User Tag List

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 39

Thread: The Way That Seems Right, But Leads to Death, Proverbs 14:12

  1. #16
    Over 750 post club
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    843
    Thanks
    534
    Thanked 193 Times in 162 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    39407
    Pateism: Believing that you are always right. Dismissing logic, definitions, rational thought, and any and all evidence that goes against your doctrines (but insist that you don't have doctrine, just faith). And remember, Pate is always right.


    Sent from my iPhone using TOL

  2. #17
    Over 750 post club
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    843
    Thanks
    534
    Thanked 193 Times in 162 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    39407
    When will you learn?

    From the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 2005:
    "Grace belongs to the supernatural order, grace escapes our experience and cannot be known except by faith. We cannot therefore rely on our feelings or our works to conclude that we are justified and saved."


    Sent from my iPhone using TOL

  3. #18
    LIFETIME MEMBER jamie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,966
    Thanks
    1,353
    Thanked 1,191 Times in 1,056 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    35 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    313641
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Pate View Post
    Why don't you post an article about what you believe?
    I don't need an article, I believe humans are made in the likeness and image of God through Jesus Christ.

  4. #19
    Silver Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Eau Claire, WI
    Posts
    11,116
    Thanks
    112
    Thanked 1,165 Times in 985 Posts

    Mentioned
    31 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    307217
    Quote Originally Posted by jamie View Post
    I don't need an article, I believe humans are made in the likeness and image of God through Jesus Christ.
    God and Jesus Christ do not have a fallen nature, Romans 5:12.

  5. #20
    Silver Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Eau Claire, WI
    Posts
    11,116
    Thanks
    112
    Thanked 1,165 Times in 985 Posts

    Mentioned
    31 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    307217
    Quote Originally Posted by jsanford108 View Post
    When will you learn?

    From the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 2005:
    "Grace belongs to the supernatural order, grace escapes our experience and cannot be known except by faith. We cannot therefore rely on our feelings or our works to conclude that we are justified and saved."


    Sent from my iPhone using TOL

    I don't believe anything written by the Catholic church. I have a KJV Bible that is the word of God.

  6. #21
    LIFETIME MEMBER jamie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,966
    Thanks
    1,353
    Thanked 1,191 Times in 1,056 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    35 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    313641
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Pate View Post
    God and Jesus Christ do not have a fallen nature, Romans 5:12.
    Good point, maybe they're not human.

  7. #22
    Silver Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Eau Claire, WI
    Posts
    11,116
    Thanks
    112
    Thanked 1,165 Times in 985 Posts

    Mentioned
    31 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    307217
    Quote Originally Posted by jamie View Post
    Good point, maybe they're not human.
    How about divine?

  8. #23
    Over 750 post club
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    843
    Thanks
    534
    Thanked 193 Times in 162 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    39407
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Pate View Post
    I don't believe anything written by the Catholic church. I have a KJV Bible that is the word of God.
    Yet you believe the lies you spread about the Catholic Church.

    Where do you find the information you present? It certainly isn't in the Bible.

    You must have a source which gives you all this false information. Rather than spreading those lies, you could just read what their target actually believes and teaches. It would provide a much more accurate portrayal of Catholicism, versus the falsehoods that you and others like you commonly attribute to Catholicism.


    Sent from my iPhone using TOL

  9. #24
    Silver Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Eau Claire, WI
    Posts
    11,116
    Thanks
    112
    Thanked 1,165 Times in 985 Posts

    Mentioned
    31 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    307217
    Quote Originally Posted by jsanford108 View Post
    Yet you believe the lies you spread about the Catholic Church.

    Where do you find the information you present? It certainly isn't in the Bible.

    You must have a source which gives you all this false information. Rather than spreading those lies, you could just read what their target actually believes and teaches. It would provide a much more accurate portrayal of Catholicism, versus the falsehoods that you and others like you commonly attribute to Catholicism.


    Sent from my iPhone using TOL

    There is nothing in the Bible about a Catholic church in Rome. John wrote to the seven churches in Asia, but there is no mention of a church in Rome, Revelation 1:4. There is nothing in the Bible about Peter going to Rome, nor is there any connection between the church in Jerusalem and a church in Rome. Paul did not write to a church in Rome, he wrote to the believers that were in Rome. The church in Rome appears to be a mystery church, Revelation 17:5.

