Catholic Heresy (for the record)

[Jackson123]

Well Jack.... Don't read more than is warranted into a verse. If you follow your line of reasoning, you'll have to say no other Christians at all were in Rome, other than Paul and Luke, but we know that Rome had a large Christian community--they weren't all out of town on the same day, were they? In fact, the Bible does allude to Peter's being in Rome. Peter concludes his first epistle with a cryptic greeting from "Babylon." This was the early Church's code word for Rome. The term didn't mean the city of Babylon which figures so greatly in the Old Testament, though the code word was chosen precisely because of what ancient Babylon had done to the Jews--the Romans were doing likewise to Christians.
Why did the early Christians, in their letters, write "I'm in Babylon" instead of "I'm in Rome"? Because the authorities were hunting for them--the Church was being persecuted--and mail delivery was unreliable.You never knew when a Roman official would confiscate one of your letters. So, if you didn't want to advertise your whereabouts to the disloyal opposition, you used code words.The scriptural evidence may not convince you of Peter's presence in Rome. Fair enough. But you ought to look also at other early writings and at the archaeological evidence. (You owe it to yourself and to us Catholics to examine all the available evidence.)

Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (A.D. 190), said Matthew wrote his Gospel "while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome." Dionysius of Corinith, about A.D. 170, referred to "the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome."

Oh yeah Jack....what about the archaeological evidence, have you looked into that...Jack? (couldn't help myself Lol!) In the middle decades of this century scientists conducted digs under St. Peter's Basilica to verify or disprove the tradition that the church had been constructed over Peter's tomb. And what do you think they found? That's right: the tomb. Pope Paul VI was able to announce that conclusive proof had been discovered--for instance, neighboring crypts on which were written grafitti such as, "Buried near Peter." For a popular account of the excavations, you should read John Evangelist Walsh's The Bones of St. Peter.


Pax Christi

"From henceforth, all generations shall call me Blessed." ----Luke 1:48

When was the last time you've done so?

[/FONT][/COLOR]

1. You said Rome had a large Christian community when Paul arrived.
Show me what verse said that.

Why Jews said he want to know about sect, If Peter had been there for 30 years and Peter is the leader why don't they ask the boss instead?


Rome 15:

[SUP]20[/SUP] Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation:
[SUP]21[/SUP] But as it is written, To whom he was not spoken of, they shall see: and they that have not heard shall understand.


These verse said that Paul not preach the gospel where large Christian community already there.

If Peter already at Rome and he is the leader, more likely Paul not make pastoral letter to Rome, Did you pastor make pastoral letter to Vatican?

2 you said babylon is code for Rome,

if you read my previous post, you will find out that according to Josephus, famous Jews Historian that life in that era, rome is code for babylon after 70 AD, not because they persecute Christian but they do destroy temple at 70 AD like babylon destroy temple at OT.

You said they worry of persecution that why they use code, In act Paul preach the gospel in front of Roman soldier.

And Roman not persecute Paul. Paul arrested because Jews, not because Roman. Read act.

 

[Jackson123]

they have 'plenty' of fraudulent documents and hearsay and demonic traditiions to prove all that they

say as if anything or any part of it was right, which of course nothing in the rcc is alive or true;

but they cannot humanly be convinced of the truth,

as they have chosen to love darkness and pursue it with all they have,

under the guidance of the unholy demons inhabiting the rcc and almost all of its members.

Yes brother, it is sad. we have to love them and show them the truth.

 

[mattp0625]

show me in the bible Peter went to Rome brother and when it happen?

In his letter to Rome Paul mention more then 20 elder, Peter is Pope/leader in Rome, why Paul not mention his name at all?

1 Peter says he was with Mark not Paul. Paul was probably in jail.

 

[valiant]

Paul was a prisoner in Rome.

i believe Peter was pope after Jesus ascended to heaven in Israel, later went to Rome and was martyred.
Pretty colors though

so you agree that Peter was never sole bishop of Rome and did not even go there until near the time of his death? There is hope for you yet.

