Catholic Heresy (for the record)

mikeuk · Feb 5, 2015

The problem is Roger, on all the main theological arguments, take salvation, take real presence, everyone involved will claim to have discerned the holy spirit in coming to their conclusion. So everyone can quote that scripture, and claim it backs their opinion.

But the holy spirit would not back opposing answers to the same question, so by simple logic most of those who believe the holy spirit has led them are wrong.

No such scripture, or the other ones often lobbed at opposing factions in an argument take "false prophets" can be taken to back one side or another, because all will claim it applies to them.

Someone once said something like "all those who lead armies against each other, claim that God is on their side, but he must sometimes wonder who is on his side!"

KenAllan · Feb 5, 2015

I was born and raised in the Catholic Church. I went to all the classes required by the Catholic Church when i was growing up. Not once in any class i went to in the Catholic Church did they ever use the Bible to teach from. Everything was from books written by the Catholic Church.

When i became an adult in my early years i left the Catholic Church. I found a Protestant church and was amazed to find that everything they said was from the Bible and not from a book they had wrote.

Never was i allowed to have a Bible while is was in the Catholic Church. We had no bibles in our home when i was growing up.

Its amazing how many Catholics really do not know what is written in the Bible because they are not allowed to read it by themselves. Yes it is true! We were not allowed to read the Bible by ourselves. We could only read the Bible IF a Catholic Priest allowed it AND he was there to read it for us!

We need to bring the Gospel of Salvation to our Catholic brothers. We need to Witness to the Catholics about Jesus Christ and not get caught up in arguing about "Keys" given to all the Disciples by Jesus.

Most Catholics have not received Salvation. We need to show them how to receive Salvation by Faith and Grace. The Catholics from my experience being raised in the Catholic Church have only a head knowledge of God and not a Heart knowledge of Jesus Christ.

kennethcadwell · Feb 5, 2015

KenAllan said:

Wow, you must have had a very strict Catholic church if they did not let you have and read the bible.
I was in the Catholic church for 5 years and took the RCIA classes, and you are right that they don't teach much or hardly any scripture. They taught mostly history of church according to their writings, but they did not restrict us from having, reading, and studying the bible for ourselves. One of the things I found by studying was the non-biblical things they did teach, and the main thing I found was how they say in their church history that the Catholic church existed since Peter and Paul and founded by the Lord Jesus. However in studying the term/word catholic was not even used tell the 2nd century (101-200 AD), so the Catholic church denominational name could not have existed prior to this. This makes and shows over 70 years of the early church before the term even started.

royalscot · Feb 5, 2015

KenAllan said:

I was born and raised in the Catholic Church. I went to all the classes required by the Catholic Church when i was growing up. Not once in any class i went to in the Catholic Church did they ever use the Bible to teach from. Everything was from books written by the Catholic Church.

When i became an adult in my early years i left the Catholic Church. I found a Protestant church and was amazed to find that everything they said was from the Bible and not from a book they had wrote.

Never was i allowed to have a Bible while is was in the Catholic Church. We had no bibles in our home when i was growing up.

Its amazing how many Catholics really do not know what is written in the Bible because they are not allowed to read it by themselves. Yes it is true! We were not allowed to read the Bible by ourselves. We could only read the Bible IF a Catholic Priest allowed it AND he was there to read it for us!

We need to bring the Gospel of Salvation to our Catholic brothers. We need to Witness to the Catholics about Jesus Christ and not get caught up in arguing about "Keys" given to all the Disciples by Jesus.

Most Catholics have not received Salvation. We need to show them how to receive Salvation by Faith and Grace. The Catholics from my experience being raised in the Catholic Church have only a head knowledge of God and not a Heart knowledge of Jesus Christ.

if you knew anything about the catholic church , you would already know that, confirmation, is the act or receiving the holy spirit.
yet is done at a young age, and not explained fully to the catholic, boy or girl.(in some house holds, anyway )

mikeuk · Feb 5, 2015

KenAllan said:

It is strange, there are so many myths about catholicism.
They are not only allowed to read the bible, they are actively encouraged to do it, as the catechism demands - I hope you read it!
Or did you?

