Catholics put the Catholic church above Jesus.
Catholics put Mary above Jesus.
Catholics put condemnation above grace.
On and on and on . . .
Catholic Heresy (for the record)
- Thread starter RoboOp
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Catholics put the Catholic church above Jesus.
Catholics put Mary above Jesus.
Catholics put condemnation above grace.
On and on and on . . .
I'm sorry bud that is bonkers, it does not make logical sense, so, Jesus Christ is not God?, and what on earth is God-man Jesus?
God was Jesus in human form. Mary was his mother, who was chosen by God. Jesus WAS fully human, BUT also fully divine, since he was God. God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit are ALL indeed the entity known as God. So to say that Mary was the mother "of all that is God", technically is correct.
But she only gave birth to Jesus, God always was right? Plus she didn't give birth to the Holy Spirit. So I can't see how she could possibly be "The Mother of all that is God", when He's always been, along with the Word (Jesus) and the Holy Spirit. All she did really was act as the means to bring God into His creation. Which is a big deal, but doesn't make her more than that.
In my opinion what you are saying doesn't make logical sense.
Last edited:
I just don't get it, it just isn't coherent to me, i appreciate all the replies but i just can not get my head around the fact that some say baby Jesus is born a divine baby boy who would grow to become the messiah, but in the same token and going by what has been written Jesus was also the Almighty God?. Thankyou for all your help, i have decided to sit this one out, i don't think i will ever become a Christian or dedicate my life to God, Jesus, it is all far too confusing and incoherent, maybe that is just me but there is no point to any of it for myself if i can't understand what Christians are saying, i simply 'don't get it', others do. Thankyou, i'm going back to the world where i don't want to be but se la vie.
take care love you all and thankyou for your precious time
Jim, yes, God always "has been", BUT he came to earth in human form as Jesus. Mary gave birth to Jesus, who was God. Now God has always been, just as Jesus and the Holy Spirit have always been, but in the human sense of it, Mary DID give birth (technically) to God, in the form of Jesus..
I'm not trying to just be argumentative,but Jesus, AKA the Word, created everything did He not? Mary did help to bring Him into His creation, but she wasn't His mother in the traditional sense, how could she be? He was here first. She did help in giving Him His earthly body,but that doesn't make her "GODS" mother, in my thinking anyway.
That being said I am not trying to minimize her role, I'm very thankful God chose to enter His creation, but that was all she did. Again not that that’s a small thing.
Jesus is God, He create Mary. He exist before Mary. He humble Himself born as a human through Mary.
My mother exist before me, did Mary exist before Jesus?
Mary is only humanly mother of Jesus. Now Jesus not human anymore, so Mary is not his mother anymore.
I was student in the John high school. James was my teacher in math. He obligate was to teach me math that years.
Now he is not obligate to teach me math anymore. he is not my teacher anymore.
Mary was only the mother of the body used by God the Son to walk on this World. Jesus Christ is God the Son who was with God long before anything was created. Therefore Mary is NOT the mother of God! She is only the mother of the body that God used.
There is an interesting article about Catholic Popes in the Skeptical Inquirer in the March/April 2015 issue/ Vol. 39, No. 2. Its on page 26 called The New Pope Saints.
Its talks about how the Popes fake Miracles to prove they are Saints. After reading the article you will see how self serving the Popes are in deceiving people in declaring them Saints.
This is just another example of how the corrupted Catholic Church is a Cult today.
There is an interesting article about Catholic Popes in the Skeptical Inquirer in the March/April 2015 issue/ Vol. 39, No. 2. Its on page 26 called The New Pope Saints.
Its talks about how the Popes fake Miracles to prove they are Saints. After reading the article you will see how self serving the Popes are in deceiving people in declaring them Saints.
This is just another example of how the corrupted Catholic Church is a Cult today.
Last edited:
How can Mary be the Mother of a being that was never created or born? God has no beginning! To say God was born by Mary means that God has a beginning! How can God have a beginning when He created everything?
The body that Jesus used to walk on this World is from Mary, but the Son of God has no beginning! Therefore Mary was never the Mather of God! God is made up of The Son, The Father and The Holy Spirit! Mary NEVER gave birth to God The Son, God The Father, or God The Holy Spirit!
