The Immaculate Conception Error
- Thread starter emekrus
- 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.
"Everything must be substantiated by the Bible" is not in the Bible. It is a man-made tradition. Unless you can find a verse that says every doctrine, belief, and practice must be substantiated by the Bible, you are in no position to be correcting Catholics on "stuff" that is not explicitly found in the Bible. Maybe you can proof-text the itinerary of your church service.
YOU do not need a Pope, but keep in mind without some kind of centralized authority, you would have no bible. If you wish to deny the plain facts of history that the Bible came from the Catholic Church, as agreed by educated Protestants, this discussion will go no further. Your spiritual forefathers decided to rebel against the authority Jesus gave to Peter and the Apostles.
Let's look at the Old Testament:
Isa.22: 19 I will thrust you from your office, and you will be pulled down from your station.
Shebnais described as having an "office" and a "station."An office, in order for it to be an office, has successors. In order for an earthly kingdom to last, a succession of representatives is required.
This was the case in the Old Covenant kingdom, and it is the case in the New Covenant kingdom which fulfills the Old Covenant. Jesus our King is in heaven, but He has appointed a chief steward over His household with a plan for a succession of representatives.
Isa.22:20 In that day I will call my servant Eli'akim the son of Hilki'ah,
Isa.22:20 - in the old Davidic kingdom, Eliakim succeeds Shebna as the
chief steward of the household of God. The kingdom employs a mechanism of dynastic succession. King David was dead for centuries,but his kingdom is preserved through a succession of representatives.
Isa.22:21 and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on
him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be afather to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.
Isa.22:21 - Eliakim is called “father” or “papa” of God's people.The word Pope used by Catholics to describe the chief steward of theearthly kingdom simply means papa or father in Italian. This is why Catholics call the leader of the Church "Pope." The Pope isthe father of God's people, the chief steward of the earthly kingdom and Christ's representative on earth.
Isa.22:22 And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.
Isa.22:22 - we see that the keys of the kingdom pass from Shebna to Eliakim. Thus, the keys are used not only as a symbol of authority,but also to facilitate succession. The keys of Christ's kingdom have passed from Peter to Linus all the way to our current Pope with an unbroken lineage for almost 2,000 years.
23:And I will fasten him like a peg in a sure place, and he will becomea throne of honor to his father's house.
Rev.1:18; 3:7;- Jesus' "keys" undeniably represent authority. By using the word "keys," Jesus gives Peter authority on earth over the new Davidic kingdom, and this was not seriously questioned by anyone until the Protestant reformation 1,500 years later after Peter’s investiture.
Revelation3:7 "And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: `The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one shall shut, who shuts and no one opens.
Matthew16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
Matt.16:19 - whatever Peter binds or looses on earth is bound or loosed in heaven / when the Prime Minister to the King opens, no one shuts.This "binding and loosing" authority allows the keeper of the keys to establish "halakah," or rules of conduct for the members of the kingdom he serves.
Jer.33:17 For thus saith the Lord: There shall not be cut off from David a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel.
Jeremiah prophesies that David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the earthly House of Israel. Either this is a false prophecy, or David has a successor of representatives throughout history.
Dan.2:44 But in the days of those kingdoms the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, and his kingdom shall not be delivered up to another people, and it shall break in pieces, and shall consume all these kingdoms, and itself shall stand forever.
Daniel prophesies an earthly kingdom that will never be destroyed. Either this is a false prophecy, or the earthly kingdom requires succession.
There are 6 errors/misrepresentations, and if you want me to answer them, ask one or two at a time. I don't reply to shot-gun / cluster bombing tactics.
Since you have so many assertions, most based on falsehoods, I recommend you go here and put in a topic in the search engine www.catholic.com . You can't find answers unless you are looking for them.
Isa.22: 19 I will thrust you from your office, and you will be pulled down from your station.
Shebnais described as having an "office" and a "station."An office, in order for it to be an office, has successors. In order for an earthly kingdom to last, a succession of representatives is required.