133 The Church "forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful. . . to learn the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ, by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.[SUP]112[/SUP]

So was it a bad teacher I have no doubt there are some - or did you miss the time they discussed it? RCIA does focus on the topic of the role of scripture. And like other denominations it holds it is the word of god, it just does not make the proable logical error of using the word "only" word, - ie where in the bible does it say it has to be in the bible?" Also the history that the first christians cannot have used scripture alone, the canon of the new testament did not exist until much later - decided by a catholic council, but that is another story!!

As someone who came from outside, I discovered that not many cradle catholics know why they believe what they believe.

There is a contradiction in your statement though, you attack them on the false ground that you are not supposed to read bible. Then attack them for biblical justification of why they think what they do ie - the argument about keys. You cannot have it both ways!

You were badly catechised, sad but true.

mikeuk · Feb 5, 2015

kennethcadwell said:

The origin and use of the word catholic (which actually just means universal) was not a proper name till much later.
Roman Catholic was fundamentally named only to distinguish the Eastern Rite after the schism. Till then it was just the christian church, did not really need a name, very underground whilst illegal, so that is why there are few early documents. - The odd heretical sect kicked out here and there a long the way, but mostly one happy or unhappy family depending on how you view it..

If you read justin martyr, who was writing before the death of polycarp, student of john the apostle (ie took his understanding from only one generation after the apostles) then the core beliefs on such as real presence were already there!

It is only post reformation that accurate naming has been needed, since there are at least 10000 different protestant congregations with different beliefs. And if you dont like any of them, it has become popular to set up one more, although how some of these late creations can ever claim to be the true church , is stretching belief! Before that it was one more or less happy, sometimes very unhappy family!

So the "name" argument is hardly of much use. For several hundred years it could not function as a legal organisation, and had to hide in peoples homes!

notuptome · Feb 5, 2015

mikeuk said:

Well the real presence is not a main theological argument. Salvation is a main tenant of Christianity. The atonement of the blood and the imputation of that atonement through grace is the central point of Christianity. For it is here that the Holy Spirit enters into the soul of a man. It is the Holy Spirit Who quickens a man dead in trespass and sin. Until this foundation is correctly laid there is no spiritual knowledge and no leading by the hand of God.

This is actually quite true. Many profess Christ but do not possess Christ. Many have their own ideas about how Christ saves. Some do not even care and make up things to suit themselves. Some for power and some for money but none for Gods glory.

The sheep know the Shepherds voice. The goats go their own way. Nothing new there.

God has said that there is a way that seems right unto men but the end thereof is destruction. Jesus is the way the truth and the life no man comes to the Father but by Him.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

notuptome · Feb 5, 2015

KenAllan said:

In my lifetime I have seen the Catholic church here in the US go from the mass in Latin to the mass in English. No bible reading to bibles are allowed but only the priest can understand what is written to the current that it can be read and understood but is of no greater authority than the churches writings.

The changes have been brought about by external forces not any internal movement in the RCC. Protestants were shaming Catholics and the church was losing members over the bible and the mass in Latin.

The current generation of Catholics have little interest in doctrine and are Catholic only because they were raised that way. Infant baptism and some form of security from punishment for their obvious sins.

The evolution continues to this day with the church adopting more and more of the worlds ethos in place of Gods biblical standards. The church is standing between keeping the crowd and actually standing against the most obvious sins.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

For the cause of Christ
Roger

mikeuk · Feb 5, 2015

notuptome said:

Yet another piece of shameful misrepresentation.

Whilst the protestant churches have, divided, divided and divided again to alllow people to choose a church that conforms to their convenience and beliefs, how many are there now exactly? 30000 at the last count? And does one presbyterian church even believe the same as the one down the road? From what I can see it is up to the pastor to choose! The anglican synod has so many variants on views, there is no longer even a consistent theme.

Yet love it or hate it, RCC has held true to its principles. It still has exactly the same doctrines, from real presence to contraception, justification to baptism, and abortion, homosexuality and marriage of divorcees. RCC has held firm whilst the rest adapt to the modern world, even worse adapt to variations of views in the same congregation so split and split again. The mark of a true church is that presentation might change a little, but the doctrine must remain the same.
You can criticise it on the basis of disliking the doctrine, or even bad people who did bad things, but you cannot criticise it for blowing with the populist winds.

By your own admission , you have preferred to take your own personal view of the eucharist rather than heed the witness of such as justin martyr, who documented the established beliefs of those taught by the apostles. Which just so happens to be the view of the eucharist held by RCC too, and whilst the liturgy has changed a little over the millenia, the doctrine is much the same.

