Catholic Heresy (for the record)
- Thread starter RoboOp
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Originally Posted by valiant
I have given you any number of verses which confirm that the Scriptures are the sole place of prime authority. You just ignore the ones you cant answer. Jesus condemned the Scribes for looking to tradition rather than the word of God, the Scriptures. THAT is making the Scriptures the sole authority. He called those who preferred tradition 'blind fools'. In other words He was sola scriptura.
I have noticed that you will not face up to facts. It is your constant problem.
I have noticed that you will not face up to facts. It is your constant problem.
[h=1]To say catholic apostolic/base on the teaching of apostle is to lie.
Apostle never teach something against the bible.
This pope put/entrust his hope to Mary/human.
Psalm 146:3-5King James Version (KJV)[/h]3 Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.
4 His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.
5 Happy is he that hath the God of Jacob for his help, whose hope is in the Lord his God:
King James Version (KJV)
In front of Fatima statue, Pope Francis entrusts the world to Mary
It's mean Catholic is lie, this fact she doesn't believe the bible
Apostle never teach something against the bible.
This pope put/entrust his hope to Mary/human.
Psalm 146:3-5King James Version (KJV)[/h]3 Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.
4 His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.
5 Happy is he that hath the God of Jacob for his help, whose hope is in the Lord his God:
King James Version (KJV)
In front of Fatima statue, Pope Francis entrusts the world to Mary
by Francis X Rocca
posted Monday, 14 Oct 2013
posted Monday, 14 Oct 2013
It's mean Catholic is lie, this fact she doesn't believe the bible
R
God now has a physical body since Jesus is God and took on physical flesh. Previously, however the Bible had said that God is not a man in the Old Testament. But now Jesus became man, as the Creed says. So God became man (but not in God's divinity). It is in that incarnational, physical sense that God has a mother. It's not misleading, because Catholics know 100% that Jesus existed before Mary did, not the other way around.
St Jerome's Vulgate translation says "conceive" in that passage in Isaiah: "Propter hoc dabit Dominus ipse vobis signum:
ecce virgo concipiet, et pariet filium..." And remember, St. Jerome and the other Church fathers were the ones who decided on the Creeds and the books of the Bible.
I admit that Isaiah says "with child", not literally "conceive". However, Luke 1:31 does specify that Mary "conceived":
"And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus."
So Mary "conceived" and she had a "son", and that "son" was Christ-God, the Logos. So Mary was the physical mother of her incarnated Son the Logos, in that she physically bore Him.
The verb in Luke 1 is sullambanó, which means "to collect, i.e. to take, by impl. to take part with, spec. to conceive" (Strong's Dictionary). That is the same etymology for the Latin word "conceive", which also means "to take", particularly "to take into the womb". Online Etymology Dictionary
The medieval Catholic Church did make up some things, and the immaculate conception is one of them. But not all their teachings are medieval, unBiblical inventions. The phrase "mother of God" is one from the era of the Church fathers and it reflects the normal idea of earthly conception that Christ underwent in the Incarnation. You and I understand the substance of the idea of Mary birthing Christ the same way. No incorrect inferences need be drawn from this.
St Jerome's Vulgate translation says "conceive" in that passage in Isaiah: "Propter hoc dabit Dominus ipse vobis signum:
ecce virgo concipiet, et pariet filium..." And remember, St. Jerome and the other Church fathers were the ones who decided on the Creeds and the books of the Bible.
I admit that Isaiah says "with child", not literally "conceive". However, Luke 1:31 does specify that Mary "conceived":
"And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus."
So Mary "conceived" and she had a "son", and that "son" was Christ-God, the Logos. So Mary was the physical mother of her incarnated Son the Logos, in that she physically bore Him.
The verb in Luke 1 is sullambanó, which means "to collect, i.e. to take, by impl. to take part with, spec. to conceive" (Strong's Dictionary). That is the same etymology for the Latin word "conceive", which also means "to take", particularly "to take into the womb". Online Etymology Dictionary
The medieval Catholic Church did make up some things, and the immaculate conception is one of them. But not all their teachings are medieval, unBiblical inventions. The phrase "mother of God" is one from the era of the Church fathers and it reflects the normal idea of earthly conception that Christ underwent in the Incarnation. You and I understand the substance of the idea of Mary birthing Christ the same way. No incorrect inferences need be drawn from this.
Last edited by a moderator:
God does not have a physical body. Neither the Father nor the Spirit are connected with the physical. The Son became man but was never restrained within a physical body. You are slack in your definitions.