This was the case in the Old Covenant kingdom, and it is the case in the New Covenant kingdom which fulfills the Old Covenant. Jesus our King is in heaven, but He has appointed a chief steward over His household with a plan for a succession of representatives.
Isa.22:20 In that day I will call my servant Eli'akim the son of Hilki'ah,
Isa.22:20 - in the old Davidic kingdom, Eliakim succeeds Shebna as the
chief steward of the household of God. The kingdom employs a mechanism of dynastic succession. King David was dead for centuries,but his kingdom is preserved through a succession of representatives.
Isa.22:21 and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on
him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be afather to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.
Isa.22:21 - Eliakim is called “father” or “papa” of God's people.The word Pope used by Catholics to describe the chief steward of theearthly kingdom simply means papa or father in Italian. This is why Catholics call the leader of the Church "Pope." The Pope isthe father of God's people, the chief steward of the earthly kingdom and Christ's representative on earth.
Isa.22:22 And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.
Isa.22:22 - we see that the keys of the kingdom pass from Shebna to Eliakim. Thus, the keys are used not only as a symbol of authority,but also to facilitate succession. The keys of Christ's kingdom have passed from Peter to Linus all the way to our current Pope with an unbroken lineage for almost 2,000 years.
23:And I will fasten him like a peg in a sure place, and he will becomea throne of honor to his father's house.
Rev.1:18; 3:7;- Jesus' "keys" undeniably represent authority. By using the word "keys," Jesus gives Peter authority on earth over the new Davidic kingdom, and this was not seriously questioned by anyone until the Protestant reformation 1,500 years later after Peter’s investiture.
Revelation3:7 "And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: `The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one shall shut, who shuts and no one opens.
Matthew16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
Matt.16:19 - whatever Peter binds or looses on earth is bound or loosed in heaven / when the Prime Minister to the King opens, no one shuts.This "binding and loosing" authority allows the keeper of the keys to establish "halakah," or rules of conduct for the members of the kingdom he serves.
Jer.33:17 For thus saith the Lord: There shall not be cut off from David a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel.
Jeremiah prophesies that David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the earthly House of Israel. Either this is a false prophecy, or David has a successor of representatives throughout history.
Dan.2:44 But in the days of those kingdoms the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, and his kingdom shall not be delivered up to another people, and it shall break in pieces, and shall consume all these kingdoms, and itself shall stand forever.
Daniel prophesies an earthly kingdom that will never be destroyed. Either this is a false prophecy, or the earthly kingdom requires succession.
There are 6 errors/misrepresentations, and if you want me to answer them, ask one or two at a time. I don't reply to shot-gun / cluster bombing tactics.
Since you have so many assertions, most based on falsehoods, I recommend you go here and put in a topic in the search engine www.catholic.com . You can't find answers unless you are looking for them.
We have absolutely NO NEED for any Pope. We have Jesus, who is the head of His Church. The notion of some human governing authority is a false one and smacks of empire builders, which always thwart God's word and His will for men because of their own pride, which is the absolute case found in the RCC from its very beginning.
We have the Bible because God provided it in every detail of its production. It is pride on the part of the RCC religion that takes credit for the bible. Even if the RCC never came to be, we would have the scriptures today.
.
We have the Bible because God provided it in every detail of its production. It is pride on the part of the RCC religion that takes credit for the bible. Even if the RCC never came to be, we would have the scriptures today.
.
Last edited:
The context of Rom 5:12 is different from that of 1 Cor 15.
1 Cor 15 is talking about physical death and physical resurrection.
"In Adam all die" because morality came to all man as a result of Adam being removed from the garden and being restricted to eat from the tree of life. The entire chapter of 1 Cor 15 is talking about physical death and physical resurrection.
Now it is erroneous and misleading to assume that we sinned in Adam and with Adam as we were in the loins of Adam. No scripture supports this view.
1 Cor 15 is talking about physical death and physical resurrection.
"In Adam all die" because morality came to all man as a result of Adam being removed from the garden and being restricted to eat from the tree of life. The entire chapter of 1 Cor 15 is talking about physical death and physical resurrection.
