Featured Does the RCC have An Inferior View On the Bible?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Catalyst
The instant the egg and sperm unite in holy matrimony, you have a human being.

Therefore Birth Control, which kills that union is murder.
Thus birth control is an instrument for murder.

Moriah>>>Show that in the Bible, or do not say it.

Thou shalt not kill

I can't see how I'm deceitful, from my perspective it's answered clear and clean.... I may be missing something and need a kick in the heiniey here, but I dont' see it at this point. I'm correctable, explain the deceitful accusation.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Catalyst
Really? you want the Bible to show egg and sperm uniting makes a baby or else it's off the table? FINE show me you exist in the bible or I'll stop talking to you.

MORIAH>>>
Are you trying to be deceitful? I said show me from the Bible where it says to stop sperm and egg from meeting is murder.
You said it was murder. Prove it from the scriptures or stop saying it.
This is a debate group on doctrine, not on what you think of me.
__________

BTW, accusing me of making a personal comment here about what I think of you, was out of line and dishonest. If I can find a way to ignore your posts so I won't be tempted, I am going to do that. But you are a little high strung and presume omniscience too much to talk with. You have only shown me that you can talk TO.

 

:applause::applause:

 

Just stop it with the personal attacks.

The Catholic religion is an apostate religion. I have proven it easily with by the Word of God.

As for birth control, Catholic DO believe that any form of birth control is wrong, so stop trying to act as if you do not know what I am talking about, stop trying to act innocent.

 

Walter,

Have you ever heard of this scripture and do you understand it?

"If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first."

 

That scripture is often taken out of context. He was killed for not obeying the Lord, or for his wickedness before the Lord, and nothing more. God was displeased with him. It has more to do with attitude then with action.

If ignorance is bliss, then how is that called "honesty." If the repudiation of scientific advancements is honesty, what has happened to integrity? The "honest" conclusion is, that according to the RCC, we should still be living in the Dark Ages.

If they make it an issue, then yes.

Many have but prefer to keep their beliefs private.

 

That I can provide and will. One can establish the present Roman Catholic Church did not even start until 500 AD. Even if it had not, any group that prays to saints, sells holy water, annuls marriages for a price, believes Christ's physical body is manifested at the Lords Supper, has alien books in their Bible, thinks Mary is sinless, goes through a priest to confess sins (priests that have morals usually lower than the town drunk) instead of going directly to God through Jesus Christ, believes in a place after death called limbo or purgatory, believes in praying for the dead, baptizes infants, believes all other denominaions are lost, does not believe in the individual priesthood of the believer, has no similance of a local church, etc, etc, etc, is not a New Testement Church, or a church patterned after Scripture.

 

Ok, so God declared man and woman to procreate, right? That's the claim made in any gay discussion. To spill it in a condom circumvents its purpose, in effect, taking God's will into your hands and judging it inadequate. If you are going to apply context, let's use all the context....

Ignorance may be bliss, I see a lot of blissful people on these boards, but you just challenged them all as dishonest, against scientific claims? Heck 4/5s of all protestant fundamental churches are worse than Rome is. What point do you intend to make there? Its a non sequitur to start with, but it seems to back me up more than you?

I don't thi k they care to make it an issue. They don't have to, nearly every protestant they meet for any religious reason, hospitals, feeding the poor, etc, will be sure to tell them how hellbound they are. I think most would rather have their faith and live it, and not have to listen to being preached at from someone that usually will not jave a clue what they are saying....

They certainly honor the two men vs meat scripture, about not giving the other one a hard time for their faith. The only RCC folks I EVER see raising issues do it for one of two reasons, they want you to understand their faith, they are tired of being, or hearing of their friends being attacked by evangelical fundamentalists. So, I find your response to be more justification for abuse, than substantial to the convo.

Many have their beliefs and want to keep them private, but for that person to go to a public debate forum to keep them private, I must admit, confuses me to no end, and I write Fantasy stories for kicks. Not adult fantasy, Lord of the Rings type fantasy. But Dark lords and magic rings make more sense than going to a public debate forum to keep your beliefs private...

