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.
But as I have shown you it does. The resurrected Jesus specifically named what we should accept of pre-Christian books, 'the Torah, the Prophets and the Psalms' (indicating the Hagiographa). Luke 24.44. That was 39 books.
Apostolic letters were declared to be Scriptures (2 Peter 3.16)
The Gospels were declared to be Scriptures (1 Tim 5.18b with Matt 10.10).
So your extra books were excluded from the canon by JESUS.
There was. It was Jesus. Their arrangement was not agreed by the early church. We have manuscripts which arranged them differently. They were authenticated immediately on being written as Apostolic works. Thus Clement and Ignatius quote from most of them WITHOUT FEELING A NEED TO VINDICATE DOING SO, and Irenaeus quoted from all but one. They were accepted from the beginning.
.
Which church? There was not one church. There were large numbers of independent churches. Not all were represented at any of the councils you mention. Thus at no stage did the whole church pronounce on the canon. Indeed the fact that you have to mention three councils (each made up of different churches represented) demonstrates that there was not unity at that time. And why? because the Latin churches had a deficient canon. Thus Apostolic authorship of some had to be evidenced to those whose canon was deficient. In the East Athanasius had made clear what the Eastern canon was (our 66 books). The West, including Rome had to be shown that they were wrong. But that was because the West had gone away from the originally agreed books.
But before this Athanasius had already had already declared what should be in the canon. And he did not do it on his own. He did it on the authority of the Eastern churches. So the Western churches including Rome obtained their canon from the Eastern churches.
But as you admit both those councils got it wrong. They disagreed with Jesus. I know Whose word I will accept.
As usual you try to deceive us. There was no recognised 'Catholic church'. There were numerous churches in the West, and numerous churches in the East. There was NO ONE in overall authority and a multiplicity of churches. And no one council represented all these churches. The Eastern churches had already had the canon of 66 books long before. READ THE FACTS.
why do you always cite Luther? He was in no position to 'change the list'. You have such an obscurantist view of history fostered by your deceitful church. It was by general agreement of the churches that only the books which Jesus authenticated should be accepted in the canon.
There NEVER WAS ONE CHURCH. There were always numerous churches, all calling themselves catholic churches. You are relying on Roman Catholic fairy stories, not on history. No one accepted Luther's 'authority'. The position was agreed by all the churches.
Which church? The Western churches, or the various Eastern churches. There never was genuinely 'one church'. That was the heresy that founded the Roman Catholic church in the 8th century when it seceded from the unity of the churches.
What about the second century lists?. They were not from Rome. Do they not count ? LOL
Apostolic letters were declared to be Scriptures (2 Peter 3.16)
The Gospels were declared to be Scriptures (1 Tim 5.18b with Matt 10.10).
So your extra books were excluded from the canon by JESUS.
There was. It was Jesus. Their arrangement was not agreed by the early church. We have manuscripts which arranged them differently. They were authenticated immediately on being written as Apostolic works. Thus Clement and Ignatius quote from most of them WITHOUT FEELING A NEED TO VINDICATE DOING SO, and Irenaeus quoted from all but one. They were accepted from the beginning.
.
Which church? There was not one church. There were large numbers of independent churches. Not all were represented at any of the councils you mention. Thus at no stage did the whole church pronounce on the canon. Indeed the fact that you have to mention three councils (each made up of different churches represented) demonstrates that there was not unity at that time. And why? because the Latin churches had a deficient canon. Thus Apostolic authorship of some had to be evidenced to those whose canon was deficient. In the East Athanasius had made clear what the Eastern canon was (our 66 books). The West, including Rome had to be shown that they were wrong. But that was because the West had gone away from the originally agreed books.
But before this Athanasius had already had already declared what should be in the canon. And he did not do it on his own. He did it on the authority of the Eastern churches. So the Western churches including Rome obtained their canon from the Eastern churches.
But as you admit both those councils got it wrong. They disagreed with Jesus. I know Whose word I will accept.