For the Catholics to teach the Mary is the mother of the actual God that created everything shows how corrupted the Catholic Church is today!
And thank you Mike for showing us the article in the Skeptical Inquirer. Tomorrow i will go out looking for it to read!
The body that Jesus used to walk on this World is from Mary, but the Son of God has no beginning! Therefore Mary was never the Mather of God! God is made up of The Son, The Father and The Holy Spirit! Mary NEVER gave birth to God The Son, God The Father, or God The Holy Spirit!
For the Catholics to teach the Mary is the mother of the actual God that created everything shows how corrupted the Catholic Church is today!
And thank you Mike for showing us the article in the Skeptical Inquirer. Tomorrow i will go out looking for it to read!
G
GaryA
Guest
Jesus was God.
Jesus was Man.
Jesus was the 'God-Man'.
Yes - Jesus Christ was / is God - that is, God-in-the-flesh.
G
GaryA
Guest
G
GaryA
Guest
Absolutely not!
It is not technically correct.
"Okay - let's get technical..."
Mary was only "mother" to that which was "conceived within her" -- which was 'Jesus' ( the human "flesh" [ part ] ).
The Holy Spirit was not "conceived within her"...
The Almighty Father was not "conceived within her"...
Jesus - three parts:
| ~ | body | - | "conceived within her" | - | Human | |
| ~ | soul | - | NOT | "conceived within her" | - | God |
| ~ | spirit | - | NOT | "conceived within her" | - | God |
It is true that, when we were conceived, God "supplied" not-yet-existing body, soul, and spirit.
The soul and spirit of Jesus were already-existant when the Holy Spirit caused Mary to conceive. The only part of Jesus that was "new" was His body.
Mary was mother to Jesus the person -- which is not identically the same as ( remember, we are speaking in "highly technical terms" here ) the Almighty Father ( a different 'person' ) or the Holy Spirit ( a different 'person' ).
Even though it is true that Jesus was / is God -- it is not technically correct to state that Mary was the mother of "all-that-is-God"...
Mary was the mother of 'Jesus' -- she was never the mother of 'God'.
( "Why is this so hard for people to understand?"
)
Last edited:
But at least Pope John XXIII had good reason for making Thomas More a saint. Consider his record:
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Thomas Hitten was the first be burned alive by Saint Thomas More [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"There had had been no burnings in England for eight years. More soon put a stop to that. He did not quite condemn his predecessors —"I will not say that the Judges did wrong' —but he made it clear that he thought them lax. The heretic had been mollycoddled, allowed to escape through recantation and faggot-carrying, and in this the bishops and church officers were "almost more than lawful", in that they admitted him to such an abjuration as they did, and that they did not rather leave him to the secular arm'. He concluded that 'in the condemnation of heretics, the clergy might lawfully do much more sharply than they do'"(Moynahan, God's Bestseller, p. 204).[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Thomas Hutton was burned alive in 1530, the first of many, many more victims of Saint Thomas More!![/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"A priest named Thomas Hitton was the first to suffer from More's new `sharpness'. He was seized near Gravesend in January 30 as he was making his way to the coast to take a ship for Antwerp. Hitton had fled to join Tyndale and the English exiles in the Low Countries after becoming a convinced evangelical. He returned to England on a brief visit to contact supporters of Tyndale and to arrange for the distribution of smuggled books. The first English psalter had been published in Antwerp in January, as well as Tyndale's Pentateuch, in a translation by George Joye that included a commentary 'declarynge brefly thentente and bstance of the wholl psalme'"(Moynahan, God's Bestseller, p. 205).[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Thomas Bilney was the second victim of Saint Thomas More[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"Bilney was duly seized in March 1531 and brought in front of Bishop Nix of Norwich. He was convicted of heresy and 'relaxed' to the secular power. Foxe says that More sent down the writ to burn him. Bilney practised for his martyrdom in his cell by burning his fingers in a candle, constantly repeating Isaiah's words: `When thou walkest through the fire, thou shalt not be burnt.' It was nearing harvest time, and he compared himself to the straw in the fields. `Howsoever the stubble of this my body shall be wasted' by the fire, he told himself, 'yet my soul and spirit shall be purged thereby: a pain for the time, whereupon notwithstanding followeth joy unspeakable.' While he was waiting to be bound to the stake, in the Lollards' sandpit at Norwich, on 19 August 1531, Bilney repeated the creed as proof that he died as a true Christian, and offered up a prayer: `Enter not into judgement with thy servant, 0 Lord, for in thy sight no living flesh can be justified.' (Moynahan, God's Bestseller, pp. 251-252).[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Richard Bayfield was the third victim of Saint Thomas More[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"Others were less fortunate. Richard Bayfield was a leading trader in the Testaments and the other Tyndale books, a Cambridge graduate and a former Benedictine monk at Bury St Edmunds, who had taken up evangelical ideas. He had abjured in front of Tunstall in 1528, thus exposing himself to the fire if he lapsed, and had then fled to the Low Countries. Here, he helped Tyndale and John Frith, the survivor of the Oxford fish cellar, who was now working with Tyndale. Bayfield `brought substance with him', so Foxe recorded, and `sold all their works and the works of the Germans, both in France and England'.
