Catholic Heresy (for the record)

[WheresEnoch]

Elin - That doesn't come from the Bible, it comes from the Catholic Church,

A subject we can agree on

 

[valiant]

Originally Posted by valiant easy John 20.20-22; Acts 2.1 ff.

The Protestant reformation was 1500 years AD

Your knowledge of church history is so pathetic. Long before the Roman Catholic church was founded around 700 AD there were independent churches who believed the Scriptures.

I am not a Protestant. Why should I protest about an heretical church which is so unbiblical? I was never a member of it.

I am a Biblical Christian, like Paul, and Peter, and all the Apostles, and the Ephesians, and the early Romans before the church got arrogant.

My line goes right back to the Apostles. First they became Biblical Christians, then they won others, then they won others, then they won others until at last they won me. I do not need spurious lists which are fabrications. God can trace my line back to the beginning.

 

[WheresEnoch]

Your knowledge of church history is so pathetic. Long before the Roman Catholic church was founded around 700 AD there were independent churches who believed the Scriptures.

I am not a Protestant. Why should I protest about an heretical church which is so unbiblical? I was never a member of it.

I am a Biblical Christian, like Paul, and Peter, and all the Apostles, and the Ephesians, and the early Romans before the church got arrogant.

My line goes right back to the Apostles. First they became Biblical Christians, then they won others, then they won others, then they won others until at last they won me. I do not need spurious lists which are fabrications. God can trace my line back to the beginning.

Great post, I agree with you. Protestant organizations are mainly little clones of their mother. The mother is calling them back to the nest and they are going

 

[SAVAS]

it makes totally no difference what sola scriptura means, in view of a rcc or any other unbeliever. it is written in GOD'S WORD that no heretic or unbeliever is able to see heaven nor are they able to grasp the TRUTH at all; until they repent IF GOD grants them mercy.

so the meaning of words, in hebrew, aramaic, greek or english,

EVEN IF AND AS SPOKEN BY YAHSHUA THE MESSIAH,

has no importance to the rcc heretics or any unbeliever. they cannot understand it.(as clearly shown throughout this forum by their countless posts that show no understanding of truth nor of GOD.)

Wow. Is this a joke. Are we being punked?

 

[mattp0625]

Your knowledge of church history is so pathetic. Long before the Roman Catholic church was founded around 700 AD there were independent churches who believed the Scriptures.

I am not a Protestant. Why should I protest about an heretical church which is so unbiblical? I was never a member of it.

I am a Biblical Christian, like Paul, and Peter, and all the Apostles, and the Ephesians, and the early Romans before the church got arrogant.

My line goes right back to the Apostles. First they became Biblical Christians, then they won others, then they won others, then they won others until at last they won me. I do not need spurious lists which are fabrications. God can trace my line back to the beginning.

Sir, I know you have stated you are more favored than Mary, and you have the authority to condemn, and the ability to say thou fool without obtaining Jesus's wrath, and that your interpretation of scripture is infallible and directly from God. Surely you don't mean to say you have lineage to Christ too?

 

[valiant]

That claim of being in Christ is nothing new with the other 40,000.

There is in fact a Church of Christ which was established, by Christ. The Church who in fact canonized the Bible which you quote from.

you are clearly unaware of the truth about church history. The church Christ founded was a group of independent churches around the world who looked to the Apostles. When the Apostles died they looked to their local leaders and the Scriptures. There was no hierarchical church for hundreds of years. The main body of the New Testament was settled almost from the beginning on the basis of known Apostolic writings so that in the second century AD all the independent churches recognised the four Gospels, the Acts, Paul's letters, Peter (at least1 Peter), John (at least 1 John), Jude and Revelation. They did not need a church council to decide it. The only question raised later was as to whether the remainder were genuine Apostolic writings because they were only used by some. It was decided on historical fact not by some 'inspired' council.