Now it is erroneous and misleading to assume that we sinned in Adam and with Adam as we were in the loins of Adam. No scripture supports this view.
Glorifying, venerating, and adoring Mary is not in the Bible.
Calling Mary the mother of humanity, and the queen of heaven, is not in the Bible.
Mary's immaculate conception is not in the Bible.
Mary's bodily assumption to heaven is not in the Bible.
Praying to Mary and other dead people is not in the Bible.
Teaching that Mary can intercede for you is not in the Bible.
Mary's so-called perpetual virginity is not in the Bible.
Marian dogmas in which Catholics, as a matter of faith, would be obliged to accept: 1) Mary participates in redemption with Jesus Christ; 2) grace is granted by Jesus only through the intercession of Mary; and 3) all prayers from the faithful must flow through Mary, who brings them to the attention of her Son, are not in the Bible.
These are all man-made traditions that you defend with your life's breath. There are many others.
Calling Mary the mother of humanity, and the queen of heaven, is not in the Bible.
Mary's immaculate conception is not in the Bible.
Mary's bodily assumption to heaven is not in the Bible.
Praying to Mary and other dead people is not in the Bible.
Teaching that Mary can intercede for you is not in the Bible.
Mary's so-called perpetual virginity is not in the Bible.
Marian dogmas in which Catholics, as a matter of faith, would be obliged to accept: 1) Mary participates in redemption with Jesus Christ; 2) grace is granted by Jesus only through the intercession of Mary; and 3) all prayers from the faithful must flow through Mary, who brings them to the attention of her Son, are not in the Bible.
These are all man-made traditions that you defend with your life's breath. There are many others.
It is erroneous to believe that Adam's sin gave us a propensity towards sin. Scripture does not support this. Every individual is given a free will and he has the freedom to exercise that free will by the choices he makes. Choosing to do evil over good corrupts ones character and gives him a propensity towards evil. Scripture supports this view profoundly.
Also, if sin was a result of concupiscence, that makes God the author of sin, as God created Adam with concupiscence. This is the Augustinian false teaching that has its roots in Gnosticism. Concupiscence is the Devil's deception, using which he conveniently removes himself from the picture. The blame therefore is put on Adam, or on the "sinful nature" or on concupiscence that existed before Adam sinned, or on the propensity towards sin that came as a result of Adam's sin.
Also, if sin was a result of concupiscence, that makes God the author of sin, as God created Adam with concupiscence. This is the Augustinian false teaching that has its roots in Gnosticism. Concupiscence is the Devil's deception, using which he conveniently removes himself from the picture. The blame therefore is put on Adam, or on the "sinful nature" or on concupiscence that existed before Adam sinned, or on the propensity towards sin that came as a result of Adam's sin.
Opposition and proper correction? Is that what you call it? I'll discuss and debate with anybody. I have no problem with disagreement and so called correction, but I don't tolerate hate speech. I know what hate speech is, Euphemia, do you?
But this is a forum, not a clinic. The reason I have so many in my ignore list is that I refuse to enable their various pathologies and protect myself in the process.
The view that the Bible consistently holds is that God does not put the guilt of the father on the children and vice versa. We must read Romans 5 in that light.
If humans were at all affected by the fall of Adam, it can only be because of his example of disobedience. Sin is not a substance that it can be transferred from one generation to another. To say sin is a constitution is erroneous, because the Bible says that sin is a choice. Also, to say that we sin because of Adam, amounts to blaming Adam for our sins.
Augustine was in great error when he (not knowing Greek) tried to interpret Romans 5 from the Latin Vulgate, and inferred that all sinned in Adam. And I do not care for what Pelagianism asserts. I believe in what the Bible says.
We cannot be infected and condemned by the sin of Adam. No wonder these erroneous views set in a viscous cycle of false doctrines, among which is infant baptism.
If humans were at all affected by the fall of Adam, it can only be because of his example of disobedience. Sin is not a substance that it can be transferred from one generation to another. To say sin is a constitution is erroneous, because the Bible says that sin is a choice. Also, to say that we sin because of Adam, amounts to blaming Adam for our sins.
