Orthodox Christianity

[Cassian]

Oh, are you talking about the Jewish Scriptures written by Jews"? Both OT and NT. chuckle, Jesus already had recognized the OT and the NT was recognized long before Mother Church. Acts 15 had some of the very Jewish writers present. Rome is a sorry usurper.

I see you are also one that is confused by Rome as well. But also seem to condemn the Church, the Apostles, the bishops that followed who all contributed to the forming of the scriptures. You wouldn't be one of those Protestants who by their remarks thinks the Bible just dropped out of the sky and into the Reformers hands, are you?

You also seem confused about when that Mother Church began. Just so you know, it was about 33 AD at Pentecost. What NT do you know of that existed prior to that date?

The worse case is that you might believe that the NT was written in 33 AD and then handed out to people in Ephesus and Corinth. You work so hard to condemn the very thing all sola scripturists hold as their ONLY source of faith and practice, the Bible being originated by apostates. Maybe that is the rationale one needs to use in order to account for one's personal authority over a text to determine what it means.

 

[jamie26301]

You wouldn't be one of those Protestants who by their remarks thinks the Bible just dropped out of the sky and into the Reformers hands, are you?

Sheesh, of course that's not what happened! Everyone knows King James received and translated Scripture from a set of golden plates and.... wait...

(I jest, I jest)

You work so hard to condemn the very thing all sola scripturists hold as their ONLY source of faith and practice, the Bible being originated by apostates. Maybe that is the rationale one needs to use in order to account for one's personal authority over a text to determine what it means.

That's the interesting thing about it, isn't it? Everyone can read it and decided for themselves what it absolutely says, and dictate to others via church authority or government what they should be doing... regardless that it will contradict the next person's reading. What could go wrong?

(again, I jest. getting late, lol)

 

[Ahwatukee]

Ahwatukee,

I understand what Rome states. You should know that the whole theory is based on the false Credals of Isidore and Constantine.

The fact that they use the word "Pope" has nothing to do with the supremacy of the papacy. They will also argue that "Primacy" means absolute universal authority over the whole Church. However, theologically and historically that has never occurred prior to their splitting after 1054.

The Pope never presided over an Ecumenical Council. In fact was absent from several.

Every early Church has a list of its bishops which is what the Pope was before 1054.

Also, Peter was never a bishop and if he would have been, Jerusalem would have been the seat, or secondly Antioch. The ONLY reason that Rome became the seat of Primacy is that it was the capital of the Empire. It has nothing to do with any theological reason nor with Peter.

You have been beguiled by Rome. You are not the only one. The entire western world was fooled and beguiled by them long before they actually split. The division did not begin with Constantine, but with the fall of Rome in 476. That one single event began the total isolation of Rome from the rest of the Roman Empire. In the chaos the only recognizable entity that had some authority was the Bishop of Rome. Because of the vacuum he assumed political power and began the geographic hegemony as well. It is because he exercised secular control absolutely, he thought that it could extend to the Church as well. The Church had been conciliar from the beginning with each and every bishop of equal status. Rome attempted to change it and the Pope's placed themselves above Christ as head of the Church and gave themselves the autority that belongs to Christ.
So, I suggest that you go back to your study of history since you have both been quite incorrect.

Next time don't make your ignorace so bold.

I'll leave you with your beliefs, but for the truth about Roman Catholicism and her history, I would suggest that you pick up a copy of "A Woman Rides the Beast: The Roman Catholic Church and the Last Days" by Dave Hunt.

 

[Cassian]

I'll leave you with your beliefs, but for the truth about Roman Catholicism and her history, I would suggest that you pick up a copy of "A Woman Rides the Beast: The Roman Catholic Church and the Last Days" by Dave Hunt.

It seems Dave Hunt has been duped as well. A typical protestant trying to defame Catholicism in order to elevate one's own false teachings.

Fortunately, historical facts cannot be changed, even if certain individuals slant them.

 

[crossnote]

I see you are also one that is confused by Rome as well. But also seem to condemn the Church, the Apostles, the bishops that followed who all contributed to the forming of the scriptures. You wouldn't be one of those Protestants who by their remarks thinks the Bible just dropped out of the sky and into the Reformers hands, are you?

You also seem confused about when that Mother Church began. Just so you know, it was about 33 AD at Pentecost. What NT do you know of that existed prior to that date?

The worse case is that you might believe that the NT was written in 33 AD and then handed out to people in Ephesus and Corinth. You work so hard to condemn the very thing all sola scripturists hold as their ONLY source of faith and practice, the Bible being originated by apostates. Maybe that is the rationale one needs to use in order to account for one's personal authority over a text to determine what it means.

My point is that it was the Jews who wrote the Scriptures but you conveniently ignored that part and instead want to live in the delusion that your fantasy Church gave us the Scriptures.

