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.
N
We all go through learning mistakes when studying the bible, however, the NT makes it very clear that God does not want any sects in His church. Be it Catholic, Baptist, Methodists, and unfortunately the list can go on from there sects are forbidden and are even called heresy. And while we all make mistakes in understanding the bible correctly, we must realize that some people continue in the sects out of pure rebellion against God in my opinion.
I think it is the tares.
They are false prophets who sow doctrinal error.
In the bible it says ALL are saved. Not all believers.
It also says each is saved in his own tagma.
Tagma means order or squadron.
Under Jerome and Augustine the priests were allowed to coerce people into belief. These were the young, less spiritual priests...the spiritually immature priests.
They decided to force conversions with fear so they sowed the eternal torment doctrine.
God is love though and He must be true to His own nature.
Read the "all" verses in the bible they show Jesus saved the world.
But we still need Jesus for our spiritual births.
Another problem is eschatology there are at least 3 schools on the End Times prophecies and this also sows confusion because the prophecies depend heavily on the ability to interpret symbology.
Also the futurists are wrong because John said everything was soon to happen....not all in the future like the futurists say.
The preterist view of prophecy is more accurate than the futurist view because it dovetails with human history.
They are false prophets who sow doctrinal error.
In the bible it says ALL are saved. Not all believers.
It also says each is saved in his own tagma.
Tagma means order or squadron.
Under Jerome and Augustine the priests were allowed to coerce people into belief. These were the young, less spiritual priests...the spiritually immature priests.
They decided to force conversions with fear so they sowed the eternal torment doctrine.
God is love though and He must be true to His own nature.
Read the "all" verses in the bible they show Jesus saved the world.
But we still need Jesus for our spiritual births.
Another problem is eschatology there are at least 3 schools on the End Times prophecies and this also sows confusion because the prophecies depend heavily on the ability to interpret symbology.
Also the futurists are wrong because John said everything was soon to happen....not all in the future like the futurists say.
The preterist view of prophecy is more accurate than the futurist view because it dovetails with human history.
Last edited:
M
Which sadly is the best you can do, so when your arguments fail you turn to abuse.
None of which abuse alters one IOTA the monumental #FAIL of your reasoning, that sola scriptura is provably logically false, that the conversation was Aramaic, and that peter and the rock of the church are the same, even Calvin thought so.
So now you know as I proved in Acts the language was Aramaic, please recant your version.
Nobody disputes that Jesus is the head of the church and on him the church is founded, and Augustine clearly believed the succession through the bishops of Rome he quotes it in full the letter I stated.
That we all believe that Christ underpins that is not in question.
But who is your bishop and what valid succession does he hold to perform or empower the sacraments of baptism and Eucharist as ignatius says to smyrneans only one generation removed from apostles demands? So we can certainly say that those who have no bishops are not following the ways of the early church, as handed down from the apostles.
CHAPTER 8
8:1 [But] shun divisions, as the beginning of evils.
Do ye all follow your bishop, as Jesus Christ followed
the Father, and the presbytery as the Apostles; and to
the deacons pay respect, as to God's commandment. Let
no man do aught of things pertaining to the Church
apart from the bishop. Let that be held a valid
eucharist which is under the bishop or one to whom he
shall have committed it.
8:2 Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let
the people be; even as where Jesus may be, there is
the universal Church. It is not lawful apart from the
bishop either to baptize or to hold a love-feast; but
whatsoever he shall approve, this is well-pleasing also
to God; that everything which ye do may be sure and
valid.
None of which abuse alters one IOTA the monumental #FAIL of your reasoning, that sola scriptura is provably logically false, that the conversation was Aramaic, and that peter and the rock of the church are the same, even Calvin thought so.
So now you know as I proved in Acts the language was Aramaic, please recant your version.
Nobody disputes that Jesus is the head of the church and on him the church is founded, and Augustine clearly believed the succession through the bishops of Rome he quotes it in full the letter I stated.
That we all believe that Christ underpins that is not in question.
But who is your bishop and what valid succession does he hold to perform or empower the sacraments of baptism and Eucharist as ignatius says to smyrneans only one generation removed from apostles demands? So we can certainly say that those who have no bishops are not following the ways of the early church, as handed down from the apostles.
CHAPTER 8
8:1 [But] shun divisions, as the beginning of evils.
