret gospel' taught the apostles or their successors. You would have thought that somebody, or anybody in early Christian history would be bursting to mention at least once the biggest well kept secret EVER ...if anybody knew!?).


Stick a fork in it heir...


I assure you that you will find it's stuffed and well and truly COOKED!


God Bless!

Ahh! Donna... the very essence of Jesus' divine Paternity (John 8:12 KJV, John 8:13 KJV, John 8:19 KJV) is captured in BOTH Jesus' testimony, AND His Father's testimony (John 8:18 KJV). Two witnesses, correct? Two testimonies to Jesus' divine Paternity? Exactly where are those two testimonies, Donna? Jesus' testimony to His divine Paternity is found in John 8:38 KJV... I don't suppose a Catholic ANYWHERE can explicitly and succinctly explain that which Jesus SAW WITH His Father that corroborates Jesus' testimony to His divine Paternity, then? Gotta specific and succinct clue, folks?

God' testimony, the SECOND one, to Jesus' divine Paternity is found in John 8:40 KJV being that TRUTH which Jesus heard from God that even Abraham didn't hear. And, what specifically and succinctly DID Jesus hear, being God's testimony, that corroborated Jesus' divine Paternity? Still clueless?

Jesus told His believers in that dialogue (John 8:30 KJV) that IF they continue in His word (keep listening, it's real time), THEN do His believers become "disciples indeed" (John 8:31 KJV). Thereby, upon becoming JESUS' "disciples indeed" "...ye shall know the TRUTH, and the TRUTH will make you free" (John 8:32 KJV). Said TRUTH to Jesus' divine Paternity Donna, is embraced within these two divine, succinct, and explicit testimonies (John 8:38 KJV, John 8:40 KJV) of these two divine witnesses (John 8:18 KJV) that "converted" (Matthew 13:15 KJV) Jesus' believers (John 8:30 KJV) into JESUS' "disciples indeed" (John 8:31 KJV).

So... how about a disciple of Jesus among the Catholic Church stepping forward and rendering up the explicit and specific details of these two testimonies (John 8:38 KJV, John 8:40 KJV)... I won't hold my breath, btw. You folks haven't even figured out John 8:38 KJV and John 8:40 KJV WERE the actual testimonies, yet... neither have ANY of your Pope's, btw. So, you Catholics need to get back in the bleachers, and quit playing in the half-time band... we're already in the third quarter of this ball game!

Paul KNEW who Jesus was from Genesis (Romans 9:6, 7)... Peter didn't (Acts 4:13, 20, KJV). Peter wasn't standing and preaching the Pentecostal Gospel like his drunkard appearing peers (Acts 2:13 KJV, Acts 2:14 KJV). Didn't Peter then deny the Pentecostal Holy Spirit? Peter took it upon himself to preach ANOTHER gospel to those mockers who included those non-Israelites (John 8:33 KJV) who instigated Jesus' crucifixion (John 8:28 KJV, John 8:37 KJV). Those NON-Israelites were among Peter's audience, only Peter didn't have a clue early in his ministry... listen to whom Peter addressed in Acts 2:

Acts 2:22 KJV "Ye men of Israel, hear these words, Jesus of Nazareth..."

Those who instigated Jesus' crucifixion (John 8:28 KJV, John 8:37 KJV) were NOT descendants of Jacob-ISRAEL, Donna (John 8:33 KJV, John 8:37 KJV, John 8:39 KJV).

Paul KNEW who Peter's NON-Israelite mockers were (Romans 9:6, 7), as you mock Paul, "WHO TESTIFIES FOR A 'SECRET' GOSPEL NOT GIVEN TO ANYBODY ELSE BUT ST.PAUL?" Tell you who, DONNA: I TESTIFY THAT PAUL KNEW WHO THEY WERE, and they were among your 'early CATHOLIC church fathers'. Just because you guys are clueless doesn't mean that Paul wasn't spot ON! Quite the contrary, in fact. Paul knew the GENTILES were descendants of Japheth, son of Noah (Genesis 9:27 KJV, Genesis 10:2, 3, 4, Genesis 10:5 KJV). But, you guys already know that, right? Paul KNEW Japheth walked into Noah's tent backwards and covered in rebuke of son-mother incest (Genesis 9:22 KJV), but you guys already know that also, right? Such is corroborated in Deuteronomy 18:8 KJV, Deuteronomy 20:11 KJV, Leviticus 22:30 KJV, Leviticus 27:20 KJV, right? So, maybe you can catch a clue what Paul was saying about the GENTILES in 1Corinthians 5:1 KJV, then? Your Pope's been holding out on you guys then, right?

John the Baptist KNEW who those non-Israelite premeditating murderers were among Peter's 'one historic CATHOLIC church' (Luke 3:2 KJV, Luke 3:7 KJV, Luke 3:8 KJV, Luke 3:9 KJV). And, you don't?

Stephen KNEW who they were (Acts 7:51 KJV, Acts 7:52 KJV) corroborating Jesus' words from Matthew 23:29 KJV, Matthew 23:30 KJV, Matthew 23:31 KJV. You guys connect those dots, yet?

So... you didn't know Jesus' instigating detractors were NOT Israelites, did you? Neither did Peter early in his ministry (Acts 4:13, 20). Then, you really don't know who Peter's 'early CATHOLIC church members' were then, do you, Donna? Neither did Peter early in his ministry... Therefore your Popes have been holding out on you guys, or they're as utterly deluded as the lot of you are... Got any succinct and distinct details to those two divine testimonies (John 8:38 KJV, John 8:40 KJV)? You didn't even know they were even there, did you, Donna? But, you guys want to talk about witnesses and testimonies, TRUTH, and 'knowing' Jesus more than us non-Catholic infidels? You might think you know Jesus... but, you are NOT disciples of Jesus!

Render up, Donna... Sanchodelibro ain't gotta clue either, least of all, Crucifer... swooning and drooling in antiquity? Seriously? Jesus' arrival generation was prophesied by Lamech in Genesis 4:24 KJV, "seventy and sevenfold", Donna... count 'em up with God is generation #1, Adam generation #2, Seth #3, and so forth starting in Luke 3:38 KJV through Luke 3:23 KJV. Whose name appears and the 77th ("seventy and sevenfold", Genesis 4:24 KJV) inclusive generation from Almighty God? PETER??? Where was Peter's arrival generation prophesied in Genesis, hmmm? You folk are deluded BY alleged antiquity, not illuminated FROM antiquity that began in Genesis. So, please put that trumpet down and start singing.

kayaker

rougueone
July 5th, 2015, 02:58 AM
Any other gospel like heir's MAD proposes St. Paul allegedly taught makes St. Paul a heretic and so would have to have been rejected from the start.*

Since scripture*tells us that NOT even Jesus Christ Himself can be his own witness (John 8:18). It is therefore patently obvious that St. Paul cannot be his own witness to a so called 'secret gospel'. Which begs the question from heir here who supports this new and recent invention of man...


WHO TESTIFIES FOR A 'SECRET' GOSPEL NOT GIVEN TO ANYBODY ELSE BUT ST.PAUL?*


A. St. Paul? (Whoops! Nocando See John 8:18)

B. The Apostles? (Nope!... MAD itself says that they didn't know).

C. Any other witnesses? (Nope! Otherwise it wouldn't be a secret).

D. Scripture (Whoops again! Definitely wouldn't be a secret anymore would it?).

E. Christian Tradition?

(Nope! Absolutely nobody for the best part of 2,000 years even hints at a so called 'secret gospel' taught the apostles or their successors. You would have thought that somebody, or anybody in early Christian history would be bursting to mention at least once the biggest well kept secret EVER ...if anybody knew!?).


Stick a fork in it heir...


I assure you that you will find it's stuffed and well and truly COOKED!


God Bless!

back your position with Scripture DONA. Your using personal suppositions. our suppositions have no relevance when Gods word is in play or being directed.
So, please back your stance with Scripture. This is your moment to shine or to melt.
Waiting.

rougueone
July 5th, 2015, 03:32 AM
So you think a quote from another Protestant who doesn't know the Bible much less Christian history much less the origin of his own church would somehow convince me to believe half-truths???

Where is the logic in that? I embraced Protestantism and what I learned about doctrine was make a lot of claims and hope something sticks. Not exactly the manifestations of the Holy Spirit, to say the least.

I believe Protestants, as demonstrated by yourself and others on this forum daily, will not address any serious challenges because they are afraid of the implications and that is why you guys disappear frequently.

Sancocho, never has a non Catholic ran. Never.
It is 100% the Catholics who run from serious challenges. If need be I will post the vacant threads, ( Many), left by Catholics who by refusal or knowledge, simply abandoned the Thread.

You in this moment have a chance to back up your statement of "Half truths" by presenting the whole truth . You did not do this in the originall reply. I am addressing you now. Hey, make the protestant "Half truth, to a a whole truth. Here is your chance. Now is your time to shine.
========
Let's start with Everready:


Originally Posted by Sancocho View Post
The translation comes from:

Cura denique, ut salutem quam dedisti nobis, & vitam & spiritum non amittamus. Tu enim pastor, tu medicus, tu gubernator, tu cultor, tu denique alter Deus in terris.

which translated correctly is:

Finally, it takes to the salvation which you have given us, the spirit of his life and not to lose. For you are a pastor, you a doctor, you are a pilot, for you to worship, you, in short, no other God on earth.
OK Sancocho, make the half truth a whole truth. if you know this to be a " half truth, then certainly you have the other "Half" to conclude the " whole truth".
Waiting.....

I have to wonder if some Christians hate is stronger than their love of Christ?
OK, let's get along. Ball's in your court.[/SIZE].

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4371833&postcount=46


Let's see where this goes.
======
Heir made a distinct post to Cruciform. Cruciform replied by diverting from the post---"Are you kidding". But then left. Leaving no factual , insightful dissent. cruciform simply left.
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4372642&postcount=54

=======
Cruciform also left the same diversion to Everready:

Everready:
Its more like this.

“It is the bounden duty of every Christian to pray against Antichrist and as to what Antichrist is no sane man ought to raise a question. If it be not the Popery in the Church of Rome, there is nothing in the world that can be called by that name. . .It wounds Christ, because it robs Christ of His glory, because it puts sacramental efficacy in the place of His atonement and lifts a piece of bread into the place of the Savior and a few drops of water into the place of the Holy Spirit and puts a mere fallible man like ourselves up as the Vicar of Christ on earth.

If we pray against it, because it is against Him, we shall love the persons though we hate their errors; we shall love their souls though we loathe and detest their dogmas. And so the breath of our prayers will be sweetened because we turn our faces toward Christ when we pray.”

– Charles H. Spurgeon (1834-1892)

Cruciform:
Yes, I definitely needed a good laugh. I much appreciated heir's help on that score.

Again Cruciform offered nothing to Everready. IE:" OK, if you say so". But where is the Biblical knowledge you and other Catholics always allude to, but never present?
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4372642&postcount=54

======


Sancocho to Everready was another diversion.
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4372642&postcount=54

Completley void of any biblical or substantial rhetoric. NOTHING

Worse was Everready had replied back to Sancocho and has of yet, received no response. Thus TWICE.

Now, Who is running ?

There are many more Threads left vacant by Catholics. But let's work on these to validate your stance, " Protestants"
======
Sancocho, by your very words, your own admittance, you claim"
My advice to anyone is do what I did. Accept any challenges to one's faith and take the time to verify them one by one.
After all since I already knew Jesus there was little to be afraid of.

Well Sancocho this is your day to validate your stance. Because as you stated " There is little to be afraid of ". Validate your knowledge of Scripture for all, including Catholics. But specifically to
" I believe Protestants, as demonstrated by yourself and others on this forum daily, will not address any serious challenges because they are afraid of the implications and that is why you guys disappear frequently.

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4372898&postcount=57


Show your knowledge Sancocho. Now. WE see this as critically challenging.

=======

To all Catholics, especially Cruciform as he has the graduate degree's in Biblical theologies.

Cruciform can offer help to Dona, or simply respond to Kayaker's question to Dona.
But Cruciform, being your the only one on TOL, who is Catholic, and has co-authored a book, your in a better place to respond. Because no one in this Thread as any Biblical nor Theological graduate degree's in either specific to either.

=======
Kayaker made a very well informed critique to Dona Bate:

Noting the 4th Chapter. Kayaker is also respectfully challenging all Catholics to " step forward" and make your case.

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4373991&postcount=63

Kayakers post is just above: # 63

kayaker
July 5th, 2015, 08:24 AM
Any other gospel like heir's MAD proposes St. Paul allegedly taught makes St. Paul a heretic and so would have to have been rejected from the start.*

Since scripture*tells us that NOT even Jesus Christ Himself can be his own witness (John 8:18). It is therefore patently obvious that St. Paul cannot be his own witness to a so called 'secret gospel'. Which begs the question from heir here who supports this new and recent invention of man...


WHO TESTIFIES FOR A 'SECRET' GOSPEL NOT GIVEN TO ANYBODY ELSE BUT ST.PAUL?*


A. St. Paul? (Whoops! Nocando See John 8:18)

B. The Apostles? (Nope!... MAD itself says that they didn't know).

C. Any other witnesses? (Nope! Otherwise it wouldn't be a secret).

D. Scripture (Whoops again! Definitely wouldn't be a secret anymore would it?).

E. Christian Tradition?

(Nope! Absolutely nobody for the best part of 2,000 years even hints at a so called 'secret gospel' taught the apostles or their successors. You would have thought that somebody, or anybody in early Christian history would be bursting to mention at least once the biggest well kept secret EVER ...if anybody knew!?).


Stick a fork in it heir...


I assure you that you will find it's stuffed and well and truly COOKED!


God Bless!

Furthermore, Dona... Jesus was NOT saying His testimony was insufficient, Jesus was affirming TWO witnesses testify to the truth according to Mosaic Law. So, are you testifying Jesus' testimony is insufficient for you? Jesus' PERSONAL testimony is utterly conclusive considering His healing miracles... and, my humble background corroborates my knowledge to make a profession of faith in Jesus' divine origin that a non-educated farmer can understand... Jesus' Divinity continued to be interrogated by those NON-Israelites (John 8:33 KJV, John 8:37 KJV, John 8:39 KJV, John 8:43 KJV, Luke 3:2, 7, 8, 9, Acts 7:51, 52, Romans 9:6, 7, Revelation 2:9, 3:9 KJV) challenging His Divine origin:


John 10:32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, KJV "Jesus answered them, Many good works have I showed you from my Father, for which of those works to you stone me? 33) The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makes thyself God. 34) Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35) If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36) Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent unto the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? 37) If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. 38) But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may KNOW, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him. 39) Therefore they sought again to take him; by he escaped out of their hand."

Do you think Jesus was a blasphemer being a solitary witness to His Divine origin, Dona? That's what I hear in your highlighted words quoted above. Am I correct?

So, what was particularly unique about Jesus' healing miracles, Dona? Was Jesus just some average physician (respectfully) at the local Urgent Care? There is no record Jesus & Co. ever healed a broken bone. So, they weren't into orthopedics. Jesus was a genetic healer, Dona... no such genetic miracles have been performed since those days... there's not even a title for such healers in the medical community, although progress with gene splicing is advancing.

Jesus healed familial (heritable within families) blindness (John 9:1, 2, 3) saying, "I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work" (John 9:4 KJV). That was the ONLY time Jesus' disciples asked Him about the heritable aspect of those afflictions being healed. And, Jesus responded the second time (first in John 8:12 KJV being discussed in my prior post) that He was the LIGHT OF THE WORLD (John 9:5 KJV). How do you equate Jesus' healing miracles with Jesus being the LIGHT OF THE WORLD?

Jesus healed familial hemophilia in a woman who'd achieved her first menstrual period around age twelve, and she was bleeding to death (Matthew 9:20 KJV). Wish to discuss this further?

Jesus healed familial palsies, seizures, blindness, leprosy, deafness, Poland's syndrome, Fatal Familial Insomnia... I'm quite prepared to professionally discuss these clinical diagnoses (v. empirical) given the scant collective diagnostic clues found in the four Gospels... totally your call. The man with a withered right arm had Poland's syndrome, occurs in the US about 1/50k, have you ever met one?

