• Love God, and love one another!

    Share your love for Christ and others with us

    https://christianforums.net/forums/god_love/

  • Want to discuss private matters, or make a few friends?

    Ask for membership to the Men's or Lady's Locker Rooms

    For access, please contact a member of staff and they can add you in!

  • Wake up and smell the coffee!

    Join us for a little humor in Joy of the Lord

    https://christianforums.net/forums/humor_and_jokes/

  • Need prayer and encouragement?

    Come share your heart's concerns

    https://christianforums.net/forums/prayer/

  • Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?

    Join For His Glory for a discussion on how

    https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/

  • Have questions about the Christian faith?

    Come ask us what's on your mind in Questions and Answers

    https://christianforums.net/forums/questions-and-answers/

  • CFN has a new look and a new theme

    "I bore you on eagle's wings, and brought you to Myself" (Exodus 19:4)

    More new themes coming in the future!

  • Read the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ?

    Read through this brief blog, and receive eternal salvation as the free gift of God

    /blog/the-gospel

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

Catholic Church Origins

  • Thread starter Thread starter CDF
  • Start date Start date
Exactly when satan established this church, matters little. But satan has always had his desired worship ones from Cain in Gen. 4:7 with his fruit offering for his idol, on. There is only one church of today that claims & even boasts of being the mother of all! And it would take a person who is [SPIRITUALLY BRAIN DEAD OF THIS CULT] to think that Christ could have ever been first place in this daily sin/riddled World News church below.
Rev. 17
[2] With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication (kings as in government heads!), and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication. (as in false doctrine!)
[3] So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.
[4] And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:
[5] And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.

This Church must have a worldwide cult LEADER! + there must be another book held above Christ's Word.
And satan has both! And if you can find even a hint in history of any other garbage can of 'BLASPHEMY' you would buy into anything! Christ said even of His very own (and that AIN'T Rome!) in Matt. 10:26.. 'Fear them not therefor: [FOR THERE IS NOTHING COVERED THAT SHALL NOT BE REVEALED; AND HID, THAT SHALL NOT BE KNOWN].'

And if some forums censor it out, the [[WORLDNEWS WILL CARRY IT!]]

--Elijah
 
chestertonrules said:
This is pure fantasy. The Catholic Church was started by Jesus. It formally came into existence at Pentecost.

Constantine accepted Christianity and ended the persecution of Christians. He didn't change the faith in any way. In fact, it is not even clear that Constantine ever converted, although his mother was a Christian.


What did Constantine have to do with Ignatius, who knew the apostle John and was Bishop of Antioch? Nothing, of course, but we can see that the Catholic Church was alive and well even in 110 AD:

"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).

Jesus established the one true religion that is called by James, the "pure religion" at James 1:27.(King James Bible) How “pure†is the Catholic Church ? The Catholic Church did not come into existence in 33 C.E., for nowhere in the Bible is this said but is an imaginary belief on your part. Let's see what the Bible really says. For example, Jesus told his apostles to not “call anyone on earth 'Father,' for you have only one Father, the one in heaven."(Matt 23:9, International Standard Version) Thus, no one is to be called by the religious title of “Fatherâ€, for only one person is our “Fatherâ€, God.

The Pope (Latin, papa) is called "Holy Father" by the Catholic faithful. But this title is applied only to God the Father. Jesus, just before his death, said in prayer to his heavenly Father: "Holy Father, protect them by your name, the name that you gave me, so that they may be one, as we are one.(John 17:11, International Standard Version) To call the Pope by the title “Holy Father†is tantamount to blasphemy, for this is raising the Pope to the level of God, a level that not even Jesus Christ has.(John 14:28, 1Cor 11:3, Heb 12:2)

Thus, the Catholic Church has completely disregarded Jesus instructions, setting up their own hierarchy. Jesus told the false religious leaders just before he was impaled by their authority: “But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' (as a title) for you have only one teacher, and all of you are brothers.â€(Matt 23:8, International Standard Version) He then says that “you must not be called `leaders,' for you have only one Leader, and that is Christ.â€(Matt 23:10, William’s New Testament) Where in the Catholic Church is everyone “brothers†?

Further, he has adorned himself with all kinds of imposing regalia, together with crowns, crosses, and miters. (Compare Matthew 23:5, 6.) But Jesus and his followers had no such garb; they dressed as did the common people. The clergy of the Catholic Church have also taken to themselves titles such as “Father,†“Reverend,†“Most Reverend,†“His Excellency,†and “His Eminence,†which add to their ‘lifting themselves over everyone.’

Elihu, in rebutting Job’s hypocritical comforters, said: “Let me not, I pray you, accept any man's person, neither let me give flattering titles unto man.â€(Job 32:21, King James Bible) Hence, even at this point, there has been a gross contempt for Jesus instructions by the Catholic Church. How can there be any blessing from God when disdain is made of his instructions ?

Indeed, Constantine did not “change the faith in any wayâ€, for it was already corrupt. At the beginning of his career, he needed some “divine†patronage, and this could not be provided by the fading Roman gods. The empire, including its religion and other institutions, was in decline, and something new and invigorating was needed to reconsolidate it.

The encyclopedia Hidria says: “Constantine was especially interested in Christianity because it backed up not only his victory but also the reorganization of his empire. The Christian churches that existed everywhere became his political support. . . . He surrounded himself with the great prelates of the times . . . , and he requested that they keep their unity intact.â€

Seeking religious harmony for political reasons, Constantine quickly crushed any dissenting voices, not on the grounds of doctrinal truth, but on the basis of majority acceptance. The profound dogmatic differences within the badly divided “Christian†church gave him the opportunity to intervene as a “God-sent†mediator.

Through his dealings with the Donatists in North Africa and the followers of Arius in the eastern portion of the empire, he quickly discovered that persuasion was not enough to forge a solid, unified faith. It was in an attempt to resolve the Arian controversy that he convened the first ecumenical council in the history of the church in 325 C.E.

Concerning Constantine, historian Paul Johnson states: “One of his main reasons for tolerating Christianity may have been that it gave himself and the State the opportunity to control the Church’s policy on orthodoxy and the treatment of heterodoxy.†He further said that “Constantine never abandoned sun-worship and kept the sun on his coins.†The Catholic Encyclopedia observes tht “ the day before (his death), [Constantine] had made a sacrifice to Zeus because he also had the title Pontifex Maximus.â€
 
nadab said:
chestertonrules said:
This is pure fantasy. The Catholic Church was started by Jesus. It formally came into existence at Pentecost.