What was avoided is, the challenging them on their faith is not justifiable for a Xian. The 2 men eating meat is one very clear verse on the topic. Another is Paul in Gal 5:6 saying theology isn't important but faith WORKING (yes, works) through love is.

And Paul was referencing a much larger theological issue than what we are here. The circumcision/law group. But he said, that didn't matter, but accomplishments do.

Also I guess the last parable in matt 25 discusses those that do the loving works they were saved to do, not the ones who knew the shepherd but didn't do them.

The point is, we aren't supposed to be arguing theology for God, but agapao His people, in the church and even enemies outside of it. And if we don't have that agapao rught, we miss the cut to heaven, no matter how many altar calls we make, or baptisms we have. 1 j 4:16-18.

Lastly, I would prefer that the Church members that most closely represent my faith, not feel catholic bashing is a thing they do for God, and learn some things from them. They are much more biblical on things in some areas than we are. Not to say they are right, but they can make a strong biblical case for why they do what they do.

Much like most will want to defend their rights to catholic bash, when they see me defending theml

 

Well, there you have it king jim only people, since that bible had the same deutercanonical books in it, its unholy. You just hit about every meaningless cliche in the book. Want a cracker? Or some seeds? Parrots eat seeds, right?

 

Well, I've shown that the historical record clearly documents the existence of the Catholic Church as early as 110 AD. Therefore, in order to maintain any credibility, you will need to provide documents at least as early as that. Further, I notice that you like to do the doctrinal dance by mentioning five to ten "Catholic errors" in one post. I can easily shoot them all down, but let's just address the early existence of the RCC, then we can branch out to your other numerous accusations.

WM

 

Your rationalizations here are not even making sense.
First, the Scripture you are referring to has nothing to do with this subject, though it is often wrongly referred to as such.
Second, bringing gays into this discussion is simply a red herring.
Third, you haven't established any context whatsoever.

And you think it is wrong for peoples' beliefs to be challenged?? This is a debate board.

What do you mean by "worse"? Please clarify.
Jesus said: "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees."
By that he meant "doctrine." The RCC has leaven, poisonous doctrine that direct people to Hell. How that can be any worse than the RCC, I don't know.

Baptists believe in soul liberty--the right to believe what one believes the Scripture to teach as true. The RCC abhors that doctrine and killed those who believed in it. You either believe the RCC doctrine or were murdered. Ask the Reformers; they will tell you. Read Baptist history. True Christians were burned at the stake for not believing RCC doctrine.
Soul liberty was one doctrine that Baptists fought for more than any other religion--tolerance for others to believe what they thought to be true. That is one reason why we don't go "shoving our beliefs down someone else's throat," so to speak. It is a private matter. To speak loudly and vocally against abortion and murder is one thing, but simple birth control; that is a private matter governed by Biblical principles.

It is good that the RCC is vocal against abortion. Many evangelicals are with them on that, especially with a looming election. The Bible is silent on whether or not to use birth control. Here are some principles:

1. After careful study, prayer, and consideration:
Romans 14:5 Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

Romans 14:12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

Romans 14:22 Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.

Romans 14:23 And he that doubteth is damned... for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

2. There are other Scriptures as well. Children are a heritage from the Lord. They are as arrows in the quiver of a man.
The question to be asked, and legitimately so, is, in this society how many "arrows" can a couple raise without being arrested for "child neglect"? In other words, how many children can a couple living in an expensive city afford to raise. Without birth control a dozen children in many places would be impossible. That is just a simple fact--facts many of us have to face.

It is my sincere belief that many of the RCC may give lip service to birth control, but they actually use it in spite of what their church teaches. That is my opinion, unproveable of course.

It does make more sense, but the RCC makes this a big issue.

Every aspect of one's faith is challenged here. That is the nature of this forum.

