ECT The Roman Catholic "Religion"

K

kayaker

New member
Dan Emanuel said:
...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
Click to expand...

Daniel,

I really don't argue the church hierarchy for the most part. You mentioned bishops and the like. I understand there's a need. But, you didn't mention the status of the disciple, Dan. Don't you think being a disciple sorta preempts, or at least precipitates these higher church positions?

What about the Great Commission in Matthew 28:19, Dan? You've heard my scoop about disciples of Jesus. The Catholic Church has the cart before the horse:

Jesus said He is the Light of the World (John 8:12 KJV). Those seeking Jesus' crucifixion (John 8:28 KJV, John 8:37 KJV) disputed Jesus' birth records (John 8:13 KJV, John 8:19 KJV) that He was the Son of God (John 10:36 KJV). Jesus responded that He and His Father were TWO WITNESSES to Jesus' divine Paternity in John 8:18 KJV. Witnesses testify, Dan. Cutting to the chase, these two divine testimonies to Jesus' divine origin are found in John 8:38 KJV, and John 8:40 KJV.

What specifically and succinctly did Jesus SEE WITH HIS FATHER that corroborates Jesus' divine origin, Dan (John 8:38 KJV)?

What specifically and succinctly did Jesus HEAR FROM GOD, that even Abraham didn't hear, that corroborates Jesus' divine origin, Dan (John 8:40 KJV)?

These two testimonies (John 8:38 KJV, John 8:40 KJV) of those two divine witnesses (John 8:18 KJV) “converted” (Matthew 13:15 KJV) Jesus’ ‘believers’ (John 8:30 KJV) into Jesus’ “disciples indeed” (John 8:31 KJV) being His believers “SHALL know the truth, and the truth SHALL make you free” (John 8:32 KJV). That is utter and irrefutable proof Jesus is THE Son of God.

Those ‘conversions’ into disciples of Jesus were going on two millennia ago, Dan! What happened, then? You can’t find a single bishop, archbishop, duke, Pope or ANYONE who can provide the explicit and succinct details of these two testimonies (John 8:38 KJV, John 8:40 KJV). And, you suggest I surrender the Bible and the Holy Spirit to ANY church authority who cannot distinctly explain these two testimonies? Not a chance, Dan. That’s why I’m a Matthew 8:19 KJV, Matthew 8:20 KJV follower of Jesus.

The Catholic Church maintains alleged records of Peter and successors, speaking of endless genealogies, and you folk didn’t know Jesus’ arrival generation was prophesied in Genesis 4:24 KJV (77 fold)? Count ‘em up Dan: Luke 3:38-23, God is generation #1, Adam generation #2, Seth #3, and so forth. Jesus arrival generation was prophesied some 6 millennia ago, and Catholic wanna brag on Peter plus 2? Those early Catholic Church fathers were rambling in the dark, and they still are 2 millennia later, Dan.

Jesus said He is the Light of the World, and HE PROVED IT in John 8:38 KJV, John 8:40 KJV! So, if you do not fully comprehend those explicit testimonies, how do YOU know you’re following Jesus, Dan? Because some church authority told you? Has the Church promised you eternal life? Has the Church sanctioned some exclusive path to eternal spiritual bliss, Dan? Then do you know good and evil (Genesis 3:4 KJV, Genesis 3:5 KJV, Genesis 3:6 KJV)?

THEN ASK YOUR CHURCH AUTHORITIES to unveil the TRUTH (John 8:12 KJV, John 8:18 KJV, John 8:38 KJV, John 8:40 KJV, John 8:31 KJV, John 8:32 KJV), or they’re blind drunk on serpent’s venom blowing serpent’s breath in your face. Truth serum is the only antidote, Dan.

kayaker
 
Dan Emanuel

Dan Emanuel

Active member
kayaker said:
I really don't argue the church hierarchy for the most part. You mentioned bishops and the like. I understand there's a need...
Click to expand...
I find you're comment's on Church hierarchy interesting, Kayaker. You do admit that the hierarchy is scriptural, I presume, implicitly, since you don't deny its existence (you "really don't argue the church hierarchy"), and you seem like the type of fellow who will only admit something thats explicit in the Scripture.

You also mention that they'res "a need." And thats where it get's especially interesting to me, because you do seem reluctant to submit to any bishop's today, preferring to be led personally by the Spirit and Scripture, rather than all together as He lead's and guide's us all, personally, by the Scripture, and through the teaching of our bishop's.

