Standing Up To Rome

Cruciform

Cruciform

New member
JonahofAkron said:
Sounds legit. I'm starting to respond to him with things I find on the Web. I hope he takes it seriously. It would save me so much time in writing.
Click to expand...
Likewise. But trust me: there isn't a single anti-Catholic "argument" that I haven't encountered in my past fourteen years as a Catholic.
 
Cedarbay

Cedarbay

New member
WeberHome said:
-
My mom had me baptized an infant into the Roman Catholic Church in 1944;
and when old enough; enrolled me in catechism where I eventually
completed First Holy Communion and Confirmation.

My aunt and uncle were Catholics, their son is a Catholic, one of my half
brothers is now a semi retired Friar. My father-in-law was a Catholic, as was
my mother-in-law. Everybody alive on my wife's side are Catholics; her
aunts and uncles, and her cousins. My sister-in-law was a nun for a number
of years before falling out with the hierarchy that controlled her order.

I have things to thank the Church for. It instilled within me an unshakable
confidence in the Holy Bible as a reliable authority in all matters pertaining
to faith and practice. It also instilled within me a trust in the integrity of
Jesus Christ. Very early in my youth; I began to believe that Christ knew
what he was talking about and meant what he said.

I was very proud to be affiliated with Roman Catholicism, and confident as
all get out that it is the one true Christian religion. Some Catholics see red
whenever the Church is criticized and/or critiqued, but I never did. Some
Catholics see criticism and/or critique of the Church's beliefs and practices as
hatred for Catholics. I have never understood that mentality.

Ironically, one of the Church's enemies, the Jehovah's Witnesses, sometimes
react the same way when somebody criticizes and/or critiques the Watch
Tower Society. For some odd reason, it translates in their minds as hatred
for Jehovah's Witnesses. I think some people have trouble telling the
difference between a sport and a sport's fans; if you know what I mean.

Oddly, though I was confident that the Bible is a reliable authority in all
matters pertaining to faith and practice; I had never actually sat down and
read it. A co-worker in a metal shop where I worked as a welder in 1968
suggested that I buy one and see for myself what it says.

Everything went smoothly till I got to the New Testament, and in no time at
all I began to realize that Rome does not always agree with the Holy Bible;
nor does it always agree with Christ. Well; that was not cool with me
because I was, and still am, confident that the Holy Bible is a reliable
authority in all matters pertaining to faith and practice, and that Christ knew
what he was talking about and meant what he said.

Well; I soon became confronted with a very serious decision. Do I continue
to follow Rome and its hierarchy, or do I switch to following Christ and the
Holy Bible?

The decision was a no-brainer due to my confidence in the Holy Bible as a
reliable authority in all matters pertaining to faith and practice; and due to
my trust in Jesus Christ's integrity-- that he knew what he was talking about
and meant what he said. So here I am today 47 years later still a Protestant.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==
Click to expand...
Interesting testimony.
 
Last edited:
D

disturbo

BANNED
Banned
Well; I soon became confronted with a very serious decision. Do I continueto follow Rome and its hierarchy, or do I switch to following Christ and theHoly Bible?
Click to expand...

I'm a Catholic and I can tell you that not one Catholic that I know follows ROME. The ones that I know are friends and fellowship with Protestants. I don't follow anybody but Christ. But I do know many Protestants who think they follow their clans of Darby, Calvinism, Pentecostalism, fundamentalism, and many more who are no better.

Here I am a Catholic, who went Protestant, who was offended several times, and went BACK to Catholicism!

Praise be to God!
 
glassjester

glassjester

Well-known member
WeberHome said:
Well; I soon became confronted with a very serious decision. Do I continue
to follow Rome and its hierarchy, or do I switch to following Christ and the
Holy Bible?
Click to expand...

Did the Church that Christ founded in the first century have a hierarchy?
 
Idolater

Idolater

"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
Leviticus 17:11-14

We suppose that Christ knew this passage before uttering John 6:53-54, right?
WeberHome said:
-
†. John 6:53 . . Amen, amen, I say to you: unless you eat the flesh of the
Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.

The kind of life obtained by correctly ingesting Christ's flesh, and correctly
imbibing his blood, is eternal life.

†. John 6:54 . .Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life

Note the tense of Christ's "has" verb in John 6:54. It's present tense rather
than future, indicating that people who correctly ingest his flesh, and
correctly imbibe his blood, have eternal life right now-- no delay and no
waiting period.

There has never been a time when eternal life didn't exist because it's the
kind of life that sustains God; viz: eternal life always was, it always is, and it
always shall be. In other words: eternal life is an imperishable kind of life
that's impervious to death, decay, and the aging process. Were that not
true, it would be possible to assassinate God.