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQkUv6_mNsMtmhUWiQ150J0ue3lI8asf 438PNdyMYmooTBzmEaZhw

And, you folks think you "know Jesus" better than us great-unwashed, non-Catholic infidels? Jesus' genetic miracles themselves testify to His divine Paternity, Dona. Jesus didn't need a second witness to convince me He was of Divine origin. I don't particularly hold your feet to the fire on that original professional insight. But, aren't there Catholic physicians? Didn't Peter heal HERITABLE lameness (neurodegenerative disorder) in Acts 3:2 KJV? You folks don't know Peter as well as you should!

kayaker

kayaker
July 5th, 2015, 10:14 PM
Well Rougueone... looks like we have the ball field to ourselves. Catholic silence is utterly deafening, isn't it? I like thinking these Catholics are exploring the Scriptures, but, their USCCB Bible, at least, drops subtle diversion bombs in rather strategic places at time. Consider the USCCB translation in John 8


31
Jesus then said to those Jews who believed in him,* “If you remain in my word, you will truly be my disciples,

32
and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

http://www.usccb.org/bible/john/8

They replaced "continue in my word" (John 8:31 KJV), as in keep listening, heads-up, this is real time; with "remain in my word"? Seriously? The word 'remain' has a stationary, passive connotation; while the word 'continue' endorses a 'search and discover' mode. The NT wasn't even written. How could Jesus' believers (John 8:30 KJV) 'remain' in His Word that wasn't even written? Hear the subtle diversion? "Remain" is a dead end. So "remain in my word" is a more general statement ASSUMED to be appropriate for Bible readers, today. Jesus was speaking exclusively to His believers on THAT day. Those believers believed Jesus. Don't we all believe Jesus? Rhetorically, of course. What were Jesus' believers about to learn, 'continuing in His word' that made them His "disciples indeed"? The USCCB doesn't bring Catholic readers to the 'event horizon.' Consequently, the quest for the two divine testimonies (John 8:38 KJV, and John 8:40 KJV) of these two divine witnesses (John 8:18 KJV) is never captured in the mind of the Catholic reader.

Furthermore... The USCCB Bible literally spliced a perfectly clear, "IF_____, THEN______" logic, conditional statement (a VERY powerful computer programming command, btw). IF you do this, THEN you get that. On the contrary, IF you DON'T do this, THEN you DON'T get that. IF one doesn't have a clue to the IF condition... Then, that (as in becoming JESUS' disciples) never happens... The conditional IF ain't even on the radar without a THEN.

Also, "you will truly be my disciples" in the USCCB Bible utterly dilutes Jesus' promise, His GUARANTEE of becoming disciples, approaching command, in "Ye ARE my disciples indeed" (John 8:31 KJV) found in the KJV. IF... THEN.... and ARE, nothing futuristic beyond the immediacy of His dialogue. IF... THEN... ARE NOW. And NOT "will truly be my disciples" with a fulfillment in the indefinite future.

Furthermore, "ye SHALL know the truth, and the truth SHALL make you free" evokes a more immediate and defined fulfillment of Jesus' promise; while the USCCB's "will know the truth" meanders off into the ambiguous future to be allegedly fulfilled by the Catholic Church.

I have a very difficult time accepting these subtle Catholic nuances as being benignly translated by highly esteemed Catholic Scholars. Someone's cooked the books, R.O.! No? Said nuances shift the attainment of discipleship AWAY from Jesus' prescribed endeavor, to the Catholic Church. Can you spell 'motive'? Therefore, Catholics are NOT JESUS' disciples... Catholics are someone else's disciples, and I'll leave the obvious on the table.

Thanks for listening, R.O. Hopefully a zealous Catholic will respond to the aforementioned questions on my prior posts, before they arrogantly challenge a blind wild hawg's casual observation, and seek diversion from "ye SHALL know the truth, and the truth SHALL make you free" (John 8:32 KJV)... NOW, REAL TIME... over two millennia ago, speaking of antiquity.

kayaker

rougueone
July 8th, 2015, 09:06 PM
Well Rougueone... looks like we have the ball field to ourselves. Catholic silence is utterly deafening, isn't it? I like thinking these Catholics are exploring the Scriptures, but, their USCCB Bible, at least, drops subtle diversion bombs in rather strategic places at time. Consider the USCCB translation in John 8


31
Jesus then said to those Jews who believed in him,* “If you remain in my word, you will truly be my disciples,

32
and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

http://www.usccb.org/bible/john/8

They replaced "continue in my word" (John 8:31 KJV), as in keep listening, heads-up, this is real time; with "remain in my word"? Seriously? The word 'remain' has a stationary, passive connotation; while the word 'continue' endorses a 'search and discover' mode. The NT wasn't even written. How could Jesus' believers (John 8:30 KJV) 'remain' in His Word that wasn't even written? Hear the subtle diversion? "Remain" is a dead end. So "remain in my word" is a more general statement ASSUMED to be appropriate for Bible readers, today. Jesus was speaking exclusively to His believers on THAT day. Those believers believed Jesus. Don't we all believe Jesus? Rhetorically, of course. What were Jesus' believers about to learn, 'continuing in His word' that made them His "disciples indeed"? The USCCB doesn't bring Catholic readers to the 'event horizon.' Consequently, the quest for the two divine testimonies (John 8:38 KJV, and John 8:40 KJV) of these two divine witnesses (John 8:18 KJV) is never captured in the mind of the Catholic reader.

Furthermore... The USCCB Bible literally spliced a perfectly clear, "IF_____, THEN______" logic, conditional statement (a VERY powerful computer programming command, btw). IF you do this, THEN you get that. On the contrary, IF you DON'T do this, THEN you DON'T get that. IF one doesn't have a clue to the IF condition... Then, that (as in becoming JESUS' disciples) never happens... The conditional IF ain't even on the radar without a THEN.

Also, "you will truly be my disciples" in the USCCB Bible utterly dilutes Jesus' promise, His GUARANTEE of becoming disciples, approaching command, in "Ye ARE my disciples indeed" (John 8:31 KJV) found in the KJV. IF... THEN.... and ARE, nothing futuristic beyond the immediacy of His dialogue. IF... THEN... ARE NOW. And NOT "will truly be my disciples" with a fulfillment in the indefinite future.

Furthermore, "ye SHALL know the truth, and the truth SHALL make you free" evokes a more immediate and defined fulfillment of Jesus' promise; while the USCCB's "will know the truth" meanders off into the ambiguous future to be allegedly fulfilled by the Catholic Church.

I have a very difficult time accepting these subtle Catholic nuances as being benignly translated by highly esteemed Catholic Scholars. Someone's cooked the books, R.O.! No? Said nuances shift the attainment of discipleship AWAY from Jesus' prescribed endeavor, to the Catholic Church. Can you spell 'motive'? Therefore, Catholics are NOT JESUS' disciples... Catholics are someone else's disciples, and I'll leave the obvious on the table.

Thanks for listening, R.O. Hopefully a zealous Catholic will respond to the aforementioned questions on my prior posts, before they arrogantly challenge a blind wild hawg's casual observation, and seek diversion from "ye SHALL know the truth, and the truth SHALL make you free" (John 8:32 KJV)... NOW, REAL TIME... over two millennia ago, speaking of antiquity.

kayaker

Your correct kayaker. Their deceptive cadence was silenced again by Gods Words. Nothing can trump the word of God.
The truth as you revealed is indeed solely in Scripture. The 66 books of truth. But the Vatican has created a very clever illusion to deceive. And it worked. Hence the mastery of Satan. Twist the words of God just enough to snare the soul of man, into Satan's web of deceit.

Puppet
July 8th, 2015, 10:55 PM
Your correct kayaker. Their deceptive cadence was silenced again by Gods Words. Nothing can trump the word of God.
The truth as you revealed is indeed solely in Scripture. The 66 books of truth. But the Vatican has created a very clever illusion to deceive. And it worked. Hence the mastery of Satan. Twist the words of God just enough to snare the soul of man, into Satan's web of deceit.


The real Christians removed the 7 uninspired books and finalize the 66 book bible to be the complete bible. The RCC kept the 7 man made books and still use the 73 book bible. This error made the RCC produce more errors and ended up not being the church Christ founded

Sancocho
July 9th, 2015, 09:06 AM
Why is it that some people think if they make multiple quotes of the Bible and attempt to refute sentence for sentence any opinion they disagree with that somehow this imparts validity to their argument?

This is not Jesus' way, that's for sure. His comments are powerful in their simplicity because it speaks to our logic and conscience.

Of course this is going to conflict with those that believe actions have little relevance in this world as sinning is pre-programmed thus for them repeating Scripture is their only connection to Jesus Christ so obviously the more the better.

HisServant
July 9th, 2015, 09:31 AM
Why is it that some people think if they make multiple quotes of the Bible and attempt to refute sentence for sentence any opinion they disagree with that somehow this imparts validity to their argument?

This is not Jesus' way, that's for sure. His comments are powerful in their simplicity because it speaks to our logic and conscience.

Of course this is going to conflict with those that believe actions have little relevance in this world as sinning is pre-programmed thus for them repeating Scripture is their only connection to Jesus Christ so obviously the more the better.

Just looks a the actions of your church before you throw stones... its as bloody as the Muslims.

Sancocho
July 9th, 2015, 09:49 AM
Just looks a the actions of your church before you throw stones... its as bloody as the Muslims.

The amount of people Muslim terrorists kill every year is statistically insignificant compared to the number of children killed due to Protestant US and Europe.

The Catholic Church leaders have made mistakes, as do all people. Nonetheless, the Catholic Church saves millions of lives every year.

Sancocho
July 9th, 2015, 10:01 AM
The Crusades death toll is anywhere from a million to a couple of millions. The Inquisition was responsible for a matter of thousands to tens of thousands of deaths. These are both poor examples of Christian leadership.

Nonetheless, these happened many centuries ago. Currently the Catholic Church probably saves on the order of 15-20 million persons every year mostly because of prohibiting child sacrifice. Since it was generally accepted almost 50 years ago that calculates to almost a billion lives saved.

Interestingly, Protestants would have us believe their leaders never commit grave errors. Of course this is easy to make this claim because whenever a Protestant sees a church leader sin he joins another church. When the inevitable happens again rinse and repeat. Then the Protestant will eventually start his own church until he too realizes he makes poor decisions. The natural progression is then to reject any form of church structure so one does not have to be responsible for anyones sins. Welcome to America.

everready
July 9th, 2015, 11:20 PM
The Crusades death toll is anywhere from a million to a couple of millions. The Inquisition was responsible for a matter of thousands to tens of thousands of deaths. These are both poor examples of Christian leadership.

Nonetheless, these happened many centuries ago. Currently the Catholic Church probably saves on the order of 15-20 million persons every year mostly because of prohibiting child sacrifice. Since it was generally accepted almost 50 years ago that calculates to almost a billion lives saved.

Interestingly, Protestants would have us believe their leaders never commit grave errors. Of course this is easy to make this claim because whenever a Protestant sees a church leader sin he joins another church. When the inevitable happens again rinse and repeat. Then the Protestant will eventually start his own church until he too realizes he makes poor decisions. The natural progression is then to reject any form of church structure so one does not have to be responsible for anyones sins. Welcome to America.

You know what they say about people that live in glass houses don't you?


everready

heir
July 9th, 2015, 11:54 PM
So in John's letter to the seven churches in the province of Asia, you believe that all those churches that John addressed were entirely Jewish without any Gentiles?

John was in the Spirit on the Lord's day (Revelation 1:10 KJV).

John is not the apostle of the Gentiles, Paul is (Romans 11:13 KJV).

heir
July 9th, 2015, 11:56 PM
Yes, I definitely needed a good laugh. I much appreciated heir's help on that score. :thumb:What you need is the good news that is the power of God to save you. Trust the Lord after hearing and believing what Christ did 2000 years ago was sufficient to save you 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV, Ephesians 1:13-14 KJV). If not, you will perish (2 Thessalonians 2:10 KJV).

heir
July 9th, 2015, 11:57 PM
So you think a quote from another Protestant who doesn't know the Bible much less Christian history much less the origin of his own church would somehow convince me to believe half-truths???
What is the gospel of your salvation?

heir
July 9th, 2015, 11:58 PM
Salvation is instantaneously without all those made made rituals you mentioned and no masters degree in history from Yale is required. "Instant" is a lot quicker than you have any clue about. Thats why you don't need RCC to ordain you and autorize to to preach and lead. RCC is a denomination like all others. Thay are the same.And how about you: What is the gospel of your salvation?

heir
July 9th, 2015, 11:59 PM
So you are the only one that can change denominations and yet still know Christ??There is a gospel that is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth. Have you trusted the Lord for salvation after hearing and believing it? If so, what is it?

heir
July 10th, 2015, 12:00 AM
So you are the only one that can change denominations and yet still know Christ??There are no denominations in the one Body (1 Corinthians 12:13 KJV, Ephesians 4:4-6 KJV).

heir
July 10th, 2015, 12:13 AM
Any other gospel like heir's MAD proposes St. Paul allegedly taught makes St. Paul a heretic and so would have to have been rejected from the start.*You have it backwards. If any one preach any other gospel "unto you" than that which Paul preached, let him be accursed. And that's exactly what your RCO does.

Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Galatians 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

You don't have to go down with them! You can be saved!


Since scripture*tells us that NOT even Jesus Christ Himself can be his own witness (John 8:18). It is therefore patently obvious that St. Paul cannot be his own witness to a so called 'secret gospel'. Which begs the question from heir here who supports this new and recent invention of man...So you don't believe what Paul wrote is scripture. Peter testified that he did!

2 Peter 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.



WHO TESTIFIES FOR A 'SECRET' GOSPEL NOT GIVEN TO ANYBODY ELSE BUT ST.PAUL?*The scripture testifies it!

Romans 16:25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,

Romans 16:26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:

Romans 16:27 To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen.



Galatians 1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

Galatians 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

I hope that you will trust the Lord for salvation believing Paul's gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV). If there's never been a moment in your life when you have, you are lost and no pope or church membership/affiliation is going to save you. God will judge you by Jesus Christ according to Paul's gospel (Romans 2:16 KJV). You can only be a fellowheir and of the same Body and partaker of God's promise in Christ by the gospel (Ephesians 3:6 KJV). Christ's faith and work is your only hope (Galatians 1:3-5 KJV, Galatians 2:16 KJV, Ephesians 2:4-9 KJV, Titus 1:2 KJV).

heir
July 10th, 2015, 12:19 AM
The amount of people Muslim terrorists kill every year is statistically insignificant compared to the number of children killed due to Protestant US and Europe.

The Catholic Church leaders have made mistakes, as do all people. Nonetheless, the Catholic Church saves millions of lives every year.The amount of people the Catholic church hides the gospel of Christ from tops them all!

2 Corinthians 11:13-15 KJV

everready
July 10th, 2015, 01:02 AM
The amount of people the Catholic church hides the gospel of Christ from tops them all!

2 Corinthians 11:13-15 KJV

Absolutely correct!


everready

Puppet
July 10th, 2015, 06:06 AM
And how about you: What is the gospel of your salvation?

Can you rephrase that repetitive arminian question to a more traditional one? Do you mean what is the source of my salvation? Or what saves me? Or how am I saved? I'm sure I've answered you but your looking for what kind of work I've done to gain God's acceptance.

kayaker
July 10th, 2015, 02:25 PM
TO SANCOCHO:


Why is it that some people think if they make multiple quotes of the Bible and attempt to refute sentence for sentence any opinion they disagree with that somehow this imparts validity to their argument?

Ahhh, the Catholic subtlety, San… “soooome people,” “muuuuultipe quotes,” “aaaaany opinion…” And, no rebuttal? Unlike your bilaterally blown pupil Catholic colleagues, I think I just saw an ever so slight reaction in your left pupil. A good thing, btw! Catholics have taken on a massive Scriptural dusting off on this thread… you amaze me you’re still here! There might just be Hope for you after all. In a sense, you make a good point, but your lack of focus (a Catholic phenomenon) precedes you. I beg your patience momentarily until I address your argument that the Catholics have allegedly killed fewer people than Protestants.


This is not Jesus' way, that's for sure.