Do ye all follow your bishop, as Jesus Christ followed
the Father, and the presbytery as the Apostles; and to
the deacons pay respect, as to God's commandment. Let
no man do aught of things pertaining to the Church
apart from the bishop. Let that be held a valid
eucharist which is under the bishop or one to whom he
shall have committed it.
8:2 Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let
the people be; even as where Jesus may be, there is
the universal Church. It is not lawful apart from the
bishop either to baptize or to hold a love-feast; but
whatsoever he shall approve, this is well-pleasing also
to God; that everything which ye do may be sure and
valid.
M
I clearly have, and it is why sola scriptura is unacceptable.
You really do like clutching at straws. The first language of gallilee was Galilean, a dialect of Aramaic , the language of the common people, and is how those present recognised Peter as gallilean outside the courthouse.
They would know some Hebrew from religious traditions and the well educated (which peter was not ) would have known some greek too. I have little doubt Jesus could speak whatever he liked, but he is recorded speaking Aramaic. The case for greek is only circumstantial, and in any event he would speak to his audience in their first language. ARAMAIC
Anyway, people like you are not allowed to think or use history, so you have to use sola scriptura in which case acts 1:19 says Aramaic, and since nowhere does it say " greek" in gallillee you are not allowed to believe it is so.
Augustine believed in the succession from bishops of Rome and lists it. None of your twisting can alter that.
You really do like clutching at straws. The first language of gallilee was Galilean, a dialect of Aramaic , the language of the common people, and is how those present recognised Peter as gallilean outside the courthouse.
They would know some Hebrew from religious traditions and the well educated (which peter was not ) would have known some greek too. I have little doubt Jesus could speak whatever he liked, but he is recorded speaking Aramaic. The case for greek is only circumstantial, and in any event he would speak to his audience in their first language. ARAMAIC
Anyway, people like you are not allowed to think or use history, so you have to use sola scriptura in which case acts 1:19 says Aramaic, and since nowhere does it say " greek" in gallillee you are not allowed to believe it is so.
Augustine believed in the succession from bishops of Rome and lists it. None of your twisting can alter that.
M
I know you struggle with logic Ken, but neither does Christ say they are not Christians either! He just says it does not automatically mean they are, in logic speak that the casting of demons is neither necessary nor sufficient to be a true Christian. So you use the quote out of context , which is all you ever do.
M
What is less known is Luther was absolutely scathing in later life, against those who then felt empowered to decide their own interpretation "every milkmaid has their own doctrine" as "many doctrines as heads".
He despaired of the monster he created, saying "he would never have done what he did had he known". And - the classic - he said that the "ONLY WAY BACK to unity was via the councils of Rome"! But people don't like quoting Luther on what he thought of the "scandalous" development of protestantism, indeed his thoughts on return to rome. Even less do they like quoting his beliefs in the real presence, his continued veneration of mary ,and a heap of other stuff on which protestants remain silent!
Luther was right about some things. Like paid indulgencies, but then had he accepted that change takes time in such a large institution, to work within it rather than against it, he would then have been satisfied giving it time, because history records at the council of Trent the pope spoke out forcibly AGAINST paid indulgencies a few years after Luthers death!
Luther truly threw the baby out with the bathwater, and was the man who fathered 10000 different protestant denominations who all believe in fundamentally opposed things , and the power of the individual to decide what their church should believe,m which is why they fracture and fracture again. You can prove that 99.9999 percent of them preach false doctrine because they believe in so many mutually exclusive things, and the holy spirit only has one truth.
Massive differences, I listed somewhere, from 4 flavours of justification, 5 of real presence or not in the eucharist, several views of baptism, predestination, clergy or none, etc etc etc you name it, they disagree on it! And all of them were founded only a few hundred years ago at best, so none can trace their lineage back to the early church.
He despaired of the monster he created, saying "he would never have done what he did had he known". And - the classic - he said that the "ONLY WAY BACK to unity was via the councils of Rome"! But people don't like quoting Luther on what he thought of the "scandalous" development of protestantism, indeed his thoughts on return to rome. Even less do they like quoting his beliefs in the real presence, his continued veneration of mary ,and a heap of other stuff on which protestants remain silent!
Luther was right about some things. Like paid indulgencies, but then had he accepted that change takes time in such a large institution, to work within it rather than against it, he would then have been satisfied giving it time, because history records at the council of Trent the pope spoke out forcibly AGAINST paid indulgencies a few years after Luthers death!