  10. #25
    Over 750 post club
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    843
    Thanks
    534
    Thanked 193 Times in 162 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    39407
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Pate View Post
    There is nothing in the Bible about a Catholic church in Rome. John wrote to the seven churches in Asia, but there is no mention of a church in Rome, Revelation 1:4. There is nothing in the Bible about Peter going to Rome, nor is there any connection between the church in Jerusalem and a church in Rome. Paul did not write to a church in Rome, he wrote to the believers that were in Rome. The church in Rome appears to be a mystery church, Revelation 17:5.
    Okay, so Peter is not mentioned as "in Rome," in the Scriptures. I will give you that one. But there is nothing saying that he wasn't. There is also no passage detailing the founding of the United States. Dismissing something because it is simply "not in" the Bible is illogical.

    Let us consider historical sources. After all the Bible is a historically accurate book, right? Hence, your claim that because it doesn't include Peter being in Rome, he must never have been there. So if another historical, and Christian, text declares that Peter was, then it should logically point to Peter being in Rome. Especially if when crossed with writings of other Christians of the time.

    Tertullian, in "The Demurrer Against the Heretics" (A.D. 200), noted of Rome, “How happy is that church . . . where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a death like John’s (referring to John the Baptist, both he and Paul being beheaded)." You no doubt admit Paul died in Rome; so the implication from Tertullian is that Peter also must have been there. It was commonly accepted, from the very first, that both Peter and Paul were martyred at Rome, probably in the Neronian persecution in the 60s.

    In the same book, Tertullian wrote that “this is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrnaeans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John; like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter.” This Clement, known as Clement of Rome, later would be the fourth pope. (Note that Tertullian didn’t say Peter consecrated Clement as pope, which would have been impossible since a pope doesn’t consecrate his own successor; he merely ordained Clement as priest.) Clement wrote his Letter to the Corinthians perhaps before the year 70, just a few years after Peter and Paul were killed; in it he made reference to Peter ending his life, where Paul ended his.

    In his "Letter to the Romans" (A.D. 110), Ignatius of Antioch remarked that he could not command the Roman Christians the way Peter and Paul once did. Such a comment only makes sense if Peter had been a leader, if not the leader, of the church in Rome.

    Irenaeus, in "Against Heresies" (A.D. 190), said that Matthew wrote his Gospel “while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church.” A few lines later he notes that Linus was named as Peter’s successor, that is, the second pope, and that next in line were Anacletus (also known as Cletus), and then Clement of Rome.

    Clement of Alexandria wrote at the turn of the third century. [A fragment of his work "Sketches" is preserved in Eusebius of Caesarea’s "Ecclesiastical History", the first history of the Church.] Clement wrote, “When Peter preached the word publicly at Rome, and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been for a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed.”

    Lactantius, in a treatise called "The Death of the Persecutors," written around 318, noted that “When Nero was already reigning (Nero reigned from 54–68), Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked by that power of God which had been given to him, he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God.”

    This seems to suggest that Peter did, despite "not being in the Bible," die in Rome.

    But that isn't the point of your argument. Your whole claim boils down to issues with Church Authority; whether the papacy was founded by Christ. Most anti-Catholics take up the matter and go to considerable trouble to “prove” Peter could not have been in Rome. Why? Because they think they can get mileage out of it. Because if "Catholics are wrong about a historical point, they must be wrong about all points, like Church Authority." It just shows the mental gymnastics and illogical ideas that people come up with to disprove Catholicism and its doctrines.


    Sent from my iPhone using TOL

  11. #26
    Silver Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Eau Claire, WI
    Posts
    11,116
    Thanks
    112
    Thanked 1,165 Times in 985 Posts

    Mentioned
    31 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    307217
    Quote Originally Posted by jsanford108 View Post
    Okay, so Peter is not mentioned as "in Rome," in the Scriptures. I will give you that one. But there is nothing saying that he wasn't. There is also no passage detailing the founding of the United States. Dismissing something because it is simply "not in" the Bible is illogical.

    Let us consider historical sources. After all the Bible is a historically accurate book, right? Hence, your claim that because it doesn't include Peter being in Rome, he must never have been there. So if another historical, and Christian, text declares that Peter was, then it should logically point to Peter being in Rome. Especially if when crossed with writings of other Christians of the time.

    Tertullian, in "The Demurrer Against the Heretics" (A.D. 200), noted of Rome, “How happy is that church . . . where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a death like John’s (referring to John the Baptist, both he and Paul being beheaded)." You no doubt admit Paul died in Rome; so the implication from Tertullian is that Peter also must have been there. It was commonly accepted, from the very first, that both Peter and Paul were martyred at Rome, probably in the Neronian persecution in the 60s.

    In the same book, Tertullian wrote that “this is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrnaeans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John; like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter.” This Clement, known as Clement of Rome, later would be the fourth pope. (Note that Tertullian didn’t say Peter consecrated Clement as pope, which would have been impossible since a pope doesn’t consecrate his own successor; he merely ordained Clement as priest.) Clement wrote his Letter to the Corinthians perhaps before the year 70, just a few years after Peter and Paul were killed; in it he made reference to Peter ending his life, where Paul ended his.