You guys are far further than being two testimonies (John 8:18 KJV, John 8:38 KJV, John 8:40 KJV) short of the truth (John 8:32 KJV, John 8:32 KJV). And, suggest you know “Jesus’ way, that’s for sure”? Does John 14:6 KJV ring a bell, San? Do Jesus’ own words in Matthew 23:13 KJV, Matthew 23:14 KJV, Matthew 23:15 KJV, Matthew 23:23 KJV, Matthew 23:25 KJV, Matthew 23:27 KJV, Matthew 23:29 KJV paint a different picture of Jesus? How about Matthew 23:33 KJV as Jesus spoke to your early church fathers? Any further thoughts on Revelation 2:9, 3:9? And, Catholics portray Jesus either as a suckling babe, or a defeated mangled flesh body hanging on the cross?


His comments are powerful in their simplicity because it speaks to our logic and conscience.

Swooning, detached, Catholic generalities, San. Spoken like a good Protestant, btw. Try to focus, San! Those non-Israelites (John 8:33 KJV) who instigated Jesus’ crucifixion (John 8:37 KJV) were “Abraham’s seed” (John 8:33 KJV); ‘they’ just weren’t “Abraham’s children” (John 8:39 KJV). Such is intentionally not delineated in your USCCB Catholic Bible. How more simple is this, San? Abraham sired ‘seed’ via Hagar, Sarah, and Keturah (and concubines, Genesis 25:1, 2, 3, 4). Moses even said Abraham’s progeny via Keturah were “the children of Keturah” (Genesis 25:4 KJV), and not Abraham (John 8:39 KJV; Luke 3:2, 7, 8, 9; Romans 9:6, 7; Revelation 2:9, 3:9). Simple?

Those non-Israelites (John 8:33 KJV) seeking Jesus’ crucifixion were “Abraham’s seed” (John 8:37 KJV) being descendants of Judah, prophesied progenitor of Jesus (Isaiah 65:9 KJV). That paternal link SHOULD have made ‘them’ Israelites, right?

1) It just so happens those non-Israelite alleged ‘Jews’ who instigated Jesus crucifixion were descendants of Judah and his CANAANITE wife (Genesis 38:2 KJV, 1Chronicles 2:3, Genesis 38:26 KJV; Numbers 26:20 KJV; 1Chronicles 4:1 KJV [excluding 1Chronicles 4:21, 22]).

2) While Jesus was a descendant of Judah and his ISRAELITE PRIESTESS daughter-in-law, Tamar (Genesis 38:24 KJV; Leviticus 21:9 KJV; Genesis 38:28 KJV; Ruth 4:18 KJV, Ruth 4:19 KJV, Ruth 4:20 KJV, Ruth 4:21 KJV, Ruth 4:22 KJV; Matthew 1:1 KJV, Matthew 1:2 KJV, Matthew 1:3 KJV, Luke 3:31 KJV, Luke 3:32 KJV, Luke 3:33 KJV).

San… until you capture the utter magnitude of this Scriptural “TRUTH,” you’re swooning in the dark! And, Catholics tell me they ‘know’ who Jesus is? You’ve only heard ABOUT Him, Sancocho.


Of course this is going to conflict with those that believe actions have little relevance in this world as sinning is pre-programmed thus for them repeating Scripture is their only connection to Jesus Christ so obviously the more the better.

ACTIONS San? Actions! What was the Great Commission, SAN (Matthew 28:19)? THAT’s where Catholics TOTALLY dropped the ball! Where are Catholic fruits of the Spirit being Jesus’ disciples?

NONE, Sancocho. There’s NOT a single Disciple of Jesus among the whole lot of Catholics (John 8:18 KJV, John 8:38 KJV, John 8:40 KJV, John 8:31 KJV, John 8:32 KJV).

Yes? Then, send him or her forth offering fruits worthy of repentance (Luke 3:2, 7, 8, 9; John 8:18 KJV, John 8:38 KJV, John 8:40 KJV).

And, Catholics jump the gun exalting themselves as the great unsullied because Catholics allegedly killed fewer people than the great unwashed? Do you really think there has never been a single Catholic female on planet earth who had an abortion? The U.S. Council on Catholic Bishops (USCCB) TOTALLY glossed over Catholic participation in abortions, just as you have, San:

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/abortion/current-abortion-statistics.cfm

No delineation there, right? Not a whisper… How convenient that you throw the whole lot of abortions upon non-Catholic infidels, SAN!



WHO HAS ABORTIONS?

• Thirty-seven percent of women obtaining abortions identify as Protestant and 28% identify as Catholic.[3]

• Forty-two percent of women obtaining abortions have incomes below 100% of the federal poverty level ($10,830 for a single woman with no children).[3]

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

3. Jones RK, Finer LB and Singh S, Characteristics of U.S. Abortion Patients, 2008, New York: Guttmacher Institute, 2010.

Do you want to draw a sword and split babies now, San? Catholics exalt themselves being accusers of the brethren, San. Are there any Catholics here on the DFACS adoptive parent list for a crack baby? Where are all those orphanages at the wealthy Vatican? The orphanage in my hometown is Methodist, btw.

kayaker

Right Divider
July 10th, 2015, 02:57 PM
Somehow you missed the part that I was a member of a Protestant church even though I was born Catholic. Unlike you apparently I will accept any challenges to my beliefs. However, after doing the research I'm back in the RCC.
"Born Catholic" :jump:
Just like my mother-in-law.

Cruciform
July 10th, 2015, 04:01 PM
"Born Catholic." Just like my mother-in-law.
Your point...?

kayaker
July 10th, 2015, 07:51 PM
Jesus was born an Adamite/Sethite/Shemite/Hebrew/Israelite-Pharzite Jew. Where exactly was Peter's arrival generation prophesied in Genesis? Or... the Pope's? Speaking of six millennia of antiquity overruling the Catholic man-made version of church since antiquity??? Only some 2 millennia of endless genealogies ago? Seriously? God's church began in Genesis 4:26 KJV when "men began to call upon the name of the Lord." God's Anointed showed up 4,300 years later, "seventy and sevenfold" generations from Almighty God prophesied by Lamech in Genesis 4:24 KJV... and Peter denied Him. Peter even denied the Pentecostal Holy Spirit not standing and speaking the Pentecostal Gospel (Acts 2:13 KJV, Acts 2:14 KJV).

You Catholics have any disciples of Jesus on TOL (John 8:18 KJV, John 8:38 KJV, John 8:40 KJV)? All I'm hearing is a rooster that's been crowing for two millennia...

kayaker

Cruciform
July 10th, 2015, 09:04 PM
What you need is the good news that is the power of God to save you.
Catholics were teaching the Christian doctrine of justification by faith for fifteen centuries before a single Protestant ever managed to stumble onto the scene. I've been a Christian for most of my life. Thanks for the tip, though.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Cruciform
July 10th, 2015, 09:12 PM
The amount of people the Catholic Church hides the gospel of Christ from tops them all!
That would be quite a neat trick, since the entire Catholic liturgy is designed to communicate and enact---to reveal---the Gospel of Jesus Christ. :doh:


2 Corinthians 11:13-15 KJV
Hmm... Reminds one of the myriad competing and contradictory recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic denominations and sects in existence today, with more being concocted every week. Tragic.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Ben Masada
July 10th, 2015, 11:07 PM
I thought all Catholics already believed their first Pope who was Paul the founder of Christianity. That's the conclusion I have come to from reading Acts 11:26 where it says that Christians started being called Christians for the first time with Paul in Antioch. Otherwise, who could have been the first Pope? Peter couldn't have been because he never ceased being a Jew. So, how could Peter have been the first Pope? It would make no sense. Don't you agree?

Puppet
July 11th, 2015, 05:39 AM
I thought all Catholics already believed their first Pope who was Paul the founder of Christianity. That's the conclusion I have come to from reading Acts 11:26 where it says that Christians started being called Christians for the first time with Paul in Antioch. Otherwise, who could have been the first Pope? Peter couldn't have been because he never ceased being a Jew. So, how could Peter have been the first Pope? It would make no sense. Don't you agree?

Absolutely. RCC got it wrong from the very start but that's how they like it it. There are profits in their lies. Everyone can share the gospel

kayaker
July 11th, 2015, 12:10 PM
I thought all Catholics already believed their first Pope who was Paul the founder of Christianity. That's the conclusion I have come to from reading Acts 11:26 where it says that Christians started being called Christians for the first time with Paul in Antioch. Otherwise, who could have been the first Pope? Peter couldn't have been because he never ceased being a Jew. So, how could Peter have been the first Pope? It would make no sense. Don't you agree?

I’m not a ’pope’ kinda dude, Ben. I’m more of a Jesus/Holy Spirit kinda guy (Matthew 13:15 KJV; John 14:16 KJV, John 14:17 KJV, John 14:24 KJV, John 14:26 KJV). If anyone were to be a pope, it would most certainly have been Paul. Early in his ministry, Peter didn’t know a sheep from shinola, respectfully. Jesus instructed Peter to ‘feed HIS sheep’, three times (John 21:16, 17, 18). That was OT ancestral truth corroborating the ‘name’, the ancestry of Jesus.

Jesus was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matthew 15:24 KJV), to whom He sent His disciples both before His crucifixion (Matthew 10:6 KJV), and after His resurrection (John 20:21 KJV, John 20:22 KJV). So, who explicitly were the lost sheep of the house of Israel, then?

The lost sheep were predominately the descendants of Judah via his Israelite Priestess daughter-in-law, Tamar (Leviticus 21:9 KJV, Genesis 38:24 KJV). Their eldest twin son Pharez (Genesis 38:29 KJV, Genesis 38:30 KJV) is found in the lineage of King David and Jesus (Ruth 4:17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22; Matthew 1:1, 2, 3; Luke 3:31, 32, 33). Do note: The descendants of Benjamin were called Benjamites, of Levi came the Levites… but, the descendants of Judah via Tamar were essentially fatherless, and without a patriarchal title (Genesis 38:26 KJV). There are no ‘Judahites’ specifically mentioned in the Books of Moshe. Hence: lost sheep of the house of Israel. Paul was fully aware of Judah’s Canaanite wife v. Israelite Priestess daughter-in-law, Tamar: Romans 9:6 KJV, Romans 9:7 KJV, Romans 9:8 KJV. Only ONE maternal ancestress could fulfill Isaiah 65:9 KJV, and that’s what the rift was all about.

On the contrary, Peter was not keen on this maternal ancestral distinction early in his ministry considering Peter’s address to those Pentecostal mockers (Acts 2:13 KJV, Acts 2:14 KJV) in Acts 2:22 KJV, “Ye men of Israel, hear these words…” Those mockers Peter addressed included the instigators of Jesus’ crucifixion who were not ethnic Israelite Jews (John 8:33 KJV, John 8:41 KJV). Therefore, those mockers, Peter’s audience at Pentecost, were definitely not all lost sheep of the house of Israel via Judah and his Israelite Priestess daughter-in-law Tamar!

Those mockers Peter addressed included Judah’s circumcised descendants via his Canaanitess wife (1Chronicles 2:3) who was the daughter of the Canaanite Shuah (Genesis 38:2 KJV). They’re called Shelanites (Numbers 26:20 KJV), they are not ethnic Jews, and those Shelanites were not included in the tribe of Judah illuminated by Ezra in 1Chronicles 4:1 KJV. The tribe of Judah only included descendants of Judah and Tamar, and Ezra explicitly excluded those Shelanite descendants of Judah and his Canaanitess wife (1Chronicles 4:21, 22).

Judah’s Canaanite father-in-law Shuah (in v. 2) was a ‘son’ of Keturah (not Abraham), wife of Abraham after Sarah died (Genesis 25:1, 2, 3, 4). Moses neither included Judah’s father-in-law Shuah among the sons of Abraham in v. 4, nor was Judah’s father-in-law Shuah considered a ‘son’ of Abraham according to Moses in Genesis 25:9 KJV. Jesus didn’t seem to think so either in John 8:39 KJV. Paul was astutely aware of this ‘seed’ v. ‘son’ distinction in Galatians 4:22 KJV among other places. Peter evidently didn’t perceive this authentic Jewish ancestral distinction (Revelation 2:9, 3:9) when Peter spoke to those Pentecostal mockers, “Ye men of Israel…” Judah’s father-in-law Shuah was a Canaanite contrary to Deuteronomy 7:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, that Ezra confirmed 1,400 years later in Ezra 9:1, 2 as being a “great trespass” (Ezra 9:7 KJV). DEFINITELY not lost sheep of the house of Israel!

Those non-Israelite mockers Peter addressed were descendants of Abraham both via Judah, AND via Judah’s Canaanitess wife (1Chronicles 2:3 KJV). Therefore, those mockers Peter addressed were not all “men of Israel,” but they were all ‘men of Abraham.’ Those mockers Peter addressed at Pentecost included those who WERE NOT Jesus’ lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Catholics don’t know this, btw… They don't know their early church was infiltrated by circumcised non-Israelites proclaiming authority in the Books of Moshe. Otherwise, they might take a closer look at who Peter’s alleged one historic early church’s fathers were. A proverbial house of cards…

kayaker

Sancocho
July 11th, 2015, 05:08 PM
Absolutely. RCC got it wrong from the very start but that's how they like it it. There are profits in their lies. Everyone can share the gospel

Jesus chose Peter to be the head of His church so agreeing to a claim he is not disagrees with your Bible.

BTW, what is the relationship of your church to that of Peter or Paul's?

Puppet
July 11th, 2015, 07:02 PM
Jesus chose Peter to be the head of His church so agreeing to a claim he is not disagrees with your Bible.

BTW, what is the relationship of your church to that of Peter or Paul's?

Apostlic succession got broken so you guys fixed by making up a pope and started over. we found out you've been lying along and became protestants . The Holy Spitit got our church to where it is now. Forget about the lost records of inaccurate popes

kayaker
July 11th, 2015, 07:31 PM
Jesus chose Peter to be the head of His church so agreeing to a claim he is not disagrees with your Bible.

BTW, what is the relationship of your church to that of Peter or Paul's?

I've suggested Peter's alleged one historic Catholic Church (as in members/people) began specifically in Acts 2 incorporating those Pentecostal mockers (Acts 2:13, 14). I hear the Catholic notion all the time about Peter being "the head of His church," as you suggest. If Peter's first church (as in members/people) wasn't in Acts 2... I'm curious where in Scripture Catholics think Peter's first church was (as in members/people)? Doesn't it stand to reason said church would be explicitly illustrated in Scripture?

kayaker

Sancocho
July 11th, 2015, 09:23 PM
I've suggested Peter's alleged one historic Catholic Church (as in members/people) began specifically in Acts 2 incorporating those Pentecostal mockers (Acts 2:13, 14). I hear the Catholic notion all the time about Peter being "the head of His church," as you suggest. If Peter's first church (as in members/people) wasn't in Acts 2... I'm curious where in Scripture Catholics think Peter's first church was (as in members/people)? Doesn't it stand to reason said church would be explicitly illustrated in Scripture?

kayaker

If you are claiming that apostolic succession ended with Peter then you also cannot claim sola scriptura nor can you use the New Testament to defend any claims you make because:

A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. ... A good tree is not able to bear bad fruit, nor a bad tree to bear good fruit

thus the bible you reference would be invalid as it was written by Catholics centuries after the disciples and was not even available to the public for many more centuries after that.

Sancocho
July 11th, 2015, 09:25 PM
Apostlic succession got broken so you guys fixed by making up a pope and started over. we found out you've been lying along and became protestants . The Holy Spitit got our church to where it is now. Forget about the lost records of inaccurate popes

You are confused my friend. You agreed Peter was not the head of Christ's church which means all protestant religions from Luther and on are false as is the bible La Reina Valera. Maybe you want to clarify when you believe Apostolic succession was broken.

everready
July 11th, 2015, 10:20 PM
Jesus chose Peter to be the head of His church so agreeing to a claim he is not disagrees with your Bible.

BTW, what is the relationship of your church to that of Peter or Paul's?