Bayfield ran at least three large cargoes of Tyndale's books into England. On his first trip, at midsummer in 1530, he landed illicitly on the east coast and brought the books to London by way of Colchester. The following November he shipped another consignment to St Katherine's docks, less than a thousand yards downriver from the Tower of London. More had wind of this operation and most of the cargo was seized. At Easter 1531, avoiding the Essex coast and the London docks, Bayfield landed in Norfolk and brought his books to London along graziers' roads.
Betrayed, he was seized and held in the Tower, shackled to the wall of his cell by his neck, waist and legs, in darkness. More's strange obsession with married heretics resurfaced. He falsely claimed that Bayfield, 'beynge both a preste and a monke, went about two wyves, one in Brabande [Brabant], a nother in Englande'. Bayfield `fell to heresye and was abiured, and after that lyke a dog returnyng to his vomyte,' More wrote, `and beyng fledde ouer the see, and sendynge from thense Tyndales heresyes hyther with many myschevouse sortes of bokes (Moynahan, God's Bestseller, pp. 259).[/FONT]
Bayfield ran at least three large cargoes of Tyndale's books into England. On his first trip, at midsummer in 1530, he landed illicitly on the east coast and brought the books to London by way of Colchester. The following November he shipped another consignment to St Katherine's docks, less than a thousand yards downriver from the Tower of London. More had wind of this operation and most of the cargo was seized. At Easter 1531, avoiding the Essex coast and the London docks, Bayfield landed in Norfolk and brought his books to London along graziers' roads.
Betrayed, he was seized and held in the Tower, shackled to the wall of his cell by his neck, waist and legs, in darkness. More's strange obsession with married heretics resurfaced. He falsely claimed that Bayfield, 'beynge both a preste and a monke, went about two wyves, one in Brabande [Brabant], a nother in Englande'. Bayfield `fell to heresye and was abiured, and after that lyke a dog returnyng to his vomyte,' More wrote, `and beyng fledde ouer the see, and sendynge from thense Tyndales heresyes hyther with many myschevouse sortes of bokes (Moynahan, God's Bestseller, pp. 259).[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]John Tewkesbury was the fourth victim of Saint Thomas More[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"Less than three weeks later, the London leather seller John Tewkesbury shared the same fate. He was also betrayed by Constantine. Tewkesbury was held in the porter's lodge at More's Chelsea house, so Foxe wrote, pinioned `hand, foot, and head in the stocks', for six days without release. Foxe claimed that More , had Tewkesbury whipped at 'Jesu's tree' in his garden, `and also twisted his brows with small ropes, so that the blood started out of his eyes'. This was, of course, the torture also described by Segar; Nicholson. Tewkesbury was then sent to the Tower and racked until he was nearly lame.
More led two public examinations of Tewkesbury. He found his prisoner very obstinate. `He couvered and hyd yt [his heresies] by all the meanes he coulde make,' More wrote, `and labored to make euery man wene that he had neuer holden any suche opynyons.'
