Catholic Heresy (for the record)

[valiant]

Hebrews 12:22-23 speaks of spirits in Heavenwho have been made perfect. Where is a spirit made perfect? Could they possibly undergo a type of purging? we must be perfect, Matt 5:48. We all sin. after we are "saved". Unconfessed sin will be dealt with and it isn't Hell.

Just as at the snatching away of the living saints they will be transformed instantly (1 Thess 4.13-18; 1 Cor 15.52; Phil 3.21) so does the same happen to a true Christian when he dies. He is 'absent from the body, present with the LORD' (2 Cor 5.7). He goes 'to be with Christ which is far better' (Phil 1.23). His spirit is immediately 'made perfect'. Any purging is instantaneous. No need for Roman Catholic myths.

 

[valiant]

I have been taught these truths of the faith and i believe them. Can I teach them back? No, obviously, I am not a theologian nor do i pretend to be, although i can teach guitar

Yes you have been taught them by a corrupted church that has to cling on to its past because it claims to have been infallible when many of its popes are in the deepest Hell.,

 

[mwc68]

Just as at the snatching away of the living saints they will be transformed instantly (1 Thess 4.13-18; 1 Cor 15.52; Phil 3.21) so does the same happen to a true Christian when he dies. He is 'absent from the body, present with the LORD' (2 Cor 5.7). He goes 'to be with Christ which is far better' (Phil 1.23). His spirit is immediately 'made perfect'. Any purging is instantaneous. No need for Roman Catholic myths.

Purgatory is not Hell. I trust the teaching on this and the reference to 2 Maccabees is another awesome scripture in support of purgatory. I wasn't going to use it since most of you don't have it

 

[valiant]

The Church is one, Rom 12:5, 1Cor 10:17. The Church is holy Eph 5:25-27, Rev 19:7-8.The Church is Catholic, Matt 28:19-20, Rev 5:9-10. The Church is apostolic, Eph 2:19-20. This is the Catholic Church!

But NOT the Roman Catholic church. That came into existence when it seceded from the Catholic church in the 8th century AD and set up its Pope. It is still in secession. It is not part of the one Catholic and Apostolic church to which all true Christians of whatever denomination belong.

The Biblical church was one spiritually. It did not have one hierarchy. We are still one spiritually today.

 

[valiant]

Purgatory is not Hell. I trust the teaching on this and the reference to 2 Maccabees is another awesome scripture in support of purgatory. I wasn't going to use it since most of you don't have it

Very wise. In fact 2 Maccabees is full of historical errors. It was not accepted by Jesus Christ. Thus it is not a reliable source.

Of course you do have to go outside Scripture to find such a false doctrine. It denies 'absent from the body, present with the LORD.'

 

[mwc68]

But NOT the Roman Catholic church. That came into existence when it seceded from the Catholic church in the 8th century AD and set up its Pope. It is still in secession. It is not part of the one Catholic and Apostolic church to which all true Christians of whatever denomination belong.

The Biblical church was one spiritually. It did not have one hierarchy. We are still one spiritually today.

sir, i am Catholic and Peter was the first pope we are just going to differ on this

 

[mwc68]

Very wise. In fact 2 Maccabees is full of historical errors. It was not accepted by Jesus Christ. Thus it is not a reliable source.

Of course you do have to go outside Scripture to find such a false doctrine. It denies 'absent from the body, present with the LORD.'

According to who? I don't remember Jesus saying don't put Maccabees in the bible. In fact i don't remember Jesus saying to make the bible. Nowhere in scripture does Jesus say you must make the bible your sole authority

 

[notuptome]

I have been taught these truths of the faith and i believe them. Can I teach them back? No, obviously, I am not a theologian nor do i pretend to be, although i can teach guitar

There is no virtue in any belief no matter how dearly held if it is wrong and against the teaching of the bible. I do not doubt your sincerity but you veracity is another matter altogether.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[valiant]

sir, i am Catholic and Peter was the first pope we are just going to differ on this

No you are ROMAN Catholic. Produce proof before 170 AD that Peter was ever in Rome. After that date all information is unreliable. It was over 100 years after the event. 1 Clement knows nothing of his presence in Rome and demonstrates there was no single bishop in Rome at that time. Ignatius always addressed the bishop when writing to the churches, but when he wrote to Rome he did not do so. Why? Because there was no monarchical bishop.

