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.
Pretty much what mattp0625 does with Sola Scriptura.
Yep. . .the same one of mattp0625.
Perhaps you could show him his logical fallacy.
The apostles had a promise from Jesus, which no one else has--to recall and
understand all things correctly (Jn 14:26, 16:13-15, Lk 24:48-49).
While the writers of Scripture wrote inerrantly, no one acts inerrantly, for no one is sinless.
The only infallibility, by the promise of Jesus, is of the writings of the NT.
The pope has no such promise from Jesus regarding his actions.
I'm thinking Jesus made a distinction between Peter (petros, small rock) in Mt 16:19, and this rock (petra, mass of rock) because this rock is Jesus himself (Mt 21:42; Eph 2:20-21; Ac 4:11; Ro 9:32;
1Pe 2:6) on whom the church is built.
It is the body of Christ, and no one else on earth, which has the keys to the kingdom of heaven; i.e., the gospel, binding and loosing what has been bound and loosed in heaven, by the preaching of the gospel (Jn 3:18, 36).
Yep. . .the same one of mattp0625.
Perhaps you could show him his logical fallacy.
The apostles had a promise from Jesus, which no one else has--to recall and
understand all things correctly (Jn 14:26, 16:13-15, Lk 24:48-49).
While the writers of Scripture wrote inerrantly, no one acts inerrantly, for no one is sinless.
The only infallibility, by the promise of Jesus, is of the writings of the NT.
The pope has no such promise from Jesus regarding his actions.
I'm thinking Jesus made a distinction between Peter (petros, small rock) in Mt 16:19, and this rock (petra, mass of rock) because this rock is Jesus himself (Mt 21:42; Eph 2:20-21; Ac 4:11; Ro 9:32;
1Pe 2:6) on whom the church is built.
It is the body of Christ, and no one else on earth, which has the keys to the kingdom of heaven; i.e., the gospel, binding and loosing what has been bound and loosed in heaven, by the preaching of the gospel (Jn 3:18, 36).
Last edited:
M
Nothing to see here. No leader of the Apostles or Church of Christ. Nope nope. Straw man!
- Acts 1: Peter decides that Judas should be replaced.
- Acts 2: Peter speaks to the crowds at Pentecost and converts thousands.
- Acts 3: Peter heals a lame man and again addresses the crowds.
- Acts 4: Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, addresses the Jewish rulers, priests, and scribes.
- Acts 5: Peter speaks the death sentence upon Ananias and Sapphira.
- Acts 8: Peter rebukes Simon.
- Acts 9: Saul's conversion; Peter raises the dead and heals the paralyzed.
- Acts 10: Peter, at God's direct command, opens the door to the Gentiles.
- Acts 11: The Judaizers came to Peter to complain.
- Acts 12: Peter is arrested and saved by an angel.
- Acts 15: Peter decides the issue at the Council of Jerusalem, and after he finishes speaking, "all the assembly kept silence."
- Peter walked on water
- Peter called for a replacement to Judas
- Peter settled the issue at the Council of Jerusalem
- Peter was appointed, by Jesus, as shepherd of Jesus' flock
- Jesus prayed specifically for Peter
- Peter spoke for the Apostles on the Day of Pentecost
- Peter received a special vision from God to bring the Gospel to the Gentiles
- Peter was given a special revelation about Jesus being the Messiah
- Peter was given the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven
- Jesus paid the temple tax for Himself and Peter only
- Paul comes to Peter to consult with him
- Peter generally speaks for all the Apostles
- Peter spoke judgment upon Ananias and Sapphira
- Peter has his name changed to "Rock."
It means what the Reformers who coined the phrase meant.
It means Only Scripture is the authority for faith, doctrine and godliness, not the Pope.
There are not differing meanings of Sola Scriptura just as there are not differing meanings of the body of Christ.
The true meanings of both are determined by their origins.
Nope. . .Scripture presents itself as the only (1Co 4:6) and sufficient (2Tim 3:16) authority for faith, doctrine and godliness.
It means Only Scripture is the authority for faith, doctrine and godliness, not the Pope.
There are not differing meanings of Sola Scriptura just as there are not differing meanings of the body of Christ.
The true meanings of both are determined by their origins.
Nope. . .Scripture presents itself as the only (1Co 4:6) and sufficient (2Tim 3:16) authority for faith, doctrine and godliness.