As usual you try to deceive us. There was no recognised 'Catholic church'. There were numerous churches in the West, and numerous churches in the East. There was NO ONE in overall authority and a multiplicity of churches. And no one council represented all these churches. The Eastern churches had already had the canon of 66 books long before. READ THE FACTS.
why do you always cite Luther? He was in no position to 'change the list'. You have such an obscurantist view of history fostered by your deceitful church. It was by general agreement of the churches that only the books which Jesus authenticated should be accepted in the canon.
There NEVER WAS ONE CHURCH. There were always numerous churches, all calling themselves catholic churches. You are relying on Roman Catholic fairy stories, not on history. No one accepted Luther's 'authority'. The position was agreed by all the churches.
Which church? The Western churches, or the various Eastern churches. There never was genuinely 'one church'. That was the heresy that founded the Roman Catholic church in the 8th century when it seceded from the unity of the churches.
What about the second century lists?. They were not from Rome. Do they not count ? LOL
Last edited:
Psalm 51:5, King David says that original sin was passed to him by his mother. Jesus has a human mother and we know he was without sin. Mary had to be a perfect vessel without original sin since the word of God says original sin passes through the mother. Its a mystery. The fact you all dont think she was a Holy vessel and just and "incubator" for Christ amazes me. But answer me this, Where in the bible does it say to have an altar call for salvation? Where is the sinner's prayer in the bible? Where did Jesus ever say in the bible that communion is whenever the preacher feels like it? Where does the bible say that the bible is the only authority? Where in the bible does it say that rock concerts are ok for worship? Where in the bible does it say that church is exclusively on Sun and Wed night? None of these thing are in the bible!!!!!!And I am pretty sure you have no idea what the Catholic Church teaches much less why.
Last edited:
LOL LOL so you claim that God did not have the power to produce His Son as sinless from Mary's womb by immaculate birth (but conceived by the Holy Spirit), and at the same time want to say that He did have the power to produce Mary as sinless from her sinful mother even though she was conceived by a sinful father? Who is it who REALLY doubts the power of God???
Psalm 51.5 says nothing of the kind. It simply says that he was shapen in iniquity and she conceived him 'in sin'. Perhaps you need lessons in the idea of conception. He was not brought by a stork. Jesse and his wife TOGETHER conceived him. Jesse's seed was implanted in his wife's egg (you can find the details from a book on biology). SO THEY BOTH CONCEIVED HIM. Thus he shared the sinful nature of BOTH parents. It was passed to him in the act of conception. That was why Jesus was 'conceived by the Holy Spirit'. It did not follow the biology textbooks. This was so that sin would not be passed on to Him from the conception.
But Mary was conceived by her father and her mother. Thus their sinful nature was passed on to her. That was why she spoke of 'GOD MY SAVIOUR'.
But Jesus was not conceived by his 'mother'. He was conceived by the Holy Spirit. He was only BORN of the virgin Mary. YOUR OWN CREEDS STATE THAT. Thus He was conceived without a sinful nature. Mary did NOT have to be a perfect vessel. She only carried in her womb a baby which had been 'conceived by the Holy Spirit'. That would not render Him sinful.
It certainly is a mystery as to how Jesus Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit could be seen as needing a perfect 'womb bearer', but Mary who was conceived by two sinful parents did not. In that case she had three sources of sin, her father, her mother and her mother's womb.
The source of Jesus was the Holy Spirit Who was without sin. Being borne in Mary's womb did not make Him sinful. The sources of Mary were a sinful man, and a sinful woman. Clearly then she inherited their sin. You greatly err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God.
Perhaps with my explanation you now understand?
But Mary was conceived by her father and her mother. Thus their sinful nature was passed on to her. That was why she spoke of 'GOD MY SAVIOUR'.
But Jesus was not conceived by his 'mother'. He was conceived by the Holy Spirit. He was only BORN of the virgin Mary. YOUR OWN CREEDS STATE THAT. Thus He was conceived without a sinful nature. Mary did NOT have to be a perfect vessel. She only carried in her womb a baby which had been 'conceived by the Holy Spirit'. That would not render Him sinful.