Worse still - Some do not even have a denomination, they have their own custom designer dogma, choosing words to mean what they want them to mean - so claim they cannot find a church that aligns to their beliefs. Which also means there are people who claim to be right where everyone else is wrong! How can that one person be the true church?

So Please confine yourself to the reality. Criticise it for what it is, not some of the more creative myths.
As I pointed out, even in the OP on this thread, RCC is criticised for something no catholic believes, and you have done similar several times.

So in conclusion I repeat..You can criticise it on the basis of disliking the doctrine, or even bad people who did bad things, but you cannot criticise it for blowing with the populist winds.

Misrepresentation of others, is certainly not in the cause of christ, it is bearing false witness, breaching a commandment, I have adapted your signature accordingly!

notuptome · Feb 5, 2015

mikeuk said:

I just love it when you start off with shameful misrepresentation. I know what follows will be more of the tired old complaints of how split up Protestantism has become and how Romanism is so unified. You cannot find two Catholics in the same pew to agree let alone the "church" as a whole. You cannot see that the church is not an organization. It is not a group of buildings scattered across the nation. The church is an organism. A living breathing organism headed by Jesus Christ. All of whom every last one believes that they are part because of the saving grace of God and the atoning blood of Jesus shed on Calvary. They may read different versions of the bible but they have the doctrine straight on salvation and the blood of Christ. Some may drink Coke and others Pepsi but they all feast on Gods word. They all know that if they died right this moment that they would go to be with Christ their Savior. No stops in purgatory but absent from the body present with the Lord.

You are not interested in biblical doctrine but refer to the writings of men that you deem of high esteem. Higher than the men who wrote the bible under divine inspiration. You do not desire sound doctrine but heap to yourself teachers having itching ears.

The principals of the RCC? Who can define them? Each successive pope defines them as he see fit. Paul told us in 1 Corinthians that the church has many parts and that they are all different. Not all the same but all part of the body the bride of Christ. Not lesser and greater parts but all parts of a great organism that can never die.

You are reading from the wrong book and worried about the wrong things. You need to get truly born again and have the seal of the Holy Spirit granting full assurance of hope.

For this cause is Christ come into the world: to seek and save that which is lost.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

mikeuk · Feb 5, 2015

notuptome said:

They agree on the catechism without which they would not be catholics..

notuptome said:

Read the catechism.
You clearly have NO IDEA AT ALL what RCC thinks the church is or you would be surprised how closely we agree on that. And judging by the rest of the ad hominem rant, no idea on what RCC believes, or what I believe on those issues either, because on some of them we actually agree as well.

Please do the courtesy of studying it before commenting on it.

We can easily prove from divided opinion on this forum, on each major theological issues there are divided and contradicting opinions. Part of the reason for that is your mantra of sola scriptura is a provable logic and historic falasy.
The scripture itself is not enough. It needs authority and tradition to resolve the ambiguity in them. Not just "rogers opinion".
Show me where in the bible it says it has to be in the bible, and I will believe you, without which you believe in a logical contradiction!

As I pointed out Justin Martyr (for example) documents what the established view of the real presence was at that time, same opinion as the church fathers following( who by the way are responsible for the canon of scripture you hold, so god was happy to use them to create it!, they chose the books on the basis of the established meaning of them!) So your (personal)view of the understanding of communion is way of piste of how the early church understood it, for the simple reason you want the freedom to choose what you want the words to mean.

So why do you have such gross disrespect for the opinions of those who created your scriptural canon?. You cannot have it both ways. If you think those guys were not inspired, then the canon cannot be the inspired word of god and certainly not infallible. You seem to want it both ways up.

I will return when you decide to comment on the real RCC, not your ridiculous caricature of it.

KenAllan · Feb 6, 2015

I find it interesting that the Catholic Church fought against people reading the Bible for themselves because they felt these people would interpret the Bible wrong and bring in false Doctrines. But yet the Catholics see nothing wrong with ADDING to the Bible their own false Doctrines by claiming they do not have to be in the Bible to begin with!