If Acts 15 is what you are referring to, or the Book of Galatians, then it was a very big issue. Those were Judaizers who believed that circumcision and the law were required for salvation. In the truest sense of the word they were legalists. It did matter.

"Love" means nothing without proper doctrine. Hindus can love. But their love for their gods; their literal sacrifice of their children to their idols is wrong. It is a misplaced love. If the doctrine is wrong the love is wrong. Mother Theresa, with all of her "love" probably wasn't saved, and directed more people to hell than to heaven.
Her quote:
"If you are a good Muslim, then be a good Muslim; if you are a good Hindu then be a good Hindu; if you are a good Catholic then be a good Catholic."
--That is a lie from hell, and it is not Christianity.

It was Jude who said "Contend for the faith."
Every NT writer warned of false teachers, false prophets, and false doctrine. We need to do that as well. This board is not an advertisement board for RCC doctrine. When it is posted it ought to be condemned as heresy, for it is.
If someone slandered my family then be sure I would stand up and condemn the one slandering me and my family. My family is the family of God. The RCC does not belong to that family.

That is right. It is our duty to uphold the truth, not spread heresy.

 

I do not read KJV. Not only that, Baptists read the Bible on their own and study it, not parrot after a priest. I do not believe that has anything to do with books like Macabbees, which is not in the Bible. I mean really, I was reading Superman Comics as a kid.

Here is the truth:

Why the Apocrypha Isn't in the Bible.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Roman Catholics will tell you, "You Protestants are missing part of the Bible. We have the rest of it." This can throw people off, but it no longer has to. These false Catholic additions to the Bible are commonly called the Apocrypha or sometimes the Deuterocanonical books. This is a short treatise on WHY these books are not in the Bible.

What is the Apocrypha anyway?

The Apocrypha is a collection of uninspired, spurious books written by various individuals. The Catholic religion considers these books as scripture just like a Bible-believer believes that our 66 books are the word of God, i.e., Genesis to Revelation. We are going to examine some verses from the Apocrypha later in our discussion.

At the Council of Trent (1546) the Roman Catholic institution pronounced the following apocryphal books sacred. They asserted that the apocryphal books together with unwritten tradition are of God and are to be received and venerated as the Word of God. So now you have the Bible, the Apocrypha and Catholic Tradition as co-equal sources of truth for the Catholic. In reality, the Bible is the last source of truth for Catholics. Roman Catholic doctrine comes primarily from tradition stuck together with a few Bible names. In my reading of Catholic materials, I find notes like this: "You have to keep the Bible in perspective." Catholics do not believe that the Bible is God's complete revelation for man.

The Roman Catholic Apocrypha
Tobit
Judith
Wisdom
Ecclesiasticus
Baruch
First and Second Maccabees
Additions to Esther and Daniel

Apocryphal Books rejected by the Catholic Religion:

First and Second Esdras
Prayer of Manasses
Susanna*


*A reader says: "Susanna is in the Roman Catholic canon. It is Daniel 13."

Why the Apocrypha Isn't in the Bible.

Not one of the apocryphal books is written in the Hebrew language which was used in the Old Testament. All Apocryphal books are in Greek, except one which is extant only in Latin.
None of the apocryphal writers laid claim to inspiration.
The apocryphal books were never acknowledged as sacred scriptures by the Jews, custodians of the Hebrew scriptures (the apocrypha was written prior to the New Testament). In fact, the Jewish people rejected and destroyed the apocrypha after the overthow of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
The apocryphal books were not permitted among the sacred books during the first four centuries of the real Christian church (I'm certainly not talking about the Catholic religion which is not Christian).
The Apocrypha contains fabulous statements which not only contradict the "canonical" scriptures but themselves. For example, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in three different places.
The Apocrypha includes doctrines in variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection. The following verses are taken from the Apocrypha translation by Ronald Knox dated 1954:
Basis for the doctrine of purgatory:

2 Maccabees 12:43-45, 2.000 pieces of silver were sent to Jerusalem for a sin-offering...Whereupon he made reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin.
Salvation by works:

Ecclesiasticus 3:30, Water will quench a flaming fire, and alms maketh atonement for sin.
Tobit 12:8-9, 17, It is better to give alms than to lay up gold; for alms doth deliver from death, and shall purge away all sin.