None of the large denominations existed in those days. The Roman Catholics would not be founded until around 700 AD and that by political might. Prior to that it was a regional church. The Orthodox churches in the east were still coming together. In 5th century AD the Celtic churches in the West, in and around the UK were their own denomination loosely affiliated together. They were not part of the church of Rome.

This myth about one large hierarchical Roman Catholic church is just that, a myth invented by the Roman Catholic church.

LOL to canonise means to make a list. The lists were made by groups of independent churches not by the RC church.

 

[SAVAS]

Which brings us back to the hypocritical foundation of your argument.

Do you believe in the Trinity, which is likewise not a phrase found in the Bible?

Then why do you hold it against others for phrases not found in the Bible?

Yes, both Catholics and Protestants use phrases not found in the Bible, which is not the issue between Catholics and Protestants.

The issue is the Biblical or non-Biblical meaning of the phrases.
The phrase "the Trinity" is non-Biblical, but its meaning is Biblical.

If your assertion that "phrases not found in the Bible" is to be more than meaningless rhetoric
of a meritless assertion, you must present a sound Biblical argument demonstrating that
the meaning attached to these non-Biblical phrases is also a non-Biblical meaning,
or the point of your assertion is both meritless and moot.

You have not done that for any Scripture I presented, the only errors you have shown come from the Catholic Church itself (#1, 8, 21, 22).

"Sola Scriptura" is a "lose" for you, because you have failed to demonstrate "Scripture alone" is not the meaning of the Scripture I presented there.

Score: 2-0 (#1, 20).

You get a re-try anytime you wish, and the score can be adjusted.

Pony-up, cowboy.

Elin,

Yes, both Protestants and RCC have different meanings of terminology not found in Sacred Scripture, but to completely disregard RCC who actually have been practicing Christianity for over 1,000 years is not logical. To say RCC and its practice in worship has not merit, you disclaim most of scripture itself.


I can see the attitude towards the Pope as somewhat valid, but the hated contention of other traditions and secondary issues is erroneous.

 

[valiant]

Sir, I know you have stated you are more favored than Mary, and you have the authority to condemn, and the ability to say thou fool without obtaining Jesus's wrath, and that your interpretation of scripture is infallible and directly from God. Surely you don't mean to say you have lineage to Christ too?

And I know that this unquestionably demonstrates that you are a liar. Anyone who checks back my posts will discover that immediately. Like your church all through the centuries you use slurs and defamation to attack those whom you cannot answer by fair means. I call on God to judge between me and you and punish you accordingly. You'd better go running to Mary LOL

 

[mattp0625]

Peter was the leader of the 11 apostles and the larger 120 disciples as shown in Acts. Peter, in his Epistle, mentions he was with his son Mark. History and the bible also puts Mark in Rome. Various historians such as Tertullian put Peter in Rome

Paul met Jesus at Damascus, converged with Apostles, and ended up in Rome too.

Lastly, there is a list of popes dating back to Peter. Peter dies 67 AD. College of cardinals created a little over 30 years later.

 

[valiant]

Elin,

Yes, both Protestants and RCC have different meanings of terminology not found in Sacred Scripture, but to completely disregard RCC who actually have been practicing Christianity for over 1,000 years is not logical. To say RCC and its practice in worship has not merit, you disclaim most of scripture itself.


I can see the attitude towards the Pope as somewhat valid, but the hated contention of other traditions and secondary issues is erroneous.

May I suggest that you go to Wikipedia and study the lives of the popes from 700 AD to 1500 AD. If you approve of their practises then it will be you who stands condemned. Murder, piracy, adultery, kidnapping, greed, appointment of babies as Archbishops so as to get hold of wealth, you name it they did it. Trace their practice of having monastery and nunnery close to each other with ground alongside for burying the innocent babies in. Such a church can only be treated with contempt. It has no spiritual value.

What had spiritual value were the lives of men who in spite of this evil church still managed to love and believe in Christ. The church they belonged to made it very difficult.

