ECT The Roman Catholic "Religion"
- Thread starter Old man
- Start date
"The RCC tries to always lead the people to read Catholic history (Here) of Christianity, by this they try to testify that they are the same thing as the early church, which they are not in any way."
"The RCC church history is mainly written by Catholic and therefore, its emphasis is Catholic and distortions are also of Catholic origin" (Here, Here, and Here).
Which of course is what all the "Here" "Here" "Here" and more "Here" are. Meaningless writings of Catholicism attempting to legitimize paganism. Sorry, it's as they say, "you can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear"
www.kotipetripaavola.com/catholicchurchbabylonianpaganroots.html
A man made religion (cult)![/QUOTE]
"The RCC church history is mainly written by Catholic and therefore, its emphasis is Catholic and distortions are also of Catholic origin" (Here, Here, and Here).
Which of course is what all the "Here" "Here" "Here" and more "Here" are. Meaningless writings of Catholicism attempting to legitimize paganism. Sorry, it's as they say, "you can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear"
www.kotipetripaavola.com/catholicchurchbabylonianpaganroots.html
A man made religion (cult)![/QUOTE]
Cruciform
New member
Post #61
Just move on to #62 for the facts.
I had to go back to the end of march to find a post of yours that wasn't about catholic
we can't help you
and
you certainly are not helping us
Cruciform
New member
Just move back to #61 for the facts.
Cruciform
New member
Already categorically refuted (Post #61).
Was Peter the Bishop of Rome?
www.truthontheweb.org/sipeter.htm
Only by claim of the Catholic church, no Scriptural foundation whatsoever. Catholics do not get their religion (church) from the Scriptures, instead they try and make the Scriptures fit their religion.
www.truthontheweb.org/sipeter.htm
Only by claim of the Catholic church, no Scriptural foundation whatsoever. Catholics do not get their religion (church) from the Scriptures, instead they try and make the Scriptures fit their religion.
Do realize I sympathize with your exasperation, Old Man. I suggest backing up a notch discussing what IS in Scripture that sorta rattles the timbers in the Catholic Church. With utmost respect... Peter was not standing and preaching the Pentecostal Gospel, appearing as a drunkard, in Acts 2:13 KJV, Acts 2:14 KJV. Did I hear a rooster crow the fourth time there? Didn't Peter deny the Pentecostal Holy Spirit then? Sure, and I've yet to hear any Catholic rebuttal, speaking of Peter's alleged one historic Catholic Church.
Furthermore, wasn't Peter instructed to FEED FEED FEED (per Chrysostom) Jesus' sheep? Peter, with all due respect, didn't know a sheep from shinola early in his ministry (Acts 4:13, 20), which probably saved their evangelistic lives! Well, the NT wasn't written when Jesus so instructed Peter... so, what exactly WAS sheep FEED? Possibly things in the OT like Matthew 24:36, 37, 38, 39, that Jesus spoke of? Catholics don't have a proverbial clue what went down in Noah's tent (Genesis 9:22 KJV), neither do many non-Catholics: Leviticus 18:8 KJV, Leviticus 20:11 KJV, Deuteronomy 22:30 KJV, Deuteronomy 27:20 KJV). Catholics don't have a clue the Gentiles were descendants of Noah's son Japheth: Genesis 9:27 KJV, Genesis 10:1, 2, 3, 4, Genesis 10:5 KJV. Consequently, with Japheth being 'father' of the Gentiles, who walked into Noah's tent both covered and backwards (Genesis 9:23 K JV)... Catholics don't have a clue what Paul was saying to those inbred Corinthians in 1Corinthians 5:1 KJV. Paul knew what went down in Noah's tent... Peter, utterly clueless. At least early in his ministry. Well, we can now easily understand Paul's astute observation regarding the Gentiles in Romans 2:13, 14, 15, 16, and have a better understanding why Paul was sent to them, instead of Peter... a few slices short of the truth early in his ministry.
Possibly FEED MY SHEEP included knowledge like Matthew 4:4 KJV, "But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" (Matthew 4:4 KJV) as Jesus referenced the OT, AGAIN: Deuteronomy 8:3 KJV. Are we clear on what sheep FEED is, then? Ahh... Old Man... there's another crack in the RCC foundation.
