Featured What does the RCC officially teach regarding Mary?

Some interesting notions: fake priests, true science( as opposed to pseudo science).

How does one determine if a priest is fake or not? According to some: the whole crew at the Vatican are apostate usurpers--since Vatican II. Then there are the Greek Orthodox who reject papal authority--since long before Vat II.

Pseudo science is not new either. We have had some very learned? people who made a missing human evolutionary link from the tooth of a pig. The evolution crowd is in control of our public education. Evolution is a lie from the pits of hell. Now what?

The verity of religious artifacts has been seriously in question since long before St.?? Helena, St.??Constantine The Great One's mother, brought relics and icons from the Holy Land. Some say she also gave the deed to the ground included in Vatican City. Much of this stuff is for sale along with indulgences. Better bring a big pocketbook. Prayer clothes and holy water are really getting expensive.

Jesus paid it all. Some have made the House of God the den of thieves.

In the final analysis: The Word of God is the only infallible source of Truth. The traditions of men are corrupt along with those who promulgate false doctrine.

"Let God be found True and every man a liar"

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

The only argument you are standing on is this:
Everything that is Catholic is right.
Everything that is Protestant is wrong.
Your evidence is flawed at every point. You are defeated in your debate. In fact you can't even bring forth evidence to prove your position. All you can say is: "The Protestants are wrong." That is the most childish rebuttal I have ever seen on this forum.

 

DHK& BrotherJames, maybe you should try reading my post, I said other competent non-Catholic scientist were involved with the post WW2 excavation of Peter's bones in Rome, why don't you try reading scientific facts from other than Protestant Catholic sources ? Are you the type to believe all the Dan Browns of history?

 

Who is Dan Brown?
The last source I use is the RCC. They are tainted. So are some "Protestant" sources. Either way, to admit that Peter was possibly put to death in Rome, as Paul was, is no admission that he lived there. Thus to find his bones there would not be any great find nor proof of any leadership of Peter in any capacity in Rome. It would simply be an indication of his death--or possibly that his bones had been moved there much earlier by other Catholics.

 

DHK,Dan Brown author of a fictional Best seller " Da Vinci Code " Maybe you should read the history of how and where and how far down in excavating for Peter's remains before you accuse everybody fraudulent.

 

Now you are giving us fiction for evidence??
And you are the one recommending "Dan Brown"??

 

DHK, I only explained that the article that Brother James gave in his post was bogus, it is typical of anti-Catholic garbage, it is a fake just as Dan Brown's book was bogus.

 

Perhaps, but the one that has made more bogus claims here than any other is none other than yourself. Your defense of Catholicism is absent. It has been soundly defeated at every corner. You have nothing, not even a leg to stand on. If I were you I would leave it immediately. It is an organization that does nothing but send individuals to hell. Paul called its message (and thus the messenger) "accursed." (Gal.1:8).

 

DHK, I've been down the Baptist road. When I left the Baptist Non-Denominational Fundamentalist church my words many years later after I was back " Home" in the only Church that Jesus left for "all" of us was: " Twenty-Five years ago I found Jesus, Twenty- Five years later I found His Church. " I'm glad I'm back" Home". Little did I realize, when I was young, that in the Church that I was Baptized in that Jesus was there all the time waiting for me to accept Him, but I wasn't ready for Him then. One good thing while being a member of that little Baptist church is that it made me realize that I missed the Eucharist. Also I just could not believe the misinformation, misunderstandings, half lies, lies, along with the lack of actual Christian history that Baptist knew. It open my eyes and heart for Jesus and His Church. Truth can never contradict truth and Truth is what Jesus taught His Apostles and those Apostles taught Truth [ Luke 10:16 }while they chose replacements [ successors ] that keep on Teaching the very same Teaching method that Jesus taught them.
Both Sacred Scripture along with Sacred Apostolic are necessary for the "Fullness of Christ's Christian Faith". Both are necessary, just as both the OT and NT are necessary for the Holy Bible. As a Catholic I love both the Church and the Bible, just as Jesus loved His Church and that same Church through the guidance of the Holy Spirit gave us the compiled Canon List of Books for the completed Holy Bible. Maybe you should start a "new"Thread on the History of the Bible. Another important subject would be the correct Interpretation of God's Sacred Word. Protestants definitely are especially hurting in those subjects along with the ordinances/ sacraments that are defined implicitly and explicitly in the Holy Bible.

