- May 19, 2015
- 125,549
- 28,532
- 75
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Kewl post!
Not sure I understand all the extra mumbo jumbo you added in parentheses tho
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Kewl post!Yeah...
He said for 1000 years...
That 1000 year church ended when the seven headed beast retruned and Greek and Roman culture with all its sexual exxcesses arose in Western Europe.
Rev. 2:20 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, (Thyatira, Church of Rome), because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, (tolerating a homosexually deviant sect), which calleth herself a prophetess, (proclaiming insight into doctrines of celibacy), to teach and to seduce my servants, (particularly the altar boys), to commit fornication, (to engage in pedophilia and sodomizes), and to eat "things" sacrificed unto (phallic) idols.
Rev. 2:21 And I gave her, (this sect within the Universal Catholic Church) space (of 400 years, 1054-1492AD) to repent of her (pedaphilia), fornication; and she repented not.
I mean like Pope Sergius III who was pope from 904-911, just as the 1000 years was concluding.
He was said to have slept around with married women. Such a sexually moral person. Papal historians call the period from then until about 964 a "pornocracy".
The entire period saw popes that were controlled by various women and the Counts of Tusculum.
Pope John X (914-28) (thought to be the son of Sergius III, and Marozia the daughter of Theophylact the Count of Tusculum at the time) who was influenced by Marozia, Irmengared of Ivrea and Bertha of Tuscany.
[
Pope John XII (955-64) was deposed by Prince Otto I because of his life of sexual immorality. Apparently he was considered to be perverted even by the standards of the time.
And how about Benedict IX (1032-44, 1045, 1047-8; you're reading that right, this man was pope three times)? He was known for sleeping around and doing sexually immoral things.
　
Rev. 2:22 Behold, I will cast her, (this sect within the Universal Catholic Church), into a bed (of financial litigations), and them that commit adultery with her, (the organized church heirarchy), into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.
Rev. 2:23 And I will kill her children with death (by Black Plague, and AIDS, and both civil and criminal prosecutions); and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins (of behavior) and hearts (of their mind): and I will give unto every one of you (who replace this fallen institution) according to your (new congregation's) works.
"Who hears you hears me." Luke 10:16.What passage would that be?
Actually, it should be pretty easy. Take a doctrin taught in the RCC and try and find specific biblical support for it.
Do you, in all honesty, have the guts to say that the Roman Catholic Church's pope is infalliable because he has inherited what's been left to him by his successors of faith? If different people of different attributes can attain different gifts of the Holy Spirit, then why is it that all those selected chosen few have the gift of the infalliability, and the same gift which apparently is non-existent within the Bible? If a gift of such importance is not written on the perfect, but not restricted to, instruction manual for lost sheeps, then how are we to verify that that's the truth? And if popes' reasons for not capable of inheriting Peter's attained gift of healing or tongue, because they are, according to you, "powers" or "abilities," how are we to trust their words? Wouldn't that be following the words of the blind man?
Exactly. The Universal Christian Church. Catholic. Keep in mind that it's you folks who exclude yourselves from being part of the one Church Jesus founded, not us.1. His Church is the invisible, infallible Church that's composed of one gigantic flock of believers with Jesus as its head. It certainly is not some vulnerable, physical, and matter-based man-made church and His Church always lies within Jesus Christ. I assure you that it shall be crumbled apart like a rock on the shore on the day of armageddon.
The head is not separated from the feet. Christ is truly present in every Catholic Church.2. Just because the head is separate from the feet, does that make the head any less valuable than the feet, the parts of your body that allows you to make movements? In Jesus we are all united, as one conglomerate of spiritual body of believers, feet, head, hands, arms, legs, and etc., ergo, different denominations, are gathered in Him and in Him we express our worship differently but serves one purpose of praising Him.
I think you're mistaking that "the Church" consists of only buildings. It does not.3. A person could set and establish a man-made building within a thousand year span and call it the "Catholic" church, to make it seem as though a physically-made building is THE Catholic Church. The power which that Church's, not the latter's, is based on the authority and power fueled by its stance within this world, not of Jesus'. There's little to no mentioning of how man-made churches would be enacted in the Bible, however.
This does not give groups license to change the doctrines Christ laid down.4. Paul said, though we may express our worship differently and argue about the difference between our ways of seeking the Lord, we are still united in Jesus Christ as a body of spiritual entity.