Magic:

Tobit 6:5-8, If the Devil, or an evil spirit troubles anyone, they can be driven away by making a smoke of the heart, liver, and gall of a fish...and the Devil will smell it, and flee away, and never come again anymore.
Mary was born sinless (immaculate conception):

Wisdom 8:19-20, And I was a witty child and had received a good soul. And whereas I was more good, I came to a body undefiled.
It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assasination and magical incantation.
No apocryphal book is referred to in the New Testament whereas the Old Testament is referred to hundreds of times.
Because of these and other reasons, the apocryphal books are only valuable as ancient documents illustrative of the manners, language, opinions and history of the East.
Wasn't the Apocrypha in the King James?

The King James translators never considered the Apocrypha the word of God. As books of some historical value (e.g., details of the Maccabean revolt), the Apocrypha was sandwiched between the Old and New Testaments as an appendix of reference material. This followed the format that Luther had used. Luther prefaced the Apocrypha with a statement:

"Apocrypha--that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriputres, and yet are profitable and good to read."
King James Version Defended page 98.
By 1599, TWELVE YEARS BEFORE the King James Bible was published, King James said this about the Apocrypha:

"As to the Apocriphe bookes, I OMIT THEM because I am no Papist (as I said before)..."
King James Charles Stewart
Basilicon Doron, page 13
In his, "A Premonition to All Most Mightie Monarches,"--found in his Workes (a collection of the king's writings)--King James said this--

"...Is it a small corrupting of the Scriptures to make all, or the most part of the Apocrypha of equall faith with the canonicall Scriptures...?"
Not only this, but the sixth article of the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England (1571 edition. The Church of England published the Authorized King James Version) states that

(1) the Old and New Testaments are the Bible--

In the name of the Holy, we do vnderstande those canonical bookes of the olde and newe Testament, of whose authoritie was never any doubt in the Churche...
and,

(2) the apocrypha is not the Bible--

And the other bookes, (as Hierome sayeth), the Churche doth reade for example of life and instruction of manners: but yet doth it not applie them to establish any doctrene.
Philip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977, Vol. III, pp. 489-491.

The Hampton Court Document came as a result of the famous Hampton Court Conference of 1604 when King James commanded the translation of the Bible that would one day bear his name. Concerning the apocrypha and the Church of England, it states--

The Apocrypha, that hath some repugnancy to the canonical scriptures, shall not be read...
The Apocrypha began to be omitted from the Authorized Version in 1629. Puritans and Presbyterians lobbied for the complete removal of the Apocrypha from the Bible and in 1825 the British and Foreign Bible Society agreed. From that time on, the Apocrypha has been eliminated from practically all English Bibles--Catholic Bibles and some pulpit Bibles excepted.

Not even all Catholic "Church Fathers" believed the Apocrypha was scripture.

Not that this really means anything. The truth is not validated by the false. Nevertheless, this may be of interest to some... Jerome (340-420) rejected the Apocrypha:

"As the Church reads the books of Judith and Tobit and Maccabees but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine."
Jerome
Jerome's preface to the books of Solomon
According to Edward Hills in The King James Version Defended p. 98 other famous Catholics with this viewpoint include Augustine (354-430 who at first defended the Apocrypha as canonical), Pope Gregory the Great (540-604), Cardinal Ximenes, and Cardinal Cajetan.

There are other spurious books.

These include the Pseudepigrapha which contains Enoch, Michael the Archangel, and Jannes and Jambres. Many of these books falsely claim to have been written by various Old Testament patriarchs. They were composed between 200 B.C. and 100 A.D. There are lots of these spurious books like The Assumption of Moses, Apocalypse of Elijah, and Ascension of Isaiah.