And note that I mean "us" and "our" in the sense that, all of us, who believe in our Lord, are the Church that He built upon Peter, so "we" are the Church, and the Churches bishop's are ours. Whether or not, we are "in communion" with them.
kayaker said:
...But, you didn't mention the status of the disciple, Dan. Don't you think being a disciple sorta preempts, or at least precipitates these higher church positions?...
Click to expand...
The only disciple's that I see are the Twelve. And after Jesus commissioned them they became Apostles, along with, later on, "as of one born out of due time," Paul. And I don't recall if Paul was ever called a disciple, was he?

The interesting thing about the bishop's and the Apostle's is that they were equal in authority. The only Apostle who was ever seen as somehow supreme was Peter, and later on, after Peter died, his literal successor(s). The Apostle John, writing after Peter departed, wrote John chapter 21, which revealed a never-before-seen exchange between our Lord and Peter, during which Jesus told Peter --and Peter only --to "Feed." Here is where John, the only living Apostle, could have set the record straight about the papacy, and he chose, guided and led by the Holy Spirit, to underscore the papacy, as coming, in no uncertain term's, from our Lord Jesus Christ Himself. They're on the beach.

We note that when Paul wrote Galatian's, he lumped together Peter with James, who was not even an Apostle but a bishop! calling them "pillar's."
kayaker said:
...What about the Great Commission in Matthew 28:19, Dan? You've heard my scoop about disciples of Jesus. The Catholic Church has the cart before the horse:

Jesus said He is the Light of the World (John 8:12 KJV). Those seeking Jesus' crucifixion (John 8:28 KJV, John 8:37 KJV) disputed Jesus' birth records (John 8:13 KJV, John 8:19 KJV) that He was the Son of God (John 10:36 KJV). Jesus responded that He and His Father were TWO WITNESSES to Jesus' divine Paternity in John 8:18 KJV. Witnesses testify, Dan. Cutting to the chase, these two divine testimonies to Jesus' divine origin are found in John 8:38 KJV, and John 8:40 KJV.

What specifically and succinctly did Jesus SEE WITH HIS FATHER that corroborates Jesus' divine origin, Dan (John 8:38 KJV)?

What specifically and succinctly did Jesus HEAR FROM GOD, that even Abraham didn't hear, that corroborates Jesus' divine origin, Dan (John 8:40 KJV)?

These two testimonies (John 8:38 KJV, John 8:40 KJV) of those two divine witnesses (John 8:18 KJV) “converted” (Matthew 13:15 KJV) Jesus’ ‘believers’ (John 8:30 KJV) into Jesus’ “disciples indeed” (John 8:31 KJV) being His believers “SHALL know the truth, and the truth SHALL make you free” (John 8:32 KJV). That is utter and irrefutable proof Jesus is THE Son of God.

Those ‘conversions’ into disciples of Jesus were going on two millennia ago, Dan! What happened, then? You can’t find a single bishop, archbishop, duke, Pope or ANYONE who can provide the explicit and succinct details of these two testimonies (John 8:38 KJV, John 8:40 KJV). And, you suggest I surrender the Bible and the Holy Spirit to ANY church authority who cannot distinctly explain these two testimonies? Not a chance, Dan. That’s why I’m a Matthew 8:19 KJV, Matthew 8:20 KJV follower of Jesus.

The Catholic Church maintains alleged records of Peter and successors, speaking of endless genealogies, and you folk didn’t know Jesus’ arrival generation was prophesied in Genesis 4:24 KJV (77 fold)? Count ‘em up Dan: Luke 3:38-23, God is generation #1, Adam generation #2, Seth #3, and so forth. Jesus arrival generation was prophesied some 6 millennia ago, and Catholic wanna brag on Peter plus 2? Those early Catholic Church fathers were rambling in the dark, and they still are 2 millennia later, Dan.

Jesus said He is the Light of the World, and HE PROVED IT in John 8:38 KJV, John 8:40 KJV! So, if you do not fully comprehend those explicit testimonies, how do YOU know you’re following Jesus, Dan? Because some church authority told you? Has the Church promised you eternal life? Has the Church sanctioned some exclusive path to eternal spiritual bliss, Dan? Then do you know good and evil (Genesis 3:4 KJV, Genesis 3:5 KJV, Genesis 3:6 KJV)?