That being the case, then the kind of life obtained by correctly ingesting
Christ's flesh, and correctly imbibing his blood, never wears out nor ever
wears off because in order for it to wear out or wear off, it would have to
die; which, by eternal life's very nature, is impossible. If it were possible for
eternal life to die, then it wouldn't be eternal.

So then, once someone obtains eternal life, they never need to obtain it
again seeing as how eternal life is impervious to death-- and seeing as how
it's impervious to death, then it's impervious to the wages of sin (Rom 6:23)
which means that it would not die in between confessions and/or in between
doses of Eucharist.

Christ compared himself to the manna that Yhvh's people subsisted on out in
the wilderness prior to their entry into the land of Canaan. Manna was
nourishing, but it was merely an organic sustenance; viz: it didn't have any
life in it. No matter how much of the stuff that the people consumed, manna
couldn't keep them alive forever. They eventually died. And the people
couldn't get by on just one dose of manna; they had to consume it on a daily
basis or risk starvation.

In contrast, Christ is far and away superior to organic sustenance. His body
and blood aren't common sustenance, they are life; and the quality of the
life is such that people need to partake of it just once and they will live
forever-- they don't have to keep eating and drinking his blood over and
over and over again as if it were manna.

Now, the trick to obtaining this benefit is in correctly partaking of Christ's
flesh and blood. When people do it incorrectly, they fail to obtain eternal life;
ergo: they risk passing on with only human life; which is a perishable kind of
life that will not survive the Great White Throne event depicted at Rev
20:10-15.

Q: How does one partake of Christ's body and blood correctly?

A: Well; one thing we can be very sure of is that Christ wasn't literal. The
reason being that right after the Flood, God forbad humanity to eat living
flesh and blood (Gen 9:3-4). So if people are determined to eat Christ's flesh
and blood, either literal or transubstantiated, they are going to have to first
make sure it's quite dead; which of course is impossible seeing as how Christ
rose from the dead with immortality. (Rom 6:9)

The night of Christ's last Passover meal, all the men present with him were
Jews. Well; seeing as how according to Heb 9:16-17, the new covenant
wasn't ratified until Christ died, then he and his men were still under the
jurisdiction of the covenant that Yhvh's people agreed upon with God in the
Old Testament: which covenant forbids Jews to eat any manner of blood
(Lev 7:26-27). So if Christ had led those men into eating his blood, he would
have led them into a curse (Deut 27:26) and thus relegated himself to the
position of the least in the kingdom of God. (Matt 26:26-28)

Bottom line: We can, and we should, rule out transubstantiation as a valid
explanation of John 6:32-58.

Now; the trick is: the words that Christ spoke in that section of John were
cryptic. Though his words look like ordinary language and grammar; they
said things that the human mind would find difficult to unravel.

†. John 6:63 . .The words I have spoken to you are spirit

Seeing as how Christ's words were spoken in spirit-speak; then you'd need
some sort of Enigma device to translate them; or at least someone proficient
in spirit-speak.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==
Click to expand...
 
turbosixx

turbosixx

New member
Cruciform said:
Your answer, then, is that YOU possess the inherent doctrinal authority to bindingly interpret the Scriptures on behalf of the faithful. Is that correct?
Click to expand...


The words of Jesus are the authority of doctrine.
Matt. 28:18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.

The words of Jesus are what we will be judged by on judgment day not the words of men.
Jn. 12:48 He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him—the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day.

Mine and my loved ones souls eternal destiny is too valuable to trust to the interpretations of men, especially when their interpretations contradict inspired word.
Matt. 15:9 And in vain they worship Me,Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ ”

God did not give us a bible we cannot understand and we are each individually responsible what we do with it.
Acts 17:11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.

Think about the Jehovah Witness. The society produces writings and tells the members they cannot interpret scripture. The society even corrected the canon producing their own version. If you have debated with them as I have, you will see they are convinced and can prove what they say is true, but they do it based on the writings of the society's (men's) interpretations.

The rcc is the same way. I will never give any credence to or waste my time with THIS or HERE because those are writings of men. If you want to refute something I say or prove a point, I will only consider scripture.
 
Last edited:
D

disturbo

BANNED
Banned
The words of Jesus are the authority of doctrine.
Click to expand...

Matt. 28:18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.

If you want to refute something I say or prove a point, I will only consider scripture.
Click to expand...

How about considering Mathew 28:18. You've taken it out of context. It has nothing to do with 'doctrine.'
 
turbosixx

turbosixx

New member
disturbo said:
Matt. 28:18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.



How about considering Mathew 28:18. You've taken it out of context. It has nothing to do with 'doctrine.'
Click to expand...

In your understanding, what does it mean?

Looking at the context, it looks like doctrine to me.
20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you;
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top