Augustine was in great error when he (not knowing Greek) tried to interpret Romans 5 from the Latin Vulgate, and inferred that all sinned in Adam. And I do not care for what Pelagianism asserts. I believe in what the Bible says.
We cannot be infected and condemned by the sin of Adam. No wonder these erroneous views set in a viscous cycle of false doctrines, among which is infant baptism.
Salvation is a very personal and individual thing. No one can stand in for another.
Yes, the book of Acts speaks about whole households being saved, but we cannot blindly assume that infants of the households were baptized too. Nowhere in the entire book of Acts, or in the entire Bible will you find any incidence or teaching of babies being baptized. This is another false doctrine that arises out of the Augustinian false teaching of OS.
Yes, the book of Acts speaks about whole households being saved, but we cannot blindly assume that infants of the households were baptized too. Nowhere in the entire book of Acts, or in the entire Bible will you find any incidence or teaching of babies being baptized. This is another false doctrine that arises out of the Augustinian false teaching of OS.
In that case why did the early church take such great pains to determine what WAS in the Bible? It WAS because it was seen as the supreme authority. All the councils appealed to the Bible as evidence of what it taught.
Total nonsense. The true Apostolic church (not the later Roman Catholic church) relied on the Bible for evidence of the correctness of its teaching. That is why it differentiated 'Scripture' from what was merely 'good reading'
That is not so, the main books in the canon were put together long before there was a centralised authority by mid to late 2nd century AD, although accepted as Scripture before then.
This is where you mislead and lie. The final canon DID NOT come from the Roman Catholic church. It came from groups of independent churches who got together to determine whether two or three more doubtful books (because small and not known everywhere) were truly the work of Apostles, and therefore Scripture. The vast majority and well known ones were already seen as Scripture. Thus the four Gospels, Acts, and the letters of Paul, 1 Peter, and 1 John were seen as Scripture from the very beginning.
Not if they were properly educated. These Protestants you keep appealing to are more Papist than the Pope himself.
:
Here it comes. LOL. The usual so called theology from the trash cans.
.
Firstly Shebna was a king's minister, not an authoritative teacher of the word. Secondly it is possible to hold an office which ceases when the man dies, with no successor. No succession is 'required'. The word simply means a recognised position.
Proof? The New covenant kingdom is NOT OF THIS WORLD. Why should it copy earthly practises?
which no doubt you can demonstrate in those exact words? If you are referring to the misinterpreted passage about Peter and the rock of his statement about the Messiah (the majority view of the early fathers) then forget it. Besides you will find no mention of succession there. Rather he and the other Apostles were given unique promises for the establishing of the early church (which was then mainly done by someone who was not one of them).
Not Peter? LOL
Soooo? Are you suggesting that they were then followed by successors in a binding succession? You clearly do not know Old Testament kings if you believe that. They altered at the whim of the king.
Yes, determined by who was the eldest son. And it failed badly. Are you recommending that for the Papacy? LOL
That is a lie. He was NOT called 'father'. He simply acted in that supposed guise as having authority over them. People in authority regularly chose such titles to make their oppression more acceptable.
I am pleased that you admit that the Pope is over an earthly kingdom, and not over the kingdom of Christ which is NOT of this world. On that we fully agree with you. And his reigning has been as bloody as any earthly king's.
Balderdash. He is not the father of God's people. The Father of God's people is in Heaven. He is not the chief steward of any kingdom of God, for the kingdom of God is NOT of this world. And he is certainly NOT Christ's representative on earth. That is the biggest joke of all. A man who is rich and powerful, lives in sumptuous surroundings, and teaches all kinds of unscriptural nonsense. How could he represent the One who 'though He was rich, became poor'.?
LOL back to the earthly Davidic kingdom. The problem for you here is we are told Who it was in the New Testament Who opened and shut doors with the key of the house of David. It was JESUS CHRIST (Rev 3.7) not some pompous twit in Rome
There is not one word in the New Testament of keys being passed on. There is no hint that Peter gave a key to anyone. Peter was NEVER the sole bishop of Rome. And neither was Linus his successor. The early fathers such as Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch did not know of a sole bishop of Rome. Neither did Paul when he wrote in around 50 AD. So you ARE LYING.