But the lord chancellor's informers had done their work well. 'In, howse was founden Tyndales boke of obedyence, and hyswykked boke also of the wykked mammoma,' More gloated, noting that, after the discovery, Tewkesbury said `at hys examynacyon, that all the heresyes therein were good and crysten fayth, beynge in dede, as full of false heresyes, and as frantike as ewer heretyke made any syth cryst was borne'. How did More winkle'. that out of him? For later, `when he was in the shyryffes warde, and at the tyme of his deth,' More remarked, `he wolde not speke of hys heresyes any thynge but handled hym selfe as couertly as he coude ...'.
As was now usual, More taunted Tyndale over Tewkesbury's (Moynahan, God's Bestseller, pp. 260).[/FONT]
More led two public examinations of Tewkesbury. He found his prisoner very obstinate. `He couvered and hyd yt [his heresies] by all the meanes he coulde make,' More wrote, `and labored to make euery man wene that he had neuer holden any suche opynyons.'
But the lord chancellor's informers had done their work well. 'In, howse was founden Tyndales boke of obedyence, and hyswykked boke also of the wykked mammoma,' More gloated, noting that, after the discovery, Tewkesbury said `at hys examynacyon, that all the heresyes therein were good and crysten fayth, beynge in dede, as full of false heresyes, and as frantike as ewer heretyke made any syth cryst was borne'. How did More winkle'. that out of him? For later, `when he was in the shyryffes warde, and at the tyme of his deth,' More remarked, `he wolde not speke of hys heresyes any thynge but handled hym selfe as couertly as he coude ...'.
As was now usual, More taunted Tyndale over Tewkesbury's (Moynahan, God's Bestseller, pp. 260).[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]James Bainham was the fifth victin of Saint Thomas More[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"'I come hither, good people,' he said to the crowd, 'accused and condemned for a heretic, Sir Thomas More being my accuser and my judge.' He then spoke of the beliefs for which he was to die. Foxe claims that he ticked off all the main evangelical articles. 'First, I say it is lawful for every man and woman, to have God's book in their mother tongue. Second, that the bishop of Rome is Antichrist ... there is no purgatory, but the purgatory of Christ's blood, for our souls immediately go to heaven and rest with Jesus Christ for ever ...'
At this, the town clerk, Master Pave, said: 'Thou liest, thou heretic! Thou deniest the blessed sacrament of the altar.' Bainham retorted that he did not deny the sacrament of Christ's body and blood, but only 'your idolatry to the bread, and that Christ God and man should dwell in a piece of bread ...'. At that, Pave ordered: 'Set fire to him and burn him.'
As the train of gunpowder came towards him, Bainham lifted up his eyes and hands to heaven, and said to Pave: `God forgive tee, and show thee more mercy than thou showest to me. The Lord forgive Sir Thomas More! and pray for me, all good people ...'With that, the fire 'took his bowels and his head'" (Moynahan, God's Bestseller, p. 265).
[/FONT]
At this, the town clerk, Master Pave, said: 'Thou liest, thou heretic! Thou deniest the blessed sacrament of the altar.' Bainham retorted that he did not deny the sacrament of Christ's body and blood, but only 'your idolatry to the bread, and that Christ God and man should dwell in a piece of bread ...'. At that, Pave ordered: 'Set fire to him and burn him.'
As the train of gunpowder came towards him, Bainham lifted up his eyes and hands to heaven, and said to Pave: `God forgive tee, and show thee more mercy than thou showest to me. The Lord forgive Sir Thomas More! and pray for me, all good people ...'With that, the fire 'took his bowels and his head'" (Moynahan, God's Bestseller, p. 265).