There are not two separate Catholic Churches. There are several rites. Each worships Christ, though they follow local practices.5. The same goes for this question as it did in the question above. Btw, why are there two separate "Catholic" churches; Orthodox and Roman, not church, then? Share of traditions do not make you "separated under a little cause or mishap," as you clearly negate each others' founding beliefs; Pope is the ultimate inheritor of Apostles, where as the Orthodox believe that such authority cannot lie in one man.
There's no riddle in "Truly, Truly, I say to you..." It's not a metaphor, it's not an allusion, it's not an allegory, and it's not been believed to be any of those things from the day of Pentecost to today by the Catholic Church.6. If you have studied the literature long enough, you would know that the, "symbol," does not appear next to the actual words that are being symbolized. God, most of the time, gives His answer to us in the form of a riddle and He chooses to give straight answers only when it is necessary for Him to do so. He always pin points such situations and picks out such and such times, during which His answer can be sought out by our naked eyes.
But I will be with you always until the end of the age means that His church would be there from his Resurrection until he returns. Other than the Catholic Church, none of you fits that prophecy.7. The Bible speaks for itself as it is the perfect, but not restricted to, guideline for lost sheeps. If a person's attainment of status as a Catholic Church member is one of the requirements for his salvation, why isn't there a specle of it to be found in such a book?
8. Not all of such denominations were from the mainstream Protestant denominations and they are clearly being labelled as them being false-Christ followers under the light that they serve a different god, not God. Also, mainstream Christian denominations stress upon the matters of how differently we worship the Lord, not the pure interpretation of how we should worship Him.
You say we venerate Mary, but that's your interpretation, and your problem. Jesus told us that we should not try to judge others' hearts, and yet you do. You see someone kneeling, you interpret that as worship, you think that, when we give special meaning to Mary, it means we're worshipping. But there's several forms of veneration. There's that which is due only to God (latria), there's that which is proper for man (dulia). Mary has signature veneration, which is called hyer-dulia. More than man, less than God. We know where Mary stands, obviously, you don't. You're ready to trot her out at Christmas, sing "Round yon virgin mother, and child" then lock her up in the closet again. The issues with Marian devotion are yours, not ours.9. First of all, Mary was a human and died as a human. By giving "veneration" to her image, we are bestowing her the nature of divinity. Also, if Mary hadn't met the quota for being the mother of Jesus, then she easily could have been replaced, just like how Judas had been replaced after his death. All Christians are temple of God and because the Holy Spirit resides within us, we are to take care for our bodies. Doesn't that fact make us equal or greater than the respected being? Jesus existed prior to the birth of Mary, which gives us the conclusion that the Son has existed outside of time and that this Mary character only paved a way for His arrival into this time-bound world. She gave Him her flesh, yes. But because His human body was tainted, His body was made incorruptible after his ascension. And if it would take a sinless person to keep God in her belly for a period of year, doesn't that make Mary's parents sinless, because how can a sinless person be born of two sinful parents? And going all the way back to Adam, no man on this earth would be sinful in nature. Of course, that's following your logic that Mary was a sinless person.
10. Jesus once said His mother is the mother of a believer and His brother the brother of a believer. In Him, we triumph, for we are all connected through Jesus. Satan is the master of trickery. He twists the words of God in a way so that people could crave into their nature of sin, but God is greater for He uses the acts of the devil to suit His own purpose, just like how He used Constantine, a sun-god worshipper/Ba'al worshipper, to preserve the Bible.
As do the EOC vs the RCC
Btw, how is the reconciliation going between you Two?
http://www.christianforums.com/t6790703-34/#post43066817
Great Schism and effect on Christianity and Theology
to be clear...You separate yourselves. We didn't separate you. As is apparent from your judgement of 1.2 billion hearts. We all believe that Jesus created one Church. We believe that all baptized Christians are part of the Body of Christ. Whether you do too, or not, is your own problem. Our arms are open and welcoming. You just have to learn to obey God. Not Calvin/Luther/Hubbard/Osteen.You are being contradictory here. The Catholic doctrine clearly states that anyone who: 1) does not view the pope for "who he is" 2) had not been exempt from their status of excommunication 3) is not a Roman Catholic cannot be saved. Jesus once said that, unless you believe in Him, you will not get a chance to go to the Father. In short, you guys are supposed to say, unless he chooses to convert to the Roman Catholicism, that person's faith is then sealed for an eternal damnation. This is what the Bible instructs us to do: "But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat." -1 Corinthians 5:11 (NIV)- If you truly view the Protestantism to be an enlarged, or stretched out, sectarian-kind of body of false-Christ followers, then you shouldn't refer to us as the "brothers in Christ," as doing so would be like acknowledging our chance for salvation, which you clearly stated it to be void of existing. Funny thing is, the current pope chose to follow the example of one of his predecessors by gathering leaders of world religion into his site of worship to announce his thoughts, which, to me, was an act that's in clear violation of what his faith stands for.
