Catholic Heresy (for the record)

[JesusIsAll]

yes, GOD has spoken. HIS WORD IS TRUE. RCC is condemned, and all that go down with it.

there's nothing anyone in heaven or on earth has ever said or can say that will reverse the

damnation of the rcc . it has already been absolutely damned by the BIBLE, and those

who trust or participate in the rcc with complicity are condemned with it.

On what basis can you make this blanket condemnation of an entire group? I don't like the extra-Biblical doctrines any more than any other sola scriptura believer, but Christianity is what we do with Jesus Christ, not based on a point system as to how many doctrines we correctly interpret. Nor are we delegated to execute judgment on those only God has the right to and only God can know the souls of, to not make such judgments that are God's alone the strongest essence of, "Judge not, that ye be not judged." In terms of Roman Catholicism, if your sympathies are with the historic protesters, I would think one relating to Protestantism would be first to reject the notion of damning others as heretics and judgmentally speaking for God. I've often known how to speak against doctrines that are dubious, but have never really found justification to damn anybody else who comes to the cross and claims Jesus Christ, whether those are really Peter's bones or not. Bottom line, you'd have to explain why you're different, to be wholesale damning an entire group that disagrees with you. If anything, that seems pretty much old line Catholic, to me, an attitude that, as a non-Catholic, is precisely one of the real errors I've always wanted to be distant from.

 

[valiant]

I prefer what makes logical sense, and neither your false distiction petra/petros nor your assertion of sola scriptura can be justified logically, historically or biblically - all clutching at straws to avoid the obvious.

So now you know the language of the holy land (you did not know this before) clear in acts 1:19 as Aramaic from the place you trust which is scripture, I presume you will now recant your version and accept as Luther and Calvin did that Peter is the rock. And special, and the petra /petros distinction was just a creative intepretation of protestants to avoid the blindingly obvious!

As for Augustine, he makes his views clear on succession in his letter to Generosus about donatists.

"2. For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it! Matthew 16:18 The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these:— Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius

Clearly supporting my view and that of RCC


But then irenaus against heresies 3 says exactly the same, and many other ECF agree.
You make the same logical error with ECF you do with sola scriptura. That those who do not say something is true, can therefore be assumed to say it was false.

Which is the A AND B is not the same as NOT A and NOT B falacy.Enrol on a course of logic valiant. All the ECF breathed...you cannot assume they do not because they do not say so . They were long on shouting down heresy, strange they do not all shout down the office of the papacy when it so clearly existed, if they thought it was heresy. WHy are they silent on that?

Study logic and history valiant - stop superimposing your "wish" on what is not actually there.

you really are pig ignorant. Here are more quotes for you to get your lying tongue round. How you dare call yourself a Christian I do not know
Cyril of Alexandria


The Church is unshaken, and ‘the gates of hell shall not prevail against it,’ according to the voice of the Saviour, for it has Him for a foundation (Commentary on Zacharias
. )

Theodoret of Cyr




Other foundation no man can lay but that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus (1 Cor. iii.11). It is necessary to build upon, not to lay foundations. For it is impossible for him who wishes to build wisely to lay another foundation. The blessed Peter also laid this foundation, or rather the Lord Himself. For Peter having said, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God;’ the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build My Church.’ Therefore call not yourselves after men’s names, for Christ is the foundation (117Commentary on 1 Corinthians

1,12.)


John Chrysostom


So is it the case that Peter is now true, or that Christ is true in Peter? When the Lord Jesus Christ wished, he left Peter to himself, and Peter was found to be a man; and when it so pleased the Lord Jesus Christ, he filled Peter, and Peter was found to be true. The Rock had made Rocky Peter true, for the Rock was Christ


‘And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’; that is, on the faith of his confession. Hereby He signifies that many were on the point of believing, and raises his spirit, and makes him a shepherd.

Augustine of Hippo

And this Church, symbolized in its generality, was personified in the Apostle Peter, on account of the primacy of his apostleship. For, as regards his proper personality, he was by nature one man, by grace one Christian, by still more abounding grace one, and yet also, the first apostle; but when it was said to him, ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven,’ he represented the universal Church, which in this world is shaken by divers temptations, that come upon it like torrents of rain, floods and tempests, and falleth not, because it is founded upon a rock (petra), from which Peter received his name. For petra (rock) is not derived from Peter, but Peter from petra; just as Christ is not called so from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. For on this very account the Lord said, ‘On this rock will I build my Church,’ because Peter had said, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed, I will build my Church. For the Rock (Petra) was Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself built. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus. The Church, therefore, which is founded in Christ received from Him the keys of the kingdom of heaven in the person of Peter, that is to say, the power of binding and loosing sins. For what the Church is essentially in Christ, such representatively is Peter in the rock (petra); and in this representation Christ is to be understood as the Rock, Peter as the Church (Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume VII, St. Augustin,On the Gospel of John, Tractate 124.5).



Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer. (Augustine of Hippo Sermon 229).

John Chrysostom

‘And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’; that is, on the faith of his confession. Hereby He signifies that many were on the point of believing, and raises his spirit, and makes him a shepherd...For the Father gave to Peter the revelation of the Son; but the Son gave him to sow that of the Father and that of Himself in every part of the world; and to mortal man He entrusted the authority over all things in Heaven, giving him the keys; who extended the church to every part of the world, and declared it to be stronger than heaven (Philip Schaff,Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume X, Saint Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew, Homily 54.2-3; pp. 332-334).





He speaks from this time lowly things, on his way to His passion, that He might show His humanity. For He that hath built His church upon Peter’s confession, and has so fortified it, that ten thousand dangers and deaths are not to prevail over it...(Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume X, Chrysostom, On Matthew, Homily 82.3, p. 494).

 

[Cloud9]

And you know this, how?

Jesus said the fire of Gehenna never goes out,
and their worm dies not, presented here.

I wouldn't argue it. I would be Berean and research it.

I already gave two research sources in this thread.

Why would anyone in their right mind want the fire in the bible to be literal?

That is merciless thinking.

I like to think spiritual fire is like energy.

It says every knee will bow to God....this life isn't the cut off point for every knee bowing....God can make everyone who didn't bow in this life bow in the next one. He is that powerful.

Love saves the most not fear.

Do you really think God is going to raise everyone at the Great White Throne only to execute and torture endlessly 95 percent of the world's population?

I don't....that is why you research the ancient languages....the devil can quote scriptures...anybody can...but the ancient language words have fixed meanings....

 

[valiant]

I prefer what makes logical sense, and neither your false distiction petra/petros nor your assertion of sola scriptura can be justified logically, historically or biblically - all clutching at straws to avoid the obvious.

you have no conception of what logic is. It is the New Testament which makes the distinction between petra and petros. If you had any intelligence you would have realised that already. And the quotes I gave above show that the early fathers agreed with it. As to sola scriptura you are a heretic and a blind fool (accepting tradition in the place of the word of God) so I can understand that you cannot grasp it. It requires spirituality

So now you know the language of the holy land (you did not know this before)

you simply show your ignorance again. Galilee was bilingual. the people spoke both Greek and Aramaic. Across the sea of Galilee was Decapolis which was Greek speaking. Galilee traded with them Jesus spoke Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. In Caesarea Philippi among Greeks He therefore probably spoke Greek. But whether He did or not the evidence of the New Testament is clear. And the early fathers agree with me.

clear in acts 1:19 as Aramaic from the place you trust which is scripture, I

Peter would speak Aramaic in Jerusalem. But in Galilee and its surrounds he could speak in both Aramaic and Greek

I presume you will now recant your version

you're an even bigger fool than I thought you were

and accept as Luther and Calvin did that Peter is the rock.

why should it bother me what they thought?

And special, and the petra /petros distinction was just a creative intepretation of protestants to avoid the blindingly obvious!

is that why Augustine and the others made it? It is the intelligent interpretation looking at the passage as a whole.

 

[KenAllan]

Its interesting that you talked about casting out Demons mwc68. Have you ever read the Book of Matthew mwc68? I do not believe you have read it mwc68.

Matthew 7:21-23
[SUP]21 [/SUP] "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.
[SUP]22 [/SUP] Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, CAST OUT DEMONS in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?'
[SUP]23 [/SUP] And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'

Even Jesus Christ Himself says the casting out of Demons does not mean you are a True Christian! He says even those who do not follow Him and does not do the Will of the Father can cast out Demons!

Therefore the Catholic Church casting out Demons is a waste of time because it means NOTHING to Jesus Christ!

 

[valiant]

As for Augustine, he makes his views clear on succession in his letter to Generosus about donatists.

"2. For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it! Matthew 16:18

yes he makes quite clear that it is doubtful. Note how he says IF. In other words he is countering an argument without being sure of the validity of the argument. ' IF the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account'. He himself is not confident that it is. He had more sense.