23:And I will fasten him like a peg in a sure place, and he will becomea throne of honor to his father's house.
But there is no suggestion that Peter was given Jesus' keys.
Now where does it say that? There was no new Davidic kingdom. And Peter was no king. The keys gave him the power to 'bind and loose' (determine which laws should be held firm and which could be relaxed a little). Such keys were given to Rabbis when they graduated giving them the power to bind and loose (Luke 11.52). So were they in the Davidic kingdom also? LOL
Lol the bigger the lie the more people will believe it. It was seriously questioned by Augustine of Hippo (who changed his view on what the rock stood for), and by most of the Eastern fathers. Indeed the claim to authority by Rome was rejected at Nicea in spite of Constantine's attempts to put it forward, was continually rejected, and was rejected when put forward by Gregory the Great in 6th century AD. It was not until the Roman Catholic church seceded from that Catholic church in 8th century AD that it was able to substantiate its own claims which everyone else rejected.
Speaking of JESUS CHRIST who was heir to the throne of David
the keys for binding and loosing as also given to Rabbis.
but it is nowhere said that Peter was anyone's 'prime minister'. He was merely a spokesman. The twelve always acted together. Read Acts 1-12.
Nonsense. Binding and loosing was to do with interpreting Scripture.
Yes LOL. His Name was Jesus Christ.!!!!
Why? It is ruled over by a heavenly king (Acts 2.38).
Total nonsense. The true Apostolic church (not the later Roman Catholic church) relied on the Bible for evidence of the correctness of its teaching. That is why it differentiated 'Scripture' from what was merely 'good reading'
That is not so, the main books in the canon were put together long before there was a centralised authority by mid to late 2nd century AD, although accepted as Scripture before then.
This is where you mislead and lie. The final canon DID NOT come from the Roman Catholic church. It came from groups of independent churches who got together to determine whether two or three more doubtful books (because small and not known everywhere) were truly the work of Apostles, and therefore Scripture. The vast majority and well known ones were already seen as Scripture. Thus the four Gospels, Acts, and the letters of Paul, 1 Peter, and 1 John were seen as Scripture from the very beginning.
Not if they were properly educated. These Protestants you keep appealing to are more Papist than the Pope himself.
:
Here it comes. LOL. The usual so called theology from the trash cans.
.
Firstly Shebna was a king's minister, not an authoritative teacher of the word. Secondly it is possible to hold an office which ceases when the man dies, with no successor. No succession is 'required'. The word simply means a recognised position.
Proof? The New covenant kingdom is NOT OF THIS WORLD. Why should it copy earthly practises?
which no doubt you can demonstrate in those exact words? If you are referring to the misinterpreted passage about Peter and the rock of his statement about the Messiah (the majority view of the early fathers) then forget it. Besides you will find no mention of succession there. Rather he and the other Apostles were given unique promises for the establishing of the early church (which was then mainly done by someone who was not one of them).
Not Peter? LOL
Soooo? Are you suggesting that they were then followed by successors in a binding succession? You clearly do not know Old Testament kings if you believe that. They altered at the whim of the king.
Yes, determined by who was the eldest son. And it failed badly. Are you recommending that for the Papacy? LOL
That is a lie. He was NOT called 'father'. He simply acted in that supposed guise as having authority over them. People in authority regularly chose such titles to make their oppression more acceptable.
I am pleased that you admit that the Pope is over an earthly kingdom, and not over the kingdom of Christ which is NOT of this world. On that we fully agree with you. And his reigning has been as bloody as any earthly king's.
Balderdash. He is not the father of God's people. The Father of God's people is in Heaven. He is not the chief steward of any kingdom of God, for the kingdom of God is NOT of this world. And he is certainly NOT Christ's representative on earth. That is the biggest joke of all. A man who is rich and powerful, lives in sumptuous surroundings, and teaches all kinds of unscriptural nonsense. How could he represent the One who 'though He was rich, became poor'.?