Constantine accepted Christianity and ended the persecution of Christians. He didn't change the faith in any way. In fact, it is not even clear that Constantine ever converted, although his mother was a Christian.


What did Constantine have to do with Ignatius, who knew the apostle John and was Bishop of Antioch? Nothing, of course, but we can see that the Catholic Church was alive and well even in 110 AD:

"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).

Jesus established the one true religion that is called by James, the "pure religion" at James 1:27.(King James Bible) How “pure†is the Catholic Church ? The Catholic Church did not come into existence in 33 C.E., for nowhere in the Bible is this said but is an imaginary belief on your part. Let's see what the Bible really says. For example, Jesus told his apostles to not “call anyone on earth 'Father,' for you have only one Father, the one in heaven."(Matt 23:9, International Standard Version) Thus, no one is to be called by the religious title of “Fatherâ€, for only one person is our “Fatherâ€, God.

The Pope (Latin, papa) is called "Holy Father" by the Catholic faithful. But this title is applied only to God the Father. Jesus, just before his death, said in prayer to his heavenly Father: "Holy Father, protect them by your name, the name that you gave me, so that they may be one, as we are one.(John 17:11, International Standard Version) To call the Pope by the title “Holy Father†is tantamount to blasphemy, for this is raising the Pope to the level of God, a level that not even Jesus Christ has.(John 14:28, 1Cor 11:3, Heb 12:2)

Thus, the Catholic Church has completely disregarded Jesus instructions, setting up their own hierarchy. Jesus told the false religious leaders just before he was impaled by their authority: “But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' (as a title) for you have only one teacher, and all of you are brothers.â€(Matt 23:8, International Standard Version) He then says that “you must not be called `leaders,' for you have only one Leader, and that is Christ.â€(Matt 23:10, William’s New Testament) Where in the Catholic Church is everyone “brothers†?

Further, he has adorned himself with all kinds of imposing regalia, together with crowns, crosses, and miters. (Compare Matthew 23:5, 6.) But Jesus and his followers had no such garb; they dressed as did the common people. The clergy of the Catholic Church have also taken to themselves titles such as “Father,†“Reverend,†“Most Reverend,†“His Excellency,†and “His Eminence,†which add to their ‘lifting themselves over everyone.’

Elihu, in rebutting Job’s hypocritical comforters, said: “Let me not, I pray you, accept any man's person, neither let me give flattering titles unto man.â€(Job 32:21, King James Bible) Hence, even at this point, there has been a gross contempt for Jesus instructions by the Catholic Church. How can there be any blessing from God when disdain is made of his instructions ?

Indeed, Constantine did not “change the faith in any wayâ€, for it was already corrupt. At the beginning of his career, he needed some “divine†patronage, and this could not be provided by the fading Roman gods. The empire, including its religion and other institutions, was in decline, and something new and invigorating was needed to reconsolidate it.

The encyclopedia Hidria says: “Constantine was especially interested in Christianity because it backed up not only his victory but also the reorganization of his empire. The Christian churches that existed everywhere became his political support. . . . He surrounded himself with the great prelates of the times . . . , and he requested that they keep their unity intact.â€

Seeking religious harmony for political reasons, Constantine quickly crushed any dissenting voices, not on the grounds of doctrinal truth, but on the basis of majority acceptance. The profound dogmatic differences within the badly divided “Christian†church gave him the opportunity to intervene as a “God-sent†mediator.

Through his dealings with the Donatists in North Africa and the followers of Arius in the eastern portion of the empire, he quickly discovered that persuasion was not enough to forge a solid, unified faith. It was in an attempt to resolve the Arian controversy that he convened the first ecumenical council in the history of the church in 325 C.E.

Concerning Constantine, historian Paul Johnson states: “One of his main reasons for tolerating Christianity may have been that it gave himself and the State the opportunity to control the Church’s policy on orthodoxy and the treatment of heterodoxy.†He further said that “Constantine never abandoned sun-worship and kept the sun on his coins.†The Catholic Encyclopedia observes that “ the day before (his death), [Constantine] had made a sacrfice to Zeus because he also had the title Pontifex Maximus.â€



This doesn't even address my post.

Do you have a point?
 
chestertonrules said:
nadab said:
chestertonrules said:
This is pure fantasy. The Catholic Church was started by Jesus. It formally came into existence at Pentecost.

Constantine accepted Christianity and ended the persecution of Christians. He didn't change the faith in any way. In fact, it is not even clear that Constantine ever converted, although his mother was a Christian.


What did Constantine have to do with Ignatius, who knew the apostle John and was Bishop of Antioch? Nothing, of course, but we can see that the Catholic Church was alive and well even in 110 AD:

"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).

Jesus established the one true religion that is called by James, the "pure religion" at James 1:27.(King James Bible) How “pure†is the Catholic Church ? The Catholic Church did not come into existence in 33 C.E., for nowhere in the Bible is this said but is an imaginary belief on your part. Let's see what the Bible really says. For example, Jesus told his apostles to not “call anyone on earth 'Father,' for you have only one Father, the one in heaven."(Matt 23:9, International Standard Version) Thus, no one is to be called by the religious title of “Fatherâ€, for only one person is our “Fatherâ€, God.

The Pope (Latin, papa) is called "Holy Father" by the Catholic faithful. But this title is applied only to God the Father. Jesus, just before his death, said in prayer to his heavenly Father: "Holy Father, protect them by your name, the name that you gave me, so that they may be one, as we are one.(John 17:11, International Standard Version) To call the Pope by the title “Holy Father†is tantamount to blasphemy, for this is raising the Pope to the level of God, a level that not even Jesus Christ has.(John 14:28, 1Cor 11:3, Heb 12:2)

Thus, the Catholic Church has completely disregarded Jesus instructions, setting up their own hierarchy. Jesus told the false religious leaders just before he was impaled by their authority: “But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' (as a title) for you have only one teacher, and all of you are brothers.â€(Matt 23:8, International Standard Version) He then says that “you must not be called `leaders,' for you have only one Leader, and that is Christ.â€(Matt 23:10, William’s New Testament) Where in the Catholic Church is everyone “brothers†?