But there is no suggestion ANYWHERE that Peter ruled the church or was called Papa or claimed direct authority ver the whole church. Nor is it suggested by the early fathers before 300 AD. It is all a myth

 

[Jackson123]

Well Jack.... Don't read more than is warranted into a verse. If you follow your line of reasoning, you'll have to say no other Christians at all were in Rome, other than Paul and Luke, but we know that Rome had a large Christian community--they weren't all out of town on the same day, were they? In fact, the Bible does allude to Peter's being in Rome. Peter concludes his first epistle with a cryptic greeting from "Babylon." This was the early Church's code word for Rome. The term didn't mean the city of Babylon which figures so greatly in the Old Testament, though the code word was chosen precisely because of what ancient Babylon had done to the Jews--the Romans were doing likewise to Christians.
Why did the early Christians, in their letters, write "I'm in Babylon" instead of "I'm in Rome"? Because the authorities were hunting for them--the Church was being persecuted--and mail delivery was unreliable.You never knew when a Roman official would confiscate one of your letters. So, if you didn't want to advertise your whereabouts to the disloyal opposition, you used code words.The scriptural evidence may not convince you of Peter's presence in Rome. Fair enough. But you ought to look also at other early writings and at the archaeological evidence. (You owe it to yourself and to us Catholics to examine all the available evidence.)

Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (A.D. 190), said Matthew wrote his Gospel "while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome." Dionysius of Corinith, about A.D. 170, referred to "the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome."

Oh yeah Jack....what about the archaeological evidence, have you looked into that...Jack? (couldn't help myself Lol!) In the middle decades of this century scientists conducted digs under St. Peter's Basilica to verify or disprove the tradition that the church had been constructed over Peter's tomb. And what do you think they found? That's right: the tomb. Pope Paul VI was able to announce that conclusive proof had been discovered--for instance, neighboring crypts on which were written grafitti such as, "Buried near Peter." For a popular account of the excavations, you should read John Evangelist Walsh's The Bones of St. Peter.


Pax Christi

"From henceforth, all generations shall call me Blessed." ----Luke 1:48

When was the last time you've done so?

[/FONT][/COLOR]

I forgot to comment 2 thing.

1. Irenious and Dionysius not reliable because not inline whit the bible. The bible never Mention Peter in Rome.

First Paul in Rome only 2 years than it my back to Rome latter in his life.

When Paul and Peter in Rome? and why.

You said Paul VI discover Peter bone?

How you verify?

I heard not very easy to identify the bone when you don't have DNA sample.

Why they just discover Peter bone recently?

read this link brother

1. [h=3]Saint Peter's Jerusalem Tomb[/h]www.aloha.net/~mikesch/peters-jerusalem-tomb.htm
   
   
   
   
   The story of the discovery was there, but it seemed to be purposely hidden for much was lacking. ... flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. .... He also admitted that the tomb of St. Peter is in Jerusalem.Missing: bugatti
   
   

 

[Cloud9]

There is also no "atonement," "covenant" nor "gospel."
The words are katallage, diatheke, and euaggelion, respectively.

Your point?


So "eternal" life is only temporary?

NOT!!!


Another FAIL. . .

It's Jesus who "succeeded in deepening spiritual blindness for the whole human race"
when he used the words "Gehenna of fire. . .which never goes out" in Mt 5:22, 18:9; Mk 9:43, 47-48;
Lk 16:24,

and also James in Jas 3:6.


It is those who do not believe the Scriptures given above that do believe a false doctrine.

The doctrine from hell is "There is no hell."

Don't attribute me with words I didn't say.

I didn't even mention eternal life above. I said the eternal hell doctrine is a false doctrine and there are a lot of people who have checked the ancient languages and done the scriptural analysis to prove it.

God's mercy is over all his works. Just because some man has chosen to construe judgment as equal to mercy doesn't make it so. The bible says God's mercy is over all his works and isn't man his work?

John Wesley Hanson, William Law, Hannah Whitall Smith, Stephen E. Jones all say eternal hell doctrine isn't accurate and others do, too.

God himself says he didn't want His people sacrificing to Molech.

And for close to two thousand years now the Christians have been comparing God to Molech.

Christ did not save anyone from hell. The wages of sin is death not hell.

If the wages of sin were eternal hell then Christ would have to still be in hell today paying our debt. Instead he sat down at the right hand of the Father.

 

[valiant]

Lol!!! Your ignorance of the Catholic ceases to amaze me!! Lol!! Have you ever heard of the Nicene Creed? We Catholics recite it at every Mass,,, it goes as follows:
"I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.
I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried, and rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come agian in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets.
I believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen."

