Zeke
Well-known member
They have a long line of Filibusters who are trained/programmed to deny, deny, and then deny to infinity and beyond any source that reveals the dark side of their creation, a historical Jesus being one of them.
Standing Up To Rome
- Thread starter WeberHome
- Start date
They have a long line of Filibusters who are trained/programmed to deny, deny, and then deny to infinity and beyond any source that reveals the dark side of their creation, a historical Jesus being one of them.
Cruciform
New member
Sorry, but no (see this, for example).
Merely a false assumption on your part---see the source cited just above. In any case, please cite the biblical text which states that "Everything the apostles meant to pass on as Tradition was eventually put down in writing."
No more than is Scripture itself when placed at the whimsy of the pro-sola scriptura Protestant's private interpretations.
Yet that wouldn't get you off the hook, since the apostles themselves chose and ordained successors to their ministry known as bishops, who possess the very same doctrinal authority as did their predecessors (Ac. 15:2; 16:4; cf. 2 Thess. 3:4; 1 Jn. 4:6).
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
Cruciform
New member
Here is a list of biblical texts on the subject.
- The Bible must be interpreted by human beings, and the mere fact that Protestantism is a fractured chaos of 50,000+ competing and contradictory recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sects is sufficient proof that your final comment above is simply unworkable in reality.
- Also, nowhere in Scripture can one find a text stating that the Bible is "sufficient" in a numerical, or formal, sense.
- Finally, Scripture itself contains positive teaching that apostolic oral Tradition is the word of God, and is to be affirmed and followed by believers.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
This is the usual fate of all religions. Either they keep speaking to us or else they will be changed or dropped entirely.
It is an interesting fact of history that the little band of Jesus people who shared meals and drink with the human trash of their society became a crowd of elite bishops eating in royal banquet in an immense hall of the government of Rome.
And irony of ironies, the great congregation was surrounded by armed Roman soldiers.
So much for a nonviolent movement consisting of a kingdom of equals.
The Emperor Constantine brought together bishops from all over to force them to come up with a theology of Jesus that everyone could agree to.
The usual evolution of religions is encapsulated in these three steps, modeled after the great prehistoric civilization of Sumer:
1. The gods rule
2. The gods rule through me.
3. "I rule!"
A sizable amount of Paul's so-called letters have been determined to be forgeries.
oatmeal
Well-known member
The scripture, that is, God's holy word, is that unfallible and binding authority that points out the severity of the errors of the RCC.
oatmeal
Well-known member
The scripture, that is, God's holy word, is that infallibly binding interpreter.
God knows what He is talking about and He knew as He authored it who would be reading it and wanting to know what is on God's heart for His people.
God is wise, He knew who would be reading it. He wrote it for people who want to know and believe and to those who want to know more and believe more of God's words, the truth.
JonahofAkron
New member
So, rape and murder as the 'head of the church' is acceptable because he is the pope. Got it. Holding to that doctrine is pretty interesting......I wonder what else you stand by the papacy for.
WeberHome
New member
-
Rome has constructed for itself a papal tree showing its own succession all
the way back to Peter. But man-made successions aren't reliable, and should
never be trusted by serious students of the Holy Bible; because even while
the apostles were still alive, even in their own day, there were professing
Christians already breaking away and starting apostate movements (e.g.
Gal 1:6-9, 1Tim 1:3-4, 2Tim 2:15-18, 1John 2:18-19, Jud 1:17-19).
Those early apostates could easily show that their own hierarchical
successions connected to Peter; who was actually just a few steps away. In
fact, their distance from Peter was very short, shorter by more than 1,900
years than it is today. I believe the Roman Church to be the end product of
some of those early apostates.
OBJECTION: That couldn't be because the purpose of those passages in the
apostles' epistles was to expose the errors of the time so that people
wouldn't follow the apostates.
RESPONSE: The epistles weren't sent out to the world at large; like as if
there were millions of copies run off the presses and shipped out to news
stands, television stations, radio stations, and book stores in every city and
country. No, the epistles were hand-written letters sent by courier only to
designated recipients. The world at large didn't have a clue, nor would it
have cared anyway even if it had access to those letters. Just because those
early apostates were "exposed", do you really think that stopped them from
proliferating?