 

[crossnote]

Sheesh, of course that's not what happened! Everyone knows King James received and translated Scripture from a set of golden plates and.... wait...

(I jest, I jest)


That's the interesting thing about it, isn't it? Everyone can read it and decided for themselves what it absolutely says, and dictate to others via church authority or government what they should be doing... regardless that it will contradict the next person's reading. What could go wrong?

(again, I jest. getting late, lol)

No, but a peasant filled with God's Spirit and Word can show forth more godly wisdom than one brainwashed in the Ecclesiatical dogma of a dead religion decked in gold and pomp.

 

[Cassian]

My point is that it was the Jews who wrote the Scriptures but you conveniently ignored that part and instead want to live in the delusion that your fantasy Church gave us the Scriptures.

Are you a Jew who only holds to the OT?

If not your statement is quite incorrect historically. You might have meant that the Apostles were Jews, but they wrote the NT from within the Church after Pentecost. I know of only one Church that Christ established with the Apostles and entrusted His revelation to them.
Paul was the first to write a letter in early to mid 50's some twenty years after the Church was founded, established and practiced it without the NT. I think you should restudy how you got the book you call the Bible. I might also add that the Council in the 4th century officially adopted the Septuagint with the Deuterocononicals as the OT. Something Protestants saw fit to change as well.

So, we are right back to the beginning. The Church, the Body of Christ, established by Christ which is enlivened by the Holy Spirit gave us God's revelation and has guarded and preserved it unchanged since the beginning.

Now you may call Christ's Church a fantasy if it helps you to rationalize your definition. It actually is almost blasphemy since you are ascribing the work of the Holy Spirit as that of Satan or apostates.

 

[crossnote]

Are you a Jew who only holds to the OT?

If not your statement is quite incorrect historically. You might have meant that the Apostles were Jews, but they wrote the NT from within the Church after Pentecost. I know of only one Church that Christ established with the Apostles and entrusted His revelation to them.
Paul was the first to write a letter in early to mid 50's some twenty years after the Church was founded, established and practiced it without the NT. I think you should restudy how you got the book you call the Bible. I might also add that the Council in the 4th century officially adopted the Septuagint with the Deuterocononicals as the OT. Something Protestants saw fit to change as well.

So, we are right back to the beginning. The Church, the Body of Christ, established by Christ which is enlivened by the Holy Spirit gave us God's revelation and has guarded and preserved it unchanged since the beginning.

Now you may call Christ's Church a fantasy if it helps you to rationalize your definition. It actually is almost blasphemy since you are ascribing the work of the Holy Spirit as that of Satan or apostates.

Are you a Jew who only holds to the OT?

Kinda dumb. I'm not Jewish. My point for the third time is that the Jews wrote all the bible, both OT and NT. I know that may come as a shock to one steeped in a Church with a long history of antisemitism.

I think you should restudy how you got the book you call the Bible.

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
(2Pe 1:20-21)

There, that wasn't hard.

I didn't call Christ's Church a fantasy, I called the apostate Roman Catholic Church a fantasy...let me add, and a chameleon which continues to change it's stance on issues.

 

[Ahwatukee]

Kinda dumb. I'm not Jewish. My point for the third time is that the Jews wrote all the bible, both OT and NT. I know that may come as a shock to one steeped in a Church with a long history of antisemitism.


Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
(2Pe 1:20-21)

There, that wasn't hard.

Very true crossnote and .....

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God[SUP]a[/SUP] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

 

[Cassian]

Kinda dumb. I'm not Jewish. My point for the third time is that the Jews wrote all the bible, both OT and NT. I know that may come as a shock to one steeped in a Church with a long history of antisemitism.


Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
(2Pe 1:20-21)

There, that wasn't hard.

I didn't call Christ's Church a fantasy, I called the apostate Roman Catholic Church a fantasy...let me add, and a chameleon which continues to change it's stance on issues.

But I'm not Roman Catholic. Maybe you should at least understand what and with whom you are discussing. Explains a lot of why you are so far afield in your responses.

 

[crossnote]

But I'm not Roman Catholic. Maybe you should at least understand what and with whom you are discussing. Explains a lot of why you are so far afield in your responses.

Ditto on your response...

Are you a Jew who only holds to the OT?

 

[Ahwatukee]

Hey crossnote, have you ever read "A Woman Rides the Beast: The Roman Catholic Church in the Last Days" by Dave Hunt? It is very detailed regarding the RCC's history, her pope's, the RCC's involvement in all three inquisitions and much, much more. It is very informative.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Kinda dumb. I'm not Jewish. My point for the third time is that the Jews wrote all the bible, both OT and NT. I know that may come as a shock to one steeped in a Church with a long history of antisemitism.