So? It does not show in any way that you have not added large amounts of teaching to it. Many of us use the same creed, so if this is your test of orthodoxy millions of 'Protestants' around the world are fully orthodox. Of course the catholic church we refer to is not the Roman Catholic church but the true universal (catholic) church of the Apostles and the early church long before the Roman Catholic church existed.

Believe that. drop all your heresies and we will welcome you back into the true church.

Oh Wait....Did you happen to see the part where is says we also worship The Blessed Virgin Mary, Saints, statues, Icons, ect.? No???? Thats because we don't!! I don't care how many times you want to post this lie, but it will always be a lie! Catholics worship only the one, true God described in the Nicene Creed. We do not worship saints, statues or anything else that is an obstacle to God.

But you bow down to graven images contrary to the commandment, you claim to turn a piece of bread into God (another fashioned image), you pray to the dead, you separate yourself from the true catholic church, you introduce fantasies about Mary and claim she is sinless even though we have a record of her sins in the Scriptures, you make Mary and the saints into demi-gods, you try to exalt yourselves above the church of Christ contrary to all that Jesus taught, and a hundred other things.

If you beleive this to be true.... then prove it! Show any official Catholic Doctrine that carrys the imprimatur, Nihil Obstat, or from the Magisterium, (the teaching office of the Church) that tells us we are to worship Mary, and that she is above God.

I have already shown you documents sealed with the imprimatur encouraging the worship of Mary. You simply dodge the issue.

Or for that matter, the Ol'Timer valiant like to state that we Catholics do what ever our "Big Daddy" tells us to do. Well, he tried but failed as I debunked his argument back on page 213/post 2421. He thought he had knocked one out of the park posting the Encyclical Of Pope PIUS XII, September 8th, 1953 until I snagged it at the wall!! Lol!!

Please call me Pope Valiant as I am in direct line from the Apostles. You debunked nothing at all. You tried to avoid it by dodges and pretence that worship did not mean worship. The only person you satisfied was yourself. And you ignored the one which bore the imprimatur because you had no answer. While your church has not yet included it in your catechism, the worship of Mary is prevalent around the world and has been for hundreds of years.

So Kenallan,maybe you would have better luck finding somwhere out of all the Popes from St.Peter to our current Pope Francis (266 total) that any one of these Popes instructs Catholics to worship Mary, the Saints, Statues, ect.

An example of adoration

1. (Bull Ineffabilis Deus 1854)​
   18. It is therefore, a pleasure for us, a full century having passed since the Pontiff of immortal memory, Pius IX, solemnly proclaimed this singular privilege of the Virgin Mother of God, to summarize the whole doctrinal position and conclude in these words of the same Pontiff, asserting that this doctrine "vouched for in Sacred Scripture according to the interpretation of the Fathers, is handed down by them in so many of their important writings, is expressed and celebrated in so many illustrious monuments of renowned antiquity, and proposed and confirmed by the greatest and highest decision of the Church", so that to pastors and faithful there is nothing "more sweet, nothing dearer than to worship, venerate, invoke and praise with ardent affection the Mother of God conceived without stain of original sin.” (Ibidem.)​

1. 1. 1. Fulgens corona​
         This is an encyclical by Pope Pius XII, written in 1953, on the Feast of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and proclaims a Marian year for 1954, to commemorate the centenary of the definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary.​

1. 33. But where - as is the case in almost all dioceses, there exists a church in which the Virgin Mother of God is worshipped with more intense devotion, thither on stated days let pilgrims flock together in great numbers and publicly and in the open give glorious expression to their common Faith and their common love toward the Virgin Most Holy. ...​
   34. But let this holy city of Rome be the first to give the example, this city which from the earliest Christian era worshipped the heavenly mother, its patroness, with a special devotion. As all know, there are many sacred edifices here, in which she is proposed for the devotion of the Roman people; but the greatest without doubt is the Liberian Basilica [St. Mary Major], in which the mosaics of Our predecessor of pious memory, Sixtus III, still glisten, an outstanding monument to the Divine maternity of the Virgin Mary, and in which the "salvation of the Roman people" (Salus Populi Romani) benignly smiles.​
   Source:

   

   FULGENS CORONA, Encyclical Of Pope PIUS XII, September 8th, 1953.​

1. In his 1956 encyclical "Devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus", Pius XII defines Mary's role in the redemption of mankind:​
   "By the will of God, the most Blessed Virgin Mary was INSEPARABLY JOINED WITH CHRIST IN ACCOMPLISHING THE WORK OF MAN’S REDEMPTION so that our salvation flows from the love of Jesus Christ and His sufferings, intimately UNITED with the love and sorrows of His Mother."​

Note especially the 'worship, venerate, invoke, and praise with ardent affection' and the 'worship with intense devotion', and her 'inseparable joining with Christ accomplishing the work of man's redemption.

Words cannot avoid it Hardman. Your church is guilty as charged. And these were written in the 19th and 20th centuries when the term worship had become fixed in its meaning

 

[valiant]

Well Jack.... Don't read more than is warranted into a verse. If you follow your line of reasoning, you'll have to say no other Christians at all were in Rome, other than Paul and Luke, but we know that Rome had a large Christian community--they weren't all out of town on the same day, were they?

But they were not Apostles to the Jews. There is a great deal of difference between ordinary folk and an Apostle who can work constant miracles, and has a special call to reach the Jews.

In fact, the Bible does allude to Peter's being in Rome. Peter concludes his first epistle with a cryptic greeting from "Babylon." This was the early Church's code word for Rome.

There is not the slightest evidence that in 1st century AD Babylon was the early churches code for Rome. It is simply an hypothesis based on this verse. But Rome is Rome and Babylon is Babylon. Why should Peter disguise the fact that he was in Rome if he was permanently resident there?

The term didn't mean the city of Babylon which figures so greatly in the Old Testament, though the code word was chosen precisely because of what ancient Babylon had done to the Jews--the Romans were doing likewise to Christians.
Why did the early Christians, in their letters, write "I'm in Babylon" instead of "I'm in Rome"? Because the authorities were hunting for them--the Church was being persecuted--and mail delivery was unreliable.You never knew when a Roman official would confiscate one of your letters. So, if you didn't want to advertise your whereabouts to the disloyal opposition, you used code words.The scriptural evidence may not convince you of Peter's presence in Rome. Fair enough. But you ought to look also at other early writings and at the archaeological evidence. (You owe it to yourself and to us Catholics to examine all the available evidence.)

There is no available evidence. Roman Catholics are always talking about plenty of evidence but never produce any. It is untrue to say that Christians were persecuted in Rome at the time that Peter was supposed to be there. There is not one hint of such persecution until the time of Nero. There was no reason why he should be afraid. That is simply an invention.

Perhaps you will give us examples of other Christians using code words AT THAT TIME. Or was Peter the only one who was scared?

Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (A.D. 190), said Matthew wrote his Gospel "while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome." Dionysius of Corinith, about A.D. 170, referred to "the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome."

But both referred to while they were awaiting trial and execution. That is a very different thing from being the permanent sole bishop of Rome. Rome did not have a sole bishop until 150 AD. Note how the two names are always united. Was Paul also the Bishop of Rome for 25 yrs ? LOL LOL

Oh yeah Jack....what about the archaeological evidence, have you looked into that...Jack? (couldn't help myself Lol!) In the middle decades of this century scientists conducted digs under St. Peter's Basilica to verify or disprove the tradition that the church had been constructed over Peter's tomb. And what do you think they found? That's right: the tomb.

No they found A TOMB. There is no actual evidence that it was genuinely his tomb. It is still debated. But of course we would expect his tomb to be somewhere around as he was executed there. So all would prove is that he was martyred in Rome.

Pope Paul VI was able to announce that conclusive proof had been discovered--

Then knowing the perfidy of the Roman Catholic church through the ages we can be sure that the proof so called was manufactured. More forgeries? Are you never sick of them?

for instance, neighboring crypts on which were written grafitti such as, "Buried near Peter." For a popular account of the excavations, you should read John Evangelist Walsh's The Bones of St. Peter.

I would prefer the writings of a non-Roman Catholic scholar who was not closely connected with Roman Catholicism. Anyone can manufacture proof. Popular books are notoriously untrustworthy. It doesn't sound likely to me. But it is not all that important. I do not doubt that Peter was executed in Rome. What I am sure is UNTRUE is that he was bishop of Rome for any period of time.