 

[SAVAS]

you are clearly unaware of the truth about church history. The church Christ founded was a group of independent churches around the world who looked to the Apostles. When the Apostles died they looked to their local leaders and the Scriptures. There was no hierarchical church for hundreds of years. The main body of the New Testament was settled almost from the beginning on the basis of known Apostolic writings so that in the second century AD all the independent churches recognised the four Gospels, the Acts, Paul's letters, Peter (at least1 Peter), John (at least 1 John), Jude and Revelation. They did not need a church council to decide it. The only question raised later was as to whether the remainder were genuine Apostolic writings because they were only used by some. It was decided on historical fact not by some 'inspired' council.

None of the large denominations existed in those days. The Roman Catholics would not be founded until around 700 AD and that by political might. Prior to that it was a regional church. The Orthodox churches in the east were still coming together. In 5th century AD the Celtic churches in the West, in and around the UK were their own denomination loosely affiliated together. They were not part of the church of Rome.

This myth about one large hierarchical Roman Catholic church is just that, a myth invented by the Roman Catholic church.

LOL to canonise means to make a list. The lists were made by groups of independent churches not by the RC church.

There wasn't Christianity around the world, even after the Apostle died. There was a hierarchy formed, have you ever heard of St. Ignatius of Antioch? here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignatius_of_Antioch

Writings were going around, mostly by oral tradition but a scripture were finally canonized or listed.

The Orthodox Churches were still coming together? huh? You mean Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem and Antioch? They have never been separated.

I never said anything about the RCC hierarchy being valid either, quite the contrary. Its close, and does have extensive roots in Christianity though.

 

[SAVAS]

May I suggest that you go to Wikipedia and study the lives of the popes from 700 AD to 1500 AD. If you approve of their practises then it will be you who stands condemned. Murder, piracy, adultery, kidnapping, greed, appointment of babies as Archbishops so as to get hold of wealth, you name it they did it. Trace their practice of having monastery and nunnery close to each other with ground alongside for burying the innocent babies in. Such a church can only be treated with contempt. It has no spiritual value.

What had spiritual value were the lives of men who in spite of this evil church still managed to love and believe in Christ. The church they belonged to made it very difficult.

You misunderstood me, I meant that the attitude towards the Pope being heretical, mainly his infallibility. The role of the Pope itself is in question though.

 

[SAVAS]

Great post, I agree with you. Protestant organizations are mainly little clones of their mother. The mother is calling them back to the nest and they are going

Where is this nest you speak of?

 

[mattp0625]

Peter was the leader of the 11 apostles and the larger 120 disciples as shown in Acts. Peter, in his Epistle, mentions he was with his son Mark. History and the bible also puts Mark in Rome. Various historians such as Tertullian put Peter in Rome

Paul met Jesus at Damascus, converged with Apostles, and ended up in Rome too.

Lastly, there is a list of popes dating back to Peter. Peter dies 67 AD. College of cardinals created a little over 30 years later.

One modification regarding the cardinals:

And of Evaristus (99-107?): "Hic titulos in urbe Româ dividit presbyteris et VII diaconos ordinavit qui custodirent episcopum prædicantem, propter stilum veritatis" (op. cit., I, 126), i.e., he divided among the priests the "titles" of the city of Rome, and ordained seven deacons to bear witness to the preaching of the bishop

Then...