And that is still true. God is not a man, even though the Son took on Himself manhood. It is true that we do not understand how that manhood fits into the Godhead, but it is total misrepresentation to say that God is a man. Neither the Father nor the Spirit is in any way a man. And even whilst the Son became man His Godhood far transcends His manhood.
the words you put in brackets are the most important ones. The whole of the Godhead did not become man. It was only one persona of the Godhead that became man.
God does not have a mother. Ask the Father whether He has a mother. Mary was the bearer (not real mother) of God becoming man. In any real sense it was the Holy Spirit Who conceived Him..
It is completely misleading as the early church recognised. You have only to look at the Roman Catholic Church's exaltation of Mary to see how they have been misled. It is slack talk like yours that has led to some of the present heresies in the RC. Mary is not presiding in Heaven as the mother of God nor even as the mother of Jesus Christ. Even whilst on earth Jesus Christ dispensed with her motherhood. She had been a kind of surrogate mother.
Jerome is responsible for a number of the heresies of the Roman Catholic church and his translation reflected those heresies. The Vulgate is not a reliable translation. Jerome had nothing to do with the early creeds. Nor did the church fathers 'decide on the books of the Bible'. The Old Testament was confirmed by Jesus. The letters of Paul were confirmed as Scripture by Peter and were gathered at a very early date in 1st century AD. The four Gospels were confirmed from the beginning. Clement and Ignatius cited Gospels and letters as Scripture. Irenaeus cited all the NT books except one (3 John) in such a way as to demonstrate that they had long been accepted as Scripture.
All the later councils did was exclude other books which had begun to creep in and to confirm Apostolic authorship. You have been deceived by rhetoric.
Most important.
sullambano has a far wider meaning than conceive. It means to seize, grasp, apprehend, to arrest, to catch an animal, get a baby, to become pregnant. It does not have the technical sense of conceive although can be used of one who conceives. Thus a better translation is. 'you will become pregnant in your womb and bring forth a son'. It was the Holy Spirit Who conceived as the early creeds recognised.
No Mary did not technically conceive. Certainly she 'had a son' but not in the normal sense of the word. She was a surrogate mother. 'Mother' can be used in many ways, but when we are dealing theologically we have to be precise. Certainly Mary mothered the earthly Jesus until He reached the age when He dispensed with that motherhood, but she was in no sense the real mother of God..
She did not conceive in the sense of bringing into being. It was the Holy Spirit Who brought Jesus into being. As I have pointed out above sullambano is far too wide in meaning to be used to make a precise definition.
Only the later fathers influenced by the church that would become the Roman Catholic church. The earlier councils rejected 'mother of God' in favour of theotokos, 'God-bearer'. You are very glib in your claims of what 'the fathers' taught. There was much disagreement among them..
And now you give yourself away. Jesus earthly conception was NOT normal. Far from it. He was conceived by the Holy Spirit. Thus Mary was only Jesus' mother in a secondary way. The title of mother of God should therefore be rejected as misleading and imprecise.
But incorrect inferences are drawn from it. Millions are deceived. It is incumbent on us therefore to be precise and not encourage error.
And that is still true. God is not a man, even though the Son took on Himself manhood. It is true that we do not understand how that manhood fits into the Godhead, but it is total misrepresentation to say that God is a man. Neither the Father nor the Spirit is in any way a man. And even whilst the Son became man His Godhood far transcends His manhood.
the words you put in brackets are the most important ones. The whole of the Godhead did not become man. It was only one persona of the Godhead that became man.
God does not have a mother. Ask the Father whether He has a mother. Mary was the bearer (not real mother) of God becoming man. In any real sense it was the Holy Spirit Who conceived Him..
It is completely misleading as the early church recognised. You have only to look at the Roman Catholic Church's exaltation of Mary to see how they have been misled. It is slack talk like yours that has led to some of the present heresies in the RC. Mary is not presiding in Heaven as the mother of God nor even as the mother of Jesus Christ. Even whilst on earth Jesus Christ dispensed with her motherhood. She had been a kind of surrogate mother.
Jerome is responsible for a number of the heresies of the Roman Catholic church and his translation reflected those heresies. The Vulgate is not a reliable translation. Jerome had nothing to do with the early creeds. Nor did the church fathers 'decide on the books of the Bible'. The Old Testament was confirmed by Jesus. The letters of Paul were confirmed as Scripture by Peter and were gathered at a very early date in 1st century AD. The four Gospels were confirmed from the beginning. Clement and Ignatius cited Gospels and letters as Scripture. Irenaeus cited all the NT books except one (3 John) in such a way as to demonstrate that they had long been accepted as Scripture.