THEN ASK YOUR CHURCH AUTHORITIES to unveil the TRUTH (John 8:12 KJV, John 8:18 KJV, John 8:38 KJV, John 8:40 KJV, John 8:31 KJV, John 8:32 KJV), or they’re blind drunk on serpent’s venom blowing serpent’s breath in your face. Truth serum is the only antidote, Dan.

kayaker
Click to expand...
My 1st and most pertinent response to this Kayaker, is, wheres the evidence that anybody ever thought this way, in history? I can't believe that you think that you are today uniquely blessed and enlightened, to light the way that has been kept hidden all these century's, from apparently what you see as acute darkness and blindness, that has persisted ever since the second generation of the Church? I've got to believe that you think the Apostle's themselve's knew the answer(s) you seek here, but that the truth was lost abruptly after they passed on?

On a scale of impossible, possible, plausible, probable, definite; you're idea, as far as I can understand it, is possible.


Daniel
 
Cruciform

Cruciform

New member
Old man said:
Mariolatry in the Church of Rome
Click to expand...
Since your claim above has already been categorically refuted in several Catholic responses on this forum, one must conclude that by repeating it here, you are now knowingly misrepresenting the Catholic position in this matter, and are therefore simply lying (Ex. 20:16; Prov. 19:5). May God help you.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruiform
+T+
 
O

Old man

New member
Was Peter the Bishop of Rome?

The Roman religion (church) is based solely on the misusing of Mt.16:18.

In this article is the proper meaning and understanding of Mt.16:18.

"Here"
www.truthontheweb.org/sipeter.htm

The facts brought forth in the article show that Peter was not the Bishop of Rome.
 
Dan Emanuel

Dan Emanuel

Active member
"...behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed."

Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus....


Daniel
 
H

HisServant

New member
Dan Emanuel said:
"...behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed."

Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus....


Daniel
Click to expand...

So, she was blessed... and that is all.

She serves no unique position in the economy of salvation other than the singular task of being a willing vessel for the incarnation.

She is also currently dead.
 
Cruciform

Cruciform

New member
Old man said:
The Roman religion (church) is based solely on the misusing of Mt.16:18. In this article is the proper meaning and understanding of Mt.16:18. The facts brought forth in the article show that Peter was not the Bishop of Rome.
Click to expand...
You're changing the subject. Do you, then, acknowledge the factuality of the statements in Post #85 above?
 
O

Omniskeptical

BANNED
Banned
Cruciform said:
Since your claim above has already been categorically refuted in several Catholic responses on this forum, one must conclude that by repeating it here, you are now knowingly misrepresenting the Catholic position in this matter, and are therefore simply lying (Ex. 20:16; Prov. 19:5). May God help you.
Click to expand...
Kathlik klergy still take indulges in other countries, and Mariolatry is not discouraged though. Your positions are meaningless.
 
O

Omniskeptical

BANNED
Banned
I'll quote:
As admirable as these motives are, the claim that indulgences are not part of Church teaching today is false.
Click to expand...

This is an admission of wrong-doing. There is nothing righteous about indulgences, or its boloney.
 
Cruciform

Cruciform

New member
Omniskeptical said:
I'll quote:
As admirable as these motives are, the claim that indulgences are not part of Church teaching today is false.​
Click to expand...
That's correct.

This is an admission of wrong-doing.
Click to expand...
That is incorrect. The Medieval abuse of indulgences in no way negates or rules out the legitimate Christian doctrine of indulgences.

There is nothing righteous about indulgences, or its boloney.
Click to expand...
Already answered---and corrected---in Post #92 above.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+
 
O

Old man

New member
Cruciform said:
Since your claim above has already been categorically refuted in several Catholic responses on this forum, one must conclude that by repeating it here, you are now knowingly misrepresenting the Catholic position in this matter, and are therefore simply lying (Ex. 20:16; Prov. 19:5). May God help you.

Gaudium de veritate,

Cruiform
+T+
Click to expand...

"Knowingly misrepresenting", because you quoted a catholic writing that claimed differently?

You are the one who has fallen for and are promoting the lie of the false catholic religion.

May Mary help you:D
 
Cruciform

Cruciform

New member
Old man said:
"Knowingly misrepresenting", because you quoted a catholic writing that claimed differently?
Click to expand...
"...knowingly misrepresenting" because you continue to repeat the same lie after repeated corrections by Catholics concerning what Catholics actually believe and teach. Thus, my statement stands exactly as posted.
 
Cruciform

Cruciform

New member
Old man said:
"Is Catholic tradition equal to the Bible?" God's Word or the catholic's man made traditions?
Click to expand...
Sorry, I'm not interested in wasting time on those who deliberately misrepresent---that is, lie about (Prov. 19:5)---what Catholics believe and teach. Back to Post #96.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Just a sidenote: do you happen to know any background on why the hit by Coldplay 'When I Ruled The World' uses the papal imagery in the video production?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top