Luther truly threw the baby out with the bathwater, and was the man who fathered 10000 different protestant denominations who all believe in fundamentally opposed things , and the power of the individual to decide what their church should believe,m which is why they fracture and fracture again. You can prove that 99.9999 percent of them preach false doctrine because they believe in so many mutually exclusive things, and the holy spirit only has one truth.
Massive differences, I listed somewhere, from 4 flavours of justification, 5 of real presence or not in the eucharist, several views of baptism, predestination, clergy or none, etc etc etc you name it, they disagree on it! And all of them were founded only a few hundred years ago at best, so none can trace their lineage back to the early church.
Its interesting mwc68 that God clearly says that not everyone who says "Lord, Lord" is a True Christian! Matthew 7:21 clearly shows just because you Catholics SAY your a Christian does NOT mean you are!
And do not "Pray" for me because i know for a fact you pray to your Goddess Mary and i do not need you praying for me to Satan!
Its interesting that it is only the Catholic Church that claims to cast out Demons today. Therefore the verses in Matthew 7:21 are clearly talking about the Catholics and how they are NOT True Christians!
And do not "Pray" for me because i know for a fact you pray to your Goddess Mary and i do not need you praying for me to Satan!
Its interesting that it is only the Catholic Church that claims to cast out Demons today. Therefore the verses in Matthew 7:21 are clearly talking about the Catholics and how they are NOT True Christians!
This again shows that you are pig ignorant. I have moved widely among these denominations and deny that they teach mutually exclusive things. They simply prefer to worship in different ways. They teach the same essential truths. That is PROVEN by the fact that churches in ALL non-heretical (non-Roman Catholic) churches in the UK can sign one statement of faith in their membership in the evangelical alliance. So you are a proven liar.
It is true that the Holy Spirit teaches essential truths, but seemingly NOT to the Roman Catholic church.
Massive differences, I listed somewhere, from 4 flavours of justification, 5 of real presence or not in the eucharist, several views of baptism, predestination, clergy or none, etc etc etc you name it, they disagree on it! And all of them were founded only a few hundred years ago at best, so none can trace their lineage back to the early church.[/QUOTE]
It is true that the Holy Spirit teaches essential truths, but seemingly NOT to the Roman Catholic church.
Massive differences, I listed somewhere, from 4 flavours of justification, 5 of real presence or not in the eucharist, several views of baptism, predestination, clergy or none, etc etc etc you name it, they disagree on it! And all of them were founded only a few hundred years ago at best, so none can trace their lineage back to the early church.[/QUOTE]
So you now accept that casting out evil spirits would not demonstrate that your church was Christian? So I hope you will never use that argument again.
What you also fail to recognise is that conducting an exorcism ritual proves nothing apart from the fact that you have conducted and exorcise ritual. Although I have no doubt your church has invented lots of stories in order to try to 'demonstrate' that they do 'cast out' evil spirits. Like the miracles of the saints they are spurious..
What you also fail to recognise is that conducting an exorcism ritual proves nothing apart from the fact that you have conducted and exorcise ritual. Although I have no doubt your church has invented lots of stories in order to try to 'demonstrate' that they do 'cast out' evil spirits. Like the miracles of the saints they are spurious..
Originally Posted by valiant
you have no conception of what logic is
So I now await your step by step PROOF that sola scriptura is invalid. If you cannot present it it will demonstrate to all that all you say is humbug.
If you say so....but Luther knew he was fighting the devil....there are lots of quotes of his where he revealed that.
What he didn't realize is that he should have struck down the hell doctrine along with the Papacy.
The Catholics made an idol out of the pope.
There is not a line in the bible about a Vicar on Earth.
Every human being on this planet was supposed to be a Warrior Priest King but instead Europe got salacious popes who had so many mistresses and children out of wedlock that it is amazing the masses didn't rise up and execute them.
How dare they impose strictures on people they didn't observe themselves.
The hypocrites in the very house of God....money changing in the House of God.....
Christ turned the tables over and threw the money changers out.
All the Papacy has ever done is coverup to this very day.
While Christ reveals the popes are covering up. Their sins stink to high heaven and many of them are recorded for public view.