LOL back to the earthly Davidic kingdom. The problem for you here is we are told Who it was in the New Testament Who opened and shut doors with the key of the house of David. It was JESUS CHRIST (Rev 3.7) not some pompous twit in Rome
There is not one word in the New Testament of keys being passed on. There is no hint that Peter gave a key to anyone. Peter was NEVER the sole bishop of Rome. And neither was Linus his successor. The early fathers such as Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch did not know of a sole bishop of Rome. Neither did Paul when he wrote in around 50 AD. So you ARE LYING.
23:And I will fasten him like a peg in a sure place, and he will becomea throne of honor to his father's house.
But there is no suggestion that Peter was given Jesus' keys.
Now where does it say that? There was no new Davidic kingdom. And Peter was no king. The keys gave him the power to 'bind and loose' (determine which laws should be held firm and which could be relaxed a little). Such keys were given to Rabbis when they graduated giving them the power to bind and loose (Luke 11.52). So were they in the Davidic kingdom also? LOL
Lol the bigger the lie the more people will believe it. It was seriously questioned by Augustine of Hippo (who changed his view on what the rock stood for), and by most of the Eastern fathers. Indeed the claim to authority by Rome was rejected at Nicea in spite of Constantine's attempts to put it forward, was continually rejected, and was rejected when put forward by Gregory the Great in 6th century AD. It was not until the Roman Catholic church seceded from that Catholic church in 8th century AD that it was able to substantiate its own claims which everyone else rejected.
Speaking of JESUS CHRIST who was heir to the throne of David
the keys for binding and loosing as also given to Rabbis.
but it is nowhere said that Peter was anyone's 'prime minister'. He was merely a spokesman. The twelve always acted together. Read Acts 1-12.
Nonsense. Binding and loosing was to do with interpreting Scripture.
Yes LOL. His Name was Jesus Christ.!!!!
Why? It is ruled over by a heavenly king (Acts 2.38).
When I said everything should be substantiated in the Bible, while that phrase is not used in the Bible that is what the Bereans did with what Paul said. Let me bring up the Scripture:
Acts 17:11
Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.
Galatians 1:8
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!
2 Timothy 3:16-17
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
My spiritual forefathers did not rebel against the authority that Jesus gave to Peter and the Apostles. That authority that we have is from Christ and Peter was not the rock. The rock represented the church not the Church as you say. What I said are not 6 errors and misrepresentations. I recommend you read the articles on the Vatican website which is the seat of the Pope. The Bible did not come from the Catholic Church, we already had part of it from the Jews (The Old Testament) and Paul's letters. They had not yet been put into a collection. Also, in the Catholic Church the priests had the authority to say what was in the Scriptures and what they meant. In the Reformation, finally the Bible was released to everyone and not just the priests and clergy of The Church. See these are the problems that I have to discuss and I don't believe these Catholic websites do justice to these questions. I was not using shot-gun/cluster bombing tactics. It was not hate speech what I said. We are not under a high priest like the Israelites were instead we have a different priesthood that was set up by Jesus Christ when he died on the cross for the sins of the world and rose from the dead on the third day. This is talked about in Hebrews. The only centralized authority should be the triune God, God the Father, God the Son (Jesus Christ), and God the Holy Spirit. All the authorities we do have should be accountable to God and not usurp his position, which the Pope does and so does the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is not my Mother and are not the custodian of God's authority. On the other hand the catholic (universal) church that is composed of evangelicals, Protestants, some Catholics, etc does have God's authority since the disciples were authorized by Jesus to therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit and teaching them everything I have commanded you and surely I will be with you always to the very end of the age. That is the Great Commission. Again, I love you as a brother in Christ. I really do. But I don't believe that a new person who embraces the Christian faith found in Jesus Christ should be a Catholic because a lot of their teaching are not consistent with the Scriptures and a lot of goes against Hebrews. Those are the problems I have. They will not go away even if I heard quaint Catholic answers to them. God bless. Have a beautiful day!