If your Doctrine is not in the Bible then its a false Doctrine and needs to be rejected. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

Back to my original post, when i was in the Catholic Church this was back in the 1940's. And yes we were not allowed to have a Bible and read it back then.

mikeuk · Feb 6, 2015

KenAllan said:

You were clearly badly catechised Ken, which is sad but true.
Maybe a bad priest, but that is not catholicism you speak of, another well trodden catholic myth.

Reality is the printing press did not exist till 1600+ so ordinary people did not get to have a copy! till much much later.
Books were expensive for a long time after that.

I cannot be bothered to create a complete list but here are some..
The laity were urged to read it by Pope Pius VI in1778 and again by Pius VII in 1820.

The 1890’s there is Providentissimus Deus issued by Pope Leo XIII in which he
writes “The calm and fair consideration of what has been said will clearly show that the
Church has never failed in taking due measures to bring the Scriptures within reach
of her children, and that she has ever held fast and exercised profitably that
guardianship conferred upon her by Almighty God for the protection and glory of
His holy Word…” Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, Study of Sacred
Scripture, 1893
So on.

So you were urged to read scripture, no doubt about it.

You also misunderstand the context of scripture. The bible did not drop out of the sky at the reformation. The new testament canon did not even exist until third century.

The first christians cannot have been bible christians, (as is new testament) Jesus did not give us a new testament book, he gave us a new covenant, and apostles to hand it on by tradition and word of mouth. And authority , just like moses seat before.

The new testament did not exist as an infallible canon till mid 300s, but only then owned by the few lucky enough, wealthy enough to have a copy. In essence the scriptures were used in liturgy, just as the old testament had been for jews. It was word of mouth and tradition that was the prime passage of the faith.

To understand it, you need the backstory of both jewish tradition and history. Also what those who handed it on, and chose the canon thought it meant. Study the church fathers. Particularly how the old testament relates to the new. As you see on this forum, when such as Roger get to have their own opinion, there is a massive range of interpretations.

I have addressed the points in the OP elsewhere - including one more catholic myth like "mary saves" - we do not believe that! - but take for example why do we honour mary as "mother of god"? . Perhaps if you looked at scripture you would see that Elizabeth did exactly the same! How am I honoured that the "mother of my lord" should come to me. So on.

So suggestion. Start with the catechism, not the anti catholic myths, certainly dont listen to such as Roger who refuses even to study it, before pronounce on it, study church fathers and scholars and find the origin, or if you want easy reads try such as steve ray or scott hahn.

Discover that god relied on the very same people to give you the new testament, who hold opinions that align with the catholic church as it is now. If you decide they were false teachers, you get rid of the new testament too!

So judge it on what it actually is, not what the myths say!

Anyway my last post perhaps for a while, perhaps for ever.

An event in my life has meant I have too much to do , to spend more time here, and particularly in batting back yet more anti catholic myths. I expect it from disingenuous evangelicals.

It annoys me when it is catholics presenting the myths who simply failed to study their faith.
Start with the obvious question - where does it say in the bible, that it has to be in the bible? That was luthers provable logical falasy!

Jeff_56 · Feb 6, 2015

as a heretic(by definition of yahweh, of yahshua, of scripture, and the owner of this site, all the admins) posted

"They agree on the catechism without which they would not be catholics.."

which is if true certainly enough to convict all of them as guilty of heresy. (all those who go along with the rdd(sic) catechism).

..........................................\ the 'rdd'(sic) catechism is completely opposed to scripture, utterly opposed to truth, and without any redemptive value.

yes, i read the abominable rdd(sic) catechism long ago---- compared it directly to what scripture says simply , and found that the catechism is totally contrary to scripture on almost every page. they are not at all compatible.

mikeuk · Feb 6, 2015

Jeff_56 said:

Proving little except you have never read it.

notuptome · Feb 6, 2015

mikeuk said:

They are Catholics because their parents had them baptized into the Catholic church. They are Catholic because of the well developed system which Rome uses to indoctrinate spiritually ignorant people. Trusting but ignorant of bible doctrine and groping in the darkness apart from Gods word and Holy Spirit.

2 Timothy 3:16

You demonstrate the arrogance of Rome. The bible we have today is by Gods hand and not Rome. Rome will be held to account by God for why they have claimed to have protected the bible but completely ignored it's message.