Further, he has adorned himself with all kinds of imposing regalia, together with crowns, crosses, and miters. (Compare Matthew 23:5, 6.) But Jesus and his followers had no such garb; they dressed as did the common people. The clergy of the Catholic Church have also taken to themselves titles such as “Father,†“Reverend,†“Most Reverend,†“His Excellency,†and “His Eminence,†which add to their ‘lifting themselves over everyone.’

Elihu, in rebutting Job’s hypocritical comforters, said: “Let me not, I pray you, accept any man's person, neither let me give flattering titles unto man.â€(Job 32:21, King James Bible) Hence, even at this point, there has been a gross contempt for Jesus instructions by the Catholic Church. How can there be any blessing from God when disdain is made of his instructions ?

Indeed, Constantine did not “change the faith in any wayâ€, for it was already corrupt. At the beginning of his career, he needed some “divine†patronage, and this could not be provided by the fading Roman gods. The empire, including its religion and other institutions, was in decline, and something new and invigorating was needed to reconsolidate it.

The encyclopedia Hidria says: “Constantine was especially interested in Christianity because it backed up not only his victory but also the reorganization of his empire. The Christian churches that existed everywhere became his political support. . . . He surrounded himself with the great prelates of the times . . . , and he requested that they keep their unity intact.â€

Seeking religious harmony for political reasons, Constantine quickly crushed any dissenting voices, not on the grounds of doctrinal truth, but on the basis of majority acceptance. The profound dogmatic differences within the badly divided “Christian†church gave him the opportunity to intervene as a “God-sent†mediator.

Through his dealings with the Donatists in North Africa and the followers of Arius in the eastern portion of the empire, he quickly discovered that persuasion was not enough to forge a solid, unified faith. It was in an attempt to resolve the Arian controversy that he convened the first ecumenical council in the history of the church in 325 C.E.

Concerning Constantine, historian Paul Johnson states: “One of his main reasons for tolerating Christianity may have been that it gave himself and the State the opportunity to control the Church’s policy on orthodoxy and the treatment of heterodoxy.†He further said that “Constantine never abandoned sun-worship and kept the sun on his coins.†The Catholic Encyclopedia observes that “ the day before (his death), [Constantine] had made a sacrifice to Zeus because he also had the title Pontifex Maximus.â€



This doesn't even address my post.

Do you have a point?
Exactly to the point! Very well done also! There is in fact a starting point of the great whore, for Paul understood that 'the mystery of iniquity doth already work' 2 Thess. 2:7 about AD 54. And as the Godhead had permitted for satan to live on after his rebellion in heaven for a [MATURE Purpose], They also have seen it needed for satan to carry it out to the point that all of Eternity would know what his REBELLION (+ his Church here on earth) were & are, and is became under his I,I,I,I,I Isa. 14:12-14 rule.

And when even 'some' non/Christian one thinks that catholicism has something spiritually to offer other than a very easy 'Origin' to live by (if one has NO Conscience) yet, an terrible church to 'die' by, they even question if it had 'even had a start to begin with'?? :crying
--Elijah
 
chestertonrules said:
The Catholic Church started in 33AD here:
Elf said:
The Catholic church yes, but not the Roman catholic Church.
Luther for one tried to reform the Roman church back to the teaching of the scriptures and the Catholic church, but to no avail.


chestertonrules said:
There is no difference between the Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic Church. 'Roman' was added as an insult by protestants, but nobody found it insulting. The Church is the Catholic Church, and it includes 22 rites, including the latin rite.
Study your history. All the churches were run independently there was no pope who ruled as a successor of Peter, each had their own bishop. It wasn't until many years later that the Roman bishop proclaimed himself pope and leader over all the churches. That's when the split came between the west and the east.

The Catholic church is the universal Christian church with Christ at her head. The Roman Catholic church is the church with the Roman bishop, "the pope" at her head.

[quote:1emeezmj]Luther was less concerned with scriptures than he was with Luther. He wanted power and he didn't want to have to worry about his behavior. He felt entitled to change the books or words of the bible as suited his personal dogma.
That's a fable that has lived for many years. Your churches indulgences is what set Luther off to reform her. Luther did not want to leave the church or Rome at first.

Luther on Luther:

My word is the word of Christ; my mouth is the mouth of Christ" (O'Hare PF. The Facts About Luther, 1916--1987 reprint ed., pp. 203-204).
Does not the pope say the same thing?
Notice Luther proclaimed the word of God. The Pope proclaimed doctrines which are not in the word of God.
So who's word is the word of Christ and the mouth of Christ?

You tell me what a great fuss the Papists are making because the word alone in not in the text of Paul…say right out to him: 'Dr. Martin Luther will have it so,'…I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know very well that the word 'alone' is not in the Latin or the Greek text (Stoddard J. Rebuilding a Lost Faith. 1922, pp. 101-102; see also Luther M. Amic. Discussion, 1, 127).
I would have to take the time to look into this. Though I am quite sure there is a twist here, I do not agree with everything Luther taught.
Since Luther is titled the father of the reformation he is your # 1 target. There are many others, try Calvin on for size.



Luther: Be a sinner, and sin boldly, but believe more boldly still. Sin shall not drag us away from Him, even should we commit fornication or murder thousands and thousands of times a day (Luther, M. Letter of August 1, 1521 as quoted in Stoddard, p.93).
Luther was quite a character wasn't he? :-)

The bible: For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries (Hebrews 10:26-27).
The writer of Hebrews is teaching: Seeing the only true sacrifice is Christ's and when that is denied and rejected, it can be no more reiterated, neither can there be any other found elsewhere.


Regarding the Book of James:

St. James' epistle is really an epistle of straw…for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it" (Luther, M. Preface to the New Testament, 1546).
Yes I read somewhere that Luther had a problem with James for a while, it took him sometime to accept it as sacred scripture.

and

In the first place it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works…Besides, he throws things together so chaotically that it seems to me he must have been some good, pious man, who took a few sayings from the disciples of the apostles and thus tossed them off on paper. Or it may perhaps have been written by someone on the basis of his preaching (Luther, M. Preface to the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude, 1546).
You obviously haven't given Luther much time and consideration. You are a slave to tradition and your learning.


P
erhaps none of Martin Luther's writings on the Bible are as harsh as what he wrote about "The Revelation of Jesus Christ" (Revelation 1:1). Specifically he wrote,

About this book of the Revelation of John...I miss more than one thing in this book, and it makes me consider it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic…I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it. Moreover he seems to me to be going much too far when he commends his own book so highly-indeed, more than any of the other sacred books do, though they are much more important-and threatens that if anyone takes away anything from it, God will take away from him, etc. Again, they are supposed to be blessed who keep what is written in this book; and yet no one knows what that is, to say nothing of keeping it. This is just the same as if we did not have the book at all. And there are many far better books available for us to keep…My spirit cannot accommodate itself to this book. For me this is reason enough not to think highly of it: Christ is neither taught nor known in it" (Luther, M. Preface to the Revelation of St. John, 1522).
Interesting, I might look into these writings of Luther. When you read something in-dept you finally find a conclusion.

Another reason Martin Luther may not have been able to accommodate this Revelation of Jesus Christ is because he clearly violated this warning,
That's your opinion.

For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book (Revelation 22:18-19).
I would be more concerned with the RCC's adding and taking away, amongst other things.


Martin Luther did not care for several books in the Old Testament either:

"Job spoke not as it stands written in his book, but only had such thoughts. It is merely the argument of a fable. It is probable that Solomon wrote and made this book."…

"Ecclesiastes ought to have been more complete. There is too much incoherent matter in it...Solomon did not, therefore, write this book."…

"The book of Esther I toss into the Elbe. I am such an enemy to the book of Esther that I wish it did not exist, for it Judaizes too much..."

"The history of Jonah is so monstrous that it is absolutely incredible." (as quoted in O'Hare, p. 202).
[/quote:1emeezmj] I noticed you have taken many bits and pieces (cut outs), this practice does no one justice, it is not a fair way of accusing anyone and is very rude.

If you are interested I will post some of Luther's letters and writings for you, where they are long I will post links if I can locate them. I am sure you will see a man so different then your church teaches, in fact you wont even recognize him.
 
The reformation did not start with Luther, it started when the Church of Rome started straying from the gospel. Later God used Luther (The great Reformation) to bring His true church back to His word. Many say protestants left the church, when in fact during the great Reformation, the Reformers, like Luther were excommunicated. They did not want to leave her they wanted to reform her. When many seen the true gospel restored to the church, they in turn left the Roman Church. ---The Church of Rome left the gospel, the Reformers tried to bring it back to the gospel. And in the process many true believers in Christ became Martyrs.

Some of this (in this post) may not be historically accurate, as far as the dates of certain practices and traditions, but it is believed by many to be true.
 
What was Luther's intentions? Luther in fulfillment of his promises to Miltitz, wrote a letter to the Pope :

"Most holy father, - may your Holiness condescend to incline your paternal ear, which is that of Christ Himself, toward your poor sheep, and listen with kindness to his bleating. What shall I do, most Holy Father! I cannot stand against the torrent of your anger, and I know no way of escape. They require of me that I should retract. I would be prompt to do so, if that could lead to the result they desire. But the persecutions of my enemies have spread my writings far and wide, and they are to deeply engraved on the hearts of men to be by possibility erased. A retraction would only still more dishonor the Church of Rome, and call forth from all a cry of accusation against her. Most Holy Father, i declare it in the presence of God, and of all the world, I never have sought, nor will I ever seek, to weaken, by force or artifice, the power of the Roman Church or of your Holiness. I confess that there is nothing in heaven or earth that should be preferred above that Church, save only Jesus Christ the Lord of all.....Luther.

Notice Luther uses the Roman Church? And he loved her, he meant nothing insulting here. That was common for people to call it the Church of Rome, the Roman Church or the Roman Catholic Church.

An important truth is that the Reformation was not a mere opposition to
the Papacy. It was not a war waged against a certain form or condition of things, neither was it the result of any negative tendencies. As one can see, Luther's heart was still for the Church of Rome and her Pope. Luther did not separate himself from the Church of Rome, but the Church separated herself from Luther.----

Some people I have talked with seem to think Luther separated from the Church because of the Pope, when in fact, at first He loved the Church and the Pope, and had the utmost respect and adoration for her. Luther was a Catholic monk in the truest sense, as many fellow Catholic monks wrote and talked about.
 
Vic C. said:
I'm still not seeing any real correlation to eschatology in the latest posts. If we can't make a connection to end Times events, the Staff will have to close this thread.

Sorry, but my allowing RCC related posts here is based on End Times talk.
One month later and still, no signs of relating this End Times.

Note to Staff, 48 hours to get on topic. You may lock it if it doesn't and if I don't get back to it first.
 
chestertonrules said:
This is pure fantasy. The Catholic Church was started by Jesus. It formally came into existence at Pentecost.

Constantine accepted Christianity and ended the persecution of Christians. He didn't change the faith in any way. In fact, it is not even clear that Constantine ever converted, although his mother was a Christian.

This doesn't even address my post.

Do you have a point?

The Catholic Church was not started by Jesus. Jesus established the one "pure religion" (James 1:27) and the Catholic Church is very far from pure, having within it gross wrongs, such as the acceptance of pagan holidays, Christmas, Easter, Halloween, involvement in the world's political arena, and abuses by the religious hierarchy. For example, Christmas is well known for being of pagan origin, with the Roman celebration Saturnalia and the honoring the Persian god of light, Mithra, on December 25, known as the Natalis Solis Invicti ("birthday of the invincible sun").

The New Catholic Encyclopedia acknowledges that "the date of December 25 does not correspond to Christ’s birth, but to the feast of the Natalis Solis Invicti, the Roman sun festival at the solstice...the birth of Christ was assigned the date of the winter solstice (December 25 in the Julian Calendar, January 6 in the Egyptian), because on this day, as the sun began its return to northern skies, the pagan devotees of Mithra celebrated the dies natalis Solis Invicti (birthday of the invincible sun). On Dec. 25, 274, Aurelian had proclaimed the sun-god principal patron of the empire and dedicated a temple to him in the Campus Martius. Christmas originated at a time when the cult of the sun was particularly strong at Rome.â€

The U.S. Catholic (December 1981) went on to explain: “The Romans’ favorite festival was Saturnalia, which began on December 17 and ended with the ‘birthday of the unconquered sun’ (Natalis solis invicti) on December 25. Somewhere in the second quarter of the fourth century, savvy officials of the church of Rome decided December 25 would make a dandy day to celebrate the birthday of the ‘sun of righteousness.’ Christmas was born.â€

The Enciclopedia de la Religión Católica frankly states: “The reason that the Roman Church decided to assign this date to the festival seems to be its tendency to replace pagan festivals with Christian ones. . . . We know that in Rome at that time, the pagans consecrated December 25 as the celebration of natalis invicti, the birth of the ‘invincible sun.’â€

Jesus gave a command to observe the day of his death, not birth nor resurrection.(Luke 22:19) The Catholic Church has never listened to what Jesus said, but rather made her own "rules", and tainted herself with paganism and other religious traditions that go against the Bible.

Of Easter, it also is well known as a pagan celebration incorporated into the Catholic Church. The historian Socrates Scholasticus, born about 380 C.E., wrote that "it seems to me that the feast of Easter has been introduced into the church from some old usage, just as many other customs have been established.†Easter’s ascendancy as a festival thus was not Bible based.

In fact, scholars claim that the very word Easter is of Anglo-Saxon origin, referring to the springtime. During that season, the ancients thought the sun was reborn after months of winter death. Catholic priest Francis X. Weiser admitted: “Some of the popular traditions of Lent and Easter date back to ancient nature rites.â€

The book Curiosities of Popular Customs explains: “It was the invariable policy of the early Church to give a Christian significance to such of the extant pagan ceremonies as could not be rooted out. In the case of Easter the conversion was peculiarly easy. Joy at the rising of the natural sun, and the awakening of nature from the death of winter, became joy at the rising of the Sun of righteousness, at the resurrection of Christ from the grave.â€

Easter has also been linked to the worship of the Phoenician fertility goddess, Astarte, who had as her symbols the egg and the hare. Statues of Astarte have variously depicted her as having exaggerated sex organs or with a rabbit beside her and an egg in her hand. Can one claim Easter as a Christian celebration when it is shown as tainted with sex worship ?

Of Halloween, the Encarta Encyclopedia said that "most Halloween festivities are based on folk beliefs concerning supernatural forces and spirits of the dead. Halloween decorations typically feature imagery associated with supernatural beings such as witches, werewolves, vampires, and ghosts".

It further stated: "During the ancient Celtic festival of Samhain, from which Halloween was derived, Druids burned huge sacrificial wooden effigies known as wicker men atop sacred hilltop sites. The wicker men were sometimes filled with animals, prisoners of war, criminals, and other sacrifices to Druid deities."(Microsoft ® Encarta ® Reference Library 2005) Can an ancient Celtic festival be "Christianized" and still be pleasing to God ?

It is well known that Catholics throughout the earth are involved in the political field. Yet Jesus told his faithful apostles that "they are no part of the world, just as I am no part of the world."(John 17:16) Adolf Hitler was known as a Catholic, and according to his chief architect, Albert Speer, remained a formal member of the Catholic Church until his death, despite his atrocities. According to biographer John Toland, Hitler was still "a member in good standing of the Church of Rome despite detestation of its hierarchy."

In fact, only by the support of the Catholic Church was Hilter able to attain to power, keeping sway over the masses. On July 20, 1933, the Vatican’s interest in the rising power of Nazism was displayed when Cardinal Pacelli (who later became Pope Pius XII) signed a concordat in Rome between the Vatican and Nazi Germany. Von Papen signed the document as Hitler’s representative, and Pacelli there conferred on von Papen the high papal decoration of the Grand Cross of the Order of Pius.

Winston Churchill, in his book The Gathering Storm, published in 1948, tells how von Papen further used “his reputation as a good Catholic†to gain church support for the Nazi takeover of Austria. In 1938, in honor of Hitler’s birthday, Cardinal Innitzer (1875-1955) ordered that all Austrian churches fly the swastika flag, ring their bells, and pray for the Nazi dictator.

In his book Satan in Top Hat, Tibor Koeves writes of this, stating: “The Concordat was a great victory for Hitler. It gave him the first moral support he had received from the outer world, and this from the most exalted source.†The concordat required the Vatican to withdraw its support from Germany’s Catholic Center Party, thus sanctioning Hitler’s one-party “total state.â€

Further, its article 14 stated: “The appointments for archbishops, bishops, and the like will be issued only after the governor, installed by the Reich, has duly ascertained that no doubts exist with respect to general political considerations.†By the end of 1933 (proclaimed a “Holy Year†by Pope Pius XI), Vatican support had become a major factor in Hitler’s push for world domination. Sitting pretty in the Vatican, Pope Pius XII let the Holocaust on the Jews and the cruel persecutions of others proceed uncriticized.

Honest-hearted individuals can readily see that the Catholic Church is not based on what Jesus taught, but upon a "house" that is founded upon false religious traditions and pagan teachings that God is angry at. And with the more recent revelations of child abuse in St. Francis, Wisconsin, whereby the late Catholic priest Lawrence Murphy sexually molested over 200 deaf boys from 1950-74, more of her corrupted character has been exposed.

The report further said: "Some allegations became public years ago. But they received renewed attention this week after documents obtained by The New York Times showed Murphy was spared a defrocking in the mid-1990s because he was protected by the Vatican office led by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now the pope."(Posted March 25, 2010, Associated Press) Thus, the Catholic Church is built upon corruption.
 
nadab said:
chestertonrules said:
This is pure fantasy. The Catholic Church was started by Jesus. It formally came into existence at Pentecost.

Constantine accepted Christianity and ended the persecution of Christians. He didn't change the faith in any way. In fact, it is not even clear that Constantine ever converted, although his mother was a Christian.

This doesn't even address my post.

Do you have a point?

The Catholic Church was not started by Jesus. Jesus established the one "pure religion" (James 1:27) and the Catholic Church is very far from pure, having within it gross wrongs, such as the acceptance of pagan holidays, Christmas, Easter, Halloween, involvement in the world's political arena, and abuses by the religious hierarchy. For example, Christmas is well known for being of pagan origin, with the Roman celebration Saturnalia and the honoring the Persian god of light, Mithra, on December 25, known as the Natalis Solis Invicti ("birthday of the invincible sun").