Apostate movements grow at astounding rates in spite of the now wide
spread availability of New Testaments. For example, Mormonism has grown
from just one man in 1820 to approximately 9.37 million in 2015; and that
figure doesn't even factor in the numbers of Mormons who have lived and
died during the 195 years since the Mormon Church was founded. Those
9.37 million Mormons are those of today, not the past. Mormonism's belief
system incorporates the New Testament, including every one of those
epistles I referenced above. In point of fact, the Mormon Church offers free
Bibles to anybody who requests one.
The Watch Tower Society (a.k.a. Jehovah's Witnesses) has grown from one
man in 1881 to approximately 8.2 million in 2015; and that figure doesn't
factor in the numbers of Watch Tower Society members who have come and
gone during the 134 years since the movement began. The Society bases its
Christology on the New Testament.
The Roman papacy has had its humorous moments. It's a historical fact that
at one time there were no less than three different "infallible" popes all in
power at the same time.
In the 14th century a division occurred in the Church of Rome, and the two
factions vied for superiority. One faction officially elected Pope Urban VI as
the infallible Head of the Church, while the other party elected Pope Clement
VII as the infallible Head of the Church.
That put two infallible Popes in power opposing each other. Pope Urban VI
was succeeded by Boniface IX in 1389 and later Pope Gregory XII. Pope
Clement VII-- called, historically, the Anti-Pope --was succeeded by Pope
Benedictine XIII in 1394. Then in 1409 a third party of reactionaries,
claiming to represent the true Church, elected Pope Alexander V as head of
the Roman hierarchy. Voilà. A triune papacy.
Then, in June, 1409, the infallible Pope Alexander V officially
excommunicated the other two infallible Popes, and gradually the incident
was resolved. (For an interesting discussion of this historical account see the
Encyclopaedia Britannica under the article on "The Papacy").
That, however, was not the only time when the Roman Church had more
than one infallible head. In 1058 Pope Benedict X was elected, but another
faction elected Pope Nicholas II. The feud between these two opposing
infallible Popes resulted in the expulsion of Pope Benedict and the selection
of Nicholas II as supreme head of the Church.
What is so ironic about Rome's past is that modern Catholicism is constantly
going on about Protestant schism while its own infallible papacy was so
bitterly divided in the past.
FYI: Were the Holy Ghost really leading Rome in its selection of Popes; there
would never be a divided vote when the college of cardinals meets in
conclave. Sadly, Popes are elected based upon a 2/3 majority rather than
unanimous approval. Makes me wonder who the Holy Ghost is leading: the
minority vote or the majority; or quite possibly neither
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==
Rome has constructed for itself a papal tree showing its own succession all
the way back to Peter. But man-made successions aren't reliable, and should
never be trusted by serious students of the Holy Bible; because even while
the apostles were still alive, even in their own day, there were professing
Christians already breaking away and starting apostate movements (e.g.
Gal 1:6-9, 1Tim 1:3-4, 2Tim 2:15-18, 1John 2:18-19, Jud 1:17-19).
Those early apostates could easily show that their own hierarchical
successions connected to Peter; who was actually just a few steps away. In
fact, their distance from Peter was very short, shorter by more than 1,900
years than it is today. I believe the Roman Church to be the end product of
some of those early apostates.
OBJECTION: That couldn't be because the purpose of those passages in the
apostles' epistles was to expose the errors of the time so that people
wouldn't follow the apostates.
RESPONSE: The epistles weren't sent out to the world at large; like as if
there were millions of copies run off the presses and shipped out to news
stands, television stations, radio stations, and book stores in every city and
country. No, the epistles were hand-written letters sent by courier only to
designated recipients. The world at large didn't have a clue, nor would it
have cared anyway even if it had access to those letters. Just because those
early apostates were "exposed", do you really think that stopped them from
proliferating?
Apostate movements grow at astounding rates in spite of the now wide
spread availability of New Testaments. For example, Mormonism has grown
from just one man in 1820 to approximately 9.37 million in 2015; and that
figure doesn't even factor in the numbers of Mormons who have lived and
died during the 195 years since the Mormon Church was founded. Those
9.37 million Mormons are those of today, not the past. Mormonism's belief
system incorporates the New Testament, including every one of those
epistles I referenced above. In point of fact, the Mormon Church offers free
Bibles to anybody who requests one.