Why does Rome teach a gospel that is not the gospel? I do not mean to be unkind but the bible says that for a man to know right and not to do it to him it is sin.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

fordman · Feb 6, 2015

KenAllan said:

It never ceases to amaze me when folks like yourself say...... "I used to be Catholic so I know what I'm talking about" are actually the ones that know the least of the Catholic faith! Now if you were to study church history, you'd know that what the Catholic Church positively forbade her children to do, was read false, perverted, counterfeit translations of the Bible. It is love of the Bible as the Word of God, as well as her high regard for the religious and moral welfare of her children, that caused the Catholic Church to be as strenuously opposed to counterfeit Bibles as the State is opposed to counterfeit money. The Catholic Church stands for– "Scripture writ by God’s own hand; Scripture authentic! Uncorrupted by man."

Care to elaborate?

Oh.... you mean like the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura?

Hogwash!!! Show some evidence of this frivolous claim, preferably some thats imprimatur.The doctrines of the Bible are taught to her people by the Catholic Church more faithfully than by any other Church on earth. The Bible tells us that Christ is God and this, Protestant ministers in growing numbers deny. The Bible tells us that Christ established a living, visible Church and this Protestants deny. The Bible tells us that the consecrated bread and wine is the true Body and Blood of our Lord and this Protestants deny. The Bible tells us that Christ’s ministers of reconciliation have the power to forgive sins and this Protestants refuse to believe. The Bible condemns divorce even in the case of adultery and this Protestants by practice consider as nonsense. Catholics know more fundamental doctrine than the man who, parrot-like, can quote the Bible. Knowledge of text is not knowledge of doctrine.

Pax

"For he has looked upon his handmaid’s lowliness; behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed." ---- Luke 1:48

Jeff_56 · Feb 6, 2015

mikeuk said:

proving nothing except you're a direct liar.

first, if yahshua says it is contrary to him and to the word of yahweh, i don't have to read it to know that. yahshua says that.
that's enough.

second, i did read it, to see if there was any hope or truth in it - and compared it to scripture. it is complete against scripture. that's what the BEREAN'S would do also, although they probably already would know it is not in line with scripture,coming as it does from antichrist sources; but once they compared it, if they did, they and all ekklesia say the same thing - there is absolutely no compatibility of believers in christ jesus with the heresy of the rdd(sic) leaders, members, or catechism.

fordman · Feb 7, 2015

kennethcadwell said:

I find this an interesting statement. In the five years you were in the Catholic Church, did you never attend Mass? The reason I ask this is, if you did, you would have known that the whole of the Mass is structured around Scripture. for example:
The Introductory Rite of the Mass: Priest; In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Mt.28:19. Congregation: Amen. 1Chr. 16:36.

Greeting by Priest: 2Cor.13:13.

The Penitenial Rite: Priest and Congregation -- "I confess to almighty God,and to you, my brothers and sisters, that I have sinned through my own fault (James 5:16) in my thoughts and in my words (Rom.12:16;James 3:6) inwhat I have done, and in what I have failed to do; (James 4:17) and I ask Blessed Mary, ever virgin, all the angels and saints, and you my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord our God." (1Thess.5:25)

The Gloria: Scripture refured too in order --Lk.2:14; Rev.19:6,22:9; Eph.5:20; Rev.7:12; 2Jn.3; Jn.1:29; Rom.8:34; Lk.4:34; Rev.15:4; Lk.1:32; Jn.14:26.

Profession of Faith: Scripture refured too in order by all ---Gen.14:19; Col.1:16; Lk.1:35; Heb.1:3; Jn.1:1-4; Mt.1:18; Jn.19:16; 1Cor.15:3; Lk.24:51; Col.3:1; 2Tim.4:1; Lk.1:33; Acts 2:17; Jn.14:16; 1Pet.1:10-11; Rom.12:5,6:5.

Liturgy of the Eucharist: Priest: Jn.6:35; Lk.22:17-18. Congregation (Cong.): Ps.68:36. Priest: Heb.12:28. Congregation: Ps.50:23.

Eucharistic Prayer: Priest: "lift up your hearts." Cong: "We lift them up to the Lord." (Lam.3:41) Priest: "Let us give thanks to the Lord our God." (Col.3:17) Cong: "It is right to give him thanks and praise." (Col.1:3)

Preface Acclamation: All--- Is.6:3; Mk.12:9-10.