The New Catholic Encyclopedia acknowledges that "the date of December 25 does not correspond to Christ’s birth, but to the feast of the Natalis Solis Invicti, the Roman sun festival at the solstice...the birth of Christ was assigned the date of the winter solstice (December 25 in the Julian Calendar, January 6 in the Egyptian), because on this day, as the sun began its return to northern skies, the pagan devotees of Mithra celebrated the dies natalis Solis Invicti (birthday of the invincible sun). On Dec. 25, 274, Aurelian had proclaimed the sun-god principal patron of the empire and dedicated a temple to him in the Campus Martius. Christmas originated at a time when the cult of the sun was particularly strong at Rome.â€

The U.S. Catholic (December 1981) went on to explain: “The Romans’ favorite festival was Saturnalia, which began on December 17 and ended with the ‘birthday of the unconquered sun’ (Natalis solis invicti) on December 25. Somewhere in the second quarter of the fourth century, savvy officials of the church of Rome decided December 25 would make a dandy day to celebrate the birthday of the ‘sun of righteousness.’ Christmas was born.â€

The Enciclopedia de la Religión Católica frankly states: “The reason that the Roman Church decided to assign this date to the festival seems to be its tendency to replace pagan festivals with Christian ones. . . . We know that in Rome at that time, the pagans consecrated December 25 as the celebration of natalis invicti, the birth of the ‘invincible sun.’â€

Jesus gave a command to observe the day of his death, not birth nor resurrection.(Luke 22:19) The Catholic Church has never listened to what Jesus said, but rather made her own "rules", and tainted herself with paganism and other religious traditions that go against the Bible.

Of Easter, it also is well known as a pagan celebration incorporated into the Catholic Church. The historian Socrates Scholasticus, born about 380 C.E., wrote that "it seems to me that the feast of Easter has been introduced into the church from some old usage, just as many other customs have been established.†Easter’s ascendancy as a festival thus was not Bible based.

In fact, scholars claim that the very word Easter is of Anglo-Saxon origin, referring to the springtime. During that season, the ancients thought the sun was reborn after months of winter death. Catholic priest Francis X. Weiser admitted: “Some of the popular traditions of Lent and Easter date back to ancient nature rites.â€

The book Curiosities of Popular Customs explains: “It was the invariable policy of the early Church to give a Christian significance to such of the extant pagan ceremonies as could not be rooted out. In the case of Easter the conversion was peculiarly easy. Joy at the rising of the natural sun, and the awakening of nature from the death of winter, became joy at the rising of the Sun of righteousness, at the resurrection of Christ from the grave.â€

Easter has also been linked to the worship of the Phoenician fertility goddess, Astarte, who had as her symbols the egg and the hare. Statues of Astarte have variously depicted her as having exaggerated sex organs or with a rabbit beside her and an egg in her hand. Can one claim Easter as a Christian celebration when it is shown as tainted with sex worship ?

Of Halloween, the Encarta Encyclopedia said that "most Halloween festivities are based on folk beliefs concerning supernatural forces and spirits of the dead. Halloween decorations typically feature imagery associated with supernatural beings such as witches, werewolves, vampires, and ghosts".

It further stated: "During the ancient Celtic festival of Samhain, from which Halloween was derived, Druids burned huge sacrificial wooden effigies known as wicker men atop sacred hilltop sites. The wicker men were sometimes filled with animals, prisoners of war, criminals, and other sacrifices to Druid deities."(Microsoft ® Encarta ® Reference Library 2005) Can an ancient Celtic festival be "Christianized" and still be pleasing to God ?

It is well known that Catholics throughout the earth are involved in the political field. Yet Jesus told his faithful apostles that "they are no part of the world, just as I am no part of the world."(John 17:16) Adolf Hitler was known as a Catholic, and according to his chief architect, Albert Speer, remained a formal member of the Catholic Church until his death, despite his atrocities. According to biographer John Toland, Hitler was still "a member in good standing of the Church of Rome despite detestation of its hierarchy."

In fact, only by the support of the Catholic Church was Hilter able to attain to power, keeping sway over the masses. On July 20, 1933, the Vatican’s interest in the rising power of Nazism was displayed when Cardinal Pacelli (who later became Pope Pius XII) signed a concordat in Rome between the Vatican and Nazi Germany. Von Papen signed the document as Hitler’s representative, and Pacelli there conferred on von Papen the high papal decoration of the Grand Cross of the Order of Pius.

Winston Churchill, in his book The Gathering Storm, published in 1948, tells how von Papen further used “his reputation as a good Catholic†to gain church support for the Nazi takeover of Austria. In 1938, in honor of Hitler’s birthday, Cardinal Innitzer (1875-1955) ordered that all Austrian churches fly the swastika flag, ring their bells, and pray for the Nazi dictator.

In his book Satan in Top Hat, Tibor Koeves writes of this, stating: “The Concordat was a great victory for Hitler. It gave him the first moral support he had received from the outer world, and this from the most exalted source.†The concordat required the Vatican to withdraw its support from Germany’s Catholic Center Party, thus sanctioning Hitler’s one-party “total state.â€

Further, its article 14 stated: “The appointments for archbishops, bishops, and the like will be issued only after the governor, installed by the Reich, has duly ascertained that no doubts exist with respect to general political considerations.†By the end of 1933 (proclaimed a “Holy Year†by Pope Pius XI), Vatican support had become a major factor in Hitler’s push for world domination. Sitting pretty in the Vatican, Pope Pius XII let the Holocaust on the Jews and the cruel persecutions of others proceed uncriticized.

Honest-hearted individuals can readily see that the Catholic Church is not based on what Jesus taught, but upon a "house" that is founded upon false religious traditions and pagan teachings that God is angry at. And with the more recent revelations of child abuse in St. Francis, Wisconsin, whereby the late Catholic priest Lawrence Murphy sexually molested over 200 deaf boys from 1950-74, more of her corrupted character has been exposed.

The report further said: "Some allegations became public years ago. But they received renewed attention this week after documents obtained by The New York Times showed Murphy was spared a defrocking in the mid-1990s because he was protected by the Vatican office led by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now the pope."(Posted March 25, 2010, Associated Press) Thus, the Catholic Church is built upon corruption.