    In his "Letter to the Romans" (A.D. 110), Ignatius of Antioch remarked that he could not command the Roman Christians the way Peter and Paul once did. Such a comment only makes sense if Peter had been a leader, if not the leader, of the church in Rome.

    Irenaeus, in "Against Heresies" (A.D. 190), said that Matthew wrote his Gospel “while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church.” A few lines later he notes that Linus was named as Peter’s successor, that is, the second pope, and that next in line were Anacletus (also known as Cletus), and then Clement of Rome.

    Clement of Alexandria wrote at the turn of the third century. [A fragment of his work "Sketches" is preserved in Eusebius of Caesarea’s "Ecclesiastical History", the first history of the Church.] Clement wrote, “When Peter preached the word publicly at Rome, and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been for a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed.”

    Lactantius, in a treatise called "The Death of the Persecutors," written around 318, noted that “When Nero was already reigning (Nero reigned from 54–68), Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked by that power of God which had been given to him, he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God.”

    This seems to suggest that Peter did, despite "not being in the Bible," die in Rome.

    But that isn't the point of your argument. Your whole claim boils down to issues with Church Authority; whether the papacy was founded by Christ. Most anti-Catholics take up the matter and go to considerable trouble to “prove” Peter could not have been in Rome. Why? Because they think they can get mileage out of it. Because if "Catholics are wrong about a historical point, they must be wrong about all points, like Church Authority." It just shows the mental gymnastics and illogical ideas that people come up with to disprove Catholicism and its doctrines.


    Sent from my iPhone using TOL

    There are to many "What if's" for me. It appears to me that the purpose of the Catholic church is to persecute Christians. According to "Foxe's Book of Martyr's" thousands were put to death because they refused to adhere to Catholic doctrine. Catholicism is the church of you must, you must, you must and if you don't you are anathema.

  12. #27
    LIFETIME MEMBER jamie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,966
    Thanks
    1,353
    Thanked 1,191 Times in 1,056 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    35 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    313641
    Did Simon Peter institute Easter observance on Sunday. If so by what authority?

    Further, Irenaeus states that St. Polycarp, who like the other Asiatics, kept Easter on the fourteenth day of the moon, whatever day of the week that might be, following therein the tradition which he claimed to have derived from St. John the Apostle, came to Rome c. 150 about this very question, but could not be persuaded by Pope Anicetus to relinquish his Quartodeciman observance."

    (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05228a.htm)

  13. #28
    Silver Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Eau Claire, WI
    Posts
    11,116
    Thanks
    112
    Thanked 1,165 Times in 985 Posts

    Mentioned
    31 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    307217
    Quote Originally Posted by jamie View Post
    Did Simon Peter institute Easter observance on Sunday. If so by what authority?

    Further, Irenaeus states that St. Polycarp, who like the other Asiatics, kept Easter on the fourteenth day of the moon, whatever day of the week that might be, following therein the tradition which he claimed to have derived from St. John the Apostle, came to Rome c. 150 about this very question, but could not be persuaded by Pope Anicetus to relinquish his Quartodeciman observance."

    (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05228a.htm)

    Easter is a pagan holiday. Christian are not called to observe any days, Galatians 4:10, 11.

  14. #29
    Over 750 post club
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    843
    Thanks
    534
    Thanked 193 Times in 162 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    39407
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Pate View Post
    Easter is a pagan holiday. Christian are not called to observe any days, Galatians 4:10, 11.
    Celebrating the single most glorious event in the history of the world is "pagan?" It all begins to make sense now....


    Sent from my iPhone using TOL

  15. #30
    Over 750 post club
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    843
    Thanks
    534
    Thanked 193 Times in 162 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    39407
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Pate View Post
    There are to many "What if's" for me. It appears to me that the purpose of the Catholic church is to persecute Christians. According to "Foxe's Book of Martyr's" thousands were put to death because they refused to adhere to Catholic doctrine. Catholicism is the church of you must, you must, you must and if you don't you are anathema.
    Yet, the "thousands put to death" by Catholics is shadowed by multiple thousands killed by Protestants during the witch hunts. Why do those numbers never get mentioned? It is because it goes against the implication of persecution being performed by Catholicism.

    Also, Foxe's Book has been heavily criticized for being extremely inaccurate. It exaggerates numbers to the point of blatant lying. Both Christian and secular historians give it no weight and classify it as essentially the ravings of an anti-Catholic.

    If that is your source material, you need to be a little more critical of your sources. Especially one as faulty as Foxe's.


    Sent from my iPhone using TOL

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us