Paul knew nothing of a presence of Peter in Rome. Indeed Peter was an apostle to the circumcised. Which was why he was in Babylon where there was a huge population of Jews. All the evidence presented earlier points to Peter having been buried in Jerusalem. There is no contemporary evidence for his presence in Rome whatsoever.

Besides he would never have agreed to be called Pope (Papa). It was strictly forbidden by Jesus.

 

[notuptome]

According to who? I don't remember Jesus saying don't put Maccabees in the bible. In fact i don't remember Jesus saying to make the bible. Nowhere in scripture does Jesus say you must make the bible your sole authority

The very teaching is refuted by Peter in his epistle. 1 Peter 1:18-19. That is an example of why Maccabees was rejected from the canon of scripture.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[mwc68]

Yes you have been taught them by a corrupted church that has to cling on to its past because it claims to have been infallible when many of its popes are in the deepest Hell.,

That is just rude and childish. How do you know? Satan found out what happens when you play God!

 

[valiant]

According to who? I don't remember Jesus saying don't put Maccabees in the bible. In fact i don't remember Jesus saying to make the bible. Nowhere in scripture does Jesus say you must make the bible your sole authority

Jesus called the Scribe blind fools because they put tradition before the word of God. What is that if it is not Jesus giving authority to the Scriptures?. He said that not one jot or tittle of the Torah would fail until all had been fulfilled. What is that if it is not giving authority to the Scriptures?. He constantly said, 'it is written' as evidence. What is that if it is not giving authority to the Scriptures?. He said 'Scripture cannot be broken'. What is that if it is not giving authority to the Scriptures?

He cited which Scriptures were authoritative after He was raised from the dead. They were the Torah, the Prophets and the Psalms (Hagiographa). What is that but 'making the Bible'?

No mention of your false books which He did not accept.

 

[valiant]

That is just rude and childish. How do you know? Satan found out what happens when you play God!

From 700 AD to 1500 AD they were murderers and adulterers, something which cannot be historically denied. It is too well documented. And 'no murderer has eternal life abiding in him'. Thus the conclusion is clear. It is not me who is playing God, but God.

 

[mwc68]

Jesus called the Scribe blind fools because they put tradition before the word of God. What is that if it is not Jesus giving authority to the Scriptures?. He said that not one jot or tittle of the Torah would fail until all had been fulfilled. What is that if it is not giving authority to the Scriptures?. He constantly said, 'it is written' as evidence. What is that if it is not giving authority to the Scriptures?. He said 'Scripture cannot be broken'. What is that if it is not giving authority to the Scriptures?

He cited which Scriptures were authoritative after He was raised from the dead. They were the Torah, the Prophets and the Psalms (Hagiographa). What is that but 'making the Bible'?

No mention of your false books which He did not accept.

will have to look into this, i can't just take your word. I do know that Paul wrote to Timothy as instructions to the Church to teach all we have taught you whether by word of mouth or by letter. This oral teaching is Sacred Tradition
I

 

[mwc68]

There is no virtue in any belief no matter how dearly held if it is wrong and against the teaching of the bible. I do not doubt your sincerity but you veracity is another matter altogether.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Sir, i study the faith and have seen the scriptures that prove the doctrine is sound. i am still not convinced that you know anything except the constant propaganda you use and sometimes out right hatred for the Church. In my studies this tells me a lot concerning character

 

[valiant]

will have to look into this, i can't just take your word. I do know that Paul wrote to Timothy as instructions to the Church to teach all we have taught you whether by word of mouth or by letter. This oral teaching is Sacred Tradition
I

I await the results of your investigation. Don't fail like you did on the list of heresies I gave you.