Nothing but lies, propganda, and stupidity.
 
chestertonrules said:
nadab said:
chestertonrules said:
This is pure fantasy. The Catholic Church was started by Jesus. It formally came into existence at Pentecost.

Constantine accepted Christianity and ended the persecution of Christians. He didn't change the faith in any way. In fact, it is not even clear that Constantine ever converted, although his mother was a Christian.

This doesn't even address my post.

Do you have a point?

The Catholic Church was not started by Jesus. Jesus established the one "pure religion" (James 1:27) and the Catholic Church is very far from pure, having within it gross wrongs, such as the acceptance of pagan holidays, Christmas, Easter, Halloween, involvement in the world's political arena, and abuses by the religious hierarchy. For example, Christmas is well known for being of pagan origin, with the Roman celebration Saturnalia and the honoring the Persian god of light, Mithra, on December 25, known as the Natalis Solis Invicti ("birthday of the invincible sun").

The New Catholic Encyclopedia acknowledges that "the date of December 25 does not correspond to Christ’s birth, but to the feast of the Natalis Solis Invicti, the Roman sun festival at the solstice...the birth of Christ was assigned the date of the winter solstice (December 25 in the Julian Calendar, January 6 in the Egyptian), because on this day, as the sun began its return to northern skies, the pagan devotees of Mithra celebrated the dies natalis Solis Invicti (birthday of the invincible sun). On Dec. 25, 274, Aurelian had proclaimed the sun-god principal patron of the empire and dedicated a temple to him in the Campus Martius. Christmas originated at a time when the cult of the sun was particularly strong at Rome.â€

The U.S. Catholic (December 1981) went on to explain: “The Romans’ favorite festival was Saturnalia, which began on December 17 and ended with the ‘birthday of the unconquered sun’ (Natalis solis invicti) on December 25. Somewhere in the second quarter of the fourth century, savvy officials of the church of Rome decided December 25 would make a dandy day to celebrate the birthday of the ‘sun of righteousness.’ Christmas was born.â€

The Enciclopedia de la Religión Católica frankly states: “The reason that the Roman Church decided to assign this date to the festival seems to be its tendency to replace pagan festivals with Christian ones. . . . We know that in Rome at that time, the pagans consecrated December 25 as the celebration of natalis invicti, the birth of the ‘invincible sun.’â€

Jesus gave a command to observe the day of his death, not birth nor resurrection.(Luke 22:19) The Catholic Church has never listened to what Jesus said, but rather made her own "rules", and tainted herself with paganism and other religious traditions that go against the Bible.

Of Easter, it also is well known as a pagan celebration incorporated into the Catholic Church. The historian Socrates Scholasticus, born about 380 C.E., wrote that "it seems to me that the feast of Easter has been introduced into the church from some old usage, just as many other customs have been established.†Easter’s ascendancy as a festival thus was not Bible based.

In fact, scholars claim that the very word Easter is of Anglo-Saxon origin, referring to the springtime. During that season, the ancients thought the sun was reborn after months of winter death. Catholic priest Francis X. Weiser admitted: “Some of the popular traditions of Lent and Easter date back to ancient nature rites.â€

The book Curiosities of Popular Customs explains: “It was the invariable policy of the early Church to give a Christian significance to such of the extant pagan ceremonies as could not be rooted out. In the case of Easter the conversion was peculiarly easy. Joy at the rising of the natural sun, and the awakening of nature from the death of winter, became joy at the rising of the Sun of righteousness, at the resurrection of Christ from the grave.â€

Easter has also been linked to the worship of the Phoenician fertility goddess, Astarte, who had as her symbols the egg and the hare. Statues of Astarte have variously depicted her as having exaggerated sex organs or with a rabbit beside her and an egg in her hand. Can one claim Easter as a Christian celebration when it is shown as tainted with sex worship ?

Of Halloween, the Encarta Encyclopedia said that "most Halloween festivities are based on folk beliefs concerning supernatural forces and spirits of the dead. Halloween decorations typically feature imagery associated with supernatural beings such as witches, werewolves, vampires, and ghosts".

It further stated: "During the ancient Celtic festival of Samhain, from which Halloween was derived, Druids burned huge sacrificial wooden effigies known as wicker men atop sacred hilltop sites. The wicker men were sometimes filled with animals, prisoners of war, criminals, and other sacrifices to Druid deities."(Microsoft ® Encarta ® Reference Library 2005) Can an ancient Celtic festival be "Christianized" and still be pleasing to God ?

It is well known that Catholics throughout the earth are involved in the political field. Yet Jesus told his faithful apostles that "they are no part of the world, just as I am no part of the world."(John 17:16) Adolf Hitler was known as a Catholic, and according to his chief architect, Albert Speer, remained a formal member of the Catholic Church until his death, despite his atrocities. According to biographer John Toland, Hitler was still "a member in good standing of the Church of Rome despite detestation of its hierarchy."

In fact, only by the support of the Catholic Church was Hilter able to attain to power, keeping sway over the masses. On July 20, 1933, the Vatican’s interest in the rising power of Nazism was displayed when Cardinal Pacelli (who later became Pope Pius XII) signed a concordat in Rome between the Vatican and Nazi Germany. Von Papen signed the document as Hitler’s representative, and Pacelli there conferred on von Papen the high papal decoration of the Grand Cross of the Order of Pius.

Winston Churchill, in his book The Gathering Storm, published in 1948, tells how von Papen further used “his reputation as a good Catholic†to gain church support for the Nazi takeover of Austria. In 1938, in honor of Hitler’s birthday, Cardinal Innitzer (1875-1955) ordered that all Austrian churches fly the swastika flag, ring their bells, and pray for the Nazi dictator.

In his book Satan in Top Hat, Tibor Koeves writes of this, stating: “The Concordat was a great victory for Hitler. It gave him the first moral support he had received from the outer world, and this from the most exalted source.†The concordat required the Vatican to withdraw its support from Germany’s Catholic Center Party, thus sanctioning Hitler’s one-party “total state.â€

Further, its article 14 stated: “The appointments for archbishops, bishops, and the like will be issued only after the governor, installed by the Reich, has duly ascertained that no doubts exist with respect to general political considerations.†By the end of 1933 (proclaimed a “Holy Year†by Pope Pius XI), Vatican support had become a major factor in Hitler’s push for world domination. Sitting pretty in the Vatican, Pope Pius XII let the Holocaust on the Jews and the cruel persecutions of others proceed uncriticized.