Acts 17:11
Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.
Galatians 1:8
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!
2 Timothy 3:16-17
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
My spiritual forefathers did not rebel against the authority that Jesus gave to Peter and the Apostles. That authority that we have is from Christ and Peter was not the rock. The rock represented the church not the Church as you say. What I said are not 6 errors and misrepresentations. I recommend you read the articles on the Vatican website which is the seat of the Pope. The Bible did not come from the Catholic Church, we already had part of it from the Jews (The Old Testament) and Paul's letters. They had not yet been put into a collection. Also, in the Catholic Church the priests had the authority to say what was in the Scriptures and what they meant. In the Reformation, finally the Bible was released to everyone and not just the priests and clergy of The Church. See these are the problems that I have to discuss and I don't believe these Catholic websites do justice to these questions. I was not using shot-gun/cluster bombing tactics. It was not hate speech what I said. We are not under a high priest like the Israelites were instead we have a different priesthood that was set up by Jesus Christ when he died on the cross for the sins of the world and rose from the dead on the third day. This is talked about in Hebrews. The only centralized authority should be the triune God, God the Father, God the Son (Jesus Christ), and God the Holy Spirit. All the authorities we do have should be accountable to God and not usurp his position, which the Pope does and so does the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is not my Mother and are not the custodian of God's authority. On the other hand the catholic (universal) church that is composed of evangelicals, Protestants, some Catholics, etc does have God's authority since the disciples were authorized by Jesus to therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit and teaching them everything I have commanded you and surely I will be with you always to the very end of the age. That is the Great Commission. Again, I love you as a brother in Christ. I really do. But I don't believe that a new person who embraces the Christian faith found in Jesus Christ should be a Catholic because a lot of their teaching are not consistent with the Scriptures and a lot of goes against Hebrews. Those are the problems I have. They will not go away even if I heard quaint Catholic answers to them. God bless. Have a beautiful day!
Of course that is what I call it. I don't see anyone going out of their way here to be hateful toward you. You are misjudging correction as hate speech, and that is a deception on your part.
Yes, this is a forum, and as such, there will be disagreements...why? Because some people are just wrong and they will dig in and resist honest-to-goodness correction, where God is honoured as one person who has been deceived in some way has his eyes opened and receives the truth with gladness. I don't see it happening very often, but I have been a party to that on occasion. What a blessing that is for both "sides"!
.
Yes, this is a forum, and as such, there will be disagreements...why? Because some people are just wrong and they will dig in and resist honest-to-goodness correction, where God is honoured as one person who has been deceived in some way has his eyes opened and receives the truth with gladness. I don't see it happening very often, but I have been a party to that on occasion. What a blessing that is for both "sides"!
.
The problem epostle with saying there are Truths outside of God is saying then God is not God.
If God is Omniscience and knows everything, then saying there are Truths God does not have is saying then God is not God.
This is why epostle you cannot see you have been totally deceived by Satan into following Mary as your god. Its not about us, its not about God, its all about you being deceived by Satan to reject that which Satan hates.
You are not alone epostle, we have the Mormons, the Muslims, the Hindus, ect., who have been deceived into rejecting what God says in the Scriptures.
If God is Omniscience and knows everything, then saying there are Truths God does not have is saying then God is not God.
This is why epostle you cannot see you have been totally deceived by Satan into following Mary as your god. Its not about us, its not about God, its all about you being deceived by Satan to reject that which Satan hates.
You are not alone epostle, we have the Mormons, the Muslims, the Hindus, ect., who have been deceived into rejecting what God says in the Scriptures.
The endless drumbeat of "Mary worship" is false, insulting, and hateful and explanations are ignored. . Equating the Catholic Church with the Whore of Babylon is scripture twisting at its worst, and is hate speech, not to mention sadistic stupidity. Insulting the Pope with nothing substantial other than bigotry and ignorance, or headlines from cheap tabloids, is hate speech.
Rule #2. No conduct that is offensive or counterproductive to fellowship.