Is this how you see Peter?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bf/Pope_Pius_VIII_in_St._Peter%27s_on_the_Sedia_Gesta toria.PNG/250px-Pope_Pius_VIII_in_St._Peter%27s_on_the_Sedia_Gesta toria.PNG


everready

kayaker
July 11th, 2015, 10:32 PM
TO: Sancocho


KAYAKER: I've suggested Peter's alleged one historic Catholic Church (as in members/people) began specifically in Acts 2 incorporating those Pentecostal mockers (Acts 2:13, 14). I hear the Catholic notion all the time about Peter being "the head of His church," as you suggest. If Peter's first church (as in members/people) wasn't in Acts 2... I'm curious where in Scripture Catholics think Peter's first church was (as in members/people)? Doesn't it stand to reason said church would be explicitly illustrated in Scripture?


SANCOCHO: If you are claiming that apostolic succession ended with Peter then you also cannot claim sola scriptura nor can you use the New Testament to defend any claims you make because:

A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. ... A good tree is not able to bear bad fruit, nor a bad tree to bear good fruit

thus the bible you reference would be invalid as it was written by Catholics centuries after the disciples and was not even available to the public for many more centuries after that.

Huh? I didn’t say anything about aspostolic succession, sola scriptura, or any particular Bible. I simply asked who Peter’s first church members were if they were not those mockers in Acts 2. Does your Bible have the Books of Acts? The USCCB Bible has the Book of Acts. Well, who were Peter’s first church members, then?

kayaker

Puppet
July 12th, 2015, 05:33 AM
You are confused my friend. You agreed Peter was not the head of Christ's church which means all protestant religions from Luther and on are false as is the bible La Reina Valera. Maybe you want to clarify when you believe Apostolic succession was broken.

I found the use of the word, could, might, maybe, may be, believed to be, on my historical searches of the first or second pope. When in doubt, dont add to the bible. RCC is full of doubts. Protestantism are big cause they know what they're talking about on other subjects. The holy Spirit moved on a very long time and without the Spirit, RCC became a cult. Martian luther was right, they lost their minds

kayaker
July 19th, 2015, 08:29 AM
TO: Sancocho

Huh? I didn’t say anything about aspostolic succession, sola scriptura, or any particular Bible. I simply asked who Peter’s first church members were if they were not those mockers in Acts 2. Does your Bible have the Books of Acts? The USCCB Bible has the Book of Acts. Well, who were Peter’s first church members, then?

kayaker

Sansocho rides off into the Catholic sunset... that's eastward, of course. Don't you just hate it when some Catholics just disappear, like ghosts?


2Peter 2:17-22, KJV "These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever. 18) For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error. 19) While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage. 20) For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. 21) For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. 22) But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire."

kayaker

Cruciform
July 19th, 2015, 02:57 PM
Is this how you see Peter?
No, since Christ's Church hadn't yet developed to that liturgical and cultural level. This is how I see Peter:




http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_-vNTK6_ARcE/S4HxmiIp2zI/AAAAAAAAluU/5-3EUEiqQUk/s400/IMG_7474_3812_web.jpg

kayaker
July 19th, 2015, 08:47 PM
Peter firstly denied the Holy Ghost not standing and speaking the Pentecostal Gospel at Pentecost (Acts 2:14 KJV). Peter secondly denied the Holy Ghost inspired Gospel preaching another gospel at Pentecost in Acts 2:22 KJV. And, Peter thirdly denied the Holy Ghost preaching another gospel to those Pentecostal mockers (Acts 2:13 KJV) who included those non-Israelites (John 8:33 KJV) that instigated Jesus' crucifixion (John 8:28 KJV, John 8:37 KJV). Those non-Israelite mockers were NOT lost sheep of the house of Israel who Jesus commanded Peter to feed THREE times: Feed MY lambs, Feed MY sheep. Peter's one historic church at Pentecost was infiltrated by those circumcised non-Israelites, just like they infiltrated the true Israelite Jewish synagogues. Ask Crucifer who the members of Peter's one historic church were, if they were not those Pentecostal mockers! Here's another pic of Peter early in his ministry, Everready:

http://www.backyardchickens.com/forum/uploads/5415_0704092006.jpg

Sancocho
July 20th, 2015, 08:34 AM
Sansocho rides off into the Catholic sunset... that's eastward, of course. Don't you just hate it when some Catholics just disappear, like ghosts?


Nice try, after reading Puppet responses I saw no need in responding, he is all over the place.

I am not really following your theory. Nonetheless, please trace your denomination to Peter. Please also tell us when you believe the RCC departed from the Body of Christ.

everready
July 20th, 2015, 11:10 PM
No, since Christ's Church hadn't yet developed to that liturgical and cultural level. This is how I see Peter:




http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_-vNTK6_ARcE/S4HxmiIp2zI/AAAAAAAAluU/5-3EUEiqQUk/s400/IMG_7474_3812_web.jpg

Hadn't developed to that level? level of what?


everready

Sancocho
July 20th, 2015, 11:13 PM
I thought all Catholics already believed their first Pope who was Paul the founder of Christianity. That's the conclusion I have come to from reading Acts 11:26 where it says that Christians started being called Christians for the first time with Paul in Antioch. Otherwise, who could have been the first Pope? Peter couldn't have been because he never ceased being a Jew. So, how could Peter have been the first Pope? It would make no sense. Don't you agree?

Peter was a Jew. Peter was chosen to lead Christ's church here on earth.

Do you follow the Christ too?

Right Divider
July 21st, 2015, 12:46 PM
Peter was a Jew. Peter was chosen to lead Christ's church here on earth.

Do you follow the Christ too?
Peter was ONE of the TWELVE. Only in RCC mythology does he become the singular "pope".
1Co 4:15-16 KJV For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. (16) Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.

1Co 11:1 KJV Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
Paul says that we should follow him and not Peter.

Sancocho
July 21st, 2015, 01:12 PM
Peter was ONE of the TWELVE. Only in RCC mythology does he become the singular "pope".
1Co 4:15-16 KJV For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. (16) Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.

1Co 11:1 KJV Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
Paul says that we should follow him and not Peter.

I was actually referring to your bible that we gave you.

everready
July 21st, 2015, 01:32 PM
I was actually referring to your bible that we gave you.

The bible you gave us?

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0031/0031_01.asp


everready

Cruciform
July 21st, 2015, 01:51 PM
Hadn't developed to that level? level of what?
As I said, the infant Church had not yet developed to the liturgical and cultural level that it would eventually reach.

Cruciform
July 21st, 2015, 01:54 PM
http://www.chick.com...
Don't even bother (http://www.catholic.com/documents/the-nightmare-world-of-jack-t-chick).

everready
July 21st, 2015, 02:13 PM
Don't even bother (http://www.catholic.com/documents/the-nightmare-world-of-jack-t-chick).

Has nothing to do with Jack Chick, due to the counter reformation most Protestants have forgotten what happened when we finally did get the bible translated into English.

http://biblebelievers.com/foxes/findex.htm


everready

Sancocho
July 21st, 2015, 02:22 PM
The bible you gave us?

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0031/0031_01.asp


everready

Chick is not reputable.

Nonetheless, lets go with your supposition that Luther or the Church of England are the natural successors to the disciples of Christ. Do you accept their teaching, very Catholic in nature, as well? Or do we need to follow a similar path of successors to get to you and your denomination?

Also, the KJV is a Bible in just one language, and there are many in this world so getting in a discussion about semantics with a bilingual person is generally a losing effort. Finally, the KJV isn't so different than some Catholic versions, other than divorce was now made justifiable for various reasons because after all that is why King Henry created the Church of England.

Cruciform
July 21st, 2015, 02:31 PM
...foxes...
Again, don't even bother (http://reocities.com/Athens/troy/6480/actsandmonuments.html).

Right Divider
July 21st, 2015, 10:34 PM
I was actually referring to your bible that we gave you.
Hilarious. Your brain-washing is complete. Enjoy your false religion.

Sancocho
July 21st, 2015, 10:52 PM
Hilarious. Your brain-washing is complete. Enjoy your false religion.

You have no references that can prove we did not give you your bible.

everready
July 21st, 2015, 11:31 PM
You have no references that can prove we did not give you your bible.

That's a pretty brazen statement, God gave us our bibles, you've never owned Gods word


everready

Ben Masada
July 22nd, 2015, 04:38 AM
Peter was a Jew. Peter was chosen to lead Christ's church here on earth.

Do you follow the Christ too?

You are wrong because Jesus does not have a church for Peter to lead and Peter cannot lead any thing from the grave. He has been dead for about 2000 years already. I thought you knew that by now.

Sancocho
July 22nd, 2015, 09:37 AM
That's a pretty brazen statement, God gave us our bibles, you've never owned Gods word


everready

And you still have no references.

Sancocho
July 22nd, 2015, 09:38 AM
You are wrong because Jesus does not have a church for Peter to lead and Peter cannot lead any thing from the grave. He has been dead for about 2000 years already. I thought you knew that by now.

You are on a Christian forum, I would have thought you knew that by now.

Right Divider
July 22nd, 2015, 12:04 PM
You have no references that can prove we did not give you your bible.
Being the brain-washed religionist that you are, you completely ignore that fact that there is NO WAY to "prove" a negative. You and the other RCC'ers here are complete ILLOGICAL in this regard.

But if you are dumb enough to think that the RCC "gave us" the books of Moses, then your brain-washing is complete.

Scripture is given by inspiration of God and nobody needs a bogus religion to figure that out.

Right Divider
July 22nd, 2015, 12:05 PM
And you still have no references.
Like a broken record.......... you're a spammer like the rest of the RCC'ers here.

Sancocho
July 22nd, 2015, 12:08 PM
Being the brain-washed religionist that you are, you completely ignore that fact that there is NO WAY to "prove" a negative. You and the other RCC'ers here are complete ILLOGICAL in this regard.

But if you are dumb enough to think that the RCC "gave us" the books of Moses, then your brain-washing is complete.

Scripture is given by inspiration of God and nobody needs a bogus religion to figure that out.

I am a graduate engineer now involved in teaching and research and have to take with a grain of salt all empty claims.

Right Divider
July 22nd, 2015, 12:19 PM
I am a graduate engineer now involved in teaching and research and have to take with a grain of salt all empty claims.
Then why are you an RC?

Seems like you are also schizophrenic?

Sancocho
July 22nd, 2015, 12:31 PM
Then why are you an RC?

Seems like you are also schizophrenic?

I was Protestant as well. Unlike you though I don't believe every claim everyone makes without verifying it myself. You should try that sometime.

Cruciform
July 22nd, 2015, 04:06 PM
That's a pretty brazen statement, God gave us our bibles...
Yes, God gave the Bible to humanity---and he did so by means of the ordained leadership of Christ's one historic Catholic Church (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html).

everready
July 22nd, 2015, 04:08 PM
I am a graduate engineer now involved in teaching and research and have to take with a grain of salt all empty claims.

Do you think God cares about your degree he wants us to become like a Publican.

Luke 18:10 Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.

11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.

12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.

13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.

14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.


everready

Cruciform
July 22nd, 2015, 04:09 PM
Being the brain-washed religionist that you are...
Here RD remains willfully ignorant of the glaring fact that he is every bit as much "the brain-washed religionist" as any Catholic ever was. Pot, meet Kettle.

everready
July 22nd, 2015, 04:14 PM
Yes, God gave the Bible to humanity---and he did so by means of the ordained leadership of Christ's one historic Catholic Church (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html).

Don't you mean he gave us his Holy Spirit, no man made religion gives us salvation only God can do that, haven't you read God doesn't dwell in a building made with hands?


everready

everready
July 22nd, 2015, 04:24 PM
It matters not what we think about your man made religion.

Matthew 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.

15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

16 Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor!

17 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?

18 And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty.

19 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift?

20 Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon.

21 And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein.

22 And he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon.

23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.

26 Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.

27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.

28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.

29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,

30 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.

31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.

32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.

33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?


everready

Grosnick Marowbe
July 22nd, 2015, 04:24 PM
we have only one pope

long live francis

There's NO leader of the world Church. The ONLY true church is
made up of the Body of Christ. The Catholics are wrong.

Grosnick Marowbe
July 22nd, 2015, 04:26 PM
The Catholics place their faith in their "Pope," their Priests, and their Idols.

Grosnick Marowbe
July 22nd, 2015, 04:28 PM
Catholics are religious but, not part of the Body of Christ. Religion will
not gain you eternal life.

Grosnick Marowbe
July 22nd, 2015, 04:34 PM
Any Catholic that hears the Grace Message, places their faith in
Christ as their Savior, is sealed, indwelt, and baptized (not by water)
into the Body of Christ, will NOT stay with the Catholic church. They
will seek out a church that preaches true Doctrine. Catholicism is
a false religion.

Grosnick Marowbe
July 22nd, 2015, 04:35 PM
Your Pope cannot save you, your Priest cannot save you, and your idols
cannot save you.

Cruciform
July 22nd, 2015, 04:45 PM
Don't you mean he gave us his Holy Spirit...
He sent the Holy Spirit to the Magisterium (apostles/bishops) of Christ's one historic Church to guide it into all truth (Mt. 28:18-20; Lk. 10:16; Ac. 15:2; 16:4; Eph. 3:5, 10; 2 Thess. 3:4; 1 Tim. 3:15; 1 Jn. 4:6). If we laymen want the fullness of the truth, we must turn to the authoritative teachings of the Church.


...no man made religion gives us salvation only God can do that...
The Catholic Church, however, is in fact that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html)---no mere man.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Grosnick Marowbe
July 22nd, 2015, 04:47 PM
He sent the Holy Spirit to the Magisterium (apostles/bishops) of Christ's one historic Church to guide it into all truth (Mt. 28:18-20; Lk. 10:16; Ac. 15:2; 16:4; Eph. 3:5, 10; 2 Thess. 3:4; 1 Tim. 3:15; 1 Jn. 4:6). If we laymen want the fullness of the truth, we must turn to the authoritative teachings of the Church.


The Catholic Church, however, is in fact that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html)---no mere man.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Deception at its finest.

Cruciform
July 22nd, 2015, 04:49 PM
It matters not what we think about your man made religion.

Matthew 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.

15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

16 Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor!

17 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?

18 And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty.

19 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift?

20 Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon.

21 And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein.

22 And he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon.

23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.

26 Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.

27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.

28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.

29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,

30 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.

31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.

32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.

33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
Now you can go ahead and apply all that to the myriad competing and contradictory recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sects in existence to date, with more being concocted every week.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Cruciform
July 22nd, 2015, 04:50 PM
Deception at its finest.
Post your proof.

Right Divider
July 22nd, 2015, 04:52 PM
I was Protestant as well. Unlike you though I don't believe every claim everyone makes without verifying it myself. You should try that sometime.
And yet you believe the false claims of the RCC. You're not as smart as you think that you are.

BTW, I'm neither Protestant nor "Catholic". Your "church" makes this false dichotomy to attempt to have a "black and white game" to win.

Cruciform
July 22nd, 2015, 04:53 PM
The Catholics place their faith in their "Pope," their Priests, and their Idols.
Non-Catholics place their faith in their "pastor," their "teachers," and the irrelevant opinions of their non-Catholic sect about the supposed meaning of the Bible.

Cruciform
July 22nd, 2015, 04:54 PM
Catholics are religious but, not part of the Body of Christ. Religion will not gain you eternal life.
...according to the opinions of GM's preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect, anyway. :yawn:

Cruciform
July 22nd, 2015, 04:55 PM
Your Pope cannot save you, your Priest cannot save you, and your idols cannot save you.
Post #143.

Grosnick Marowbe
July 22nd, 2015, 04:55 PM
Non-Catholics place their faith in their "pastor," their "teachers," and their personal opinions about the supposed meaning of the Bible.

However, Members of the Body of Christ, trust only in God's Grace and
His written Word, the Holy Bible.

Grosnick Marowbe
July 22nd, 2015, 04:56 PM
I'm NOT a Protestant either.

Cruciform
July 22nd, 2015, 04:58 PM
However, [NON-CATHOLIC] Members of the Body of Christ, trust only in God's Grace and His written Word, the Holy Bible.
No they don't (Post #142).

Grosnick Marowbe
July 22nd, 2015, 05:07 PM
...according to the opinions of GM's preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect, anyway. :yawn:

The Bible is God's written Word to mankind. I trust in what it says. I
don't trust in commentaries or other opinions written up. If something
said, is in contrast to the Bible, I discard it. If a preacher says
something out of line with what the Bible says, I discard it.