Note also that he looks back to Peter as 'representing the whole church' not as being at the head of a line of bishops. He knew nothing of a succession of bishops in an apostolic succession that guaranteed their reliability. What then did he mean? I know it might be tricky for you with your limited intelligence but I will try to spell it out. What he is saying is that Peter = the church. He represents the church. In other words 'on this ROCK (of Peter's confession) I will build my church as represented by Peter, which was why the gates of Hell would not prevail against it.. You should READ things before getting too cocky

The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these:— Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius

This is in fact a false list up to 150 AD and contradicts Irenaeus' list. Besides there was no single bishop in Rome until 150 AD as the letters of Clement and Ignatius demonstrate. Clement made NO CLAIM to be sole bishop of Rome. When there was a sole bishop Ignatius named him. He named no bishop of Rome. These lists in the early part had been invented by people who had no idea of what originally happened. Thus Irenaeus and Augustine had them in different orders. THERE IS NO CLAIM HERE TO APOSTLIC SUCCESSION IN THE WAY CLAIMED BY THE ROMAN CATHOLIC HERETICAL SECT.

Clearly supporting my view and that of RCC

As I have shown it supports neither. You never argue a case you just assume it wrongly.

But then irenaus against heresies 3 says exactly the same, and many other ECF agree.

Again you deceive. Firstly Irenaeus list differs from this. Secondly he only names it as one of a number of lists of bishops for a number of Apostolic churches. He does not claim Apostolic succession for the church of Rome in the Roman Catholic sense.

You make the same logical error with ECF you do with sola scriptura. That those who do not say something is true, can therefore be assumed to say it was false.

You make the gross logical error of assuming that something which the early church saw very differently agrees with your churches high-faluted ideas. You try to play on people's ignorance. Neither Irenaeus or Augustin believed in apostolic succession in the sense that it gave the bishop of Rome a special position. In their day the bishop of Rome DID NOT HAVE A SPECIAL POSITION.

Which is the A AND B is not the same as NOT A and NOT B falacy.

Which as I have shown you is the fallacy that you indulge in.

Enrol on a course of logic valiant.

I suggest you start at Nursery School. You would not understand logic. You don't even know what it means.

All the ECF breathed...you cannot assume they do not because they do not say so .

well I assume they breathed. but they are not breathing now. if they were they would be holding their breath to see how you misrepresent them.

They were long on shouting down heresy, strange they do not all shout down the office of the papacy when it so clearly existed, if they thought it was heresy. WHy are they silent on that?

Because there was no office of the papacy in their day. The Roman church. although a little arrogant, had not got as arrogant as it became later. And when it became the Roman Catholic church in the 8th century it was even more arrogant.

The Papacy was not organized until the second half of the 8th century. It broke away from the Eastern Church under Pippin III (in the Ency. Brit., 13th Ed., vol. 21, page 636; also the Papacy, by Abbe Guette.") ​

 

[KenAllan]

Casting out Demons is NOT a sign that a person is a True Christian and God says so in Matthew 7:22!

When will you Catholics put aside your Pride, stop acting like Judas, and accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior?

How can you who have never seen Jesus ever expect to accept Him as your Lord and Savior when even those who HAVE seen Him REJECT Him? Judas being a good example. You Catholics are a LOT like Judas!

 

[MikeHenderson]

Cloud9 you are a good example of a false Christian! Its NOT what you think that is True, its what God SAYS in the Scriptures that is the Truth and the Truth is that those who reject Jesus Christ WILL be cast into the Lake of Fire to be punished for what they have done.

John 3:16
[SUP]16 [/SUP] For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

John 3:18
[SUP]18 [/SUP] He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

We who believe are NOT condemned, BUT those who do not believe IS CONDEMNED ALREADY!

Its not what YOU want the Scriptures to say, ITS what God says that is the TRUTH!

 

[ThomistColin]

sorry. that won't help you become saved. she will be raised up on judgment day to testify against you because you would not renounce your sin and evil complicity with the service to demons in the heresy and causing other souls to be lost.

So...Joan of Arc who was Catholic and taught Catholicism is saved but I'm not because I'm Catholic?

 

[SAVAS]

Just in case you found what Augustine said a little hard to follow here is another of his statements which I think you can cope with

Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer. (Augustine of Hippo Sermon 229).

Im glad you cite Orthodox teachings after all. Good for you V. Although your a bit out of your territory as this is not scripture, are you going to be ok? just kidding ok?

 

[ThomistColin]

Is that why you burned her? or was it because she had seen the errors of your church?

We didn't burn her. The English government burned her as a witch by tricking her into signing a confession that she was a witch. The Catholic Church isn't the English Crown.