The Watch Tower Society (a.k.a. Jehovah's Witnesses) has grown from one
man in 1881 to approximately 8.2 million in 2015; and that figure doesn't
factor in the numbers of Watch Tower Society members who have come and
gone during the 134 years since the movement began. The Society bases its
Christology on the New Testament.
The Roman papacy has had its humorous moments. It's a historical fact that
at one time there were no less than three different "infallible" popes all in
power at the same time.
In the 14th century a division occurred in the Church of Rome, and the two
factions vied for superiority. One faction officially elected Pope Urban VI as
the infallible Head of the Church, while the other party elected Pope Clement
VII as the infallible Head of the Church.
That put two infallible Popes in power opposing each other. Pope Urban VI
was succeeded by Boniface IX in 1389 and later Pope Gregory XII. Pope
Clement VII-- called, historically, the Anti-Pope --was succeeded by Pope
Benedictine XIII in 1394. Then in 1409 a third party of reactionaries,
claiming to represent the true Church, elected Pope Alexander V as head of
the Roman hierarchy. Voilà. A triune papacy.
Then, in June, 1409, the infallible Pope Alexander V officially
excommunicated the other two infallible Popes, and gradually the incident
was resolved. (For an interesting discussion of this historical account see the
Encyclopaedia Britannica under the article on "The Papacy").
That, however, was not the only time when the Roman Church had more
than one infallible head. In 1058 Pope Benedict X was elected, but another
faction elected Pope Nicholas II. The feud between these two opposing
infallible Popes resulted in the expulsion of Pope Benedict and the selection
of Nicholas II as supreme head of the Church.
What is so ironic about Rome's past is that modern Catholicism is constantly
going on about Protestant schism while its own infallible papacy was so
bitterly divided in the past.
FYI: Were the Holy Ghost really leading Rome in its selection of Popes; there
would never be a divided vote when the college of cardinals meets in
conclave. Sadly, Popes are elected based upon a 2/3 majority rather than
unanimous approval. Makes me wonder who the Holy Ghost is leading: the
minority vote or the majority; or quite possibly neither
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==
Zeke
Well-known member
Can't have the Gnostic Christ being taught by Paul so you bring in the editors, Yet the Christ within man that was supposed to be some new mystery was being taught by others before Paul's revelation was wrote about.
The logos of John was also a pagan concept, and many of the quotes in John were already used in prior cultures and Holy men, Gerald Massey, Robert Taylor also exposed the holy writ has being suspect , Alvin Boyd Kuhn's writings was the last huckleberry for the bloody Jesus historical society.
Cruciform
New member
Post #53
Brother Vinny
Active member
opcorn:I don't know where you get the "Gnostic" idea in the Pauline letters. I don't think I am looking in the right place.
The letters that have been determined to have been written in Paul's name were written later by his followers and they signed his name to them--which is not an unusual thing to happen in the ancient world.
The Bible contains remembered history, oral tradition, theologies, legends and proverbs. The Gospel of John--because it presents a Jesus who is profoundly different from the portrait disclosed in the other three gospels--is basically full of early Christian theology. Because of this, most historians do not recognize it as being historical.
Nevertheless, I still see John as being "holy writ."
turbosixx
New member
I agree, but the Rcc leaders are human beings too. The bible was written on an elementery grade level and tells us we can understand by reading.
2 Cor. 1:13 For we write nothing else to you than what you read and understand, and I hope you will understand until the end;
There’s disagreement and fractures within the rcc as well. If for argument sake Jesus did found the rcc then wouldn’t the protestant movement be a fracturing of the rcc. It just goes to prove what Paul told Timothy.
2 Tim. 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires,
Our challenge is to determine who is preaching sound doctrine, and the way we do that is compare it to scripture.
The canon is the canon for a reason. Great effort went into being sure that the included books were inspired by God.
2 Tim. 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
The writings of the rcc are not inspired by God and are not scripture. If they were, there would be no contradictions with the canon that everyone agrees is written by inspired writers.
I totally agree, we are to follow the apostles. The leaders of the rcc are not apostles.
Last edited:
oatmeal
Well-known member
To be guided is certainly not the same thing as privately interpreting
oatmeal
Well-known member
Answered perfectly in Genesis through Revelation.
oatmeal
Well-known member
Answered perfectly in Genesis through Revelation