A good friend I've known for over forty years, was a Catholic when I
met her, I shared the Gospel with her and she has been a "True
Believer" ever since. I saw how the Catholics "preached." My
friend told me that, they rely on idols and said that it is believed that,
the Pope was infallible while sitting on the throne. They also repeat
the same phrases repetitiously. And, their prayers are written down
ahead of time.

Grosnick Marowbe
July 22nd, 2015, 05:11 PM
There are copious amounts of non-Catholic churches. However, not all of
them preach doctrinal truth. Not all preach Paul's Gospel. (Grace Message)

The "True Believers" are those who are part of the Body of Christ. (The true
church)

everready
July 22nd, 2015, 05:23 PM
He sent the Holy Spirit to the Magisterium (apostles/bishops) of Christ's one historic Church to guide it into all truth (Mt. 28:18-20; Lk. 10:16; Ac. 15:2; 16:4; Eph. 3:5, 10; 2 Thess. 3:4; 1 Tim. 3:15; 1 Jn. 4:6). If we laymen want the fullness of the truth, we must turn to the authoritative teachings of the Church.


The Catholic Church, however, is in fact that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html)---no mere man.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Not according to Jesus.

John 7:37 In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.

38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)


Jesus never said salvation was in a church, neither did the Apostles, never.

Acts 16:29 Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas,

30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?

31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.


everready

everready
July 22nd, 2015, 05:27 PM
...according to the opinions of GM's preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect, anyway. :yawn:

When the husband dies how much does the widow have to pay to free him from purgatory, if its the more than the norm are his chances better?

Reminds me of.

Matthew 23:14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.


everready

Grosnick Marowbe
July 22nd, 2015, 05:29 PM
When the husband dies how much does the widow have to pay to free him from purgatory, if its the more than the norm are his chances better?

Reminds me of.

Matthew 23:14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.


everready

Good post

everready
July 22nd, 2015, 05:31 PM
Now you can go ahead and apply all that to the myriad competing and contradictory recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sects in existence to date, with more being concocted every week.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

missed a verse.

Matthew 23:34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:

http://biblebelievers.com/foxes/findex.htm


everready

Grosnick Marowbe
July 22nd, 2015, 05:31 PM
Where is Purgatory mentioned in the Scriptures?

Cruciform
July 22nd, 2015, 08:43 PM
missed a verse.

Matthew 23:34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:
You can go ahead and apply that to the Protestant sects as well, since they persecuted and executed not only Catholics, but even their own fellow Protestants. Try again.

Cruciform
July 22nd, 2015, 08:56 PM
...John 7:37...Acts 16:29...
Contrary to your apparent assumptions, neither of the passages you quoted here has anything to do with the question of precisely how lay believers normally obtain their interpretations of Scripture and formulate their doctrinal beliefs. Rather than making them up for themselves, the New Testament indicates that lay Christians are to receive their understanding of the Bible and their theological beliefs from the Magisterium (apostles/bishops) of Christ's one historic Church (Mt. 28:18-20; Lk. 10:16; Ac. 15:2; 16:4; Eph. 3:5, 10; 2 Thess. 3:4; 1 Tim. 3:15; 1 Jn. 4:6). Christ's Church teaches us; we do not teach Christ's Church. The Church founded by Jesus Christ is not now---nor has it ever been---a democracy. Christ is our King, not our president. Sorry for your confusion.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Cruciform
July 22nd, 2015, 08:59 PM
Where is Purgatory mentioned in the Scriptures?
Right here (http://scripturecatholic.com/purgatory.html).

Sancocho
July 22nd, 2015, 09:10 PM
However, Members of the Body of Christ, trust only in God's Grace and
His written Word, the Holy Bible.

What did they do before Catholics gave them their bible?

turbosixx
July 22nd, 2015, 09:35 PM
What did they do before Catholics gave them their bible?

2 Thes. 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

1 Cor. 12:8 For to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, and to another the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit;

The catholics didn't give us the bible, God did. God has been known to use wicked people to accomplish his will.

Cruciform
July 22nd, 2015, 09:46 PM
The Catholics didn't give us the Bible, God did.
Your glaring False Dilemma Fallacy is noted. Back to Post #127.

turbosixx
July 22nd, 2015, 10:08 PM
Your glaring False Dilemma Fallacy is noted. Back to Post #127.

If it's Christ's church, why does it say St. Mary's catholic church? Why isn't Christ's name on HIS church? Doesn't say it's his church, it's not his chruch. Your blindness is noted.




https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/St_Mary's_Catholic_Church,_Hornby,_Sign_-_geograph.org.uk_-_611877.jpg

Sancocho
July 22nd, 2015, 10:22 PM
2 Thes. 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

1 Cor. 12:8 For to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, and to another the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit;

The catholics didn't give us the bible, God did. God has been known to use wicked people to accomplish his will.

Jesus Christ refutes your claim:

"A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit"

Therefore, since the bible is clearly "good" fruit, the tree, the RCC, that created the fruit is also good.

No Protestant can trace their bible to anything other than the Catholic Bible.

turbosixx
July 22nd, 2015, 10:37 PM
Jesus Christ refutes your claim:

"A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit"

Therefore, since the bible is clearly "good" fruit, it tree, the RCC, that created the fruit is also good.

Is envy and strife good fruit? Yet, those preaching from envy and strife were accomplishing good.

Phil. 1:15 Some, to be sure, are preaching Christ even from envy and strife, but some also from good will; 16 the latter do it out of love, knowing that I am appointed for the defense of the gospel; 17 the former proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition rather than from pure motives, thinking to cause me distress in my imprisonment. 18 What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and in this I rejoice.

The "catholic" organization did bring it together out of love, but to control and gain power.


No Protestant can trace their bible to anything other than the Catholic Bible.

What is protestant and catholic. People are either Christians or they are not. Is Christ divided??

Sancocho
July 22nd, 2015, 10:43 PM
Is envy and strife good fruit? Yet, those preaching from envy and strife were accomplishing good.

Phil. 1:15 Some, to be sure, are preaching Christ even from envy and strife, but some also from good will; 16 the latter do it out of love, knowing that I am appointed for the defense of the gospel; 17 the former proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition rather than from pure motives, thinking to cause me distress in my imprisonment. 18 What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and in this I rejoice.





What is protestant and catholic. People are either Christians or they are not. Is Christ divided??

Envy is bad. So are untruths. We as disciples are called to say the truth.

As far as Protestants go, I was one and my wife is one as well. I would never presuppose to say any Protestant does not know Christ but unfortunately a lot of Protestants say that about Catholics.

I am here to preach the Truth and let those who knowingly separate the Body of Christ using lies that there are severe consequences - such as our country being a disgrace to Christianity. We haven't hit the bottom yet and we Americans shouldn't assume that everyone else is as bad off as us. Our arrogance and desire to lead people from Christ will be our undoing.

turbosixx
July 22nd, 2015, 11:31 PM
I am here to preach the Truth and let those who knowingly separate the Body of Christ using lies that there are severe consequences - such as our country being a disgrace to Christianity. We haven't hit the bottom yet and we Americans shouldn't assume that everyone else is as bad off as us. Our arrogance and desire to lead people from Christ will be our undoing.

I hear what your saying. I am here to challenge my understanding of truth. I want to know the truth because no matter how good or sincere our intentions are, we will be judged according to truth. Paul lived his whole life in sincere service to God, yet he found himself working against him.

I see lots of problems in "Christianity" today and one is division. We are either in Christ or not and in Christ there is no division.

Ben Masada
July 23rd, 2015, 03:17 AM
There are copious amounts of non-Catholic churches. However, not all of
them preach doctrinal truth. Not all preach Paul's Gospel. (Grace Message)

The "True Believers" are those who are part of the Body of Christ. (The true
church)

Behold! And I thought rather that the opposite was true. That especially Catholics preached the gospel of Paul. Anyway, the Jews are the only ones to preach the gospel of Jesus which was Judaism. I hope you do not deny the truth that Jesus was a Jew whose Faith was Judaism.

everready
July 23rd, 2015, 09:02 AM
Contrary to your apparent assumptions, neither of the passages you quoted here has anything to do with the question of precisely how lay believers normally obtain their interpretations of Scripture and formulate their doctrinal beliefs. Rather than making them up for themselves, the New Testament indicates that lay Christians are to receive their understanding of the Bible and their theological beliefs from the Magisterium (apostles/bishops) of Christ's one historic Church (Mt. 28:18-20; Lk. 10:16; Ac. 15:2; 16:4; Eph. 3:5, 10; 2 Thess. 3:4; 1 Tim. 3:15; 1 Jn. 4:6). Christ's Church teaches us; we do not teach Christ's Church. The Church founded by Jesus Christ is not now---nor has it ever been---a democracy. Christ is our King, not our president. Sorry for your confusion.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Rome says: lay Christians are to receive their understanding of the Bible and their theological beliefs from the Magisterium

Jesus says: John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

You are allowing man to guide you into all truth, why is that?


everready

Cruciform
July 23rd, 2015, 03:24 PM
If it's Christ's Church, why does it say St. Mary's Catholic Church?
Note first that you offered no disproof whatsoever of my statement in Post #160, and so it stands exactly as given. Secondly, identifying local parish churches with particular past Saints---especially the apostles and Mary---is a practice that goes back to the Early Church Period. Each is simply a local representative of Christ's one historic Church (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html) that is named for a prominent example of a disciple of Jesus Christ.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Cruciform
July 23rd, 2015, 03:36 PM
Rome says: lay Christians are to receive their understanding of the Bible and their theological beliefs from the Magisterium.
Correct. Christ's one historic Church (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html) says one thing, while your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect says another. Which, then, should we follow? Which possesses the doctrinal authority of Jesus Christ himself (Lk. 10:16; Ac. 15:2; 1 Tim. 3:15)?


Jesus says: John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth...
Jesus is speaking here not to every individual lay believer in the Church, but specifically to the chosen apostolic leaders (Magisterium) of his one historic Church, that is, to the apostles and bishops of his Church (see context). Sorry for your confusion.


You are allowing man to guide you into all truth, why is that?
You are allowing the opinions of your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect to guide you away from all truth. Why is that?



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

republicanchick
July 23rd, 2015, 03:38 PM
Rome says: lay Christians are to receive their understanding of the Bible and their theological beliefs from the Magisterium

Jesus says: John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

You are allowing man to guide you into all truth, why is that?


everready

so are you saying that the Holy Spirit doesn't guide priests/bishops/cardinals and the pope?

if the Holy Spirit were leading Protestants, they would all believe the same doctrines (as all true Catholics are all united in their beliefs), but no, we have about 60,000 different denoms in Protestantinsm... all teaching different things... some baptize babies, some s ay that is absurd... some say women pastors, some say No...


etc... etc...


_

turbosixx
July 23rd, 2015, 05:29 PM
Note first that you offered no disproof whatsoever of my statement in Post #160, and so it stands exactly as given. Secondly, identifying local parish churches with particular past Saints---especially the apostles and Mary---is a practice that goes back to the Early Church Period. Each is simply a local representative of Christ's one historic Church (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html) that is named for a prominent example of a disciple of Jesus Christ.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

In reference to post 160, I'm not concerned with your accusations unless you can back them with scripture.

"a practice that goes back to the Early Church Period" is not using inspired biblical authority, that is using the authority of men. That is not HIS church.

Here is a picture of the actual building where I attend. WE identify as HIS church? WE follow HIS authority.

http://www.churchofchristlakejackson.com/images/303_IMG_0515.JPG

Rom. 16:16 Greet one another with a holy kiss. All the churches of Christ greet you.

You are following and worshiping men, says so right on your buildings and the things you do.
.

Cruciform
July 23rd, 2015, 06:19 PM
In reference to post 160, I'm not concerned with your accusations unless you can back them with scripture.
Neither did you back with Scripture your comments to which I was responding (Post #159).


"a practice that goes back to the Early Church Period" is not using inspired biblical authority, that is using the authority of men. That is not HIS church.
Your comment here assumes the validity of the 16th-century notion of sola scriptura (http://scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html), a doctrine which is itself nowhere taught in Scripture, and so which merely refutes itself. Try again.


Here is a picture of the actual building where I attend. WE identify as HIS church? WE follow HIS authority.
Here is what is printed on the sign of the "church" my Mormon friend attends:


The Church of
Jesus Christ
of Latter-Day Saints

HE identifies as "Christ's church," too. Does my Mormon friend, then, also "follow HIS authority"? :think:



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

turbosixx
July 23rd, 2015, 06:31 PM
Neither did you back with Scripture your comments to which I was responding (Post #159).


Your comment here assumes the validity of the 16th-century notion of sola scriptura (http://scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html), a doctrine which is itself nowhere taught in Scripture, and so which merely refutes itself. Try again.


Here is what is printed on the sign of the "church" my Mormon friend attends:


The Church of
Jesus Christ
of Latter-Day Saints

HE identifies as "Christ's church," too. Does my Mormon friend, then, also "follow HIS authority"? :think:



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

You just can't see the truth.

"16th-century notion" Once again, MEN not scripture. I could care less what men think, all I care about is what God thinks. I go with the first century facts, found in scripture, not notions.
2 Tim. 3: 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

The Mormons, do not use scripture for their authority, they use the book of mormon. They ADDED mans authority just like they added "latter day saints". There is only one church established at Pentecost, again "latter day saints" not found in scripture but in writings other than scripture just like the rcc.

everready
July 23rd, 2015, 07:36 PM
Correct. Christ's one historic Church (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html) says one thing, while your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect says another. Which, then, should we follow? Which possesses the doctrinal authority of Jesus Christ himself (Lk. 10:16; Ac. 15:2; 1 Tim. 3:15)?


Jesus is speaking here not to every individual lay believer in the Church, but specifically to the chosen apostolic leaders (Magisterium) of his one historic Church, that is, to the apostles and bishops of his Church (see context). Sorry for your confusion.


You are allowing the opinions of your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect to guide you away from all truth. Why is that?



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Jesus speaks throughout the entire bible Jesus is the word of God.

We have one high priest not invented by man.

Hebrews 4:14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.

15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

We can come boldly to the throne of grace no strings attached.


everready

Right Divider
July 24th, 2015, 10:08 AM
What did they do before Catholics gave them their bible?
Broken record, Broken record, Broken record, Broken record, Broken record, Broken record, Broken record, Broken record..... :dog:

Quit repeating this ridiculous lie and say something that is actually true.

Sancocho
July 24th, 2015, 10:11 AM
Broken record, Broken record, Broken record, Broken record, Broken record, Broken record, Broken record, Broken record..... :dog:

Quit repeating this ridiculous lie and say something that is actually true.

I became a Protestant when I believed the claims against the Catholic Church.

However, after becoming a Protestant after researching all the "evidence" I found out it was baseless.

If you have something to "prove" do it with a reference not just because you "say so".

turbosixx
July 24th, 2015, 11:45 AM
I became a Protestant when I believed the claims against the Catholic Church.

However, after becoming a Protestant after researching all the "evidence" I found out it was baseless.

If you have something to "prove" do it with a reference not just because you "say so".

I'm curious what you found baseless?

Sancocho
July 24th, 2015, 12:07 PM
I'm curious what you found baseless?

Every claim against RCC doctrine.

turbosixx
July 24th, 2015, 12:14 PM
Every claim against RCC doctrine.

Were did you get your proof?

Sancocho
July 24th, 2015, 12:39 PM
Were did you get your proof?

I have the Bible, Catholic doctrine and recorded history and use a little logic.

turbosixx
July 24th, 2015, 12:49 PM
I have the Bible, Catholic doctrine and recorded history and use a little logic.

Maybe you can answer a question I've been pondering. Why does one need more than what is contained in the canon? Is there not enough in the canon to, understand and believe the gospel, become a Christian and understand how to live as a Christian?

I have been a Christian for almost 40 years and know the bible very well. I have never found the bible lacking in any area.

Sancocho
July 24th, 2015, 12:55 PM
Maybe you can answer a question I've been pondering. Why does one need more than what is contained in the canon? Is there not enough in the canon to, understand and believe the gospel, become a Christian and understand how to live as a Christian?

I have been a Christian for almost 40 years and know the bible very well. I have never found the bible lacking in any area.

I am not here to have you question your faith in Jesus Christ, on the contrary bro.