Concerning the Dead Sea Scrolls, there may be some information in them that parallels the Masoretic Text, but there are fables in them too. I went to see the scrolls a few years ago with great expectation but found a bunch of fables. The best defense against error in any form (fake Bibles and religions) is a solid knowledge of your King James Bible. If you read it, forgeries become readily apparent.

Those that are unsaved may wish to read our article entitled, How to Get to Heaven.



http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/apocryph.htm


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

This tactic has been used by Saturneptune ad nauseum. Saturneptune never stays around to prove anything. Just makes baseless accusations and disappears again only to emerge and do the 'doctrinal dance' all over again. Don't expect any evidence forthcoming. As we know, and Saturneptune knows, no evidence exists.

 

Westminister:

Here is a good article about your first pope and your anti New Testement theology.


The Plain Truth about
the Roman Catholic Church

The Roman Catholic Church claims to have started in Matthew 16:18 when Christ supposedly appointed Peter as the first Pope. However, the honest and objective student of the Scriptures and history soon discovers that the foundation of the Roman church is none other than the pagan mystery religion of ancient Babylon.

While enduring the early persecutions of the Roman government (65-300 A.D.), most of professing Christianity went through a gradual departure from New Testament doctrine concerning church government, worship and practice. Local churches ceased to be autonomous by giving way to the control of "bishops" ruling over hierarchies. The simple form of worship from the heart was replaced with the rituals and splendor of paganism. Ministers became "priests," and pagans became "Christians" by simply being sprinkled with water. This tolerance of an unregenerate membership only made things worse. SPRINKLED PAGANISM is about the best definition for Roman Catholicism.

The Roman Emperor Constantine established himself as the head of the church around 313 A.D., which made this new "Christianity" the official religion of the Roman Empire. The first actual Pope in Rome was probably Leo I (440-461 A.D.), although some claim that Gregory I was the first (590-604 A.D.). This ungodly system eventually ushered in the darkest period of history known to man, properly known as the "Dark Ages" (500-1500 A.D.). Through popes, bishops, and priests, Satan ruled Europe, and Biblical Christianity became illegal.

Throughout all of this, however, there remained individual groups of true Christians, such as the Waldensens and the Anabaptists who would not conform to the Roman system.

The Papacy and Priesthood

In the Bible there are no popes or priests to rule over the church. Jesus Christ is our High Priest (Heb. 3:1; 4:14-15; 5:5; 8:1; 9:11), and all true Christians make up a spiritual priesthood (I Pet. 2:5). Jesus Christ has sanctified all Christians who believe on Him (Heb. 10:10-11), so all priests today are unnecessary and unscriptural. Furthermore, the practice of calling a priest "father" is forbidden by Jesus Christ in Matthew 23:9. There is only ONE mediator between God and men (I Tim. 2:5).

The Catholic church teaches that Peter was the first Pope and the earthly head of the church, but the Bible never says this once. In fact, it was Peter himself who spoke against "being lords over God's heritage" in I Peter 5:3. Popes do not marry, although Peter did (Mat. 8:14; I Cor. 9:5). The Bible never speaks of Peter being in Rome, and it was Paul, not Peter, who wrote the epistle to the Romans. In the New Testament, Paul wrote 100 chapters with 2,325 verses, while Peter wrote only 8 chapters with 166 verses. In Peter's first epistle he stated that he was simply "an apostle of Jesus Christ," not a Pope (I Pet. 1:1). The Roman papacy and priesthood is just a huge fraud to keep members in bondage to a corrupt pagan church.

The Worship of Mary

Roman Catholics believe that Mary, the mother of Jesus, remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus and was sinless all of her life. She is worshiped in the Catholic church as the "Mother of God" and the "Queen of Heaven." St. Bernard stated that she was crowned "Queen of Heaven" by God the Father, and that she currently sits upon a throne in Heaven making intercession for Christians.