 

[valiant]

I don't mind some persecution

how brave. what a hero !!!!

 

[KenAllan]

its interesting that Cloud9 says there is no Hell. He may be right on that point but there IS a Lake of Fire that he and the others who reject God will spend Eternity in.


Revelation 19:20
[SUP]20 [/SUP] Then the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who worked signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image. These two were cast alive into the lake of fire burning with brimstone.


Revelation 20:11-15
[SUP]11 [/SUP] Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away. And there was found no place for them.
[SUP]12 [/SUP] And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books.
[SUP]13 [/SUP] The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works.
[SUP]14 [/SUP] Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
[SUP]15 [/SUP] And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.

Revelation 21:8 (NKJV)
[SUP]8 [/SUP] But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death."

Yes Cloud9 there is a place where people who reject God WILL spend Eternity in and this place is NOT Heaven!

 

[mpaper345]

The truth is the Roman Catholic Church is a blending of paganism and Christianity,which you can tell by the things they do,like dip a cross in water and calling it holy water,praying over the rosary,etc.When they embraced Christianity at the start they obviously still held unto their pagan beliefs,which you can see openly.

That is how people get faulty interpretations of the Bible because they have an improper belief and try to fit scripture in to that belief,like the New Age religion that are nature worshippers,that believe they can tap in to nature for power,but waiting for the New Age Christ to appear,because they believe he will restore all the hidden mysteries of the past,and they can achieve power through nature,which the man of sin will be in to witchcraft,and honor the God of forces.

So the New Age religion interprets the Bible according to their nature worship belief as reality,which the Bible says will deceive the world,and prepare the way for the man of sin,which will take away the hope of the world,in which they cut out a personal God,so it is over.

The Catholic Church seems to interpret the Bible according to pagan beliefs although not as bad as the New Age religion,but I believe that the Roman Catholic Church will go right along with them,because they are a blending of paganism and Christianity,and can sway one way or the other,in whatever porportion they sway.

This currect Pope says that anybody that does the will of God on earth has salvation,even if they do not accept Christ,which the New Age religion wants to esablish the kingdom of God in the Bible on earth.

I believe that the Vatican and Pope are already influenced by the New Age religion and believe it,and they might of started it,and they will slowly influence the Churches around the world that are Catholic.I believe that the pagansm is more prominant in the Vatican,and they could have the inner circle and outer circle of paganism,where the inner circle is far more advanced in paganism than the outside circle,which an example is Freemasons and their symbols which occultists will say they are occultic symbols but they say they are not occulic symbols,and there is Egyptian symbols at the Freemason's headquarters.The inner circle believes they are elite compared to the outer circle.

The Bible says that Jesus is the head of the Church,but the Pope says he is the head of the Church.They call the Pope Holy Father,but Jesus told a man why do you call Me good,for there is only one good,and that is God,and Jesus said do not call any man on earth father,in a spiritual capacity.

The pagans have a female deity and the Catholic Church has a female deity,Mary.

God said do not make an idol of any man or woman,or anything on earth,in the sea,or in the air,and bow down to it.God said do not make an image of Him and bow down to it,because you do not know what He looks like.

But they have a statue of Mary and some bow to it,also they call Mary the Queen of heaven,and the mother of God.

Jesus was speaking to a crowd,and His disciples said,Jesus your mother and brethren are without the crowd desiring to speak to you,but Jesus said,who is My mother,and who are my brothers,and then pointed at His disciples and said,behold My mother and brothers,for whoever does the will of God the same is My mother,and brothers,and sisters.

Jesus was speaking to a group and a woman spoke up and said basically,blessed is your mother,but Jesus said,yea rather,blessed is he that hears the word of God and obeys it.

Jesus said do not put Mary on a pedestal,and anybody that does the will of God is just as blessed as her,and put Mary in the same boat as everyone else.

The truth is the Roman Catholic Church is a blending of paganism and Christianity,and will interpret scriptures according to their paganism,which I believe the Vatican and Pope are more influenced by paganism,and will slowly indoctrinate the Catholic Churches around the world,and will be the headquarters and spiritual leader of the coming one world religion,whose main theme of it will be a false interpretation of the Bible that God warns us about in 1 Timothy 4:1-5,that will influence the world in which they will not endure sound doctrine but will want to hear the Bible according to their own lusts(2 Timothy 4:2-4).