Yes and that sacred tradition was recorded in the Gospels which were accepted from the beginning. There is no hint of any other sacred tradition carried forward by the early church. You grasp at straws.

 

[valiant]

Sir, i study the faith and have seen the scriptures that prove the doctrine is sound. i am still not convinced that you know anything except the constant propaganda you use and sometimes out right hatred for the Church. In my studies this tells me a lot concerning character

strange then that you are unable to produce them. as you say you study the Roman Catholic faith, not the Scriptures. that explains it

 

[mwc68]

I await the results of your investigation. Don't fail like you did on the list of heresies I gave you.

Yes and that sacred tradition was recorded in the Gospels which were accepted from the beginning. There is no hint of any other sacred tradition carried forward by the early church. You grasp at straws.

Could yall quit personalizing this as if mwc68 started the Church and wrote catachism

 

[mwc68]

strange then that you are unable to produce them. as you say you study the Roman Catholic faith, not the Scriptures. that explains it

Well you have no faith with any type of authority, so nothing to study there

 

[kennethcadwell]

So you will take the authority of a church that gives false history when real history is out there to be read, and from a church that bends and twists scripture, and even has had a couple of popes who have made statements that what they say is to be followed rather it contradicts scripture.

Here is the true history of catholic............

The word catholic (with lowercase c; derived via Late Latin catholicus, from the Greek adjective καθολικός (katholikos), meaning "universal"[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP]) comes from the Greek phraseκαθόλου (katholou), meaning "on the whole", "according to the whole" or "in general", and is a combination of the Greek words κατά meaning "about" and ὅλος meaning "whole".[SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP] The word in English can mean either "including a wide variety of things; all-embracing" or "of the Roman Catholic faith" as "relating to the historic doctrine and practice of the Western Church.".[SUP][5][/SUP] ("Catholicos, the title used for the head of some churches in Eastern Christian traditions, is derived from the same linguistic origin.)
The term Catholic (usually written with uppercase C in English) was first used to describe the Christian Church in the early 2nd century to emphasize its universal scope. In the context of Christian ecclesiology, it has a rich history and several usages. In non-ecclesiastical use, it derives its English meaning directly from its root, and is currently used to mean the following:

• universal or of general interest;
• liberal, having broad interests, or wide sympathies;[SUP][6][/SUP] or
• inclusive, inviting and containing strong evangelism.

The term has been incorporated into the name of the largest Christian communion, the Catholic Church (also called the Roman Catholic Church). However, many other Christians use the term "Catholic" (sometimes with a lower-case letter "c") to refer more broadly to the whole Christian Church or to all believers in Jesus Christ regardless of denominational affiliation.[SUP][7][/SUP][SUP][8]



[/SUP][SUP]The Apostle Peter was crucified upside down in the 1st century of the early church, and the Catholic church was formed in the 2nd century.
Peter can not be a pope of a church denomination that did not exist yet !!![/SUP]

Please get out of the false history taught by the Catholic church as Peter was never the first pope...

First of all Peter was crucified upside down by the Romans while Emperor Nero was in charge, and he was emperor from 54 to 68 AD.

Second the term catholic and the church going by the name of the Catholic church was not heard of and formed tell the 2nd century (101-200 AD).

Third, so you can see that Peter was crucified at least 35 years before the Catholic church was even formed so he could not have been the first pope.

I will repost these again and maybe it will start to be looked into since once again by your quote below you still believe Peter was the first pope even thought their is plenty of historic documents and history to prove other wise. As Peter can not have been the pope of a church that did not exist in his time. He could not be a Catholic pope in the 1st century, when the term and usage of Catholic being used was done tell the 2nd century..........

sir, i am Catholic and Peter was the first pope we are just going to differ on this