The Bible teaches otherwise. In the Bible, Mary was a sinner just like the rest of us. She said herself that she needed a "Saviour" (Lk. 1:47), and she even had to offer a sacrifice for her sins in Luke 2:24. Jesus was only her "firstborn" son, according to Matthew 1:25, because she later had other children as well (Mt. 13:55; Gal. 1:19; Psa. 69:8). There's only ONE mediator between God and men, and it isn't Mary (I Tim. 2:5). The last time we hear from Mary in the Bible she is praying WITH the disciples, not being prayed to BY the disciples (Acts 1:14). The Bible never exalts Mary above anyone else. Neither should we.

Purgatory

The Catholic Church teaches that a Christian's soul must burn in purgatory after death until all of their sins have been purged. To speed up the purging process, money may be paid to a priest so he can pray and have special masses for an earlier release.

This heresy began creeping into the Roman Church during the reign of Pope Gregory around the end of the sixth century, and it has no scriptural support. In fact, Jesus warned us about this pagan practice in Matthew 23:14 when He spoke of those who devoured widows houses and made long prayers for a pretence. Psalm 49:6-7 tells us that a person couldn't redeem a loved one, even if such a place did exist: "They that trust in their wealth, and boast themselves in the multitude of their riches; None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:"

Peter addresses this issue in Acts 8:20 when he says, "Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money." God's word is clearly against the doctrine of purgatory.

The Mass

By perverting the Christian practice of the Lord's Supper (Mat. 26:26-28; I Cor. 11:23-27), the Catholic Church has created the Mass, which they believe to be a continual sacrifice of Jesus Christ:

"Christ...commanded that his bloody sacrifice on the Cross should be daily renewed by an unbloody sacrifice of his body and blood in the Mass under the simple elements of bread and wine." (The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 10, Pg. 13, Article: "Mass, Sacrifice of")

Jesus never made such a command. If you'll check the above references in Matthew 26 and I Corinthians 11, you'll see for yourself that the Lord's Supper is a MEMORIAL and a SHOWING of Christ's death until He comes again. It is not a sacrifice. The Catholic Encyclopedia states the following:

"In the celebration of the Holy Mass, the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ. It is called transubstantiation, for in the Sacrament of the Eucharist the substance of bread and wine do not remain, but the entire substance of bread is changed into the body of Christ, and the entire substance of wine is changed into his blood, the species or outward semblence of bread and wine alone remaining." (Vol. 4, pg. 277, Article: "Consecration")

The Catholic Church teaches that the "Holy Mass" is a LITERAL EATING AND DRINKING OF THE LITERAL FLESH AND BLOOD OF JESUS CHRIST. The priest supposedly has the power to change the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ.

Now, what does God's word say about such practices? If you'll read Genesis 9:4, Leviticus 17:11-12, and Acts 15:29, you will find that God absolutely FORBIDS the drinking of blood all through the Bible.

Rome teaches that the Mass is a continual "sacrifice" of Jesus Christ, but God's word states that Jesus made the FINAL sacrifice on Calvary! This is made perfectly clear in Hebrews 10:10-12:

"By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God."

The mass is unnecessary and unscriptural.

Image Worship

The Catholic religion is filled with all sorts of symbols, images, and relics. The Catechism of the Council of Trent states these words:

"It is lawful to have images in the Church, and to give honor and worship unto them..."

It's lawful to honor and worship images? Not according to God's word. Exodus 20:4-5 says, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me." Image worship is unscriptural and will end with the eternal damnation of those who practice it (Rev. 14:11).

Salvation by Works

Through infant baptism, keeping sacraments, church membership, going to mass, praying to Mary, and confession (just to mention a few), the Catholic church has developed a system of salvation through WORKS. God's word says that we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, not through works:

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." (Eph. 2:8-9)

"But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." (Romans 4:5)

Jesus Christ came into this world to lay down His sinless life for YOU--to pay for your sins, because you couldn't. Jesus is your only hope for salvation. Only by receiving Him as your Saviour can you enter the gates of Heaven. There is no other way.