 

[Elin]

Hell is a mistranslation....

there is no hell. The words are Gehenna, Sheol and Tartarus.

There is also no "atonement," "covenant" nor "gospel."

The words are katallage, diatheke, and euaggelion, respectively .

Your point?

The word aionios in Ancient Greek doesn't mean
eternal. It only means " age lasting".
so the whole eternal hell doctrine is an abomination from a false prophet.

You can check Young's Literal Translation.

So the "eternal" of "eternal life" is only temporary?

Or is "eternal" temporary only for eternal hell, but is everlasting for "eternal life"?

NOT!!!

Whoever came up with eternal hell doctrine just
succeeded in deepening spiritual blindness for the whole human race.

Another FAIL. . .

It's Jesus who "succeeded in deepening spiritual blindness for the whole human race" when he used the words "Gehenna of fire. . .which never goes out" in

Mt 5:22, 18:9; Mk 9:43, 47-48; Lk 16:24,

and also James in Jas 3:6.

Luther broke the grip of the Church but he didn't break the grip of the devil.

Tons of people are still around today believing a false eternal hell doctrine.

It is those who do not believe the Scriptures given above that do believe a false doctrine.

The doctrine from hell is "There is no hell."

Don't attribute me with words I didn't say.

I didn't even mention eternal life above. I said the eternal hell doctrine is a false doctrine and there are a lot of people who have checked the ancient languages and done the scriptural analysis to prove it.

God's mercy is over all his works. Just because some man has chosen to construe judgment as equal to mercy doesn't make it so. The bible says God's mercy is over all his works and isn't man his work?

John Wesley Hanson, William Law, Hannah Whitall Smith, Stephen E. Jones all say eternal hell doctrine isn't accurate and others do, too.

God himself says he didn't want His people sacrificing to Molech.

And for close to two thousand years now the Christians have been comparing God to Molech.

Christ did not save anyone from hell. The wages of sin is death not hell.

If the wages of sin were eternal hell then Christ would have to still be in hell today paying our debt. Instead he sat down at the right hand of the Father.

The record above and the Scriptures above speak for themselves. . .

 

[mattp0625]

Seems to , or I believe, doesn't make it an accurate representation

 

[KenAllan]

Fordman, the Catholics do Worship Mary as their goddess. Look at the doctrines the Catholics have made up about Mary.

The Catholics claim Mary was Co-redemptrix with God.

Look up in the Dictionary the word Co. It means being EQUAL with.

The Catholic Church DOES Worship Mary as their goddess which is Equal to God the Father!

 

[Jeff_56]

......The truth is the Roman Catholic Church is a blending of paganism and Christianity,and will interpret scriptures according to their paganism,which I believe the Vatican and Pope are more influenced by paganism,and will slowly indoctrinate the Catholic Churches around the world,and will be the headquarters and spiritual leader of the coming one world religion,whose main theme of it will be a false interpretation of the Bible that God warns us about in 1 Timothy 4:1-5,that will influence the world in which they will not endure sound doctrine but will want to hear the Bible according to their own lusts(2 Timothy 4:2-4).

close, yes (or sort of). the rcc was started by powerhungry and greedy heathen. never by true believers nor by followers of JESUS, which the rcc has persecuted and murdered ever since (even before) 300 a.d.

they don't have to "slowly indoctrinate" the rcc churches around the world, because they all were born of satan, have always been started in error and in falsehood and in and with service to and worship of demons. online there's an abundance of information right from the rcc pages about what they teach and what they have taught for 2000 years, and none of it is in line with GOD'S WORD, LIVING or WRITTEN,
and
it has always been contrary to GOD'S WORD, LIVING and WRITTEN.

those who remain duped today have little hope of ever coming to the truth, but that's been true for thousand of years about everyone on earth, hasn't it? always, "few find the road to life" as JESUS says,

and many are on the wide, popular "road to destruction" -- and that willingly, without even thinking of ever repenting or turning to GOD for help , for forgiveness, for life, or for what is right and truth.

they cannot turn to the truth, as GOD has given them over to believe their own delusion,
and they believe the lie so much they will suffer and die for it, without ever being saved,
and they
will be raised in the resurrection in shame and judgment, instead of life in JESUS, because
they
refused to TRUST JESUS, and trusted man and the demonic rcc heresy instead, fully.