Where was it ever said that "only Catholics will be saved"?Such anger, young skywalker. The first quoted verse from the Bible was my doing, indeed, but it simply stands there with it being the evidence as to how the notion of, "only Catholics will be saved," is a falsified information extracted from the Catholic doctrine. Anyone who believes in Christ will be saved, that's my belief and it is what has been stated in the book known as the Bible. If you do not believe what is stated in the Bible, the God-breathed texts confined into a single book, then you fit into the category of "unbelieving."
Well, we believe that anyone who seeks Jesus will not be turned away...The second quoted verse from the Bible was my means of convincing you into believing that anyone who seeks Jesus will not be turned away and that he will be saved by his belief in Christ. By saying that Protestant denominations are packed with misguided ones, you fit into the category of "swindlers."
The pope is the Vicar of Christ-his representative on Earth.I meant no harm. I mean, I can't just slice off a part of a verse from the Bible to present it as an evidence for my claims, right? I believe it was just a misunderstanding between you and I. So, no need to get all stereotypical on me.
The Bible clearly says that Jesus, the Son, will be the head of His Church. The Roman Catholic pope certainly is not the Son, thus his chance of being the head of God's invisible Church is 0 to none.
Then where does that leave Jesus' prophecy that His Church would last until he returns???I have no desires to satisfy your cravings for "straightforward answers."
The so-called, the "Protestant Reformation," has been recorded as such, because the claims on the part of the Roman Catholicism had such a great influence on both the history and the behalf of the world that our opinions have been crushed flat. We do not view the said event as the "Reformation," but the purification of our belief in Christ.
Well we agree on two things then.The next option that's kept in stock in this debate is your availability of asserting a solid evidence from an external source to crush my previous statements regarding the said matter and since I chose neither of those aforementioned choices, you have no choice but to go with the latter.
It is my belief that your status as the OP of this thread grants you with such a burden.
I believe the future tense is in effect.
Guided by the Holy Spirit, I make such a claim. The god of Mormons or the Seven-Day-Adventists, who is known as the deity that has risen from the state of human and gives a birth to a thought that any human has the potential to transcend the humanity OR an archangel Michael, cannot be our God.
Yes, there is. The difference is that Mary is the Mother of God. She was the new Ark of the Covenant. By the way, who are you to criticize how we choose to respect Mary? I think you need to repent of your sin.There's a good mile of difference between a person bowing down out of his sadness and getting on his knees out of his respect for a certain someone before his/her image(s). Some mothers have a tendency of bowing down before the pictures of their deceased children, not to worship, but to express their former love for their children, and for them to move on with their lives. Are you now trying to make a dispute out of this matter by attributing to the man-made traditions as an exemplified case of what I've been telling you about? Btw, I can put up pictures of Catholics expressing their "respect" for Mary, a saint, or an angel on the forum, but because the forum's mods will get to me for being "anti-Catholic," I will refrain myself from doing so.
Was Mary the Mother of Jesus? Was Jesus God when he was conceived in Mary's womb?Yes, there's a problem in your wording; Correction: Mary, who lacked any divinity, was the human mother of Jesus Christ, not the mother of God. If you are willing to conform to the "correction" that I've made, then I will make an attempt to see things from your perspective.
No man on earth ever succeeds completely in anything.-Satan is the god of this age, not you.
-No, but those who are against Jesus.
-Constantine allowed the preservation of the Bible; he tried to unite religions in Rome through Christianity. At the time of his ruling, his empire was divided. He sought Christianity as the answer to his problems, as stretching the latter would've granted him the monopoly of authority over the entirety of the Roman Empire. He did succeed, but only partially.
That's not what the Church decreed. The title of the Bull is "Outside the Church there is no salvation". I don't believe Urban defined what "the Church" means...1. Prior to the establishment of the Vatican II, the absolution of eternal damnation had been placed upon any non-Roman Catholics by the Roman Catholic Church. The Vatican II claims to have changed laws set by the Roman Catholic Church before their establishment. However, its reformed laws reserve salvation for any non-Catholics who choose to abide by the Roman Catholic-like teachings as well as worship, which clearly will not occur to the non-RC converted people. Their actions, therefore, had little to no effect on the matter of salvation for non-RCC affiliated people.