Well, let me back up and corroborate how Peter not only denied the Holy Spirit at Pentecost not standing and preaching the Gospel like his esteemed, and equally inspired peers (Acts 2:14 KJV)... Peter actually usurped the authority of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost addressing those mockers with ANOTHER gospel beginning in Acts 2:22 KJV. In other words, wasn't the Pentecostal Gospel good enough, and CLEAR enough (Acts 2:8, 11, 12), as it was for the multitudes who received the Gospel (Acts 2:8 KJV)?
Peter addressed his mocking audience as "Ye Men of Israel..." (Acts 2:22 KJV). All men of Jacob-Israel were not Israelites, Old Man. Paul understood this 'Jewish' distinction in Romans 9:6, 7, 8, 9. Jesus talked about this Jewish distinction in Revelation 2:9, 3:9 KJV. Those who instigated Jesus' crucifixion (John 8:28 KJV, John 8:37 KJV) were NOT Jacob-Israelites (John 8:33 KJV). Just like Catholics today, Peter was clueless to this little mystery early in his ministry, "YE MEN OF ISRAEL..."! The Jacob-Israelites, the SEMITES, did NOT instigate Jesus' crucifixion (John 8:33 KJV). Those who mocked Jesus (John 8:41 KJV) instigating His crucifixion (John 8:37 KJV) were among Peter's alleged historic early church fathers: Circumcised descendants of Judah, prophesied progenitor of Messiah (Isaiah 65:9 KJV), and his Canaanite wife (Genesis 38:2 KJV, 1Chronicles 2:3 KJV).
Sure, Old Man... the whole rift focused on Isaiah 65:9 KJV. Only ONE of the females Judah procreated with could be the maternal ancestress of Messiah. Those who instigated Jesus crucifixion were descendants of Judah's Canaanites wife (John 8:33 KJV, John 8:37 KJV, John 8:39 KJV, 1Chronicles 2:3 KJV) who was the daughter of the Canaanite Shuah (Genesis 38:2 KJV). Judah's father-in-law Shuah was a 'son' of Keturah (NOT Abraham), wife of Abraham after Sarah died (Genesis 25:1, 2, 3, 4). Hence: Those mockers Peter addressed WERE "Abraham's seed" (John 8:33 KJV, John 8:37 KJV), 'they' just weren't "Abraham's children" (John 8:39 KJV, Genesis 25:4 KJV). While, Jesus was a descendant of Judah and his ISRAELITE PRIESTESS daughter-in-law Tamar (Genesis 38:24 KJV, Leviticus 21:9 KJV). Sure Old Man... Jesus was a descendant of Judah's son Pharez (Genesis 38:29 KJV) found in Ruth 4:17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22; Matthew 1:1 KJV, Matthew 1:2 KJV, Matthew 1:3 KJV; Luke 3:31, 32, 33, KJV.
So, friend... to say the Catholics are a few slices short of the TRUTH is an understatement, and those Catholics here know where that little agate winds up (John 8:18 KJV, John 8:38 KJV, John 8:40 KJV, John 8:31 KJV, John 8:32 KJV). There's not a disciple of Jesus among these Catholics, Old Man... and, when one argues outside His Word, one is indeed slaughtered by the wolves... ask Stephen. Stephen knew who those non-Israelite early Catholic Church fathers were (Acts 7:51, 52, corroborating Jesus' words in Matthew 23:28, 29, Matthew 23:30 KJV, Matthew 23:31 KJV, Matthew 23:32 KJV, Matthew 23:33 KJV). Even John the Baptist knew who those non-Israelite early Catholic Church fathers were in Luke 3:2, 7, 8, 9. And, a Catholic knows who a Gentile is, right?
kayaker
Dan Emanuel
Active member
So what. 'You ever read the Bible? Its confusing. Its long. Its not all written to you. Arguably very little is written to you, quite a bit of it is written to Church bishop's though, so it make's sense to listen to what Church bishop's say about it. All Church bishop's are in communion with the pope's, by there very definition.
So yeah. "A whole lot more than just the Bible." Thank the Lord!
Daniel
Dan Emanuel
Active member
Maybe. Depend's on what he mean's by Babylon. 'Could be Jerusalem. Less likely, actually Babylon. More likely, Rome.
Of course they're is the extrabiblical historical record which can help sort out this sort of question. Who is Caesar Augustus? Luke 2:1 KJV
What a mess. Jesus Christ built His/the Church upon Peter, and the Church began on Pentecost, A.D. 33 or thereabout's, in Jerusalem. Precisely. What Peter did in Rome was die, and that established that the papacy, the office of supreme pastor of Jesus Christs Church, would also be in Rome.