 

[SAVAS]

you really are pig ignorant. Here are more quotes for you to get your lying tongue round. How you dare call yourself a Christian I do not know
Cyril of Alexandria


The Church is unshaken, and ‘the gates of hell shall not prevail against it,’ according to the voice of the Saviour, for it has Him for a foundation (Commentary on Zacharias
. )

Theodoret of Cyr




Other foundation no man can lay but that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus (1 Cor. iii.11). It is necessary to build upon, not to lay foundations. For it is impossible for him who wishes to build wisely to lay another foundation. The blessed Peter also laid this foundation, or rather the Lord Himself. For Peter having said, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God;’ the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build My Church.’ Therefore call not yourselves after men’s names, for Christ is the foundation (117Commentary on 1 Corinthians

1,12.)


John Chrysostom


So is it the case that Peter is now true, or that Christ is true in Peter? When the Lord Jesus Christ wished, he left Peter to himself, and Peter was found to be a man; and when it so pleased the Lord Jesus Christ, he filled Peter, and Peter was found to be true. The Rock had made Rocky Peter true, for the Rock was Christ


‘And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’; that is, on the faith of his confession. Hereby He signifies that many were on the point of believing, and raises his spirit, and makes him a shepherd.

Augustine of Hippo

And this Church, symbolized in its generality, was personified in the Apostle Peter, on account of the primacy of his apostleship. For, as regards his proper personality, he was by nature one man, by grace one Christian, by still more abounding grace one, and yet also, the first apostle; but when it was said to him, ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven,’ he represented the universal Church, which in this world is shaken by divers temptations, that come upon it like torrents of rain, floods and tempests, and falleth not, because it is founded upon a rock (petra), from which Peter received his name. For petra (rock) is not derived from Peter, but Peter from petra; just as Christ is not called so from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. For on this very account the Lord said, ‘On this rock will I build my Church,’ because Peter had said, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed, I will build my Church. For the Rock (Petra) was Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself built. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus. The Church, therefore, which is founded in Christ received from Him the keys of the kingdom of heaven in the person of Peter, that is to say, the power of binding and loosing sins. For what the Church is essentially in Christ, such representatively is Peter in the rock (petra); and in this representation Christ is to be understood as the Rock, Peter as the Church (Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume VII, St. Augustin,On the Gospel of John, Tractate 124.5).



Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer. (Augustine of Hippo Sermon 229).

John Chrysostom

‘And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’; that is, on the faith of his confession. Hereby He signifies that many were on the point of believing, and raises his spirit, and makes him a shepherd...For the Father gave to Peter the revelation of the Son; but the Son gave him to sow that of the Father and that of Himself in every part of the world; and to mortal man He entrusted the authority over all things in Heaven, giving him the keys; who extended the church to every part of the world, and declared it to be stronger than heaven (Philip Schaff,Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume X, Saint Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew, Homily 54.2-3; pp. 332-334).





He speaks from this time lowly things, on his way to His passion, that He might show His humanity. For He that hath built His church upon Peter’s confession, and has so fortified it, that ten thousand dangers and deaths are not to prevail over it...(Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume X, Chrysostom, On Matthew, Homily 82.3, p. 494).

Look at you!

 

[Elin]

And you know the fire of Gehenna is not literal but spiritual, how?

Jesus said the fire of Gehenna never goes out,
and their worm dies not, presented here.

I wouldn't argue it.

Good choice. . .

I would be Berean and research it.

I already gave two research sources in this thread.

Why would anyone in their right mind want the fire in the bible to be literal?

That is merciless thinking.

Why would anyone in their right mind want to be subject to the wrath of God by being apart from Christ,
but there it is right there in Jn 3:36; Ro 5:9, 1:18; Eph 5:6; Col 3:6; 1Th 1:10; Rev 19:15.

That is neither "wrathful" nor "merciless" thinking.
That is Biblical thinking.

Your problem is unbelief. . .not "the ancient languages."

I like to think spiritual fire is like energy.

It says every knee will bow to God....this life isn't the cut off point for every knee bowing....God can make everyone who didn't bow in this life bow in the next one. He is that powerful.

Love saves the most not fear.

Do you really think God is going to raise everyone at the Great White Throne only to execute and torture endlessly 95 percent of the world's population?

I don't....that is why you research the ancient languages....the devil can quote scriptures...anybody can...but the ancient language words have fixed meanings....

The meaning of the language of the NT is clear.

No need to cloak one's unbelief in the unknown meaning of "the ancient languages."

 

[Elin]

your false distiction petros/petra

Check it out. . .the distinction is not false.

 

[mwc68]

Had a wonderful time at Mass tonight! I'm the youth choir director and they sang their hearts out. i prayed for all of you, please. pray for me!