All the later councils did was exclude other books which had begun to creep in and to confirm Apostolic authorship. You have been deceived by rhetoric.
Most important.
sullambano has a far wider meaning than conceive. It means to seize, grasp, apprehend, to arrest, to catch an animal, get a baby, to become pregnant. It does not have the technical sense of conceive although can be used of one who conceives. Thus a better translation is. 'you will become pregnant in your womb and bring forth a son'. It was the Holy Spirit Who conceived as the early creeds recognised.
No Mary did not technically conceive. Certainly she 'had a son' but not in the normal sense of the word. She was a surrogate mother. 'Mother' can be used in many ways, but when we are dealing theologically we have to be precise. Certainly Mary mothered the earthly Jesus until He reached the age when He dispensed with that motherhood, but she was in no sense the real mother of God..
She did not conceive in the sense of bringing into being. It was the Holy Spirit Who brought Jesus into being. As I have pointed out above sullambano is far too wide in meaning to be used to make a precise definition.
Only the later fathers influenced by the church that would become the Roman Catholic church. The earlier councils rejected 'mother of God' in favour of theotokos, 'God-bearer'. You are very glib in your claims of what 'the fathers' taught. There was much disagreement among them..
And now you give yourself away. Jesus earthly conception was NOT normal. Far from it. He was conceived by the Holy Spirit. Thus Mary was only Jesus' mother in a secondary way. The title of mother of God should therefore be rejected as misleading and imprecise.
But incorrect inferences are drawn from it. Millions are deceived. It is incumbent on us therefore to be precise and not encourage error.
God does not have a physical body. Neither the Father nor the Spirit are connected with the physical. The Son became man but was never restrained within a physical body. You are slack in your definitions.
And that is still true. God is not a man, even though the Son took on Himself manhood. It is true that we do not understand how that manhood fits into the Godhead, but it is total misrepresentation to say that God is a man. Neither the Father nor the Spirit is in any way a man. And even whilst the Son became man His Godhood far transcends His manhood.
the words you put in brackets are the most important ones. The whole of the Godhead did not become man. It was only one persona of the Godhead that became man.
God does not have a mother. Ask the Father whether He has a mother. Mary was the bearer (not real mother) of God becoming man. In any real sense it was the Holy Spirit Who conceived Him..
It is completely misleading as the early church recognised. You have only to look at the Roman Catholic Church's exaltation of Mary to see how they have been misled. It is slack talk like yours that has led to some of the present heresies in the RC. Mary is not presiding in Heaven as the mother of God nor even as the mother of Jesus Christ. Even whilst on earth Jesus Christ dispensed with her motherhood. She had been a kind of surrogate mother.
Jerome is responsible for a number of the heresies of the Roman Catholic church and his translation reflected those heresies. The Vulgate is not a reliable translation. Jerome had nothing to do with the early creeds. Nor did the church fathers 'decide on the books of the Bible'. The Old Testament was confirmed by Jesus. The letters of Paul were confirmed as Scripture by Peter and were gathered at a very early date in 1st century AD. The four Gospels were confirmed from the beginning. Clement and Ignatius cited Gospels and letters as Scripture. Irenaeus cited all the NT books except one (3 John) in such a way as to demonstrate that they had long been accepted as Scripture.
All the later councils did was exclude other books which had begun to creep in and to confirm Apostolic authorship. You have been deceived by rhetoric.
Most important.
sullambano has a far wider meaning than conceive. It means to seize, grasp, apprehend, to arrest, to catch an animal, get a baby, to become pregnant. It does not have the technical sense of conceive although can be used of one who conceives. Thus a better translation is. 'you will become pregnant in your womb and bring forth a son'. It was the Holy Spirit Who conceived as the early creeds recognised.
No Mary did not technically conceive. Certainly she 'had a son' but not in the normal sense of the word. She was a surrogate mother. 'Mother' can be used in many ways, but when we are dealing theologically we have to be precise. Certainly Mary mothered the earthly Jesus until He reached the age when He dispensed with that motherhood, but she was in no sense the real mother of God..
She did not conceive in the sense of bringing into being. It was the Holy Spirit Who brought Jesus into being. As I have pointed out above sullambano is far too wide in meaning to be used to make a precise definition.
