Catholics

[JesusIsAll]

If you knew why not quote it for balance, and the comment on Quran, three strikes and you are out.
After being rude at least 3 times, you are now on ignore.

You're breaking my heart.

 

[mikeuk]

This is a "deaf ears" argument, though. A real Catholic will readily admit, up front, it doesn't need to be in the Bible, by their "tradition" and the likes of ex cathedra, they assign themselves the right to make it up, as they go along, to hijack the faith, which they've done, and with no shame by the word of God.

ex cathedra has origin in the bible to - it is Moses seat referenced in the NT - Jesus said listen when even the Pharisees spoke ex cathedra.

You see we are bible Christians! We interpret some things differently.

 

[Blain]

When the truth of God is the issue, please speak for yourself. Maybe you guys can PM kumbaya?

Yes the truth of God is the issue but we are called to be love, if we cannot debate in a mature and loving manner than should we even be debating?

 

[JesusIsAll]

ex cathedra has origin in the bible to - it is Moses seat referenced in the NT - Jesus said listen when even the Pharisees spoke ex cathedra.

You're supposed to be ignoring me.

 

[mikeuk]

You're breaking my heart.

You are not breaking mine, I only talk to those who are courteous! Rest are a waste of time.

 

[GoodGnus]

This is the biggest problem I have with totally discounting the idea of intercession of the saints (Mary included)

If we do discount this as an appropriate practice, then we must either:

1. Deny that any miracles have ever happened as a result of asking for such intersession.
2. Acknowledge that God permits Satan (for Satan can only do what God permits) to perform miracles to deceive people who believe in the validity of the practice.

Perhaps there is a third alternative I have not considered, can someone who thinks that the practice of asking for intersession of saints is akin to Satan worship help me see the flaw in my thinking?

 

[AngelFrog]

Well, let's see. Papal infallibility is a myth. If no other pope in the history of the RCC proved that one it was Jospeph Ratzinger.
Mariology is not scriptural. Purgatory is not scriptural and in fact marginalizes the death of Christ on the cross. As does the crucifix that perpetually holds Christ up to shame for his resurrection being marginalized due to his body being nailed to the icon.
The mass is not scriptural, nor is the Eucharist rite scriptural or in keeping with Christ's teaching.

The Rosary is not scriptural. Graven images are against scripture and one of the 10 commands of what not to do, while the RCC is full of such things.
Revering the dead, necromancy for all intents and purposes, is contrary to scripture. Revering the dead that are deified as saints, asking them to intercede with the Godhead on behalf of the believer, is not scriptural when the Bible tells us there is one mediator between man and God and that is Christ Jesus. This would also revoke the primacy of the pope.

When Jesus referred to the Pharisees and Sadducee as vipers because of their rulership in the temple over the people and the path to God, how would one imagine he would approve the same heirarchal construct in the RCC.

When Jesus told Peter he was the rock upon which he will build his church he wasn't talking about the construction of the Vatican and the RCC. The Vatican being constructed over the tombs of the dead pagans and it's bowels now filled with the corpses of dead popes, while the body parts of the dead later decreed "saints" by election of the RCC authority, are worshiped as relics.

Jesus was instead talking about the testimony of Peter and his delivering the good news of Christ unto the world. The church, contrary to what the RCC recognizes, is the body of the faithful in Christ in whom the Holy Spirit of God is indwelling. We are all saints in Christ Jesus.


As for what denomination is closest to that of the true teachings of Christ? As to a denominational alignment for the Christian, some say the Church of Christ. It holds strictly to the teachings of Christ in scripture.
I'm unaffiliated. The church of Christ for me is the body of faithful in Jesus. Who said, where two or three are gathered in my name there am I also.

Community world wide of the "Christian church" is insured in the billions of those faithful to Christ Jesus first.

Not to the church that presumes to be an entity that acts as emissary between the faithful and God. And who's appointed authorities claim to communicate changes in doctrine because God has a one on one with the pope. While priests are said to be the 'father' and who act as the representative of Jesus on earth . When Jesus told us call no man father but your Father in Heaven.

Those are just a few examples.

You threw down the gauntlet saying we needed correcting?

I picked it up as in john6 " but where would we go"
And seeing 10000 choices none of which agree, some I have already left because of it, a fair question to you is so " who has the truth?" And which are preaching false doctrine? That was the problem I had before joining RCC , it is not a trip you up apologetic argument.