 

[valiant]

The priest whom I have mentioned said that Peter’s bones were found and he was a man who died of about 62 years of age,as the tests indicated. Pope Pius XII declared these bones were the bones of St. Peter, in his Christmas message of 1950. Newsweek claimed, "there was, however, no evidence that the bones uncovered there belonged to the body of the martyr (Peter)," The Pope, notwithstanding, was overjoyed to think they had found the bones of St. Peter until further examination proved that these bones were those of a woman. This fact came out in an article on [pg. 19] the subject in the S. F. Chronicle of June 27, 1968.​

 

[mikeuk]

possibly you should have told London University that when they awarded me an advanced degree in t
.

You can say an our father for that piece of pride.

You can also get a degree from a Mormon university, learning their b/s instead of yours - it proves nothing - most of the courses are anti catholic using the same silly and unsupportable arguments you do, like the silliness of ignoring the language spoken in pretending a distinction in Petra petros which does not exist in Aramaic, Peter most certainly the rock of the church, in short you will twist it to mean anything to avoid the truth. If you ignore history like that, nothing else you say is useful.

But what you have proved is you could not pass simple logic whilst there, since you accept the logical falasy of sola scriptura!, so the rest of your interpretaion is worthless, and as a postgrad who passed mensa four sigmas, you can trust me on that it is not a religious issue, simple logic defeats it, so does the bible, so does history,

But you cannot twist against heresies 3 which clearly states the supremacy of Rome and succession of popes.
Eastern councils confirm it at critical times.

Who is your bishop and his line of succession to administer the real presence, as clearly necessary in early fathers?

 

[MikeHenderson]

Mattp0625, Peter did not go to Rome. Peter when to the Jewish people to bring them the Gospel of Salvation. Paul went to Rome to bring them the Gospel of Salvation.

How could Peter be in Rome as the Pope when God sent him to the Jewish people?

Galatians 2:7-8 (NKJV)
[SUP]7 [/SUP] But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter
[SUP]8 [/SUP]for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles

The circumcised were the Jewish people. The uncircumcised were the gentiles in Rome. Paul went to Rome to bring the people the Gospel not Peter.

Next time mattp0625 you really need to read the WHOLE BIBLE before you open up your mouth and insert your foot into it!

This is why the Catholic Church is a liar when they teach Peter went to Rome because the people running the Catholic Church really do not understand what the Holy Spirit says in the Bible! Their eyes have been blinded by God because they have refused to accept God and have refused to accept the Truth in the Bible that is from God!

 

[mikeuk]

Do you ever consider the truth, or is mindless illinformed prejudice your preference?

How you get false interpretation of the bible is you hold to the falasy sola scriptura.

The truth is the Roman Catholic Church is a blending of paganism and Christianity,which you can tell by the things they do,like dip a cross in water and calling it holy water,praying over the rosary,etc.When they embraced Christianity at the start they obviously still held unto their pagan beliefs,which you can see openly.

That is how people get faulty interpretations of the Bible because they have an improper belief and try to fit scripture in to that belief,like the New Age religion that are nature worshippers,that believe they can tap in to nature for power,but waiting for the New Age Christ to appear,because they believe he will restore all the hidden mysteries of the past,and they can achieve power through nature,which the man of sin will be in to witchcraft,and honor the God of forces.

So the New Age religion interprets the Bible according to their nature worship belief as reality,which the Bible says will deceive the world,and prepare the way for the man of sin,which will take away the hope of the world,in which they cut out a personal God,so it is over.

The Catholic Church seems to interpret the Bible according to pagan beliefs although not as bad as the New Age religion,but I believe that the Roman Catholic Church will go right along with them,because they are a blending of paganism and Christianity,and can sway one way or the other,in whatever porportion they sway.

This currect Pope says that anybody that does the will of God on earth has salvation,even if they do not accept Christ,which the New Age religion wants to esablish the kingdom of God in the Bible on earth.