Only the later fathers influenced by the church that would become the Roman Catholic church. The earlier councils rejected 'mother of God' in favour of theotokos, 'God-bearer'. You are very glib in your claims of what 'the fathers' taught. There was much disagreement among them..
And now you give yourself away. Jesus earthly conception was NOT normal. Far from it. He was conceived by the Holy Spirit. Thus Mary was only Jesus' mother in a secondary way. The title of mother of God should therefore be rejected as misleading and imprecise.
But incorrect inferences are drawn from it. Millions are deceived. It is incumbent on us therefore to be precise and not encourage error.
And that is still true. God is not a man, even though the Son took on Himself manhood. It is true that we do not understand how that manhood fits into the Godhead, but it is total misrepresentation to say that God is a man. Neither the Father nor the Spirit is in any way a man. And even whilst the Son became man His Godhood far transcends His manhood.
the words you put in brackets are the most important ones. The whole of the Godhead did not become man. It was only one persona of the Godhead that became man.
God does not have a mother. Ask the Father whether He has a mother. Mary was the bearer (not real mother) of God becoming man. In any real sense it was the Holy Spirit Who conceived Him..
It is completely misleading as the early church recognised. You have only to look at the Roman Catholic Church's exaltation of Mary to see how they have been misled. It is slack talk like yours that has led to some of the present heresies in the RC. Mary is not presiding in Heaven as the mother of God nor even as the mother of Jesus Christ. Even whilst on earth Jesus Christ dispensed with her motherhood. She had been a kind of surrogate mother.
Jerome is responsible for a number of the heresies of the Roman Catholic church and his translation reflected those heresies. The Vulgate is not a reliable translation. Jerome had nothing to do with the early creeds. Nor did the church fathers 'decide on the books of the Bible'. The Old Testament was confirmed by Jesus. The letters of Paul were confirmed as Scripture by Peter and were gathered at a very early date in 1st century AD. The four Gospels were confirmed from the beginning. Clement and Ignatius cited Gospels and letters as Scripture. Irenaeus cited all the NT books except one (3 John) in such a way as to demonstrate that they had long been accepted as Scripture.
All the later councils did was exclude other books which had begun to creep in and to confirm Apostolic authorship. You have been deceived by rhetoric.
Most important.
sullambano has a far wider meaning than conceive. It means to seize, grasp, apprehend, to arrest, to catch an animal, get a baby, to become pregnant. It does not have the technical sense of conceive although can be used of one who conceives. Thus a better translation is. 'you will become pregnant in your womb and bring forth a son'. It was the Holy Spirit Who conceived as the early creeds recognised.
No Mary did not technically conceive. Certainly she 'had a son' but not in the normal sense of the word. She was a surrogate mother. 'Mother' can be used in many ways, but when we are dealing theologically we have to be precise. Certainly Mary mothered the earthly Jesus until He reached the age when He dispensed with that motherhood, but she was in no sense the real mother of God..
She did not conceive in the sense of bringing into being. It was the Holy Spirit Who brought Jesus into being. As I have pointed out above sullambano is far too wide in meaning to be used to make a precise definition.
Only the later fathers influenced by the church that would become the Roman Catholic church. The earlier councils rejected 'mother of God' in favour of theotokos, 'God-bearer'. You are very glib in your claims of what 'the fathers' taught. There was much disagreement among them..
And now you give yourself away. Jesus earthly conception was NOT normal. Far from it. He was conceived by the Holy Spirit. Thus Mary was only Jesus' mother in a secondary way. The title of mother of God should therefore be rejected as misleading and imprecise.
But incorrect inferences are drawn from it. Millions are deceived. It is incumbent on us therefore to be precise and not encourage error.
Last edited:
History bears out the fact the Roman Catholic Church did lose all its powers when God brought His Children out of the Roman Catholic Church and gave back to them the Scriptures that the Roman Catholic Church was keeping from the World. Did you know mwc68 the Roman Catholic Church put people to death for just reading the Scriptures?
Exodus 20:13
[SUP]13 [/SUP] " You shall not murder.
There is innocent blood on the Roman Catholic Church. How can you say the Roman Catholic Church is a True Church when the Roman Catholic Church is guilty of murder?
The days of the Roman Catholic Church are long gone mwc68 and nobody today cares anymore about the Roman Catholic Church.
The very fact that the Roman Catholic Church teaches Mary was without sin and Mary was assumed into Heaven shows how far down the Roman Catholic Church has fallen in the Truth. How can we trust what the Roman Catholic Church teaches when we know for a fact it has no problem with teaching lies from Satan as Truths from the Holy Spirit?