 

[mikeuk]

You're supposed to be ignoring me.

I still hope you are capable of civilised discussion, and the questions are motivated by interest not ridicule.
Not convinced at all.

 

[mikeuk]

Well, let's see. Papal infallibility is a myth. If no other pope in the history of the RCC proved that one it was Jospeph Ratzinger.
Mariology is not scriptural. Purgatory is not scriptural and in fact marginalizes the death of Christ on the cross. The Rosary is not scriptural. Graven images are against scripture and one of the 10 commands of what not to do, while the RCC is full of such things.
Revering the dead, necromancy for all intents and purposes, is contrary to scripture. Revering the dead that are deified as saints, asking them to intercede with the Godhead on behalf of the believer, is not scriptural when the Bible tells us there is one mediator between man and God and that is Christ Jesus. This would also revoke the primacy of the pope.

When Jesus referred to the Pharisees and Sadducee as vipers because of their rulership in the temple over the people and the path to God, how would one imagine he would approve the same heirarchal construct in the RCC.

When Jesus told Peter he was the rock upon which he will build his church he wasn't talking about the construction of the Vatican and the RCC. The Vatican being constructed over the tombs of the dead pagans and it's bowels now filled with the corpses of dead popes, while the body parts of the dead later decreed "saints" by election of the RCC authority, are worshiped as relics.

Jesus was instead talking about the testimony of Peter and his delivering the good news of Christ unto the world. The church, contrary to what the RCC recognizes, is the body of the faithful in Christ in whom the Holy Spirit of God is indwelling. We are all saints in Christ Jesus.


As for what denomination is closest to that of the true teachings of Christ? As to a denominational alignment for the Christian, some say the Church of Christ. It holds strictly to the teachings of Christ in scripture.
I'm unaffiliated. The church of Christ for me is the body of faithful in Jesus. Who said, where two or three are gathered in my name there am I also.

Community world wide of the "Christian church" is insured in the billions of those faithful to Christ Jesus first.

Not to the church that presumes to be an entity that acts as emissary between the faithful and God. And who's appointed authorities claim to communicate changes in doctrine because God has a one on one with the pope. While priests are said to be the 'father' and who act as the representative of Jesus on earth . When Jesus told us call no man father but your Father in Heaven.

Those are just a few examples.

I asked you a fair question, where is truth. You dont answer except for a rant. Sad.

 

[crossnote]

I am just reading scripture in the light of history. The canon was not around yet, so tradition was handed on by the church by word of mouth and letter - Paul says so - which is why the pillar of truth is the church, it could not be the NT back then , it did not exist.

So the OT Scriptures don't count which were canonized centuries before Rome came about...or is this part of Rome's replacement theology where she becomes the queen of Scripture by ignoring the Jewish writings?

 

[JesusIsAll]

You are not breaking mine, I only talk to those who are courteous! Rest are a waste of time.

You're just a hypocrite. You offend the word of God with your lies, and you offend others, a perfect example, I quote you,

"As Thomist said.... Speak of the devil and...."

You slimeballs who call others devils, at the drop of a hat, have no right to the word courtesy. You're a tragic misanthrope.

 

[valiant]

You don't know that! And if - in a church in which doctrine was handed down by tradition as it was in those days before NT, from apostles to next...

the Apostles handed down the New Testament. you don't know the facts.

If you think Jesus would allow it to apostasize in the first handover, you have no faith in him! He said " the gates of hell would not prevail" against his church as you presume....

LOL Ignatius did not apostasies. He just had some strange ideas. He was concerned for the church he had left behind. Jesus allows us to learn by our mistakes,

 

[mikeuk]

So the OT Scriptures don't count which were canonized centuries before Rome came about...or is this part of Rome's replacement theology where she becomes the queen of Scripture by ignoring the Jewish writings?

I am getting lost here. Eat an elephant one bite at a time.

This questioning stemmed I thought from my contention that we can see some of what apostles passed on in ECF - ignatius saying real presence, bishop needed very early in the church, which Interprets the practice of the Eucharist.

My saying that paradosis , tradition was the way the first generations handed on truth.

Dont get how your remark fits in?

 

[valiant]

I asked you a fair question, where is truth. You dont answer except for a rant. Sad.