I am here to do the will of the Father enabled by the Son and I only seek the Truth.

turbosixx
July 24th, 2015, 01:09 PM
I am not here to have you question your faith in Jesus Christ, on the contrary bro.

I am here to do the will of the Father enabled by the Son and I only seek the Truth.

I want to understand the truth and therefore I want to challenge my understanding of truth. If the rcc has the truth, I want to know it.

Sancocho
July 24th, 2015, 01:14 PM
I want to understand the truth and therefore I want to challenge my understanding of truth. If the rcc has the truth, I want to know it.

I recommend researching claims yourself. I did most of my research with the Bible and information online.

God bless you. Your love of Christ impresses me.

desiringGod7
July 24th, 2015, 01:52 PM
we listen to francis

he has the power to bind and loose
..he's talking about the same Francis who recently kissed the Qur'an, and claimed it to be the same message as the Holy Bible.

He also claimed that Mohammed, Jesus, God, Allah.. These are all just words that describe the same divine entity..

Francis is confused, as is anyone who would blindly follow him.

When the head of your church embraces Islam as equal to Christ, or even a suitable alternative that will get you to heaven (along with an athiest following hisconscience), it's time to find a new church..

Sancocho
July 24th, 2015, 01:56 PM
..he's talking about the same Francis who recently kissed the Qur'an, and claimed it to be the same message as the Holy Bible.

He also claimed that Mohammed, Jesus, God, Allah.. These are all just words that describe the same divine entity..

Francis is confused, as is anyone who would blindly follow him.

When the head of your church embraces Islam as equal to Christ, or even a suitable alternative that will get you to heaven (along with an athiest following hisconscience), it's time to find a new church..

No one should say the pope is perfect. That being said I would like to see references that support the claims you make.

Cruciform
July 25th, 2015, 11:32 AM
"16th-century notion" Once again, MEN not scripture. I could care less what men think, all I care about is what God thinks. I go with the first century facts, found in scripture, not notions.
2 Tim. 3: 16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
Paul here states that "Scripture"---for him, the Old Testament---is "profitable" (or "useful") in furnishing the man of God. Nothing whatsoever here about the Bible being numerically sufficient or "all we need." The fact is that you have followed the opinions of 16th-century Protestant men in assuming the doctrine of sola scriptura (http://scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html) to be biblical and true. But it is neither.


The Mormons, do not use scripture for their authority, they use the book of mormon.
You're missing my point. If you appeal to the name of your "church" ("Church of Christ") for your supposed legitimacy, then Mormonism must also be legitimate on the same basis. If not, then your appeal means nothing at all, and is simply irrelevant. (Incidentally, you rely on the opinions of your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect every bit as much as Mormons rely on the Book of Mormon. Both of you, in this sense, follow the teachings of men.)


They ADDED mans authority...
See just above.


There is only one church established at Pentecost...
Yes, and that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html) has, since the end of the 1st century, been commonly known as "the Catholic Church." This is a straightforward historical fact.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Cruciform
July 25th, 2015, 11:41 AM
We have one high priest not invented by man.
Yes, "one high priest" who founded a single historic Church (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html) in 33 A.D. through which to guide and teach the faithful until his Second Coming (Mt. 28:18-20; Ac. 15:2; 16:4; 2 Thess. 3:4; 1 Jn. 4:6), and who equated his Church's teaching with his very own teachings---they are one and the same---in truth and authority (Lk. 10:16; 1 Tim. 3:15).



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

turbosixx
July 25th, 2015, 11:42 AM
Paul here states that "Scripture"---for him, the Old Testament---is "profitable" (or "useful") in furnishing the man of God. Nothing whatsoever here about the Bible being numerically sufficient or "all we need." The fact is that you have followed the opinions of 16th-century Protestant men in assuming the doctrine of sola scriptura (http://scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html) to be biblical and true. But it is neither.


You're missing my point. If you appeal to the name of your "church" ("Church of Christ") for your supposed legitimacy, then Mormonism must also be legitimate on the same basis. If not, then your appeal means nothing at all, and is simply irrelevant. (Incidentally, you rely on the opinions of your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect every bit as much as Mormons rely on the Book of Mormon. Both of you, in this sense, follow the teachings of men.)


See just above.


Yes, and that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html) has, since the end of the 1st century, been commonly known as "the Catholic Church." This is a straightforward historical fact.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

So you are saying the canon insufficient as God's word to, understand and believe the gospel, become a Christian and know how to live as a Christian?

meshak
July 25th, 2015, 11:45 AM
And you get to decide what's divinely inspired and what isn't, right?

Yes, that's what he is saying.

turbosixx
July 25th, 2015, 11:50 AM
You're missing my point. If you appeal to the name of your "church" ("Church of Christ") for your supposed legitimacy, then Mormonism must also be legitimate on the same basis. If not, then your appeal means nothing at all, and is simply irrelevant. (Incidentally, you rely on the opinions of your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect every bit as much as Mormons rely on the Book of Mormon. Both of you, in this sense, follow the teachings of men.)



Your missing my point, by adding "latter day saints" and calling themselves Mormon, they are separating themselves from other groups within Christianity. They are hyphenated Christians causing division.

Are their different types of Christians in the body?

Baptist-Christian
Catholic-Christian
Mormon-Christian

Cruciform
July 25th, 2015, 12:02 PM
So you are saying the canon insufficient as God's word...
The Bible is entirely sufficient to function as God's written word. However, the written texts are not the entirety of God's word. The Church's Apostolic Tradition (http://scripturecatholic.com/oral_tradition.html) is also "the word of God." In short, Divine Revelation (God's word) consists of both Scripture (written) and Tradition (unwritten), just as even the New Testament itself affirms (2 Thess. 2:15).



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Cruciform
July 25th, 2015, 12:10 PM
Your missing my point, by adding "latter day saints" and calling themselves Mormon, they are separating themselves from other groups within Christianity. They are hyphenated Christians causing division.
Sorry, you're going to have to do a whole lot more than simply appealing to the name of your recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect* in order to legitimize your doctrinal claims.



__________
*Your chosen sect, for example, was established by men, and is traceable only back to the 19th century.

turbosixx
July 25th, 2015, 12:24 PM
The Bible is entirely sufficient to function as God's written word. However, the written texts are not the entirety of God's word. The Church's Apostolic Tradition (http://scripturecatholic.com/oral_tradition.html) is also "the word of God." In short, Divine Revelation (God's word) consists of both Scripture (written) and Tradition (unwritten), just as even the New Testament itself affirms (2 Thess. 2:15).



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Here is my dilemma with that. I understand that while the church was growing in the 1st century they didn't have the complete written word. They had bits until all the bits came together. They shared what they had and what they didn't have in writing they had learned and passed along until all was revealed.

1 Cor. 13:8 Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part; 10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away.

The church in it's infancy need gifts of prophecy and knowledge to help it grow and become established until all was revealed.

How am I to know what outside of the canon is inspired?

turbosixx
July 25th, 2015, 12:29 PM
Sorry, you're going to have to do a whole lot more than simply appealing to the name of your recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect* in order to legitimize your doctrinal claims.



__________
*Your chosen sect, for example, was established by men, and is traceable only back to the 19th century.


I'm appealing to common sense. Try and take the filters off and think about what I'm saying.

If I take the bible, teach someone the gospel and they believe and are baptized, what are they added to?

Acts 2:41 So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls.

Cruciform
July 25th, 2015, 12:35 PM
I'm appealing to common sense. Try and take the filters off and think about what I'm saying.
I would say precisely the same thing to you.


If I take the bible, teach someone the gospel...
QUESTION: Are your personal interpretations of the Bible in any way infallible and authoritative upon others? Or are the doctrinal opinions of your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect somehow infallibly binding upon others?



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

turbosixx
July 25th, 2015, 12:39 PM
I would say precisely the same thing to you.


QUESTION: Are your personal interpretations of the Bible in any way infallible and authoritative upon others? Or are the doctrinal opinions of your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect somehow infallibly binding upon others?



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

So what are you saying, we can't understand the bible?

Cruciform
July 25th, 2015, 12:42 PM
How am I to know what outside of the canon is inspired?
Only Scripture can be called "inspired" (2 Tim. 3:16). However, a message need not be inspired in order to be considered infallibly true and authoritative. As has already been observed, Apostolic Oral Tradition (http://scripturecatholic.com/oral_tradition.html) is also the infallible word of God (1 Thess. 2:13).

To answer your question, we know the content of Divine Revelation (God's word) in the same way we know the content of the biblical canon itself---from the authoritative teachings of Christ's one historic Church (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html).



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Cruciform
July 25th, 2015, 12:46 PM
So what are you saying, we can't understand the bible?
The question is exactly how we can KNOW (not assume) that we're correctly understanding the Bible, and whether or not our personal interpretations of Scripture carry any inherent infallible authority whatsoever. Back to Post #197.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

turbosixx
July 25th, 2015, 12:53 PM
Only Scripture can be called "inspired" (2 Tim. 3:16). However, a message need not be inspired in order to be considered infallibly true and authoritative. As has already been observed, Apostolic Oral Tradition (http://scripturecatholic.com/oral_tradition.html) is also the infallible word of God (1 Thess. 2:13).

To answer your question, we know the content of Divine Revelation (God's word) in the same way we know the content of the biblical canon itself---from the authoritative teachings of Christ's one historic Church (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html).



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

The apostles ORAL traditions were oral until they were written in the complete revealed word.

When I look at the history of the "one historic church" I see zero resemblance to the church in the bible.

turbosixx
July 25th, 2015, 12:58 PM
The question is exactly how we can KNOW (not assume) that we're correctly understanding the Bible, and whether or not our personal interpretations of Scripture carry any inherent infallible authority whatsoever. Back to Post #197.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

I don't look at it as interpretation but as in understanding or misunderstanding of the truth.

Paul seemed to think we could understand it.
Eph. 3:4 By referring to this, when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ,

I think every individual should challenge what they understand to be truth and not take anyone's word. On the day of judgment, God will be looking at us to give account.

Cruciform
July 25th, 2015, 01:01 PM
The apostles ORAL traditions were oral until they were written in the complete revealed word.
Where is this assumption stated in the Bible? Where in Scripture does it state that the oral Tradition (http://scripturecatholic.com/oral_tradition.html) of the apostles and bishops of Christ's Church would somehow cease with the completion of the New Testament---which wasn't even canonized until the 4th century A.D.?


When I look at the history of the "one historic Church" I see zero resemblance to the Church in the bible.
Why would the Church after two millennia of growth and development much resemble the infant Church of the New Testament? After all, Jesus himself taught that it wouldn't (Mt. 13:31-32).



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Cruciform
July 25th, 2015, 01:08 PM
Paul seemed to think we could understand it. Eph. 3:4 [FONT="Century Gothic"]By referring to this, when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ
Of course the early Christians could properly understand Paul's written document, seeing that they also had the apostles' oral teachings (http://scripturecatholic.com/oral_tradition.html) (Tradition) as a frame of reference for comprehending the authentic meaning of the Scriptures (and vice versa).


I think every individual should challenge what they understand to be truth and not take anyone's word. On the day of judgment, God will be looking at us to give account.

You haven't answered the question: Are your personal interpretations of the Bible in any way infallible and authoritative upon others, yes or no?



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

turbosixx
July 25th, 2015, 01:16 PM
Where is this assumption stated in the Bible? Where in Scripture does it state that the oral Tradition (http://scripturecatholic.com/oral_tradition.html) of the apostles and bishops of Christ's Church would somehow cease with the completion of the New Testament---which wasn't even canonized until the 4th century A.D.?

1 Cor. 13:9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part; 10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away.
Where does it state they would continue?



Why would the Church after two millennia of growth and development much resemble the infant Church of the New Testament? After all, Jesus himself taught that it wouldn't (Mt. 13:31-32).



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

The only difference between the church we see in scripture and now should only be in the number that has been added to it over 2K years. If it looks different than what we see in scripture, then it's in conflict with scripture. What takes precedence, scripture or tradition?

turbosixx
July 25th, 2015, 01:19 PM
You haven't answered the question: Are your personal interpretations of the Bible in any way infallible and authoritative upon others, yes or no?



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+[/FONT]

No, I am not infallible and I have no authority other than in Christ. Who is infallible?

Cruciform
July 25th, 2015, 01:30 PM
1 Cor. 13:9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part; 10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away.
This text has to do with the purpose and function of the charismatic gifts of the Spirit, not with the communication of Divine Revelation (God's word). Thus, it simply does not support your assumption that Apostolic Tradition somehow ceased with the 4th-century canonization of the New Testament.


Where does it state they would continue?
Right here (http://scripturecatholic.com/oral_tradition.html).


The only difference between the church we see in scripture and now should only be in the number that has been added to it over 2K years. If it looks different than what we see in scripture, then it's in conflict with scripture.
Again, these are merely assumptions that you have derived from your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect.


What takes precedence, scripture or tradition?
Given that both are the word of God (Divine Revelation), neither can take precedence over the other. Rather, each must account for the testimony of the other, as has been the case in Christ's one historic Catholic Church (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html) for the past two millennia.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

turbosixx
July 25th, 2015, 01:41 PM
This text has to do with the purpose and function of the charismatic gifts of the Spirit, not with the communication of Divine Revelation (God's word). Thus, it simply does not support your assumption that Apostolic Tradition somehow ceased with the 4th-century canonization of the New Testament.


Right here (http://scripturecatholic.com/oral_tradition.html).


Again, these are merely assumptions that you have derived from your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect.


Given that both are the word of God (Divine Revelation), neither can take precedence over the other. Rather, each must account for the testimony of the other, as has been the case in Christ's one historic Catholic Church (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html) for the past two millennia.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

The rcc is in no way like the church in the NT. Sorry you won't see it. What will you do when they start accepting homos?

Cruciform
July 25th, 2015, 01:49 PM
No, I am not infallible and I have no authority other than in Christ.
Thank you for your honest answer. I am not infallible either. Therefore, we must acknowledge that our personal interpretations of the Bible are nothing more than the subjective opinions of men, and can never rise above that non-binding level of mere human opinion.

The question, then, is which of our chosen doctrinal traditions--- [1] your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect, or [2] the ancient Catholic Church---is in fact that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html), and whose teachings therefore go beyond mere human opinion to the level of bindingly authoritative doctrine? Which is it, do you think?


Who is infallible?
The Magisterium (http://cuf.org/2002/11/pillar-and-bulwark-of-the-truth-the-infallibility-magisterium-of-the-catholic-church/) (apostles/bishops) of Christ's one historic Church teach infallibly as a body when they do so regarding doctrine and morals. The interpretations of lay believers like you and me, by contrast, can never rise above the level of mere human opinion---the "traditions of men." Only to the extent that our interpretations comport with the authoritative teachings of Christ's one historic Church (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html) can they be considered in any way binding upon believers.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Cruciform
July 25th, 2015, 02:03 PM
The rcc is in no way like the church in the NT.
On the contrary (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html).


What will you do when they start accepting homos?
Simply can't happen (http://www.setonmagazine.com/latest-articles/does-the-church-change-her-teaching). Also, this (http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/can-the-church-change-its-doctrines).



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

turbosixx
July 25th, 2015, 02:10 PM
On the contrary (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html).


Simply can't happen (http://www.setonmagazine.com/latest-articles/does-the-church-change-her-teaching). Also, this (http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/can-the-church-change-its-doctrines).



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

I'm not going to read your links, I've read them before, they're garbage.

How is the church I attend man made especially compared to yours.


You have a mans name on your building, we don't.
You have a man as the head of your church, we don't.
You do what the man says, we don't.
You pray to men, we don't.

turbosixx
July 25th, 2015, 02:21 PM
Thank you for your honest answer. I am not infallible either. Therefore, we must acknowledge that our personal interpretations of the Bible are nothing more than the subjective opinions of men, and can never rise above that non-binding level of mere human opinion.

The question, then, is which of our chosen doctrinal traditions--- [1] your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect, or [2] the ancient Catholic Church---is in fact that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html), and whose teachings therefore go beyond mere human opinion to the level of bindingly authoritative doctrine? Which is it, do you think?