I believe that the Vatican and Pope are already influenced by the New Age religion and believe it,and they might of started it,and they will slowly influence the Churches around the world that are Catholic.I believe that the pagansm is more prominant in the Vatican,and they could have the inner circle and outer circle of paganism,where the inner circle is far more advanced in paganism than the outside circle,which an example is Freemasons and their symbols which occultists will say they are occultic symbols but they say they are not occulic symbols,and there is Egyptian symbols at the Freemason's headquarters.The inner circle believes they are elite compared to the outer circle.

The Bible says that Jesus is the head of the Church,but the Pope says he is the head of the Church.They call the Pope Holy Father,but Jesus told a man why do you call Me good,for there is only one good,and that is God,and Jesus said do not call any man on earth father,in a spiritual capacity.

The pagans have a female deity and the Catholic Church has a female deity,Mary.

God said do not make an idol of any man or woman,or anything on earth,in the sea,or in the air,and bow down to it.God said do not make an image of Him and bow down to it,because you do not know what He looks like.

But they have a statue of Mary and some bow to it,also they call Mary the Queen of heaven,and the mother of God.

Jesus was speaking to a crowd,and His disciples said,Jesus your mother and brethren are without the crowd desiring to speak to you,but Jesus said,who is My mother,and who are my brothers,and then pointed at His disciples and said,behold My mother and brothers,for whoever does the will of God the same is My mother,and brothers,and sisters.

Jesus was speaking to a group and a woman spoke up and said basically,blessed is your mother,but Jesus said,yea rather,blessed is he that hears the word of God and obeys it.

Jesus said do not put Mary on a pedestal,and anybody that does the will of God is just as blessed as her,and put Mary in the same boat as everyone else.

The truth is the Roman Catholic Church is a blending of paganism and Christianity,and will interpret scriptures according to their paganism,which I believe the Vatican and Pope are more influenced by paganism,and will slowly indoctrinate the Catholic Churches around the world,and will be the headquarters and spiritual leader of the coming one world religion,whose main theme of it will be a false interpretation of the Bible that God warns us about in 1 Timothy 4:1-5,that will influence the world in which they will not endure sound doctrine but will want to hear the Bible according to their own lusts(2 Timothy 4:2-4).

 

[valiant]

You can also get a degree from a Mormon university, learning their b/s instead of yours - it proves nothing - most of the courses are anti catholic using the same silly and unsupportable arguments you do,

As you perfectly well know being UK (unless you live in a backwater) London University is a secular university which requires the highest level of scholarship. They expect all sides to be presented fairly. I had to be able to cite both Roman Catholic and non Roman Catholic scholars. Your argument simply shows the extremity of lies you will go to in order to try to establish your case.

like the silliness of ignoring the language spoken in pretending a distinction in Petra petros which does not exist in Aramaic,

we do not know what Jesus said if He spoke in Aramaic, but we DO KNOW what the Greek says, and it makes that distinction. Peter was petros, the rock was petra. Petra occurs elsewhere in Matthew as the rock on which the wise man built, THE WORDS OF JESUS. Thus Jesus was referring to Peter's reference to HIS WORDS, not to Peter himself, as Augustine of Hippo agreed when he considered the words in his maturity.

In Scripture there is only one foundation and that is CHRIST. 'other foundation can no man lay other than that is laid, CHRIST JESUS' (1 Cor 3).

Peter most certainly the rock of the church, in short you will twist it to mean anything to avoid the truth. If you ignore history like that, nothing else you say is useful.

But the overwhelming majority of the church fathers agree with me Nowhere else is it suggested that Peter was the rock of the church. So it is you who are ignoring the facts.

But what you have proved is you could not pass simple logic whilst there, since you accept the logical falasy of sola scriptura!,

I suppose you think that if you say this often enough some idiot will believe you? OK Prove it is a logical fallacy. Or don't you know what a logical fallacy is? I suspect not. Some of the most brilliant minds in the world have believed in sola scriptura, including the prophets, Jesus Christ, Paul, Peter, John, James, Jude, Luke, the early church, and so on .

and as a postgrad who passed mensa four sigmas,

so you are a genius? LOL LOL LOL How pathetic you show yourself to be.

But you cannot twist against heresies 3 which clearly states the supremacy of Rome and succession of popes.
Eastern councils confirm it at critical times.

As I have previously demonstrated, and I unlike you presented PROOF, this is simply a bunch of lies.