 

[Jeff_56]

On what basis.....

if you agree with heresy, you are a heretic. period. yahweh condemns heretics. yahweh's WORD. not man. not men. not me.

......So for the record, Catholicism is heresy. ...........
This is preaching to the choir for most people here. But it regularly happens that we start to accumulate Catholics here who really promote and argue their Catholicism, along with all the heresy.
So for the record, if anyone wants or needs to hear it, we don't agree with Catholic heresy. And yes it is heresy.....
roaringkitten, evi, miktre and 96 others like this.(ALL of the ekklesia/ true believers in JESUS like this - because it is GOD'S WORD. in line with ALL of GOD'S WORD. not man's opinion. (remember the catholics all go along with man's opinion INSTEAD of GOD'S WORD - they have ALL admitted it here. )

for a time, all the reformers proved from SCRIPTURE the papacy is antichrist. (no, not 'the' antichrist; but antichrist - totally demonic, ruled by satan, and always opposed to the GOSPEL OF JESUS.

the ekklesia have always know it, from 100 a.d. to the present.

so, you who go along with antichrist doctrines, doctrines of demons, you remain lost until if ever yahweh has mercy on you. there is no exception.

that is yahweh's WORD. SCRIPTURE. all of the ekklesia agree. (everyone born again in JESUS).

 

[Jackson123]

I remember about 41 years ago, I visit one of the remote church. It is in the transmigration area, Majority are Muslim.

One day, one of our member die, we don't have christian cemetery, we bury our member in the muslim cemetery.

after about a week they protest and ask us to dig the grave and remove it from Muslim cemetery.

Vatican was a pagan graveyard. no wonder some people discover human bones

If one said Peter buried there, look odd. How christian leader buried in pagan cemetery?


[h=1]The Vatican's Pagan Cemetery[/h]By Barbie Nadeau

Funerary statue of an infant with inscription 'Tiberius Natronius Vemustus' from the family tomb of the Natronii family—part of the pagan cemetery uncovered beneath the Vatican

Oct. 13, 2006 - Just inside the Vatican's fortified walls, directly below the street connecting its private pharmacy and its members-only supermarket, lies a 2,000-year-old graveyard littered with bizarre, often disturbing displays of pagan worship. Under one metallic walkway, the headless skeleton of a young boy rests in an open grave. At his side, a marble replica of a hen's egg, which to pagans represented the rebirth of the body through reincarnation. Nearby, countless skeletons lie scattered among the remnants of terra cotta vases used in pagan ceremonies. The underground air is damp with the smell of wet dirt, and the clay tubes used by the pagans to feed their dead with honey and syrup still protrude, fingerlike, from the ground.

 

[mwc68]

Casting out Demons is NOT a sign that a person is a True Christian and God says so in Matthew 7:22!

When will you Catholics put aside your Pride, stop acting like Judas, and accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior?

How can you who have never seen Jesus ever expect to accept Him as your Lord and Savior when even those who HAVE seen Him REJECT Him? Judas being a good example. You Catholics are a LOT like Judas!

i have accepted Jesus Christ and hischurch. all you are saying is lies interesting that you think you are God and can judge another man's heart

 

[Jeff_56]

what you are calling his church is proven heresy. so since you're in proven heresy, as GOD'S WORD says,
that makes GOD'S WORD your judge.

 

[Cloud9]

Good choice. . .


Why would anyone in their right mind want to be subject to the wrath of God by being apart from Christ,
but there it is right there in Jn 3:36; Ro 5:9, 1:18; Eph 5:6; Col 3:6; 1Th 1:10; Rev 19:15.

That is neither "wrathful" nor "merciless" thinking.
That is Biblical thinking.

Your problem is unbelief. . .not "the ancient languages."


The meaning of the language of the NT is clear.

No need to cloak one's unbelief in the unknown meaning of "the ancient languages."

You just won't quit will you.

You think zeal is higher than knowledge.

Well zeal with knowledge is better.

This may be hard for you to believe but I was raised just like the majority on hell doctrine.

Until one day I had the good sense to question it and research it......Who was that like?

Oh yes, Martin Luther who questioned the authority of the popes.

If you think you don't have to check the root meanings of certain words in the ancient languages and the history of what happened in the church's past then you are nothing but an ostrich deliberately sticking his head in the sand.

The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is not Molech....God said it was not in his mind to sacrifice people to the fire like Molech believers did and the bible also says that God is not a man to change his mind.

Now don't argue with me again....research or be quiet....if you are Berean then you'll research otherwise you are just another mindless Thessalonian going along with the crowd.

Because God never says you can't check....He says just the opposite....He says the seekers are the kings in Proverbs.