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father but by me." (John 14:6)

The Lord Jesus Christ has come and PAID for your sins by shedding His own Blood on Calvary. By receiving Him as your Saviour, you can be WASHED from all your sins in His precious Blood (Rev. 1:5; Col. 1:14; Acts 20:28; I Pet. 1:18-19). Notice these important words from Romans 5:8-9:

"But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him."



Copyright © 1998

 

If one is going to start a church that practices and preaches false doctrine, what difference does it make if the first pope took office in 606, 506, 406, or for that matter, one million BC. In the case of the RCC, the later the better.

 

Again, you are proven wrong. Why are you on a Baptist board anyhow? I do not go to Catholic boards for the purpose of irritating. Accusations against the RCC are not baseless, but the RCC is a threat to the New Testement Church. If you dont like what is said, then join your limbo friends on another board. IMO, your profile is in error. There is no way a born again, New Testement Baptist would make the posts you and Westminister have made.

 

Respectfully, if you are claiming Clement's comments to Corrinth as decisive proof of a big c catholic community, you are quite delirious. There is nothing conclusive, I.e. that couldn't be used by both sides of this argument. HOWEVER, it is a great place to defend apostolic authority.

 

What, are you pee wee herman? Everytime I call you on something you did to me, you try to reflect it back on me?/ third grade much? That reflecting, diversionary tactic abuse, is a note to seriously consider issues from the narcissistic family of behaviors. Meant in the medical way of course.

To declare the Cath's as apostate only proves you feel you are inherently better and more holy than them. Yet another narcissistic behavior.

I KNOW THEY SAY ANY BC IS WRONG1. I'm the one that explained why. You are the one making comments to me, as if they were big bad arguments, but only show you have no comprehension of what I said, or what you are talking about?

SOMEONE HELP ME OUT, DO WE HAVE AN ignore user option? And sorry for the 2nd caps. Thumb typing from my phone.

 

Don't like your holy huddle shook? The rcc is no threat to the nt church. That's preposterous. The protestant has more to defend than the rcc does. At least for being in line with the bible. Their church is more in line with how Paul'sdescriptions of the Church are, and apostolic authority is definitely closer to their views. Sola scriptura is defeated IN THE NT, when Paul explains the use of tradition, talks, vss just scripture.

Those are just some examples to what happens when you actually understand the scripture behind their thoughts, rather than just try to understand enough to pick at them.

Here is one to flip against all us protestants, paul teaches UNITY is part of God's plan in our understandings. He teaches mature believers through works, not theological knowledge will grow in unity and become as spiritually mature as Christ.

Christ corroborates Paul's claims, the John 17 prayers just one example.

Paul writes that dissensions and factions are of the flesh.

So let's examine the history of the church. There had been 200 years of people trying to reform the Rcc in some areas, but only at Luther did a schism occur. Luther is one of my heroes but, what started out pure and righteous, ended up more foul.

Rather than go to Rome to face excommunication, and likely execution, he broke off of the church. He fought for HIS life, which WAS Christ's life, but HE came first at this point, not God: protecting his own life is the first fruit of his actions. Thus was born the Lutheran traditions.

The church was built on martyrs, perhaps for the church of rome to have been "healed" since no one could sell them indulgences, would have been to martyr Lutherand stay whole.

But luther's split, has resulted in split after split after split, like a fertilized human egg growing through cell reproduction. 2 then 4 then 8, etcc. Its fruit was an exponential growth in denominations.

Paul wrote the deeds of the flesh..... pride, dissension, factions, all of which are rampant protestant fruits. So when it comes to finger pointing, its best to get your own home in order before you go tossing ad hominems at others.

 

I never claimed you read it. I said those that do will be happy. But I see you went to great lengths to try to misrepresent what I did write, and build a monolithic strawman which you can readily deveat. A veritable, intellectual Don Quixote you are. DEATH TO ALL DUTCH WINDMILLS!!!