Last edited:
D
Here is a Jesus image toaster you can make your own images
Says not to know Jesus after the flesh (I think that means by outward appearances) but that could be my protestant interpretation
2 Cr 5:16 Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh:
yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh,
yet now henceforth know we him no more.
Afterall Jesus did say,
John 14:19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more;
but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.
John 14:20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father,
and ye in me, and I in you.
Shows ye would see him...
Not Christ on toast,
not Christ in cement
but Christ in you.
It makes it difficult (if not near impossible) to grasp the mystery of Christ (in) you while staring at a big ol cement figure of a man (supposed to be him) after the image of the flesh (outside of) you, especially when he IS the image of the *INVISIBLE* God.
So if you are seeing him **after the flesh** in some form who exactly are you looking at?
How are you seeing both him and the Father (in) him when you see Jesus you see a cement figure?
As He (himself) in the flesh is the image of the **inivisible** God
John 14:8 Philip saith unto him,
Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
John 14:9 Jesus saith unto him,
Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip?
If he is the image of the IVISIBLE God, then it speaks of knowing the Father through his expressed "person"
(His inward image) not outward.
Christ in you (manifest myself) to you
None of us have known him after flesh
But even to them which did (asking to ee the Father)
Jesus said,
he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
Pulling out some sketches is just not really getting it (and knowing him after the flesh) when he is not to be known that way. As he appeared to them in a different form also.
Mark 16:12 After that (he was risen) he appeared in another form unto two of them,
as they walked, and went into the country.
So we have another outward form of Jesus, you just never know what spin the artwork will take on?
Also we know that
Col 2:9 For in him (Jesus Christ)dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
And in the context of the Godhead (period)
Paul said...
Acts 17:29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
This time of ignorance
Acts 17:3 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
These are resisting that idea of repenting of that made with hands (which they profit from)
Acts 19:26 Moreover ye see and hear, that not alone at Ephesus, but almost throughout all Asia,
this Paul hath persuaded and turned away much people, saying that they be no gods, which are made with hands:
Then here, looks the same, that which is made by hands
Rev 9:20 And the rest of the men which were not killed by these plagues yet repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils, and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood: which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk:
We ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
Col 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
I have to share this (dont laugh to hard but its tue of me) as a teenager I used to have a crush (sad I know) on Sly Stallone when Rocky come out. When someone pulled out that image (after the flesh) of Jesus that looks like Rocky (to me) and others see that same resemblance as well.
But heres the thing , I had to believe he had no beauty about him when we see him ( and I sort of laughed, and I thought yanno, Im in real trouble if I have to be looking at that picture of Jesus for too long).
See how weird this gets, that he looked like a picture of (my idol) after the flesh.
Says not to know Jesus after the flesh (I think that means by outward appearances) but that could be my protestant interpretation
2 Cr 5:16 Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh:
yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh,
yet now henceforth know we him no more.
Afterall Jesus did say,
John 14:19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more;
but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.
John 14:20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father,
and ye in me, and I in you.
Shows ye would see him...
Not Christ on toast,
not Christ in cement
but Christ in you.
It makes it difficult (if not near impossible) to grasp the mystery of Christ (in) you while staring at a big ol cement figure of a man (supposed to be him) after the image of the flesh (outside of) you, especially when he IS the image of the *INVISIBLE* God.
So if you are seeing him **after the flesh** in some form who exactly are you looking at?
How are you seeing both him and the Father (in) him when you see Jesus you see a cement figure?
As He (himself) in the flesh is the image of the **inivisible** God
John 14:8 Philip saith unto him,
Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
John 14:9 Jesus saith unto him,
Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip?
If he is the image of the IVISIBLE God, then it speaks of knowing the Father through his expressed "person"
(His inward image) not outward.
Christ in you (manifest myself) to you
None of us have known him after flesh
But even to them which did (asking to ee the Father)
Jesus said,
he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
Pulling out some sketches is just not really getting it (and knowing him after the flesh) when he is not to be known that way. As he appeared to them in a different form also.
Mark 16:12 After that (he was risen) he appeared in another form unto two of them,
as they walked, and went into the country.
So we have another outward form of Jesus, you just never know what spin the artwork will take on?
Also we know that
Col 2:9 For in him (Jesus Christ)dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
And in the context of the Godhead (period)
Paul said...