It certainly is a mystery as to how Jesus Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit could be seen as needing a perfect 'womb bearer', but Mary who was conceived by two sinful parents did not. In that case she had three sources of sin, her father, her mother and her mother's womb.
The source of Jesus was the Holy Spirit Who was without sin. Being borne in Mary's womb did not make Him sinful. The sources of Mary were a sinful man, and a sinful woman. Clearly then she inherited their sin. You greatly err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God.
Perhaps with my explanation you now understand?
Is there evil in a mother's womb? It is you who must be joking. It is simply a natural place for a baby to be nurtured in. It conveys neither moral good nor moral evil. Its action is simply physical. It is from the conception that a child is given a sinful nature. Are you really so ignorant of the facts of life?
I do not dismiss Mary's role as the womb bearer of the Messiah. What I dismiss are the fantasies and fairy tales that the Roman Catholic church has sought to build on it.
Easy. Hallucination, clinically depressed women who see 'visions', and people seeing what they want to see, combined in some cases with trickery on behalf of your church.
Perhaps I should explain that I am highly knowledgeable about clinical depression which was a common illness through the centuries.
How do you explain similar visions among Buddhists and Hindus?
Easy. Hallucination, clinically depressed women who see 'visions', and people seeing what they want to see, combined in some cases with trickery on behalf of your church.
Perhaps I should explain that I am highly knowledgeable about clinical depression which was a common illness through the centuries.
How do you explain similar visions among Buddhists and Hindus?
Last edited:
If sin was passed on by the mother and Mary needed to be sinless to keep Jesus sinless then by your very own argument mwc68 Marys mother HAD to be sinless to keep Mary sinless.
What you really are teaching mwc68 is that God is powerless and Mary is more powerful than God.
If God WAS able to keep Mary sinless in the womb of her mother who was a sinner then God DID have the power to keep Jesus sinless while in the womb of Mary who was a sinner.
Do you see what you are teaching mwc68? I think you do. You are teaching this because you want your god Mary to be GREATER than God!
I have news for you mwc68. Because of what you are teaching you are a False Prophet who will never enter into Heaven.
This is why i left the Evil Corrupted Cult Roman Catholic Church!
All those who are in the Roman Catholic Church who teach that Mary was sinless will never enter into Heaven. The Lake of Fire is reserved for those Roman Catholics.
I feel sorry for you mwc68, Satan has deceived you to the point i do not think you will ever accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. Its Mary that you want to Worship. Its Mary that you want to be your Savior. Its Mary that you want to be your God!
What you really are teaching mwc68 is that God is powerless and Mary is more powerful than God.
If God WAS able to keep Mary sinless in the womb of her mother who was a sinner then God DID have the power to keep Jesus sinless while in the womb of Mary who was a sinner.
Do you see what you are teaching mwc68? I think you do. You are teaching this because you want your god Mary to be GREATER than God!
I have news for you mwc68. Because of what you are teaching you are a False Prophet who will never enter into Heaven.
This is why i left the Evil Corrupted Cult Roman Catholic Church!
All those who are in the Roman Catholic Church who teach that Mary was sinless will never enter into Heaven. The Lake of Fire is reserved for those Roman Catholics.
I feel sorry for you mwc68, Satan has deceived you to the point i do not think you will ever accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. Its Mary that you want to Worship. Its Mary that you want to be your Savior. Its Mary that you want to be your God!
LOL you do swallow all you are told unless its in the Scriptures. History as written by the Roman Catholic church. I wonder how many REALLY went? But who do you think flock to these supposed signs? The clinically depressed and hallucinating women. And they see what they want to see. Of course it may be that Satan's trickery is in it too, as well of course as the church's.
How do you explain similar visions among Buddhists and Hindus? You didn't answer that.
How do you explain similar visions among Buddhists and Hindus? You didn't answer that.