The Magisterium (http://cuf.org/2002/11/pillar-and-bulwark-of-the-truth-the-infallibility-magisterium-of-the-catholic-church/) (apostles/bishops) of Christ's one historic Church teach infallibly as a body when they do so regarding doctrine and morals. The interpretations of lay believers like you and me, by contrast, can never rise above the level of mere human opinion---the "traditions of men." Only to the extent that our interpretations comport with the authoritative teachings of Christ's one historic Church (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html) can they be considered in any way binding upon believers.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

I disagree with everything you have said. There are some things that are hard to understand but for the most part, the bible is written on an elementary level. As I have seen here, people read what they want to read into it and are not being honest with themselves. For example,
1 Pt. 3:21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

All one has to do is read what it says to understand that water baptism saves us.

The rcc uses things other than the bible to control people and gain wealth and power.

Cruciform
July 25th, 2015, 02:32 PM
I'm not going to read your links, I've read them before, they're garbage.
No more so than your personal interpretations/applications of the Bible. Your transparent excuse for carefully avoiding relevant information, however, is noted.


How is the church I attend man made especially compared to yours.
I've already provided that information here (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html). I've also observed that your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect can be traced in history only back as far as the 19th century. The one historic Catholic Church (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html), however, is traceable directly back to Christ, the apostles, and the early Christian Church. This is a straightforward historical fact.


You have a mans name on your building, we don't.
Big deal. So do the Mormons. In any case, your point is rendered meaningless by the glaring fact that your preferred non-Catholic sect did not even exist until it was invented by mere men in the 19th century (!).


You have a man as the head of your church, we don't.
Jesus himself appointed a man---Peter---to guide and teach His one historic Church in His own name and by His very authority (Mt. 16:18-19; 28:18-20; 1 Tim. 3:15). Your chosen man-made sect, therefore, is decidedly not that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself, and against which He declared that the powers of death would never prevail. Rather, it is a mere tradition of men.


You do what the man says, we don't.
Christ has always chosen to work his purposes through human beings, his one historic Church (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html) in particular. See just above.


You pray to men, we don't.
We "pray" to past saints in a very different sense in which we "pray" to God." Two quite different meanings of the term. Non-Catholics often miss this fact. See this (http://www.catholic.com/tracts/praying-to-the-saints).



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

turbosixx
July 25th, 2015, 02:41 PM
No more so than your personal interpretations/applications of the Bible. Your transparent excuse for carefully avoiding relevant information, however, is noted.


I've already provided that information here (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html). I've also observed that your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect can be traced in history only back as far as the 19th century. The one historic Catholic Church (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html), however, is traceable directly back to Christ, the apostles, and the early Christian Church. This is a straightforward historical fact.


Big deal. So do the Mormons. In any case, your point is rendered meaningless by the glaring fact that your preferred non-Catholic sect did not even exist until it was invented by mere men in the 19th century (!).


Jesus himself appointed a man---Peter---to guide and teach His one historic Church in His own name and by His very authority (Mt. 16:18-19; 28:18-20; 1 Tim. 3:15). Your chosen man-made sect, therefore, is decidedly not that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself, and against which He declared that the powers of death would never prevail. Rather, it is a mere tradition of men.


Christ has always chosen to work his purposes through human beings, his one historic Church (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html) in particular. See just above.


We "pray" to past saints in a very different sense in which we "pray" to God." Two quite different meanings of the term. Non-Catholics often miss this fact. See this (http://www.catholic.com/tracts/praying-to-the-saints).



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Tell me how the church I attend is not the church that Jesus died for. I need to know.

turbosixx
July 25th, 2015, 02:46 PM
Jesus himself appointed a man---Peter---to guide and teach His one historic Church in His own name and by His very authority (Mt. 16:18-19; 28:18-20; 1 Tim. 3:15).



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Those scriptures do not say Peter was appointed head and the evidence throughout does not support Peter as head.

Eph. 2:19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.

The only time Peter stands out compared to the others is when he is messing up.

Cruciform
July 25th, 2015, 02:52 PM
I disagree with everything you have said.
...just as your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect has taught you do do. And yet, given that your chosen sect was invented by mere men only in the 19th century (!), it is decidedly not Christ's one historic Church (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html), and therefore its opinions carry no binding authority whatsoever. They are the mere opinions (traditions) of men.


There are some things that are hard to understand but for the most part, the bible is written on an elementary level.
Your assumption here is categorically refuted by the some 50,000+ competing and contradictory recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic denominations and sects in existence today, with more being concocted every week. Your claim simply does not work in practice, as the 500-year history of Protestant Sectarianism plainly demonstrates.


As I have seen here, people read what they want to read into it and are not being honest with themselves.
They believe that they read and interpret the Bible just as honestly and sincerely as you do, friend, and you have no basis whatsoever for claiming otherwise. And yet we have 50,000+ non-Catholic sects all disagreeing with one another over even central and defining doctrines of the faith, and all declaring "sola scriptura!" over their own idiosyncratic and utterly non-authoritative doctrinal opinions (you admitted that your interpretations are not infallible). What a hopelessly subjective interpretive chaos.


1 Pt. 3:21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

All one has to do is read what it says to understand that water baptism saves us.
I agree with you on this point of doctrine. Yet, I only know that this interpretation is correct because it comports with the authoritative teachings of Christ's one historic Catholic Church (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html). Otherwise, it would merely be my own human opinion, of no more authority that any other tradition of men.


The rcc uses things other than the bible to control people and gain wealth and power.
Now go ahead and post your proof for this unsubstantiated assertion.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

turbosixx
July 25th, 2015, 02:59 PM
Now go ahead and post your proof for this unsubstantiated assertion.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

All one has to do is look.

Why else would the "church" sell indulgences?

Cruciform
July 25th, 2015, 03:05 PM
Tell me how the church I attend is not the church that Jesus died for. I need to know.
Jesus founded one historic Church---the Catholic Church (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html).
Your supposed "church" (sect) was invented by mere men in the 19th century, and so simply cannot be that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself.
According to Catholic teaching, non-Catholics may be related to the one Catholic Church through belief in Jesus Christ and through their proper* baptism (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 838).
It is this sacramental connection with Christ's one Catholic Church that makes non-Catholics true "Christians," and which makes their salvation possible. In short, all who are saved are in some sense part of the Catholic Church, whether they're aware of that fact or not.

Jesus Christ died for his Church (Body/Bride), and one must be sacramentally related to this Church in order to be considered a "Christian," and in order to be saved in the end.


__________
*That is, according to the Trinitarian formula taught in the New Testament.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

turbosixx
July 25th, 2015, 03:07 PM
it comports with the authoritative teachings of Christ's one historic Catholic Church (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html).




Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+[/FONT]

The bible is authoritative. The rcc is telling you that you can't understand it to control you. If you stopped drinking the Kool-Aid and just read the bible, you would not see the rcc.

RevTestament
July 25th, 2015, 03:11 PM
[FONT="Georgia"]

You have a mans name on your building, we don't.
Big deal. So do the Mormons.
We do have the name of a man on our buildings - The Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter Day Saints. It is not the church of Luther, nor Calvin, nor other man including Mormon.

In any case, your point is rendered meaningless by the glaring fact that your preferred non-Catholic sect did not even exist until it was invented by mere men in the 19th century (!).

Although not directed at me, the fact that a church was organized later, does not make it false. Teachings make a church false. The fact that all the world would be taught incorrectly and fooled by the false prophet doesn't seem to hit home with you that the original church will go apostate. It is a matter of scripture that the day would turn to night after Christ left. Therefore, the interpretation of an earthly church meeting the prophecy of the gates of hell not prevailing against the keys of revelation given to Peter simply cannot be.

Jesus himself appointed a man---Peter---to guide and teach His one historic Church in His own name and by His very authority (Mt. 16:18-19; 28:18-20; 1 Tim. 3:15). Your chosen man-made sect, therefore, is decidedly not that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself, and against which He declared that the powers of death would never prevail. Rather, it is a mere tradition of men.Christ did not found a church in Rome. Peter did along with MANY other cities in which the apostles founded churches for Christ. Nothing of biblical record gave Rome more authority than any other city or bishop in the church. By the time of Constantine, the bishop of Rome was merely one of some 1300 bishoprics throughout the empire - some of which were also founded through Peter.
Next argument...

turbosixx
July 25th, 2015, 03:14 PM
Jesus founded one historic Church---the Catholic Church (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html).
Your supposed "church" (sect) was invented by mere men in the 19th century, and so simply cannot be that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself.
According to Catholic teaching, non-Catholics may be related to the one Catholic Church through belief in Jesus Christ and through their proper* baptism (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 838).
It is this sacramental connection with Christ's one Catholic Church that makes non-Catholics true "Christians," and which makes their salvation possible. In short, all who are saved are in some sense part of the Catholic Church, whether they're aware of that fact or not.

Jesus Christ died for his Church (Body/Bride), and one must be sacramentally related to this Church in order to be considered a "Christian," and in order to be saved in the end.


__________
*That is, according to the Trinitarian formula taught in the New Testament.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+


We will never agree because we use different things for authority. I use God's word, you use mans.

"According to Catholic teaching"
Catechism of the Catholic Church, 838

Cruciform
July 25th, 2015, 03:16 PM
All one has to do is look. Why else would the "church" sell indulgences?
Once again, you need to look closer. The "selling" of indulgences was never a formal teaching of the Catholic Church, but was rather a regional abuse of the Christian doctrine of indulgences by certain leaders during the late Renaissance Period.

For more info, see this (http://www.catholic.com/tracts/primer-on-ingulgences) and this (http://www.catholic.com/tracts/myths-about-indulgences).


So much for your previous anti-Catholic claim.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Cruciform
July 25th, 2015, 03:25 PM
The bible is authoritative.
But---as you have already admitted---your preferred interpretations of the Bible are NOT authoritative. Whose doctrinal tradition, then, DOES have the authority to interpret Divine Revelation in a manner which is binding upon believers? I've already shown that only Christ's one historic Catholic Church (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html) possesses such inherent doctrinal authority, and that no recently-invented, man-made non-catholic sect can possibly claim such binding authority.


The rcc is telling you that you can't understand it to control you.
Just another unsubstantiated assertion from you. Post your proof.


If you stopped drinking the Kool-Aid and just read the bible, you would not see the rcc.
If you stopped drinking the Kool-Aid fed to you by your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect and read the Bible through the interpretive lens of Christ's one historic Church, you would not see the "Church of Christ" sect. (See how that works?)



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

turbosixx
July 25th, 2015, 03:25 PM
Once again, you need to look closer. The "selling" of indulgences was never a formal teaching of the Catholic Church, but was rather a regional abuse of the Christian doctrine of indulgences by certain leaders during the late Renaissance Period.

For more info, see this (http://www.catholic.com/tracts/primer-on-ingulgences) and this (http://www.catholic.com/tracts/myths-about-indulgences).


So much for your previous anti-Catholic claim.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

You can spin it how you like, but Rome sent out people to sell indulgences to acquire wealth. They used their religious authority for evil, plan and simple. The history of the rcc is riddled with skeletons and down right atrocities and they are continuing to pile up.

turbosixx
July 25th, 2015, 03:28 PM
But---as you have already admitted---your preferred interpretations of the Bible are NOT authoritative. Whose doctrinal tradition, then, DOES have the authority to interpret Divine Revelation in a manner which is binding upon believers? I've already shown that only Christ's one historic Catholic Church (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html) possesses such inherent doctrinal authority, and that no recently-invented, man-made non-catholic sect can possibly claim such binding authority.


Just another unsubstantiated assertion from you. Post your proof.


If you stopped drinking the Kool-Aid fed to you by your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect and read the Bible through the interpretive lens of Christ's one historic Church, you would not see the "Church of Christ" sect. (See how that works?)



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Sorry, I tried to help but I have been a faithful watchman.

Cruciform
July 25th, 2015, 03:32 PM
We will never agree because we use different things for authority. I use God's word, you use mans.
Rather:
I rely on God's word (Divine Revelation: Scripture & Tradition) as infallibly and authoritatively taught by Christ's one historic Church, and
you rely on part of God's word (rejecting Tradition) as taught by your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect.
Which teachings, then, are binding upon believers, and which are the mere opinions of men? :think:


"According to Catholic teaching"
Catechism of the Catholic Church, 838
That's correct: "According to the authoritative teachings of that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html)..." This is something that your favored man-made sect could never claim.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

turbosixx
July 25th, 2015, 03:40 PM
Rather:
I rely on God's word (Divine Revelation: Scripture & Tradition) as infallibly and authoritatively taught by Christ's one historic Church, and
you rely on part of God's word (rejecting Tradition) as taught by your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect.
Which teachings, then, are binding upon believers, and which are the mere opinions of men? :think:


That's correct: "According to the authoritative teachings of that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html)..." This is something that your favored man-made sect could never claim.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

I've spent hours with Jehovah Witnesses and the rcc is no different. They are told what the bible says and can't question it because they can't understand if for themselves.

Acts 17:11 Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

We should compare what we are taught with scripture because it's our soul on the line at judgment.

How does one become a catholic?

Cruciform
July 25th, 2015, 03:41 PM
You can spin it how you like...
No "spin," just historical fact. However, you need to tell yourself that it's nothing but spin in order to cling to the anti-Catholic opinions of men that you've been fed by your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect. To this point, you simply don't want to know the truth badly enough. I can relate, since I've been there myself.


...but Rome sent out people to sell indulgences to acquire wealth. They used their religious authority for evil, plan and simple.
Already decisively answered in a previous post above.


The history of the rcc is riddled with skeletons and down right atrocities and they are continuing to pile up.
More unsubstantiated rhetoric. If your favored man-made sect ever manages to provide actual proof for any of its anti-Catholic claims, be sure to let me know.



Gaudium deveritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Cruciform
July 25th, 2015, 03:43 PM
Sorry, I tried to help but I have been a faithful watchman.
..."faithful" to the mere human opinions of your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect, anyway.

turbosixx
July 25th, 2015, 03:46 PM
..."faithful" to the mere human opinions of your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect, anyway.

See you don't even talk as the oracles of God. "non-Catholic" I'm thankful I'm non-Catholic because I am Christian.

turbosixx
July 25th, 2015, 03:57 PM
No "spin," just historical fact. However, you need to tell yourself that it's nothing but spin in order to cling to the anti-Catholic opinions of men that you've been fed by your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect. To this point, you simply don't want to know the truth badly enough. I can relate, since I've been there myself.


Already decisively answered in a previous post above.


More unsubstantiated rhetoric. If your favored man-made sect ever manages to provide actual proof for any of its anti-Catholic claims, be sure to let me know.



Gaudium deveritate,

Cruciform
+T+

I'm not anti-cahtolic, I'm pro-Christian. I disagree with any sect that seeks to divide Christ's church. That's why we are either Christian or we are not. There is no hyphenation in Christ's body.

Cruciform
July 25th, 2015, 04:05 PM
They are told what the bible says and can't question it...
And yet, the very same applies to you regarding your favored recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect, though you can't yet acknowledge that fact.


Acts 17:11 Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.
In fact, the Bereans in no way held to sola scriptura, which did not even exist until Protestant schismatics invented it during the 16th-century so-called "reformation." See this (http://www.catholic-convert.com/wp-content/uploads/Bereans-and-Sola-Scriptura.pdf).


We should compare what we are taught with scripture...
...with whose infallibly authoritative interpretations of Scripture? Not yours, since you've already acknowledged that your personal interpretations are not infallible, and so are therefore not authoritative. And not those of your favored recently-invented, man-made sect, since its non-authoritative opinions are nothing more than the mere traditions of men. Whose, then?


How does one become a Catholic?
Addressed here (http://www.catholic.com/documents/how-to-become-a-catholic).



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Cruciform
July 25th, 2015, 04:07 PM
See you don't even talk as the oracles of God. "non-Catholic" I'm thankful I'm non-Catholic because I am Christian.
Like I said... (Post #228).

Cruciform
July 25th, 2015, 04:13 PM
I'm not anti-catholic, I'm pro-Christian.
You are opposed to the Catholic Church and her authoritative teachings. In this sense, you are indeed anti-Catholic.