The interpretation of John Chapter 6 has been believed by the Universal Church from the day of Easter."And someone said to Him, "Lord, are there just a few who are being saved?" And He said to them, "Strive to enter through the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able." (Luke 13:23-24)
"Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'" (Matthew 7:22~7:23)
2. What does that have to do with Jesus being the head of His Church? Regardless of your interpretations of that particular verse from the Bible, the "stone" is quite different from the "head" of an actual "building."
"And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight: If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister; Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church:" -Colossians 1:18-24- (KJV)
"And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,
Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all." -Ephesians 1:22-23- (KJV)
3. & 4. Okay.
5. I thought you were cool with my passing of q's # 3 & 4, and since the q # 5 had been supplied to me/other commenter for me/other commenter to satisfy the same demand from you as the q's # 3 & 4, I simply disregarded the q #5.
6. The estranged interpretation of the Bible is entirely upto you, but the assertion of it is a whole different matter.
No, to see them as non-Christian.7. Nope. The OP bears much more responsibility than any other commenter on the forum, as he chose to put up the discussion topic. So, basically not giving you a favorable answer results in an automatic rejection of my rebuttal, huh? That's harsh.
8. Are you saying that the Holy Spirit inspires you, Roman Catholics, to believe that the god of Mormons is the same God a Christian is supposed to believe in?
Yeah...
He said for 1000 years...
That 1000 year church ended when the seven headed beast retruned and Greek and Roman culture with all its sexual exxcesses arose in Western Europe.
Rev. 2:20 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, (Thyatira, Church of Rome), because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, (tolerating a homosexually deviant sect), which calleth herself a prophetess, (proclaiming insight into doctrines of celibacy), to teach and to seduce my servants, (particularly the altar boys), to commit fornication, (to engage in pedophilia and sodomizes), and to eat "things" sacrificed unto (phallic) idols.
Rev. 2:21 And I gave her, (this sect within the Universal Catholic Church) space (of 400 years, 1054-1492AD) to repent of her (pedaphilia), fornication; and she repented not.
I mean like Pope Sergius III who was pope from 904-911, just as the 1000 years was concluding.
He was said to have slept around with married women. Such a sexually moral person. Papal historians call the period from then until about 964 a "pornocracy".
The entire period saw popes that were controlled by various women and the Counts of Tusculum.
Pope John X (914-28) (thought to be the son of Sergius III, and Marozia the daughter of Theophylact the Count of Tusculum at the time) who was influenced by Marozia, Irmengared of Ivrea and Bertha of Tuscany.
[
Pope John XII (955-64) was deposed by Prince Otto I because of his life of sexual immorality. Apparently he was considered to be perverted even by the standards of the time.
And how about Benedict IX (1032-44, 1045, 1047-8; you're reading that right, this man was pope three times)? He was known for sleeping around and doing sexually immoral things.
　
Rev. 2:22 Behold, I will cast her, (this sect within the Universal Catholic Church), into a bed (of financial litigations), and them that commit adultery with her, (the organized church heirarchy), into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.
Rev. 2:23 And I will kill her children with death (by Black Plague, and AIDS, and both civil and criminal prosecutions); and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins (of behavior) and hearts (of their mind): and I will give unto every one of you (who replace this fallen institution) according to your (new congregation's) works.
[/font][/font]
Okay, I no longer have any intentions of continuing this discussion with you for you lack many things, one of many which includes the universal doctrine concerning the Trinity: God is three divine persons in one; God is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but each person cannot be described as the same as the rest, which you so haughtily denied by saying that "The Father is the Son and is the Holy Spirit." No offense, but how can you hope to discuss anything in regards to the defense of the RCC, when you can't even comprehend the nature of triune heads of the Trinity???
Not only do you lack basic knowledge concerning the Christianity, you fail to grasp the understanding of the expansion each post brings about in this discussion. For instance, I've already mentioned to you the difference between the true God and Mormon god. In light of this comparison, I've brought to you the difference between the Mary, you Catholics 'venerate,' and Mary, the human mother of Jesus Christ. The Marian Theology has depths of richness concerning this sub-topic, from which we could hope to discuss about RC's assumption of this character.