I don't know what your trying to say with all the "Roman catholic church (religion)" jazz.
Daniel
Peter denied the Pentecostal Holy Spirit when he wasn't standing and preaching the Gospel like his drunkard-appearing peers (Acts 2:14 KJV). That Pentecostal Gospel was perfectly clear to everyone present (Acts 2:8 KJV, Acts 2:12 KJV). Those mockers simply discounted the Gospel as bodacious drunk-talk (Acts 2:13 KJV). Peter then usurped the authority of the Holy Spirit that inspired said Pentecostal Gospel by speaking further to those mockers. Peter introduced ANOTHER Gospel beginning in Acts 2:22 KJV.
What you've proposed to Old Man is another classic example of discounting and circumventing the Holy Spirit of Truth, Dan: John 14:16 KJV, John 14:17 KJV, John 14:18 KJV, John 14:26 KJV. Think about the implications of your post, Matthew 12:21 KJV.
kayaker
kayaker
Read the Bible? You cath's ought to give the Bible a try, you might be surprised what is there to learn. The Bible is God speaking to man, "man shall live by every Word that proceeds from the mouth of God", man does not need man telling man the way of salvation.
"A whole lot more than just the Bible." NOT! Here again, read the Scriptures.
"For I testify unto every man that hears the words of this prophecy of this book. If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book. And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." Rev.2:18-19
To say that the Bible alone is not enough is to call the Lord God a liar.
oatmeal
Well-known member
Why would you conclude that hate of Roman Catholics is the issue?
Did he direct his comments against people? or to the RCC doctrine?
I want to love all people, but I love God and His scripture more, at least, we are supposed to.
Mark 12:29-30
And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.
In loving my neighbor, it is right that I enable others to carry out the first of the commandments if their doctrines impede them from doing so.
However, if they are not interested in loving God first and foremost, and they make that clear, it would be time to move on.
What if your doctrines are impeding your ability to love God?
Dan Emanuel
Active member
...whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope. Romans 15:4 KJV
So I get hope through the patience and comfort of the Scripture, including the Scripture that is openly and plainly written not to me but to Church bishop's, including:All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 2 Timothy 3:16 KJV
This scripture give's hope because I know that the bishops' to whom it is written (by reasonable extension, since Timothy was a bishop) will heed it's advice and apply it accordingly. They're isn't much harm in imagining that Paul is writing this passage to everybody, just a minor conflict in the context, a dissonance, that you must resolve somehow:All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. 2 Timothy 3:16-4:2 KJV
I'm not a preacher. Is Paul writing that I need to, "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine," or is he only writing this to those men (the bishop's) who's actual job description this is?I know that faithful, good Protestant's believe it is written directly to them, which is why they universally believe that if they are not obeying this charge, given to Timothy the bishop, then they are not being the very best Christian that they can be. This isn't my own personal idea of "patience and comfort of the scriptures" --applying a passage that wasn't intended for me, as if it was; a passage that condemn's me if I don't make it my business to do that which is not my business.
I don't get hope from that. That doesn't even make sense, and run's the risk --at least --of making a mockery of another of Pauls passage's, "God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints." 1 Corinthians 14:33 KJV
They'res a clear hierarchy in the Church, and some of those book's in the Bible are written to different office's in that hierarchy. Faithful, good Protestant's are trying to follow order's not given to them, and holding themselve's responsible when they can't obey them, and even worse, they damage and harm there sibling's in Christ, when they attempt to follow these order's not given to them, and fail, because their terrible at it, because its not there job, because their not bishop's, nor even priest's nor even deacon's. They aren't in the hierarchy at all.
Faithful, good Protestant's: know you're place. You don't know what your talking about, or what your doing. Your doing more harm than good. And its because you think something like, some version of, a variation on the theme of: "To say that the Bible alone is not enough is to call the Lord God a liar."
Daniel
So you cath's are going to be the only inhabitants of heaven?
Mary wasn't a catholic, she was a Jew of the Jewish faith. When did she convert?
Christ wasn't a catholic, He was a Jew of the Jewish faith. When did He convert?
None of the Apostles were catholics, they were of the Jewish faith and followed Christ. When did they convert?
One thing one must give catholics credit for, they have a great imagination and will believe anything their leaders tell them, no need of checking in the Word of God, just swallow whatever hook line and sinker.