I disagree with any sect that seeks to divide Christ's church.
Then you should definitely disagree with your own man-invented "Church of Christ" sect, since it is merely one of the 50,000+ competing and contradictory recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sects in existence today, with more "dividing Christ's church" every week.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

turbosixx
July 25th, 2015, 04:20 PM
sect[/B], since it is merely one of the 50,000+ competing and contradictory recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sects in existence today, with more "dividing Christ's church" every week.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

How can I disagree with truth. I have believed the gospel and been baptized into Christ. Mark 16:16

I worship with the saints in a building with HIS name on it and a name that can be found in the bible. I follow only the bible, nothing added nothing taken away. I am a Christian, no hyphenation. How am I not a member of HIS church, how am I dividing.

Cruciform
July 25th, 2015, 04:23 PM
For turbosixx:



HOW OLD IS YOUR "CHURCH"?

If you belong to the Church of England, your religion was founded by King Henry VIII in the year 1534 because the Pope would not grant him a divorce with the right to remarry.

If you are a Presbyterian, your religion was founded by John Knox in Scotland in the year 1560.

If you are a Protestant Episcopalian, your religion was an offshoot of the Church of England founded by Samuel Seabury in the American colonies in the 17th century.

If you are a Congregationalist, your religion was originated by Robert Brown in Holland in 1582.

If you are a Methodist, your religion was launched by John and Charles Wesley in England in 1744.

If you are a Unitarian, Theophilus Lindley founded your church in London in 1774.

If you are a Mormon (Latter Day Saints), Joseph Smith started your religion in Palmyra, N.Y., in 1829.

If you are a Baptist, you owe the tenets of your religion to John Smyth, who launched it in Amsterdam in 1608.

If you are of the Dutch Reformed church, you recognize Michaelis Jones as founder, because he originated your religion in New York in 1628.

If you are a member of the Churches of Christ your church began near the beginning of the 19th century in New England. Abner Jones, Barton Stone and Alexander Campbell were some of the most well known originators of your religion.

If you worship with the Salvation Army, your sect began with William Booth in London in 1865.

If you are a Christian Scientist, you look to 1879 as the year in which your religion was born and to Mrs. Mary Baker Eddy as its founder.

If you belong to one of the religious organizations known as "Church of the "Nazarene," "Pentecostal Gospel," "Holiness Church," "Pilgrim Holiness Church," "Jehovahs Witnesses," your religion is one of the hundreds of new sects founded by men within the past century.

If you are Roman Catholic, you know that your religion was founded in the year 33 by Jesus Christ the Son of God, and it is still the same Church.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/apologetics/how-old-is-your-church.html

Cruciform
July 25th, 2015, 04:29 PM
How can I disagree with truth.
Bitter water doesn't pour from a pure well. Likewise, true doctrine does not come from a merely man-made sect which cannot demonstrate itself to be that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself, and against which he declared that the powers of death would never prevail (Mt. 16:18; 1 Tim. 3:15). Again, you have nothing but the mere opinions (traditions) of men.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

turbosixx
July 25th, 2015, 04:35 PM
For turbosixx:



HOW OLD IS YOUR "CHURCH"?

If you belong to the Church of England, your religion was founded by King Henry VIII in the year 1534 because the Pope would not grant him a divorce with the right to remarry.

If you are a Presbyterian, your religion was founded by John Knox in Scotland in the year 1560.

If you are a Protestant Episcopalian, your religion was an offshoot of the Church of England founded by Samuel Seabury in the American colonies in the 17th century.

If you are a Congregationalist, your religion was originated by Robert Brown in Holland in 1582.

If you are a Methodist, your religion was launched by John and Charles Wesley in England in 1744.

If you are a Unitarian, Theophilus Lindley founded your church in London in 1774.

If you are a Mormon (Latter Day Saints), Joseph Smith started your religion in Palmyra, N.Y., in 1829.

If you are a Baptist, you owe the tenets of your religion to John Smyth, who launched it in Amsterdam in 1608.

If you are of the Dutch Reformed church, you recognize Michaelis Jones as founder, because he originated your religion in New York in 1628.

If you are a member of the Churches of Christ your church began near the beginning of the 19th century in New England. Abner Jones, Barton Stone and Alexander Campbell were some of the most well known originators of your religion.

If you worship with the Salvation Army, your sect began with William Booth in London in 1865.

If you are a Christian Scientist, you look to 1879 as the year in which your religion was born and to Mrs. Mary Baker Eddy as its founder.

If you belong to one of the religious organizations known as "Church of the "Nazarene," "Pentecostal Gospel," "Holiness Church," "Pilgrim Holiness Church," "Jehovahs Witnesses," your religion is one of the hundreds of new sects founded by men within the past century.

If you are Roman Catholic, you know that your religion was founded in the year 33 by Jesus Christ the Son of God, and it is still the same Church.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/apologetics/how-old-is-your-church.html

Church of Christ was founded 33 AD. It's even referenced in scripture. Rom. 16:16 Greet one another with a holy kiss.
All the churches of Christ send greetings.

When we obey the gospel we are added to HIS church, the one he purchased with his blood.

The way to become a catholic is not in accordance with scripture.
Acts 2:41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

I fail to see the added steps of the rcc. So when one follows the rcc way, they are not added to the body of Christ but to the rcc.

turbosixx
July 25th, 2015, 04:39 PM
Again, you have nothing but the mere opinions (traditions) of men.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

This is where you are wrong, you are following men, not me.

The only man I follow is Christ.

You follow men.

https://ivarfjeld.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/pope-timor.jpg

Cruciform
July 25th, 2015, 04:58 PM
Church of Christ was founded 33 AD. It's even referenced in scripture. Rom. 16:16 Greet one another with a holy kiss.
All the churches of Christ send greetings.
:darwinsm:... Common, really? Just because some guys in the 19th century decided to name their sect "Church of Christ" certainly doesn't mean that their man-made sect actually IS that one historic Church (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html) founded by Jesus Christ himself in 33 A.D. And, as the chart I posted demonstrates, your preferred sect is anything but.


When we obey the gospel we are added to HIS church, the one he purchased with his blood.
As I acknowledged, if you truly believe in Jesus and have been properly baptized, you are placed in a certain relationship with the Catholic Church and, by that means, may be called a "Christian" and may in the end be saved (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Par. 838). That being said, the Catechism also issues this sober warning:

"Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it" (par. 846).

The way to become a catholic is not in accordance with scripture.
Acts 2:41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

They were baptized in Christ's one historic Church, just as people are today baptized in Christ's one historic Catholic Church. Same Church. In any case, I've already discussed the development and growth of Christ's one historic Church (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html) over the past two millennia.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Cruciform
July 25th, 2015, 05:05 PM
This is where you are wrong, you are following men, not me.
Already categorically refuted (Post #225).


The only man I follow is Christ. You follow men.
You follow the mere interpretations and opinions of the human teachers in your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect. Your False Dilemma Fallacy, however, is noted.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

RevTestament
July 25th, 2015, 05:18 PM
For turbosixx:

[INDENT]HOW OLD IS YOUR "CHURCH"?

If you are a Mormon (Latter Day Saints), Joseph Smith started your religion in Palmyra, N.Y., in 1829.Actually the church of Jesus Christ is as old as Adam, who was the first high priest of God on this earth. Although the priesthood has been restored several times, this did not start a new church, but just continued the revelations of God. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints simply represents the last of these restorations. We hold the same high priesthood as did Melchizedek, which priesthood was lost prior to Christ, and then again when the bishop of Rome decided to claim prominence over the other bishops contrary to biblical precedent, so had to be restored again.


If you are Roman Catholic, you know that your religion was founded in the year 33 by Jesus Christ the Son of God, and it is still the same Church.

The Jews said the same thing to Christ. The Roman Catholic church was one of the many early churches established throughout the Roman Empire, and kicked out the early Egyptian church, the later Byzantine church, the Eastern Syrian church, etc, largely because they did not accept her alleged authority over them. They too all claim to descend from the original church founded by Christ and the apostles....just sayin'

Sancocho
July 25th, 2015, 05:48 PM
I've spent hours with Jehovah Witnesses and the rcc is no different. They are told what the bible says and can't question it because they can't understand if for themselves.

Interestingly this is what I have seen regarding Protestants. Just sayin bro. Peace.

Sancocho
July 25th, 2015, 05:52 PM
The rcc uses things other than the bible to control people and gain wealth and power.

What wealth and power bro??

We Catholics do more for the poor around the world than all other Christian religion combined (by my estimates).

Just because we have some fancy Cardinal in Rome that like to go around in exotic clothes does not reflect the totality of our religious and believers. We are a church of poor people because GOD LOVES THE POOR.

The whole claim about the leaders of the RCC being super rich is an empty myth. On the other hand name one mega pastor in the US and lets talk about the millions they make.

Sancocho
July 25th, 2015, 05:53 PM
Actually the church of Jesus Christ is as old as Adam, who was the first high priest of God on this earth. Although the priesthood has been restored several times, this did not start a new church, but just continued the revelations of God. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints simply represents the last of these restorations. We hold the same high priesthood as did Melchizedek, which priesthood was lost prior to Christ, and then again when the bishop of Rome decided to claim prominence over the other bishops contrary to biblical precedent, so had to be restored again.



The Jews said the same thing to Christ. The Roman Catholic church was one of the many early churches established throughout the Roman Empire, and kicked out the early Egyptian church, the later Byzantine church, the Eastern Syrian church, etc, largely because they did not accept her alleged authority over them. They too all claim to descend from the original church founded by Christ and the apostles....just sayin'

When it comes down to details there are never any - just sayin.

Sancocho
July 25th, 2015, 05:55 PM
Tell me how the church I attend is not the church that Jesus died for. I need to know.

Jesus died for you bro and you already know it. God's love is so immense for He will not hold it against you nor anyone else if you are part of a church that has an incomplete doctrine. He is looking for people that love Him and their brother.

Nonetheless, if your heart is uneasy you need to investigate the RCC.

RevTestament
July 25th, 2015, 06:12 PM
When it comes down to details there are never any - just sayin.
I agree... the details reveal none of the churches retained the original structure and authority of the initial church which is why it had to be restored. The RCC certainly is no exception. This is not necessarily their "fault." They could no more resist becoming the prophesied harlot than the Jews could resist the prophecies that they would reject their Savior. Christ's church had apostles and seventy. Bishops were appointed over the local churches in each city. Bishops were not apostles, and did not hold apostolic authority, much less the authority of Christ over the church. So you are right - the details do not show Christ established the RCC.

Sancocho
July 25th, 2015, 06:35 PM
I agree... the details reveal none of the churches retained the original structure and authority of the initial church which is why it had to be restored. The RCC certainly is no exception. This is not necessarily their "fault." They could no more resist becoming the prophesied harlot than the Jews could resist the prophecies that they would reject their Savior. Christ's church had apostles and seventy. Bishops were appointed over the local churches in each city. Bishops were not apostles, and did not hold apostolic authority, much less the authority of Christ over the church. So you are right - the details do not show Christ established the RCC.

Sorry bro I was once a Protestant because I believed the plethora of empty claims but once we got down to the details there were none. If you think you have some real details please post them.

As far as the prostitute, no one promotes child sacrifice, homosexuality and pornography than the US while the RCC and Catholic countries all fight this, so your case has no legs to stand on. Jesus says to judge fellow brothers by their fruits, not ability to quote Scripture, sorry.

RevTestament
July 25th, 2015, 07:14 PM
Sorry bro I was once a Protestant because I believed the plethora of empty claims but once we got down to the details there were none. If you think you have some real details please post them.I just did. Are scriptural details not authoritative to you?

Luke 10:1 After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come.

Early church history also reveals there were a seventy who assisted the apostles. Where are these in the RCC? Where is the RCC curia in Christ's church? I find it in the Roman senate which opposed Christ - not in his church.
Perhaps you ought to take a closer look at the RCC, and the many changes it instituted while all the time alleging to be the church established by Christ. What happened to the baptismal font it installed in the Lateran? Do you believe the apostles baptized with holy salted water? Where did that practice come from? You do realize the Roman pagans used salted water in their "holy" rites don't you?


As far as the prostitute, no one promotes child sacrifice, homosexuality and pornography than the US while the RCC and Catholic countries all fight this, so your case has no legs to stand on. Jesus says to judge fellow brothers by their fruits, not ability to quote Scripture, sorry.
I will take that as a complement, but I have learned the scriptures thoroughly over many years. I offer what I see freely.
While I agree with you that the US has become a beast, she is not the prophesied woman. Countries or ruling governments are beasts. She is the second prophesied beast of Revelation which rises out of the wilderness and brings about the image of the beast.
But as for fruits, the RCC has plenty of rotten ones the latest of which were the many cases of molestation she allowed by allowing homosexual priests, and then covering them up. The past is strewn with the bodies of Christ's followers who attempted to translate the scriptures or speak out against the false teachings of the RCC, and so were persecuted and killed by "one historic, true church." The Protestants were mostly Teutonic tribes who were led astray by the RCC in the first place, so it is her fault they did not have the truth and now wander about haphazardly. But they can now live in the truth.

Revelation 17:17

17 For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.

Sancocho
July 25th, 2015, 07:27 PM
I just did. Are scriptural details not authoritative to you?

Luke 10:1 After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come.

Early church history also reveals there were a seventy who assisted the apostles. Where are these in the RCC? Where is the RCC curia in Christ's church? I find it in the Roman senate which opposed Christ - not in his church.
Perhaps you ought to take a closer look at the RCC, and the many changes it instituted while all the time alleging to be the church established by Christ. What happened to the baptismal font it installed in the Lateran? Do you believe the apostles baptized with holy salted water? Where did that practice come from? You do realize the Roman pagans used salted water in their "holy" rites don't you?


I will take that as a complement, but I have learned the scriptures thoroughly over many years. I offer what I see freely.
While I agree with you that the US has become a beast, she is not the prophesied woman. Countries or ruling governments are beasts. She is the second prophesied beast of Revelation which rises out of the wilderness and brings about the image of the beast.
But as for fruits, the RCC has plenty of rotten ones the latest of which were the many cases of molestation she allowed by allowing homosexual priests, and then covering them up. The past is strewn with the bodies of Christ's followers who attempted to translate the scriptures or speak out against the false teachings of the RCC, and so were persecuted and killed by "one historic, true church." The Protestants were mostly Teutonic tribes who were led astray by the RCC in the first place, so it is her fault they did not have the truth and now wander about haphazardly. But they can now live in the truth.

Revelation 17:17

17 For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.

Mere ability to quote Scripture does not impress me like it did before.

Protestant nations are the source of everything God abhors, child sacrifice, pornography, homosexuality.

Catholic nations promote the Gospel.

"they will be known by their fruit"

RevTestament
July 25th, 2015, 08:07 PM
Mere ability to quote Scripture does not impress me like it did before.I am not trying to "impress" you. I merely show the application of scripture. I'll let the spirit do the impressing as to whether it is true or not.


Protestant nations are the source of everything God abhors, child sacrifice, pornography, homosexuality.Well, that is not quite true now is it? Actually, the Bible makes it clear that Sodom and Gomorrha were pretty darn bad, and I don't think they were "Protestant nations." Homosexuality was obviously around at the time of Moses since it is condemned in the Torah, and can hardly be blamed on the Protestant nations - nor can Prostitution. Abortion is a new creature created by the desire of industrialized nations to live comfortably and not be "inconvenienced." It is heavily present in Russia and China without the influence of "Protestantism." Indeed the opposite - a complete rejection of Christianity by "communists." So it is more a function of modern selfishness of more affluent nations rather than a product of "Protestantism."


Catholic nations promote the Gospel.I have seen many countries which allegedly became Catholic which retain many pagan beliefs and practices. An example is in "Catholic" Latin America, which continues to hold many traditional pagan beliefs, and therefore has never been converted to Christ. Miners still have their pagan idol god in the mines which they pay homage to in order to appease the god of the mountain, etc.
So how much these nations really "promote the gospel" is totally up for grabs.
Let's take a look at Brazil which is traditionally a Catholic country.
"Every year an estimated 1.4 million Brazilian girls and women take the law into their hands, and often put their health at risk, to terminate their pregnancies. This gives Brazil an abortion rate much higher than that of the United States, even though one country allows the procedure and the other all but bans it." So I suppose you are going to blame this on Protestantism too?


"they will be known by their fruit"That pertains to alleged prophets including the Roman pontiff.
May I suggest you do so and see how the Roman pontiff stacks up over the centuries?