You have been deceived by Satan mwc68 into following a False Church that is teaching false doctrines from the unwritten traditions of the Roman Catholic Church. What you need to do is Repent, accept the Salvation Jesus Christ has for you, leave the Roman Catholic Church, study the Scriptures asking the Holy Spirit to show you the Truth in the Scriptures.
After you have done these things God will remove the blinders on your eyes that have been placed on there by Satan and you will know the True Truth that is from God.
Exodus 20:13
[SUP]13 [/SUP] " You shall not murder.
There is innocent blood on the Roman Catholic Church. How can you say the Roman Catholic Church is a True Church when the Roman Catholic Church is guilty of murder?
The days of the Roman Catholic Church are long gone mwc68 and nobody today cares anymore about the Roman Catholic Church.
The very fact that the Roman Catholic Church teaches Mary was without sin and Mary was assumed into Heaven shows how far down the Roman Catholic Church has fallen in the Truth. How can we trust what the Roman Catholic Church teaches when we know for a fact it has no problem with teaching lies from Satan as Truths from the Holy Spirit?
You have been deceived by Satan mwc68 into following a False Church that is teaching false doctrines from the unwritten traditions of the Roman Catholic Church. What you need to do is Repent, accept the Salvation Jesus Christ has for you, leave the Roman Catholic Church, study the Scriptures asking the Holy Spirit to show you the Truth in the Scriptures.
After you have done these things God will remove the blinders on your eyes that have been placed on there by Satan and you will know the True Truth that is from God.
Really mwc68?
Show me mwc68 where in the Scriptures did the Holy Spirit ever say Mary was without sin. Show me mwc68 where in the Scriptures did the Holy Spirit say Mary was assumed into Heaven.
If you refuse to show or cannot show proves the Roman Catholic Church is no longer in power.
There are many Roman Catholics who hate the light and love to walk in darkness mwc68 and you are one of them. We all do know exactly where the Roman Catholic Church stands today and it does not stand for God.
Its not my opinion that the Roman Catholic is a false Church mwc68. The Roman Catholic Church is a false Church because it teaches Mary was without sin and Mary was assumed into Heaven. These two doctrines proves the Roman Catholic Church does not listen to the Holy Spirit anymore.
Its you who have been blinded by Satan mwc68. In fact its Satan who is in control of the Roman Catholic Church today mwc68.
Until you repent and accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior mwc68 you will continue to walk in darkness in the Roman Catholic Church never seeing the Truth that God has been wanting to give to you. Its your choice mwc68, follow God or follow the Roman Catholic Church. You cannot do both.
Show me mwc68 where in the Scriptures did the Holy Spirit ever say Mary was without sin. Show me mwc68 where in the Scriptures did the Holy Spirit say Mary was assumed into Heaven.
If you refuse to show or cannot show proves the Roman Catholic Church is no longer in power.
There are many Roman Catholics who hate the light and love to walk in darkness mwc68 and you are one of them. We all do know exactly where the Roman Catholic Church stands today and it does not stand for God.
Its not my opinion that the Roman Catholic is a false Church mwc68. The Roman Catholic Church is a false Church because it teaches Mary was without sin and Mary was assumed into Heaven. These two doctrines proves the Roman Catholic Church does not listen to the Holy Spirit anymore.
Its you who have been blinded by Satan mwc68. In fact its Satan who is in control of the Roman Catholic Church today mwc68.
Until you repent and accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior mwc68 you will continue to walk in darkness in the Roman Catholic Church never seeing the Truth that God has been wanting to give to you. Its your choice mwc68, follow God or follow the Roman Catholic Church. You cannot do both.
Wow, you just keep laying in on thick!!!!!!Show me in the scriptures the word Trinity? Show me in the bible that the eucharist is just a symbol? Show me the false doctrine of OSAS in the bible. How about the scripture for altar calls? Where is the scripture that says the bible alone is authority? Show me the scripture that says babies cant be baptised. Show me the scripture that says Mary is just a vessel. Show me the scripture for the ummm, rapture, LOL. Show the scripture that said take 7 books out of the bible. Show me in the bible where it mentions the bible!!!!!!!We can play this game all day and get nowhere
Last edited:
E
Yet scripture confirms every one of those is true, But only because YOUR CHURCH excepts one, You will never be convinced the others are true, no matter what scripture you are shown.
If your blind, or closed minded. you can be led by the hand to the proof. You will still deny it and claim it does not say this, this goes for ANYONE, not just catholics.