Truth is in Jesus and in the Scriptures

 

[mikeuk]

Don't you just love the courtesy -

We are simply tired of Jeff's persistent rudeness, at least 10 times a day, now yours,
so it was a quip that is all, and obviously so.

By the love you will know them.

You're just a hypocrite. You offend the word of God with your lies, and you offend others, a perfect example, I quote you,

"As Thomist said.... Speak of the devil and...."

You slimeballs who call others devils, at the drop of a hat, have no right to the word courtesy. You're a tragic misanthrope.

 

[mikeuk]

This is the biggest problem I have with totally discounting the idea of intercession of the saints (Mary included)

If we do discount this as an appropriate practice, then we must either:

1. Deny that any miracles have ever happened as a result of asking for such intersession.
2. Acknowledge that God permits Satan (for Satan can only do what God permits) to perform miracles to deceive people who believe in the validity of the practice.

Perhaps there is a third alternative I have not considered, can someone who thinks that the practice of asking for intersession of saints is akin to Satan worship help me see the flaw in my thinking?

Valid point, although RCC itself never actually validates miracles, some defy explanation.

 

[valiant]

I am getting lost here. Eat an elephant one bite at a time.

Munch !!

This questioning stemmed I thought from my contention that we can see some of what apostles passed on in ECF - ignatius saying real presence, bishop needed very early in the church, which Interprets the practice of the Eucharist.

How could the Apostles 'pass on' what they never taught? Ignatius said nothing about the real presence. you read it into his words. the New Testament church had bishops (plural). Every church needs overseers. they worked together to plan the services, preach the word, and oversee and guide God's people. They were not bishops in the Roman Catholic sense.

My saying that paradosis , tradition was the way the first generations handed on truth.

yes in the tradition put into the Gospels and the epistles. They handed down to the church of their day information about the life and teaching of Jesus which was then written down in the Gospels. So the paradosis is the Gospels

 

[valiant]

ex cathedra has origin in the bible to - it is Moses seat referenced in the NT - Jesus said listen when even the Pharisees spoke ex cathedra.

But He did not see their words as inspired and necessarily the truth. His point was that they were presenting SCRIPTURE. It is nothing like the ex cathedra in the Catholic church when Big Daddy Pope tells everyone what they must believe.

You see we are bible Christians! We interpret some things differently.

you mean you add to the Bible

 

[valiant]

But that is where we differ," the pillar and foundation of truth is the church", and Paul urges " stay true to tradition passed by word of mouth and letter" so the gospels were not around at that time, which is why the church was handed on that way. And anyway the gospels do not purport to be a complete how to manual of Christian living, you can see what the apostles taught in the writings of those following them

Ignatius to smyrneans was written before even the first canon of scripture ( Marcions) and even that canon was declared heretical, the real one you use now, a long time in the future from Ignatius. Ignatius does not change gospels, he shows the true interpretation was real presence administered by the bishops appointed answering the question of " do this " - who could do it after the apostles! Tradition provides interpretation for scripture.

This is not true. They had a canon of Scripture before Marcion. Where do you think Marcion got his list from. He selected out books from those which were read in churches. Most of the churches had the Gospels, Acts, Paul's epistles, Peter' epistle, John's epistle and treated them as Scripture (2 Pet 3.16).

 

[JesusIsAll]

Don't you just love the courtesy -

We are simply tired of Jeff's persistent rudeness, at least 10 times a day, now yours,
so it was a quip that is all, and obviously so.

By the love you will know them.

Well, if it were true I'm unloving, this would have no bearing on the fact that by your lies you're known. In my Bible, God hates a liar. You cultists are all the same. Present legitimate claims and objections you can't deal with, and your last refuge is always calling people heretics and devils. Some things have not changed since before the Reformation. To call people devils is the worst slander possible, and devil even means slanderer. Your phony degeneracy, followed by talk of love: that dog don't hunt. You are no babe in the worlds, neither you or your psycho, control freak "church." You are a flaming hypocrite. As to your ability to defend the undefendable of your butchered "Christian" faith of the Catechism, here's what belongs in your playbook,

“When you resort to attacking the messenger and not the message, you have lost the debate.”​

Used to be just burning Bibles, and the possessors, as well as the translators. Now all you can to is try to defame those who revere the word of God, and this conversation is a dime a dozen encounter with a Catholic who will never be able to answer for all the perversion of truth and corruption.