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]During his short reign as Lord Chancellor, More had at least 10 Reformed Christians burned alive. Countless more were permanently maimed by his tortures in the Tower. More found that public burnings were actually spreading the Faith so he resorted to more subtler means such as poisoning.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]More's final target was Saint William Tyndale[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]More's one all consuming passion was to add Tyndale's name to his list of burn victims....To accomplish this he spared not his money nor his time....His network of paid informers and spies were everywhere. God spared the life of Saint William until 1536 when most of the Old Testament was completed. [/FONT]
[TABLE="width: 100%"][TR]
[TD="width: 32%"]
[TD="width: 3%"] [/TD]
[TD="width: 65%"][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Saint William Tyndale (1494-1536) is the father of the English Bible, the father of the English language and the father of the English Reformation. Without controversy, he is the greatest Englishman that ever lived!![/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]He was born in Gloustershire, England, not far from Bristol. He graduated with a Master of Arts from Oxford University in 1515. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A brilliant man, he was fluent in 8 languages: Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Italian, German, Spanish, English, French.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]An exile from his own country, he learned German from Martin Luther in Wittenberg and Hebrew while on the run from Sir Thomas More. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]His life's ambition was to give the English people the Bible in their own language.[/FONT]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In a theological discussion with a fellow clergyman about the Scriptures, Saint William Tyndale gave his timeless reply:[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"It was not long after, but Master Tyndale happened to be in the company of a certain divine, recounted for a learned man, and, in communing and disputing with him, he drave him to that issue, that the said great doctor burst out into these blasphemous words, and said, “We were better to be without God’s laws than the pope’s.” Master Tyndale, hearing this, full of godly zeal, and not bearing that blasphemous saying, replied again, and said, “I defy the pope, and all his laws;” and further added, that if God spared him life, ere many years he would cause a boy that driveth the plough, to know more of the Scripture than he did” (Foxe, Acts & Monuments, vol. 5, p. 207).[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]More offered what amounted to the present day equivalent of a million dollars to capture Saint William Tyndale. Finally his bribes paid off. A Judas named Henry Philipps betrayed Master Tyndale to the police in Antwerp, Belgium, and William was arrested and thrown into a foul cell. There he languished for 16 months in cold and hunger until he was taken out and burnt alive.[/FONT]
The Church decided to call her Theotokos not Theopherus.
Also, Jesus was fully man and fully God. You cannot separate the two...
All of these men were tried by the Law of England at that time. Whether the laws were good or not, the Lord Chancellor does not arrest, try, or judge cases. The Lord Chancellor appoints judges, appoints King's Counsel, and serves at the pleasure of the King.
However, you quickly ignore the trial of St. Thomas More, in which hearsay evidence was introduced, and a man perjured himself to get More found guilty.
And what crime did More commit? He refused to sign a document and refused to say why. Because, to quote St. More, he "would not submit to the marriage."
However, you quickly ignore the trial of St. Thomas More, in which hearsay evidence was introduced, and a man perjured himself to get More found guilty.
And what crime did More commit? He refused to sign a document and refused to say why. Because, to quote St. More, he "would not submit to the marriage."
But those who attacked Thomas More were never canonised. On the other hand it is quite clear that Thomas More was responsible for what is described. You claim he had no power to do so. You are clearly ignorant of history. What Thomas More said happened! And he condemned in so many words judges who were lenient. How could such a man be a 'Saint'? Only a Roman Catholic could even begin to justify it.
You may be interested in this example :
Just as the Virgin Mary seems to appear only to believing Catholics, so miracles tend to occur only when a requirement for them is specified. In order for "Mother" Teresa to be "beatified"-the technical first stage of full canonization-a miracle attributable to her posthumous efforts had to be certified. And a Bengali girl was duly found to claim that her cancerous tumor had vanished after a ray of light emanated from a picture of the departed nun. (You will not fail to observe that the girl already had such a photograph in her home and was praying to it.)
A The girl's physician stated plainly that she had not had a cancer. She had had a cyst. And the cyst had not responded to prayer. It had responded to a prescribed course of medicine. The patient's father concurred with this account. Had anyone interviewed the doctor, in order at least to test the claim that medical science was baffled by the recovery? No, they had not. In other words, and even by the unexacting methods employed by saint-hunters, the "miracle" was a palpable fraud, of the sort that might have embarrassed a medicine-man selling colored water from the back of a covered wagon before cantering away to the next credulous township.
Of course they weren't canonized, they attacked Thomas More. Also, Thomas More was a strict man when it came to law. Even St. Thomas Aquinas believed in the death penalty for those charged with heresy who would not recant.
I find it interesting that you are willing to vilify a man wrong fully charged and claim "just desserts" at the same time claiming that an argument to the contrary is obviously devious.
I am not vilifying him. I am pointing out what he was. But what I am doing is pointing out the blasphemy of declaring a man like that a saint. And now you mention it the sainting of Thomas Aquinas was equally blasphemous in the light of your words. Have you no concept of what Christ's message is? Does your church justify anything?