Eucharistic Prayer 1: Priest, in order: Eph.5:20; 2Macc.1:25; Jn.17:21; Acts 2:42; Ps.106:4; Heb.13:15; Mt.1:2-16; Lk.16:9; 1Cor.12:12; Rev.5:8; Col.1:11; Jn.4:24; Mt.26:26-28; 1Tim.3:16; 1Cor. 15:3-5; 1Pet.1:18-21; Heb.9:13-14; Jn.6:54; Gen.4:4,22:12,14:18; Rev.8:3-4; Eph.1:3; 1Thess.4:13-14; Col.1:12; Ps.25:7,104:27-28.

Doxology: Priest: " Through Him,with Him,in Him, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all glory and honor is yours, almighty Father, for ever and ever." (Rom.11:36)

Communion Rite: Priest and Cong: "Our Father" (Mt.6:9-13) Priest: " Deliver us, Lord, from every evil, and grant us peace in our day. In your mercy keep us free from sin and protect us from all anxiety as we wait in joyful hope for the coming of our Savior Jesus Christ." (Jn.17:15) Cong: "For the kingdom, the power, and glory are yours, now and forever." Priest: "Lord Jesus Christ, you said to your apostles: I leave you peace,my peace I give you. Look not on our sins, but on the faith of your Church, and grant us the peace and unity if your kingdom where you reign for ever and ever. (Jn.14:27) The peace of the Lord be with you always. (Jn.20:19)

Breaking of the Host: (Jn.1:29)

Communion: Priest: "This is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. Happy are those who are called to the supper of the Lord." (Rev.19:9) Priest and Cong: "Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed." (Mt.8:8)

Dismissal: Priest: "The Lord be with you" Cong: "And also with you." (Ruth 2:4) Priest: "May almighty God bless you, the father, and the son, and the Holy Spirit. (Lk.24:51) Go in the peace of Christ." (Lk.7:50;2Chron.35:3) Cong: "Thanks be to God." (2Cor.9:15)

So as you can see Kenneth, Scripture is taught at every Mass celebrated.

Pax

"For he has looked upon his handmaid’s lowliness;behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed. ---Lk.1:48.

mikeuk · Feb 7, 2015

Jeff_56 said:

That has no place in civilised discussion.

Disregarding the flame.

If you had read the catechism in any detail you would for example note that a large section is based on the core catholic beliefs of the nicene creed- developed by the same church fathers who selected the new testament.
Most mainstream christians would agree with that. The only thing they would comment on is probably the church.
Which proves another point - the interpretation of words is vital and understanding what those involved in the canon thought the words mean.

If you skim it, you would make the same wrong assumption that Roger did, that the RCC considers the church as buildings and organisation.
But if you read the catechism you would see the definitions based on "People of God" "body of christ" and so on.
So Rogers comments were based on a false assumption, which is what most evangelicals view of the RCC is.
So I urge again to comment on the reality of Catholic belief, not on all the anticatholic myths

You would also note if you read it, that scripture is quoted extensively, read for example the section on church just mentioned.

And another issue, you relate to RoboOp declaring RCC teaching false. Why? because you regard his view as an authority, yet that is exactly how such as you criticise RCC
So using your own argument unless RoboOp is mentioned in the bible (I have yet to find his name there!) then why are you quoting non biblical authority?
RCC are bible christians, and that is where all the beliefs come from, but accept that to understand what was meant, rather than what was said, needs tradition and authority beyond the bible (as given to Peter with the keys).
We listen to the church fathers, not just RoboOp!

So please criticise RCC for what it actually believes, not the many myths, and in your case hate rants..
I came to it from evangelical sects, and discovered most of what is said about it is false.

As for Rogers remark "the bible was the gods word not romes" - he needs to take the context and history - it was assembled by men under divine inspiration in the third century by the same men you criticise. You cannot have it both ways. Either the men you criticise were inspired, or the new testament is false.

Anyway I have problems to solve, that mean I am unlikely to post for along while from now.

Catholic Heresy (for the record)

mikeuk

Guest

Banned

kennethcadwell

Guest

Banned

mikeuk

Guest

mikeuk

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

mikeuk

Guest

Senior Member

mikeuk

Guest

Banned

mikeuk

Guest

Banned

mikeuk

Guest

Senior Member

Banned

Banned

Banned

mikeuk

Guest