Acts 17:29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
This time of ignorance
Acts 17:3 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
These are resisting that idea of repenting of that made with hands (which they profit from)
Acts 19:26 Moreover ye see and hear, that not alone at Ephesus, but almost throughout all Asia,
this Paul hath persuaded and turned away much people, saying that they be no gods, which are made with hands:
Then here, looks the same, that which is made by hands
Rev 9:20 And the rest of the men which were not killed by these plagues yet repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils, and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood: which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk:
We ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
Col 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
I have to share this (dont laugh to hard but its tue of me) as a teenager I used to have a crush (sad I know) on Sly Stallone when Rocky come out. When someone pulled out that image (after the flesh) of Jesus that looks like Rocky (to me) and others see that same resemblance as well.
But heres the thing , I had to believe he had no beauty about him when we see him ( and I sort of laughed, and I thought yanno, Im in real trouble if I have to be looking at that picture of Jesus for too long).
See how weird this gets, that he looked like a picture of (my idol) after the flesh.
just read 2 Tim 3.15-17 and use your intelligence. Difficult I know when you've been brainwashed.
It is only you who thinks they are mutually exclusive, not us or God. They are secondary matters which do not affect the truth. It is only because you are so hidebound by the Roman Catholic church that you cannot see that true Christianity is spirit not legalism and ritual.
,
His true church did not vapourise, it continued underground, enduring the persecution of the Roman Catholic political hierarchy, just as the church continued underground in China and in Communist Russia.
Have you noted the parallel? Why did God, having established Israel, allow it to vapourise over 1000 years? Because He was preserving a true spiritual remnant for Himself? The same is true of church history. Like Israel the outward church grew idolatrous and disobedient and developed into a political and religious entity which was displeasing to God. In the case of bastardised Israel John and Jesus swept it clean. In the case of the bastardised Roman Catholic church the reformation swept it clean through the Holy Spirit
And even today the true remnant are only part of a larger whole. That is how God works, proving the fallacy of trusting the Roman Catholic church which is composed of modern Sadducees, Scribe and Pharisees...
You can see why I think Roman Catholicism has made you stupid? If you really think that Luther brought abut the reformation you are abundantly stupid. But of course you swallow the Roman Catholic line hook, line and sinker. The reformation in England had nothing to do with Luther. It was brought about by men like John Wycliff and William Tyndale who in spite of severe persecution (and finally being martyred) brought the word of God to England in their own language. Also Thomas Bilney. In the end it was the word of God that brought about the reformation in England, aided by godly men who under Elizabeth established the Anglican church with its catechism known as the 39 articles, and other godly men who established FREE churches. Luther had a big impact in Germany, but the reformation Europe wide was led by many godly men. It would all have happened without Luther.
History shows that 'truth' does not survive long when it is in the hands of men. That is why your church is the pillar of lies. That is why God put it in a book. Your church has survived from around 700 AD but it was corrupt when it commenced. Its longevity has been filled with bloodshed, immorality of Popes, persecution of spiritual Christians, corrupt practices. LOL you respected bishops so much that you appointed Archbishops at one year old. And they were probably the most doctrinally sound among you until they grew up.
WE ALL trace our line back to the Apostles. But it is only those who are in line with Apostolic teaching on salvation who are true Christians. The rest are like the Scribes and Pharisees, blind fools.
At least it might then have a chance of being pure. But my church was founded in the days of the Apostles and has been kept pure by persecution !!!! That is one debt we owe Rome LOL
It is only you who thinks they are mutually exclusive, not us or God. They are secondary matters which do not affect the truth. It is only because you are so hidebound by the Roman Catholic church that you cannot see that true Christianity is spirit not legalism and ritual.
,
His true church did not vapourise, it continued underground, enduring the persecution of the Roman Catholic political hierarchy, just as the church continued underground in China and in Communist Russia.
Have you noted the parallel? Why did God, having established Israel, allow it to vapourise over 1000 years? Because He was preserving a true spiritual remnant for Himself? The same is true of church history. Like Israel the outward church grew idolatrous and disobedient and developed into a political and religious entity which was displeasing to God. In the case of bastardised Israel John and Jesus swept it clean. In the case of the bastardised Roman Catholic church the reformation swept it clean through the Holy Spirit
And even today the true remnant are only part of a larger whole. That is how God works, proving the fallacy of trusting the Roman Catholic church which is composed of modern Sadducees, Scribe and Pharisees...