I am amazed at how blind some people can be. Not only did the jews write all of scripture. But they considered it scripture the moment it was written and handed out to all churches (in fact pauls writings are called scripture by Peter himself and Mark is quoted as scripture)

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
(2Pe 1:20-21)

There, that wasn't hard.

I didn't call Christ's Church a fantasy, I called the apostate Roman Catholic Church a fantasy...let me add, and a chameleon which continues to change it's stance on issues.

Orthodoxy would be included in this. All the roman church, eastern and western, is a satanic cult which forced its form of pagan christianity on the world. and killed or jailed anyone who did not follow their way. (murder n the name of Christ)

 

[eternally-gratefull]

It seems Dave Hunt has been duped as well. A typical protestant trying to defame Catholicism in order to elevate one's own false teachings.

Fortunately, historical facts cannot be changed, even if certain individuals slant them.

Sadly historical so called facts written by a power is biased according to what the power wants it to be (imagine how history would be if Germany won WW2, it would be so different)

So relying on history is a flawed and foolish idea (Israel made the same mistake) much like the idea that some church 300 and some year AFTER a book was completed actually takes credit for said book.

 

[Is]

Well, she is blessed. I can't imagine a girl giving 'birth' to God in the flesh, but it happened.

Actually, Gabriel called her "highly favored" not blessed, it was the people that called her blessed.

 

[Is]

And yet there are many sola scripturists, and denominations that do not hold to that theological fact. Some use the term but have an altogether different concept of the Incarnation. Even the RCC has changed the meaning.

If a person is "Spirit filled" they know exactly what it means.

 

[Is]

Typical misunderstanding or just ignorance. The question was regarding canonized saints. There is a difference.

God alone has the right to judge a persons spirit.

 

[Is]

Since the RCC was established after 1054 you are about 1200 years late.

What always puzzles me is that one condemns something that supposedly gave you your Bible. How can you be sure that, according to you, an apostate Church determined the Canon.

You'r a bit confused on the origins of the RCC and it didn't give anyone the Bible, it was God Almighty that used the RCC to collect the books.


This “Dragon in the Sea or DAGON the Fish God” called leviathan in scripture was worshipped by those in ancient Babylon and associated with Nimrod the first High Priest of Dagon. Worship of Dagon spread after YHVH confused the languages and scattered humanity across the globe. It was this religion that was prevalent and continued at the time Rome destroyed Jerusalem. It was this religion of Dagon that permeated the high priestly ranks of paganism and was the foundation of The Catholic Church which even today continues to wear the priestly garments of Dagon:





https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifex_maximus

 

[Cassian]

Is,

You'r a bit confused on the origins of the RCC and it didn't give anyone the Bible, it was God Almighty that used the RCC to collect the books

besides being incorrect you would have had a contradition.
You are using terms interchangeably that had very specific meaning at the time. The Catholic Church existed from the beginning, even though it did not use that name or term in the first century. The Catholic Church existed unchanged until the 12th century when the Pope, the bishop of Rome separated himself from the Church again. Over the next couple of centuries efforts were made to bring the Bishop of Rome back into the Church. That did not happen. It is during this time that the bishop of Rome adopted the term Roman Catholic. The other four Pentarchs took the name or term Orthodox.

So, thus the RCC began in and about 1054 when the split occured that has never been unified.

You are correct in that God, by the Holy Spirit working within the Body of Christ, gave the Church the Canonized Bible as we have it today. Protestants have changed it to exclude the Deuteroconomicals. It was the Church that wrote the texts along with many that never became part of scripture.

What is also ironic is that the Roman Catholic Church is actually neither Roman nor catholic by the correct original meaning of those terms.

 

[Is]

Is,


besides being incorrect you would have had a contradition.
You are using terms interchangeably that had very specific meaning at the time. The Catholic Church existed from the beginning, even though it did not use that name or term in the first century. The Catholic Church existed unchanged until the 12th century when the Pope, the bishop of Rome separated himself from the Church again. Over the next couple of centuries efforts were made to bring the Bishop of Rome back into the Church. That did not happen. It is during this time that the bishop of Rome adopted the term Roman Catholic. The other four Pentarchs took the name or term Orthodox.

So, thus the RCC began in and about 1054 when the split occured that has never been unified.

You are correct in that God, by the Holy Spirit working within the Body of Christ, gave the Church the Canonized Bible as we have it today. Protestants have changed it to exclude the Deuteroconomicals. It was the Church that wrote the texts along with many that never became part of scripture.

What is also ironic is that the Roman Catholic Church is actually neither Roman nor catholic by the correct original meaning of those terms.

Do the "orthodox" wear the split miter?

Pope Seated On Satan's Throne