Fabian (236-250): "Hic regiones dividit diaconibus et fecit VII subdiaconos, qui VII notariis immiterent, ut gestas martyrum in integro fideliter colligerent, et multas fabricas per cymeteria fieri præcipit" (op. cit., I, 148), i.e., he divided the "regions" among the deacons and created seven subdeacons whom he placed over the notaries

Thereby:

These regionary deacons were wont to subscribe the acts of Roman synods and other documents as diaconi ecclesiæ Romanæ, or deacons of the Roman Church, sometimes, probably, adding their proper region. Thereby also were expressed the fixity of their relations to the church of the Bishop of Rome and their obligation to assist him at liturgical functions. It was natural enough, therefore, that the term cardinales should very soon be applied to these regionary deacons (diaconi cardinals)

 

[WheresEnoch]

One modification regarding the cardinals:

And of Evaristus (99-107?): "Hic titulos in urbe Româ dividit presbyteris et VII diaconos ordinavit qui custodirent episcopum prædicantem, propter stilum veritatis" (op. cit., I, 126), i.e., he divided among the priests the "titles" of the city of Rome, and ordained seven deacons to bear witness to the preaching of the bishop

Then...

Fabian (236-250): "Hic regiones dividit diaconibus et fecit VII subdiaconos, qui VII notariis immiterent, ut gestas martyrum in integro fideliter colligerent, et multas fabricas per cymeteria fieri præcipit" (op. cit., I, 148), i.e., he divided the "regions" among the deacons and created seven subdeacons whom he placed over the notaries

Thereby:

These regionary deacons were wont to subscribe the acts of Roman synods and other documents as diaconi ecclesiæ Romanæ, or deacons of the Roman Church, sometimes, probably, adding their proper region. Thereby also were expressed the fixity of their relations to the church of the Bishop of Rome and their obligation to assist him at liturgical functions. It was natural enough, therefore, that the term cardinales should very soon be applied to these regionary deacons (diaconi cardinals)

You prefer this ridiculous garbage from the mouths of idolatrous pagans over the words of God?

 

[mattp0625]

No, but I do prefer it to the fallible man-made opinions of Protestants, with thousands of sects but no lineage to Christ.

 

[WheresEnoch]

That makes me glad. There are more than two options

 

[WheresEnoch]

If we repent and abide in Christ, the Holy Spirit will guide and teach us while we seek truth. We are all called to be priests on to God through Christ.

Most do not seem to abide in Christ or seek truth for themselves. Which are the two biggest causes of all the sects and deception in my opinion. That and wicked men who purposely desire to lead others astray for their own evil gain

 

[Elin]

Elin,

Yes, both Protestants and RCC have different meanings of terminology not found in Sacred Scripture, but to completely disregard RCC who actually have been practicing Christianity for over 1,000 years is not logical. To say RCC and its practice in worship has not merit, you disclaim most of scripture itself.


I can see the attitude towards the Pope as somewhat valid, but the hated contention of other traditions and secondary issues is erroneous.

You are not understanding what I said, or have me confused with someone else.

 

[SAVAS]

Which brings us back to the hypocritical foundation of your argument.

Do you believe in the Trinity, which is likewise not a phrase found in the Bible?

Then why do you hold it against others for phrases not found in the Bible?

Yes, both Catholics and Protestants use phrases not found in the Bible, which is not the issue between Catholics and Protestants.

The issue is the Biblical or non-Biblical meaning of the phrases.
The phrase "the Trinity" is non-Biblical, but its meaning is Biblical.

If your assertion that "phrases not found in the Bible" is to be more than meaningless rhetoric
of a meritless assertion, you must present a sound Biblical argument demonstrating that
the meaning attached to these non-Biblical phrases is also a non-Biblical meaning,
or the point of your assertion is both meritless and moot.

You have not done that for any Scripture I presented, the only errors you have shown come from the Catholic Church itself (#1, 8, 21, 22).

"Sola Scriptura" is a "lose" for you, because you have failed to demonstrate "Scripture alone" is not the meaning of the Scripture I presented there.

Score: 2-0 (#1, 20).

You get a re-try anytime you wish, and the score can be adjusted.

Pony-up, cowboy.

Elin,

There are some huge assumptions being made if 2 TIM 3:16 is the basis for Sola Scriptura. Im not denying that fact Sacred Scripture is divinely inspired, God breathed, useful for teaching, rebuking etc. The question is the ears, soul, mind and nous of the one receiving the divine Word of God.