You can see why I think Roman Catholicism has made you stupid? If you really think that Luther brought abut the reformation you are abundantly stupid. But of course you swallow the Roman Catholic line hook, line and sinker. The reformation in England had nothing to do with Luther. It was brought about by men like John Wycliff and William Tyndale who in spite of severe persecution (and finally being martyred) brought the word of God to England in their own language. Also Thomas Bilney. In the end it was the word of God that brought about the reformation in England, aided by godly men who under Elizabeth established the Anglican church with its catechism known as the 39 articles, and other godly men who established FREE churches. Luther had a big impact in Germany, but the reformation Europe wide was led by many godly men. It would all have happened without Luther.
History shows that 'truth' does not survive long when it is in the hands of men. That is why your church is the pillar of lies. That is why God put it in a book. Your church has survived from around 700 AD but it was corrupt when it commenced. Its longevity has been filled with bloodshed, immorality of Popes, persecution of spiritual Christians, corrupt practices. LOL you respected bishops so much that you appointed Archbishops at one year old. And they were probably the most doctrinally sound among you until they grew up.
WE ALL trace our line back to the Apostles. But it is only those who are in line with Apostolic teaching on salvation who are true Christians. The rest are like the Scribes and Pharisees, blind fools.
At least it might then have a chance of being pure. But my church was founded in the days of the Apostles and has been kept pure by persecution !!!! That is one debt we owe Rome LOL
Last edited:
The problem is Peter never in Rome, and not the first bishop in Rome.
www.vision.org/visionmedia/religion-and...peter-in-rome/5820.aspx
I give you one example how catholic lie.
One of the source to claim that Peter is martyr in Rome is Clement letter.
The fact is Clement never said Peter is in Rome at all. Basically Clement only said Peter and Paul and 12 other saints are suffered because of Jealousy.
The same victim of Jealousy, why interpreted as both martyred in Rome?
This bellow copy of Prof Michael d Goulder
Quote:
Clement had given seven Old Testament examples of people who had suffered because of jealousy. (Only one, Cain’s brother Abel, had actually died because of the jealousy.) Goulder then proceeded to show that each Old Testament example had a New Testament parallel in that each individual or group had suffered in a similar way because of jealousy. Among these later examples, Clement listed first “the greatest and most righteous pillars” of the church; they, like Abel, had “contended even unto death.” This description would certainly fit the apostle James. Peter, Clement said, had fled (just as Jacob had fled his jealous brother, Esau); and Paul (like Joseph in the Old Testament) had been put in bondage.
In other words, as Goulder read the epistle, Clement didn’t even address the issue of whether or not Peter or Paul were martyred. The letter simply identified them as having suffered from the jealousy of others. Clement’s purpose in giving these examples was merely to correct the Corinthians with regard to the internal problems that he saw arising from the jealousy and envy that had developed among them (1 Clement 3). Goulder considers that based on this clarification, Peter may have died in his bed in Jerusalem for all Clement tells us.
www.vision.org/visionmedia/religion-and...peter-in-rome/5820.aspx
I give you one example how catholic lie.
One of the source to claim that Peter is martyr in Rome is Clement letter.
The fact is Clement never said Peter is in Rome at all. Basically Clement only said Peter and Paul and 12 other saints are suffered because of Jealousy.
The same victim of Jealousy, why interpreted as both martyred in Rome?
This bellow copy of Prof Michael d Goulder
Quote:
Clement had given seven Old Testament examples of people who had suffered because of jealousy. (Only one, Cain’s brother Abel, had actually died because of the jealousy.) Goulder then proceeded to show that each Old Testament example had a New Testament parallel in that each individual or group had suffered in a similar way because of jealousy. Among these later examples, Clement listed first “the greatest and most righteous pillars” of the church; they, like Abel, had “contended even unto death.” This description would certainly fit the apostle James. Peter, Clement said, had fled (just as Jacob had fled his jealous brother, Esau); and Paul (like Joseph in the Old Testament) had been put in bondage.
In other words, as Goulder read the epistle, Clement didn’t even address the issue of whether or not Peter or Paul were martyred. The letter simply identified them as having suffered from the jealousy of others. Clement’s purpose in giving these examples was merely to correct the Corinthians with regard to the internal problems that he saw arising from the jealousy and envy that had developed among them (1 Clement 3). Goulder considers that based on this clarification, Peter may have died in his bed in Jerusalem for all Clement tells us.