Oh, the unwashed cups parading in their gluttony and covetousness and lust for power and fornication in their fancy Old Testament inspired hats and robes.
Check the record...History reveals it.
They didn't have the mind of Christ...at least not most of them.
What he didn't realize is that he should have struck down the hell doctrine along with the Papacy.
The Catholics made an idol out of the pope.
There is not a line in the bible about a Vicar on Earth.
Every human being on this planet was supposed to be a Warrior Priest King but instead Europe got salacious popes who had so many mistresses and children out of wedlock that it is amazing the masses didn't rise up and execute them.
How dare they impose strictures on people they didn't observe themselves.
The hypocrites in the very house of God....money changing in the House of God.....
Christ turned the tables over and threw the money changers out.
All the Papacy has ever done is coverup to this very day.
While Christ reveals the popes are covering up. Their sins stink to high heaven and many of them are recorded for public view.
Oh, the unwashed cups parading in their gluttony and covetousness and lust for power and fornication in their fancy Old Testament inspired hats and robes.
Check the record...History reveals it.
They didn't have the mind of Christ...at least not most of them.
Last edited:
I will agree he had a Galilean accent. But Galileans were bi-lingual. They mixed constantly with Greek speaking people and many of them were descended from Greeks who had been forcibly converted by Aristobulus. Thus Peter could speak both languages fluently. ALL Jews attended synagogue schools in order to learn Hebrew and be able to read the Torah. And Peter was a comparatively wealthy man. He owned his own fishing vessel and nets.
They would have had lessons in Hebrew and they had to speak Greek constantly. Most Jews were 'well-educated' in synagogue schools especially in the main cities like Capernaum. You really know nothing, do you? Its sad.
Where is He recorded as speaking Aramaic? One or two Aramaic words do not constitute speaking Aramaic. We are never ACTUALLY told what language He spoke in. As He spoke Aramaic AND Greek (as you admit) He would speak Aramaic when in Aramaic regions and Greek in Greek regions which He visited often. In Caesarea Philippi He probably spoke Greek. But it is irrelevant. The only record we have is IN GREEK, and the Greek is quite clear as the GREEK early fathers recognised. THEY recognised the distinction between petros and petra.
Now I know you are stupid, and that you don't even understand sola scriptura..
Not just stupid but insane.
He believed in lists of bishops from all churches. What does that prove? He NOWHERE in all his voluminous writings says that that succession made the bishops of Rome special. And as I have demonstrated from your citation he was in doubt of whether his list had any real value.
Irenaeus made clear that he considered that lists of bishops from ALL churches founded by Apostles were equally relevant. Were the bishops of all those churches Popes? All the lists proved was a line of connection. It did not guarantee orthodoxy.
Neither Clement of Alexandria or Origen were orthodox. But they were still in the line of bishops.
And as I have demonstrated Augustine's list is inaccurate. It was based on tradition and we know that some of its early information was false..
Your faith is built on sand.
They would have had lessons in Hebrew and they had to speak Greek constantly. Most Jews were 'well-educated' in synagogue schools especially in the main cities like Capernaum. You really know nothing, do you? Its sad.
Where is He recorded as speaking Aramaic? One or two Aramaic words do not constitute speaking Aramaic. We are never ACTUALLY told what language He spoke in. As He spoke Aramaic AND Greek (as you admit) He would speak Aramaic when in Aramaic regions and Greek in Greek regions which He visited often. In Caesarea Philippi He probably spoke Greek. But it is irrelevant. The only record we have is IN GREEK, and the Greek is quite clear as the GREEK early fathers recognised. THEY recognised the distinction between petros and petra.
Now I know you are stupid, and that you don't even understand sola scriptura..
Not just stupid but insane.
He believed in lists of bishops from all churches. What does that prove? He NOWHERE in all his voluminous writings says that that succession made the bishops of Rome special. And as I have demonstrated from your citation he was in doubt of whether his list had any real value.
Irenaeus made clear that he considered that lists of bishops from ALL churches founded by Apostles were equally relevant. Were the bishops of all those churches Popes? All the lists proved was a line of connection. It did not guarantee orthodoxy.
Neither Clement of Alexandria or Origen were orthodox. But they were still in the line of bishops.
And as I have demonstrated Augustine's list is inaccurate. It was based on tradition and we know that some of its early information was false..
Your faith is built on sand.