 

If anybody can prove that Jesus left us with a Bible Church first and not a Teaching Church first, so we could understand Sacred Scripture, instead of having a myriad of different interpretations found in all non-Catholic conflicting churches, [which is an anti-Bible teaching,] that we have had since the Protestant Revolt then I would consider leaving the Catholic Church and joining yours. So give it your best attempt if you think you can. Just a reminder and that is: ''Truth can not contradict Truth."

 

Yeshua, the question was: "If anybody can prove that Jesus left us with a Bible Church first and not a Teaching Church first ' . now I wait for your answer

 

Paul made it clear not to go beyond what is written. The RCC uses tradition to violate scripture at every turn.

1 Corinthians 4:6b "that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written"

 

Mc Cree, do you even understand what is meant by that expression ?Interpretation lesson-

the words "to go" are not in the Greek, but have here been added as the minimum necessary to elicit sense from this difficult passage. It means that the Corinthians should avoid the false wisdom of vain speculation, contenting themselves with St.Paul's proclamation of the cross, which is the fulfillment of God's promises in the OT [ what is written ] Inflated with pride; literally, "puffed up " i.e. arrogant, filled with a sense of self-importance, the term is particularly Pauline, found in the NT only in 1 Cor4,6.18-19;5,2; 8,1;13,4Col 2:18 [ the related noun at 2 Cor 12,20 ] it sometimes occurs in conjunction with the theme of " boasting" as in verse 6-7 here.

 

Sir, it is you who don't understand scripture

 

McCree, oh really, prove to me that I have the wrong interpretation.

 

Baptism, salvation , justification. ....just a few things

 

You are basing truth on experience. That is what Hinduism is like. It is all relative. If the Bible isn't our standard then who cares!!!!! Believe anything you want. Hey--The Dalai Lama, he'll do! Believe him. He has as much truth as the RCC. So does the Bahai movement. Everything is relative when you don't have the Bible, one standard of truth!
You left the truth behind and went searching for an experience, you found an experience that you were comfortable with, and called it "home."

That is probably true. God's Word convicts of sin. It hurts. And it will until you submit to Him--repent and be saved. Biblical Christianity is not comfortable; but it can be rewarding. Jesus never promised an easy life. (but the RCC may).

No doubt! For there is no Eucharist in the Bible. That again is a man-made doctrine.

I am sure that you are now finding out that all along your former Baptist Church was right, if they stuck to the Bible. But I don't know for sure, because I can't be sure what they taught.
But I do know that Peter was never in any kind of place of leadership in Rome, and thus the entire RCC religion is built on a lie. Your religion built on lies and hypocrisy, and if you can't see that yet I pity you. There have been many here who have tried to show you that. Your experiences don't count.

Look at your mistakes.
First, you are correct that Jesus and the apostles taught the truth. The truth is found exclusively in the inspired writings of those who wrote the Bible. So if your Baptist church preached the Bible you would have found it there.
Secondly, the apostles had no successors. There are "The Twelve" plus Paul, and no more. There were no successors. Your proof with Peter has demonstrated this. There is no proof that Peter was ever in Rome much less a bishop of Rome. You are living a lie. If he wasn't in Rome he obviously had no successor. It is one lie perpetuating another lie, and then you are asked to swallow them first one at a time, and then just swallow the whole bottle of poison.

That is so very wrong on many different fronts.
First the Bible itself is sufficient for all our doctrine and faith. We don't need to go outside of the Bible for anything. The Lord left for us this inspired book, and to say that we need to go aside from it is blasphemous, saying that we know better than God.
Apostolic Tradition is just tradition, and is not inspired at all.

The Lord gave us only one--the Bible.

You are deceived.
The Lord gave us the Bible, the Scriptures. His apostles were the authors of the NT, as his prophets were the authors of the OT. The Holy Spirit inspired each and every book, and the RCC had nothing to do with it.
The Bible indicates that Christ loved "his assembly," never the RCC. His "assembly" started off with 12 apostles and grew to 120 disciples on the Day of Pentecost, which had another 3,000 added to them on that day. Such was that particular church (The First Baptist Church at Jerusalem). Many other churches were started afterward.

You have had enough threads to defend your doctrine and have failed miserably each and every time.
There are many here that can give a very good history of the Bible.
They can also demonstrate through history how the RCC was wont to destroy bibles, burn them, keep them away from the common person, etc. The RCC has a terrible history when it comes to the Bible.
Even in my parents generation, they were not allowed to read the Bible on their own. It was the duty of a priest. They might get the wrong idea of what the Bible was really saying if they read it on their own.

 

...and another....Apostolic succession. As I have pointed out. So has DHK and who knows who else.