In addition, most of your points are utterly baseless. Let me make another short analogy in regards to my bold, yet true claims. I've quoted verses from the Bible several times, in order for me to use them as evidences for my stated points. In your rebuttals, you've blatantly ignored them and went on to describe my posts as metaphor, opinionated, and statements ripped off from "anti-Catholic" websites. If you are truly oriented with such topics, then why do you yourself provide me with bunch of random links to Catholic websites, instead of giving me some insight as to why my points are like what you describe them to be? "Michael is much, much, much stronger than Satan. Poor Satan compared with St. Michael." Seriously? Just because you said, 'much,' three times in one sentence, it would suddenly become a valid rebuttal to the clear situation where Michael failed to challenge Satan in a direct manner?
We believe that all baptized Christians are part of the Body of Christ.
You just have to learn to obey God. Not Calvin/Luther/Hubbard/Osteen.
Where was it ever said that "only Catholics will be saved"?
The pope is the Vicar of Christ-his representative on Earth. Then where does that leave Jesus' prophecy that His Church would last until he returns???
Yes, there is. The difference is that Mary is the Mother of God. She was the new Ark of the Covenant. By the way, who are you to criticize how we choose to respect Mary? I think you need to repent of your sin.
Proof of your assertion?You have not always believed this.
And where did I mention the bishop of Rome about this?Newsflash: The Bishop of Rome is not God. Not even the RC church believes this.
That's not what it says, though. That's what you think it means.Unam Sanctam.
Well, actually it said that being an RC was a necessary prerequisite for salvation, not a guarantee, but the point still stands.
Mark 3:16; John 1:42 Jesus renames Simon "Kepha" in Aramaic which literally means "rock." This was an extraordinary thing for Jesus to do, because "rock" was not even a name in Jesus' time. Jesus did this, not to give Simon a strange name, but to identify his new status among the apostles. When God changes a person's name, He changes their status.You're still stuck in the "The RC church is the church that Jesus founded because it is, because we say that God said so, therefore God said so, so it is". You haven't backed it up with anything at all.
Why don't you get the beam out of YOUR OWN eye before telling someone else there's a speck in his?
I always like that verseProof of your assertion?
And where did I mention the bishop of Rome about this?
That's not what it says, though. That's what you think it means.
Why don't you get the beam out of YOUR OWN eye before telling someone else there's a speck in his?
Root of Jesse - I respect your dedication to Mother Church. However, to say that the Church has always believed that all baptized Christians are part of the body of Christ is at the very least misleading. While this may be true on one level, the more important fact is that Mother Church certainly believed and taught that non-Catholic Christians had to become members of Mother Church prior to their death or else they could not be saved. Forget the Unam Sanctam decree for the moment. The Cantate Domino infallible Papal decree is even more specific and leaves no room for any doubt.
I always like that verse
Young LT) Mark 5:25 and a certain woman, having an issue of blood twelve years, 26 and many things having suffered under many physicians, and having spent all that she had, and having profited nothing, but rather having come to the worse,
[Luke 4:24]
I cannot say if the Reformation was an experiment gone wrong. I will leave that up to God to say. However, it would seem that the splitting of Western Christianity into hundreds or even thousands of different ecclesiastical communities has NOT been helpful in terms of showing a unified witness to non-Christians. If the Protestant Revolt was as all justified, it is a shame that the Protestants could not have stayed together as one united Protestant faith group. Hence, in that one specific area anyway, it may have been an experiment gone wrong. However, we could also ask this question? What has caused more harm to the cause of winning non-Christians to Christ in our modern era, the Protestant Revolt which split Western Christianity into countless groups or the institutionalized use of torture by the Holy Office of the Inquisition for five centuries during the Middle Ages, since said violence was NOT consistent with the Gospels?
Now, a case can be made for the RCC being the Church founded by Christ for the salvation of mankind. However, since the teachings of Vatican II "effectively" renounced the Unam Sanctam and Cantate Domino infallible Papal decrees that deal with salvation for those outside of the RCC, there seems to be little urgency for Protestants to return home to Holy Mother Church. Maybe the cause of Christ would have been served better if Luther had joined the Eastern Orthodox Church and brought Northern Europe into the Orthodox fold?
Proof of your assertion?
And where did I mention the bishop of Rome about this?
That's not what it says, though. That's what you think it means.
Root of Jesse - I respect your dedication to Mother Church. However, to say that the Church has always believed that all baptized Christians are part of the body of Christ is at the very least misleading. While this may be true on one level, the more important fact is that Mother Church certainly believed and taught that non-Catholic Christians had to become members of Mother Church prior to their death or else they could not be saved. Forget the Unam Sanctam decree for the moment. The Cantate Domino infallible Papal decree is even more specific and leaves no room for any doubt.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?