Honest-hearted individuals can readily see that the Catholic Church is not based on what Jesus taught, but upon a "house" that is founded upon false religious traditions and pagan teachings that God is angry at. And with the more recent revelations of child abuse in St. Francis, Wisconsin, whereby the late Catholic priest Lawrence Murphy sexually molested over 200 deaf boys from 1950-74, more of her corrupted character has been exposed.

The report further said: "Some allegations became public years ago. But they received renewed attention this week after documents obtained by The New York Times showed Murphy was spared a defrocking in the mid-1990s because he was protected by the Vatican office led by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now the pope."(Posted March 25, 2010, Associated Press) Thus, the Catholic Church is built upon corruption.


Nothing but lies, propganda, and stupidity.


I am quickly coming to the conclusion that there is no truth here. Everyone holds their opinion as truth, and only see salvation going to the select few who believe as they do. So many posters here spend their time tearing down the views of others, and that is just in the forums dealing with theology.

Conspiracy theories abound here. I am really quite amazed at the crackpot stories I have read. Secret societies, back room deals, vast conspiracies.

What one gathers from a prolonged reading of this forum is there there is no real Christian belief system. Just a bunch of theories. There is no truth. Just believe what you want to believe. Just make it up, and you are as likely to be right as 99.9999% of the people here. That is why I like Joel Osteen. He doesn't spend week after weeks condemning other people to hell. He tries to uplift and give hope.
 
[quote="happyjoy ]


I am quickly coming to the conclusion that there is no truth here. Everyone holds their opinion as truth, and only see salvation going to the select few who believe as they do. So many posters here spend their time tearing down the views of others, and that is just in the forums dealing with theology.

Conspiracy theories abound here. I am really quite amazed at the crackpot stories I have read. Secret societies, back room deals, vast conspiracies.

What one gathers from a prolonged reading of this forum is there there is no real Christian belief system. Just a bunch of theories. There is no truth. Just believe what you want to believe. Just make it up, and you are as likely to be right as 99.9999% of the people here. That is why I like Joel Osteen. He doesn't spend week after weeks condemning other people to hell. He tries to uplift and give hope.[/quote]


The Truth is real, and it is a person. Jesus is the Truth.

If something is untrue, then it is not from Jesus. False teaching is a sign that the gates of hell are prevailing, and we know that this cannot be the case for the Church Jesus built.
 
chestertonrules said:
The Truth is real, and it is a person. Jesus is the Truth.

If something is untrue, then it is not from Jesus. False teaching is a sign that the gates of hell are prevailing, and we know that this cannot be the case for the Church Jesus built.


Ok what is the truth?
 
happyjoy said:
chestertonrules said:
The Truth is real, and it is a person. Jesus is the Truth.

If something is untrue, then it is not from Jesus. False teaching is a sign that the gates of hell are prevailing, and we know that this cannot be the case for the Church Jesus built.


Ok what is the truth?


Jesus built a Church. He appointed leaders for this Church. He gave them his authority. He told the rest of us to listen to them. He said that he would be with his Church until the end of the world. He said that the Holy Spirit would lead the Church into all Truth.

Paul understood this as well:


1 Timothy 3
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.


Matthew 18

17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

Luke 10
16"He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."

John 20
21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

2 Thes 2
15So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

Matthew 16

17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." 20Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.
 
chestertonrules said:
happyjoy said:
chestertonrules said:
The Truth is real, and it is a person. Jesus is the Truth.

If something is untrue, then it is not from Jesus. False teaching is a sign that the gates of hell are prevailing, and we know that this cannot be the case for the Church Jesus built.


Ok what is the truth?


Jesus built a Church. He appointed leaders for this Church. He gave them his authority. He told the rest of us to listen to them. He said that he would be with his Church until the end of the world. He said that the Holy Spirit would lead the Church into all Truth.

Paul understood this as well:


1 Timothy 3
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.


Matthew 18

17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

Luke 10
16"He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."

John 20
21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

2 Thes 2
15So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

Matthew 16

17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." 20Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.


Which church is that church?
 
chestertonrules said:
happyjoy said:
[


Which church is that church?


The Oldest and Biggest. The Church led by the successors of the apostles. The Church that forgives sins.

Believe me, I was as shocked as anyone when I finally came to recognize the elephant in the room.

Check this out:

http://www.chnetwork.org/converts.html


Sorry I don't buy it. I don't want to hate on Catholics, but it's just not for me. If God were in that leading that Church how did so many homosexual pedophiles become authority figures?
 
Subject: Last Days with Rome in bed with her daughters!

Well Vic, what you have is the END TIME PROPHECY of Rev, 17:1-5 with mother rome daily seen in print in the spiritual garbage can of satan. (priests with children, priests with a higher %age with AIDS than even the average american male.. PRINTED, SEEN IN THE OPEN, & nearly daily DOCUMENTED! OK: Surely this is the END DAY'S??

And the celeabrated days?? Holloween, Christmas, + on & on by you know who? Rev. 17:5's daughters. And the best for last of Easter. (coming up, huh?) Which found the Acts 12:1-5 Virgin Extended Church being slaughtered by these ex/church of Christ! Church/State ones. They were the ones keeping the law of Moses! (Israel/Ceasar)

We HAVE NO KING BUT CAESAR [they claimed]. Anyway these are the ones who were still keeping the days of unleavened bread (your Easter!) So ALL OF ROMES DAUGHTERS are still in the Spiritual bed with their mommy way past any 120 years of the Holy Spirits [[STRIVING]] along the side of the one called the Preacher Of Rightousness, Noah! And that was Just BEFORE THEIR DOOR OF PROBATION CLOSED IN THEIR [[LAST DAY]]. (see Eccl. 3:15! Vic)

Acts.12
[1] Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church.
[2] And he killed James the brother of John with the sword.
[3] And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.) (note that Peter was not keeping Easter in JAIL!) :screwloose
[4] And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.

--Elijah
 
Back
Top