We like to welcome all to Christian Chat, but if anyone is not here for fellowship (or for wanting to know about Christianity), but simply for disrupting fellowship, offending people, whatever, then that person is not welcome.
(but offending Catholics is ok, that's called a double standard)
But this anti-Catholic forum is not alone. Philip Jenkin's, a non-Catholic sociology professor, has a book:
The New Anti-Catholicism, The Last Acceptable Prejudice.
here is a review:
Anti-Catholicism has a long history in America. And as Philip Jenkins argues in The New Anti-Catholicism, this virulent strain of hatred--once thought dead--is alive and well in our nation, but few people seem to notice, or care. A statement that is seen as racist, misogynistic, anti-Semitic, or homophobic can haunt a speaker for years, writes Jenkins, but it is still possible to make hostile and vituperative public statements about Roman Catholicism without fear of serious repercussions. Jenkins shines a light on anti-Catholic sentiment in American society and illuminates its causes, looking closely at gay and feminist anti-Catholicism, anti-Catholic rhetoric and imagery in the media, and the anti-Catholicism of the academic world. For newspapers and news magazines, for television news and in movies, for major book publishers, the Catholic Church has come to provide a grossly stereotyped public villain. Catholic opinions, doctrines, and individual leaders are frequently the butt of harsh satire. Indeed, the notion that the church is a deadly enemy of women--the idea of Catholic misogyny--is commonly accepted in the news media and in popular culture, says Jenkins. And the recent pedophile priest scandal, he shows, has revived many ancient anti-Catholic stereotypes. It was said that with the election of John F. Kennedy, anti-Catholicism in America was dead. This provocative new book corrects that illusion, drawing attention to this important issue.
http://www.amazon.ca/The-New-Anti-Catholicism-Acceptable-Prejudice/dp/0195176049
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - Catholic League
[h=1]Matthew 510 “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.[/h]11 “Blessed are you when people revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely[a] on my account. 12 Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
Why is it always us? Because the Catholic Church is the true church founded by Jesus Christ.
Rule #2. No conduct that is offensive or counterproductive to fellowship.
We like to welcome all to Christian Chat, but if anyone is not here for fellowship (or for wanting to know about Christianity), but simply for disrupting fellowship, offending people, whatever, then that person is not welcome.
(but offending Catholics is ok, that's called a double standard)
But this anti-Catholic forum is not alone. Philip Jenkin's, a non-Catholic sociology professor, has a book:
The New Anti-Catholicism, The Last Acceptable Prejudice.
here is a review:
Anti-Catholicism has a long history in America. And as Philip Jenkins argues in The New Anti-Catholicism, this virulent strain of hatred--once thought dead--is alive and well in our nation, but few people seem to notice, or care. A statement that is seen as racist, misogynistic, anti-Semitic, or homophobic can haunt a speaker for years, writes Jenkins, but it is still possible to make hostile and vituperative public statements about Roman Catholicism without fear of serious repercussions. Jenkins shines a light on anti-Catholic sentiment in American society and illuminates its causes, looking closely at gay and feminist anti-Catholicism, anti-Catholic rhetoric and imagery in the media, and the anti-Catholicism of the academic world. For newspapers and news magazines, for television news and in movies, for major book publishers, the Catholic Church has come to provide a grossly stereotyped public villain. Catholic opinions, doctrines, and individual leaders are frequently the butt of harsh satire. Indeed, the notion that the church is a deadly enemy of women--the idea of Catholic misogyny--is commonly accepted in the news media and in popular culture, says Jenkins. And the recent pedophile priest scandal, he shows, has revived many ancient anti-Catholic stereotypes. It was said that with the election of John F. Kennedy, anti-Catholicism in America was dead. This provocative new book corrects that illusion, drawing attention to this important issue.
http://www.amazon.ca/The-New-Anti-Catholicism-Acceptable-Prejudice/dp/0195176049
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - Catholic League
[h=1]Matthew 510 “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.[/h]11 “Blessed are you when people revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely[a] on my account. 12 Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
Why is it always us? Because the Catholic Church is the true church founded by Jesus Christ.
Last edited:
