Constantine...not Peter

[Orthodox Christian]

Even Stalin could not prevail against the Holy Orthodox Church. I am certain rebels and protestant evangilicals will not either.

My, my...heaven is sure going to be a lonely place with just the Orthodox folks there. Maybe they'll have to explain a little how they got there with such arrogance. I tell you what, we all need to stop this incessant bickering about the Catholics being right, Protestants being right and the Orthodox church being the only ones right and start thinking about am I right with God. Will I be able to spend eternity with the one that died for me. Heaven is not a denominational mansion and the sooner we realize that the better and that includes me as well as everyone else. God is only concerned with, "What did you do with my son, Jesus?" Not how many times did you recite the rosary or how many Wednesday night services did you attend or did you tithe each Sunday. I've done my share of cutting down Catholics and they have me as well. Let it be known upfront despite all this, I despise no one in the Catholic faith as I had great inlaws once who were very much Catholic, or the Orthodox faith. I don't like what they teach, but I hold no animosity toward any particular individual because they've been raised in a particular faith. We all stand up for what we believe and have been taught...human nature. Obviously, someone is wrong. However, if centuries ago we had all adhered to what the word of God says instead of spawning off here and there with different beliefs, we wouldn't be doing this every night. I think we ALL need to wake up and start praising and thanking the one that took our place on the cross-the only Savior of our souls, Jesus Christ, instead of seeing who can out smart the other one or prove their point and doctrine better than the next. It's ludicrous people, and God's not pleased with this. Moreover, it's giving the devil one big hoot nightly.

The "big hoot" is found in your objection to Orthodoxy's statement based upon its assumed triumphalism. That is to say, you read from his comments "only the Orthodox will be there," and become offended and begin to stump for a wider, more universal salvation. Yet you, of all people, constantly refer to the Catholics as lost, hell-bound, apostate, and so forth.

You see, Orthodoxy never said that no one else was going to heaven. He simply made the arguments you make everyday towards Catholics. So by your own admission you've consigned Catholics to hell.

But I agree with you on this much: it is not our job, nor is it toward the edification of the Body, to bite and devour. Since you are having this insight about what this sort of argument reads like on the other side, I suggest you reform your own arguments. It seems as if perhaps you are already seeing that. Well, praise God, by all means, hold forth.

If you wish to know the position of the Orthodox regarding others outside our communion, it can be summed up thusly: we don't know. And that's ok, because there is one Lawgiver and Judge, one Redeemer.

 

[SpiritualSon]

The first Christian church was called the Apostolic Church in the time of the Apostles. In this church a trinity of three persons was never taught. The early Christian in the holy Apostolic Church were told to repent and have faith in Our Lord Jesus Christ., and look too no one else except Him.

Harry

 

[D46]

If you wish to know the position of the Orthodox regarding others outside our communion, it can be summed up thusly: we don't know. And that's ok, because there is one Lawgiver and Judge, one Redeemer.

I'll tell you what I'd like to know. What is the difference between the Catholic Church and Orthodoxy? I proclaim ignorance in knowing what the Orthodox church teaches and proclaims as opposed to Catholicism and Protestantism. I know something of Catholicism, LDS and JW but I know precious little, if anything much on Eastern Orthodoxy. Would you mind a brief lesson of enlightenment? There are so many sects of beliefs that we can't all know each of them.

There was NO protestant christian prior to 1517 ad.

One point of clarification on this. That statement could be true...I don't know the exact date. However, had it not been for the Reformers, Luther, Wycliff and especially Tyndale, none of us would have our bible in a language we can all understand as it was locked in Latin for centuries. Up until 400 AD, the bible was in 500 different languages. After that, only one...Latin. Tyndale gave his life that we may have a bible in our native tongue to read and enjoy and I for one am forevermore in his debt.

 

[Orthodox Christian]

If you wish to know the position of the Orthodox regarding others outside our communion, it can be summed up thusly: we don't know. And that's ok, because there is one Lawgiver and Judge, one Redeemer.

I'll tell you what I'd like to know. What is the difference between the Catholic Church and Orthodoxy? I proclaim ignorance in knowing what the Orthodox church teaches and proclaims as opposed to Catholicism and Protestantism. I know something of Catholicism, LDS and JW but I know precious little, if anything much on Eastern Orthodoxy. Would you mind a brief lesson of enlightenment? There are so many sects of beliefs that we can't all know each of them.

Well, for starters, we are the second largest Christian communion in the world, with about 250-300 million EO members world wide. We are 4 of the 5 main regions of Christianity, Rome being the fifth. We were one Church with Rome until the period 900-1200 ad, when we began to go our separate ways. We differ with Rome on the filioque clause of the Nicene Creed, papal primacy (we reject), Immaculate Conception (we belive that only Christ was Immaculately conceived. We have many beliefs in common with Rome, as both East and West grew up together out of the bosom of the apostolic church.

We agree that the bible is God's words, the true measure of faith (canon). We disagree with Protestants that the bible "interprets itself" (sola scriptura), we believe that Mary remained ever-Virgin, and yes we ask saints to pray for us, for we belive them to be alive. We do not worship them or Mary, we worship with them and Mary, One Church, One faith.

We do not practice the gifts of the Spirit in the demonstrative way found in Pentecostal churches, but we also believe said gifts never left the Church, either.

Saints from the East include Nicholas, Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, Basil the Great, George, Demtrios, Gregory Palamas, John of Damascus, Eleni (Helen), Ekaterini (Katherine), and many others iof prominence and virtue. Eastern Christianity, specifically in Byzantium, was the center of the Christian world for hundreds of years.

We preserved the text which bcame the Textus Receptus used in the KJV. This received text is from the Byzantine tradition. Two thirds of all the ancient scripture fragments are in our possession, many in monasteries. We are people of the Word.

We live as semi-monastics. We fast more than half of the year from meat, dairy, wine and oil. But when we feast, we feast. We continue in many of the ways familiar to first century Jews, including reckoning the day from sundown to sundown, chanting our prayers, offering incense before the altar.

We are an unbroken tradition dating back to the Apostles.

Are we then the only true Christians? The easy answer is no, but it is more complicated than that. Being a Christian is expressly tied to being part of the ekklesia, the called out ones, the Church. The real question then is 'what is the Church?'
And that is one very large and intense discussion.

 

[D46]

We preserved the text which bcame the Textus Receptus used in the KJV. This received text is from the Byzantine tradition. Two thirds of all the ancient scripture fragments are in our possession, many in monasteries. We are people of the Word.

Thanks for taking the time to post that. I'm glad to see you hold to the Textus Receptus and not the corrupt Sinaiticus and Vaticanus...brought to you by Origen and Co.! Can't say I hold to all you mentioned, but; I know you don't adhere to any Protestant way of believing either, and; that's fine. I didn't expect everyone here to agree with each other. It would be great, but; it "ain't going to happen" as you know as there's such a smorgasboard of beliefs abounding here. Nevertheless, I appreciate the history of the OC.

 

[thessalonian]

We preserved the text which bcame the Textus Receptus used in the KJV. This received text is from the Byzantine tradition. Two thirds of all the ancient scripture fragments are in our possession, many in monasteries. We are people of the Word.

Thanks for taking the time to post that. I'm glad to see you hold to the Textus Receptus and not the corrupt Sinaiticus and Vaticanus...brought to you by Origen and Co.! Can't say I hold to all you mentioned, but; I know you don't adhere to any Protestant way of believing either, and; that's fine. I didn't expect everyone here to agree with each other. It would be great, but; it "ain't going to happen" as you know as there's such a smorgasboard of beliefs abounding here. Nevertheless, I appreciate the history of the OC.

Funny thing is between Catholics and Catholics there isn't really this "smorgasboard". You will find that the Catholics in general do agree on almost everything. Go to one of the Catholic message boards and you will find the same. I even find that there is little that I disagree with, with the Orthodox on this board. Especially James. This seems to be a reflection on the much earlier date of their departure and less outright rejection of Sacred Oral Tradition. Yes, there are Catholics who dissent from the teaching but it is known what the teaching is and those Catholics who submit to the Church have a unity far beyond what Protestants who believe in Sola Scriptura will ever have. It's a divisive doctrine. Not a doctrine of unity. Divide and conquer is the underlying theme. It's not of God.

Blessings

 

[stovebolts]

The first Christian church was called the Apostolic Church in the time of the Apostles. In this church a trinity of three persons was never taught. The early Christian in the holy Apostolic Church were told to repent and have faith in Our Lord Jesus Christ., and look too no one else except Him.

Harry

Interesting... Have you ever read any of St. Augustines writings (Around 400 AD)? Many of the Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox 'doctrines' were formed by this very man including the Fall of Man and the Trinity....

However, the Orthodox do not believe in the Trinity in the same manner as the Protostant or Roman or Milkite Catholic. But I do believe they all basically agree in essence that all three are one... and I am sure that I will be corrected if I have misunderstood this.

Ironically, Luther and Calvin both built their doctrines around a lot of Augustines work.

 

[thessalonian]

The first Christian church was called the Apostolic Church in the time of the Apostles. In this church a trinity of three persons was never taught. The early Christian in the holy Apostolic Church were told to repent and have faith in Our Lord Jesus Christ., and look too no one else except Him.

Harry

Interesting... Have you ever read any of St. Augustines writings (Around 400 AD)? Many of the Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox 'doctrines' were formed by this very man including the Fall of Man and the Trinity....

Harry is very confused. The confusion comes in that before Athanasius the WORD trinity was rarely used (though there is one example in around 180) but the concept was there.

This article has some citations that are consistent with trinitarian theology that Mr. Harry will ignore.

http://www.catholic.com/library/trinity.asp

And actually as far as the trinity the doctrine that had already existed before Athanasius was developed by Athanasisus and dogmatized at the council of Nicea before Augustine. Augustine did not come up with "new doctrines". Rather he expounded on the ones already held. He was taught the faith by Amberose.

 

[stovebolts]

Thess,

Thank you for your additions. I am not up on History like I would like to be.

Now, while what you said is true, (and please correct me if I'm wrong), but didn't' Augustine set in stone / expand the validity and concept of the Trinity?
Now, please do not think that I am trying to cause division, because I am not. However, isn't this the root of the Filiouque?

"which makes a creed state that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son as well as from the Father. Hence, the doctrine itself (not admitted by the Eastern Church)." (http://dictionary.com)

Now, I must admit, I have only recently found the joys and rich writing of St. Augustine, particulary the confessions and I have not read Augustines dissertation on the Trinity. Therefore, I cannot expound on what I do not know, but only say what I've read second hand.

 

[thessalonian]

Thess,

Thank you for your additions. I am not up on History like I would like to be.

Now, while what you said is true, (and please correct me if I'm wrong), but didn't' Augustine set in stone / expand the validity and concept of the Trinity?
Now, please do not think that I am trying to cause division, because I am not. However, isn't this the root of the Filiouque?

"which makes a creed state that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son as well as from the Father. Hence, the doctrine itself (not admitted by the Eastern Church)." (http://dictionary.com)

Now, I must admit, I have only recently found the joys and rich writing of St. Augustine, particulary the confessions and I have not read Augustines dissertation on the Trinity. Therefore, I cannot expound on what I do not know, but only say what I've read second hand.

This article from the same site indicates that the filiouque had an earlier start than Augustine who most certainly got his view from Amberose.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Filioque.asp


The phrase "proceeds from the Father, through the Son" would indicate procession from the Son as well as the Father. Once again I see no problem with the truth of the Orthodox position. The Church allows creeds that say "from the Father" only. One might point to the writings of the ECF and say, well "Father X" said the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and so he cannot proceed from the son. This is a non-sequitor.

Seems like we are discussing two groups here though. The Orthodox and steve. They're miles apart.

Hope that helps.

 

[Lewis]

Thess how you doing buddy, I had just asked, had anybody seen you man.

 

[thessalonian]

Thess how you doing buddy, I had just asked, had anybody seen you man.

Out of town, taking a break.

 

[stovebolts]

Thanks for the link Thess

 

[Imagican]

Orthodox Christian,

I only wish that there were more of the desire needed among us to follow Christ instead of man. We need to learn to be independent of the world and lean completely on our Creator, the one who loved us enough to offer His own Son as sacrifice for us, even when we were yet His enemies.

There are most certainly men we are not to follow but this paragraph seems contradictory to Heb 13:17. Perhaps you could reconcile them. I personally don't see it as an either or situation. We are to follow the men that God has appointed as rightful religous authorities over us. What happened when Korah and Dathan tried to usurp the authority of Moses? You might say, oh, well that was the Old Testament. Jude doesn't allow you that angle however. Korah's rebellions go on today against the rightful leaders of the Church.

[8] Yet in like manner these men in their dreamings defile the flesh, reject authority[/b], and revile the glorious ones.
[9] But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you."
[10] But these men revile whatever they do not understand, and by those things that they know by instinct as irrational animals do, they are destroyed.
[11] Woe to them! For they walk in the way of Cain, and abandon themselves for the sake of gain to Balaam's error, and perish in Korah's rebellion. [12] These are blemishes on your love feasts, as they boldly carouse together, looking after themselves; waterless clouds, carried along by winds; fruitless trees in late autumn, twice dead, uprooted;

OK,

While we were instructed to 'heed' to the apostles and their teachings, we ARE TO FOLLOW NO MAN save CHRIST the SON OF GOD. That's what THEY taught.

While what you offer may 'sound' good, it is nothing more than 'one' man speaking from the flesh. Your scripture sounds good also, but taken out of context in the way in which you try to present it.

You indicate that YOU know who these 'righteous' men are that you preach to follow. I DON'T know who they are and have no indication that they are any better than myself to have been 'chosen' to continue 'The Way'. They also deny the truth and continue to follow this ruinuous path and lead others in the same direction.

I'm quite sure that the Jew's of Christ's time believed the same thing. They trusted and followed their religious leaders. Now, go back to the Word and see what Christ himself taught us of their ways and His warning against them.

All I have tried to point out here is that we were also instructed to 'judge the fruit' and by this test, determine 'who' may or may not be 'chosen' to offer God's will. And the track record of those that you defend bears some very rotten fruit.

I believe that the 'true' Church, (body of Christ), was 'stolen' from the people and replaced by a 'man-made' church called the RCC. This is not only obvious to me but to to any that choose to see it. I judge not the people that were forced to follow this idolatrous, man-made institution, but it's creators and leaders.

Your beliefs and 'religion' are yours. I have no desire to persuade you to follow anything other than God through Christ. But, there are those that are lost and looking for the truth and they certainly should have the benefit of understanding before being expected to follow ANY religion.

The RCC has taught and insisted that their teaching to follow 'men' is the ONLY way for almost two thousand years. Their way is certainly NOT the only way, and as far as I'm concerned, couldn't be much further from the 'truth'.

Constantine was a ruthless, murdering, pagan emperor. This is historical FACT. Comparing this man to an apostle is like comparing satan to Christ.
The RCC was concerned with power and control of people and this simple FACT proves that they COULDN'T have been chosen by God to spread his will among men.

There has NEVER been anything humble about this organization that persecuted ALL that wouldn't follow their ways. Taking the wealth of the masses a penny at a time in order to live in splendor among their pagan artifacts and thrones. Wanting nothing more than complete and utter control of the kingdoms in which they practiced, and destroying all that got in the way of their desires.

The truth speaks for itself and there is nothing that can be done about that except to 'refuse to accept it'. Like all aging individuals facing the folly of their youth, many choose to hide from it and deny it. That doesn't make it go away. It not only makes that person dishonest to others, but dishonest to themselves and God.

Step away from the folly of men and accept the grace offered by God through His Son. NO MAN CAN GIVE YOU THIS NOR DENY IT TO YOU. This is between YOU and GOD. Forgiveness is a plea away, and no one can do it for you. It doesn't matter how many people choose to follow ANYTHING, numbers don't prove ANYTHING. If anything, always remember that there have been cities and whole civilizations destroyed except for individuals in the past for their collective beliefs that were contrary to the will of God.

If the world flocks to it, RUN FROM IT. For those that love the world have but one master and he is NOT GOD. The flesh is corrupt. Shed this diabolical skin and follow God through Christ. There is ONLY ONE MASTER that can offer LIFE. And there has NEVER been a man-made institution that offers His will.

 

[Imagican]

D46 with the old bait-and switch.Somehow we have drifted from unsubstantiated claims about Constantine and Peter to this present distortion. In the process, a very pointed question was ignored:
Just what exactly do those spuriously correlated photos prove?

There, another question to ignore.

and you still question the validity of my statements?

Most certainly I do.

I don't believe that the question was ignored. I think that the photos that he offered speak for themselves. You seem to view them and think that this kind of worship of 'man sitting upon his throne' is OK.

I find it amusing that there are those that can witness all the splendor of the 'things' built by the sweat of others and not see how useless they really are. A graven image is ANYTHING created by the hand of man. If pure and simple idolatry is not obvious to those that witness the practices of the RCC, then they really aren't looking at it as they ought.

And please, don't think that I am not aware of the other sub-groups of Catholocism. I freely and willingly offer my same understanding of them also.

OC, do me a favor and save me some time in study. You seem to be a well versed individual in your religion. Exactly what does "Catholic" mean, and where did this word come from?

 

[thessalonian]

. A graven image is ANYTHING created by the hand of man. If pure and simple idolatry is not obvious to those that witness the practices of the RCC, then they really aren't looking at it as they ought.

Those wicked Jews, after God supposedly commanded no making of images in Ex 20 (this because of the golden calf incident I suspect) later in Ex 25 violate that very commandment. Oh wait, God told them too. Very odd if there was a prohibition, complete in nature about graven images.
Oh those wicked Idolatrous elders with Joshua bowing down before that ark of the covenant and praying. Idolatry, pure idolatry. That was what was in their hearts judging from externals. They obviously were worshipping that fine box with all that gold and achaia wood. PAGANS! Why oh why God did you grant them victory. And then there's that bronze serpant. They gazed upon it expecting to be healed. More idolatry obviously. Of course they eventually did make IT a god and it was destroyed so it is obvious that if one has a graven image it should not be his God. But it seems that there are proper uses for graven images, is the principle that comes accross to me.

I am amazed at your ability to see in to the hearts of men. AMAZING! How ever do you do it. I thought only God could do that.

Catholic? It comes from the greek Kathlicos which means universal or for all. Salvation is for all is the point. The first usage in a religious context that we know of is in the writings of Igatius of Antioch around the turn of the first century. Incredible man, that Ignatius. Had such faith in Christ that he wanted to be fed to the lions.

 

[Orthodox Christian]

D46 with the old bait-and switch.Somehow we have drifted from unsubstantiated claims about Constantine and Peter to this present distortion. In the process, a very pointed question was ignored:
Just what exactly do those spuriously correlated photos prove?

There, another question to ignore.

and you still question the validity of my statements?

Most certainly I do.

I don't believe that the question was ignored. I think that the photos that he offered speak for themselves. You seem to view them and think that this kind of worship of 'man sitting upon his throne' is OK.

I find it amusing that there are those that can witness all the splendor of the 'things' built by the sweat of others and not see how useless they really are. A graven image is ANYTHING created by the hand of man. If pure and simple idolatry is not obvious to those that witness the practices of the RCC, then they really aren't looking at it as they ought.

Men gave gifts together and the Tabernacle of Moses was assembled. Men fashioned the winged Cherubim, where God Himself came in shekinah glory. It is not men's sweat or works that are the problem, it is men's hearts that are. One can be completely iconoclastic, never look at an image, yet there are graven images in his heart- perhaps his own piety.

The Temple of God is within man, He Himself tabernacles with us. With my own hands, holy hands, I can bring kindness and beauty. With my tongue, holy tongue, I can bless- or curse. A man is defiled not by that which is outside him, but that which is within. If I can lay hands on a person, and God heals through this, why is it that I cannot set paint to canvas, paint an icon of a gospel event,such as the Baptism of Christ?

And please, don't think that I am not aware of the other sub-groups of Catholocism. I freely and willingly offer my same understanding of them also.

OC, do me a favor and save me some time in study. You seem to be a well versed individual in your religion. Exactly what does "Catholic" mean, and where did this word come from?

Firstly, we Orthodox are not a 'sub-group' of Catholicism. We are an unbroken and unaltered continuation of the worship communities that you read about in scripture: Antioch, Jerusalem, Ephesus, Thessaloniki, Corinth, and so on.

Secondly, the word 'catholic' is from the Greek term katholiki, which means universal. You can find this expressed in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed
"Eis mian, hagina, katholikin kai apostolikin ekklesian"
In one, holy, apostolic and (catholic) universal church.

Rome has come to be known as Catholic, proper noun, and we in the East, Orthodox, proper noun. Naturally, Rome believes she is orthodox and we believe that we are catholic (adjectives). Many people refer to the 'Roman Catholic Church,' but this is a misnomer. Rome considers itself the universal Church, following the Latin Rite.

We Orthodox are those Churches that were part of the universal church which disagreed with Rome over the alteration of the Creed and the primacy of the Roman Pope. We are in dialogue with Rome, and they with we, an we have settled some of these issues recently, but more remain o be resolved.

Now there are some who believe that the 'universal' church is invisible, comprised of those who love the Lord. There is truth to this, but they go further to say that there is ONLY the invisible universal church. I wonder then how it is that people can 'tell it to the ' invisible church, or how Christ builds an invisible church which the gates (power/authority) of hell shall not prevail against. How can the church be universal and yet invible to one another? How can the church be invisible and yet a witness to the world?

This concept seems to me to be far too allegorized and spiritualized.
But that's my take on matters, many disagree

 

[thessalonian]

Orthodox Christian,

I only wish that there were more of the desire needed among us to follow Christ instead of man. We need to learn to be independent of the world and lean completely on our Creator, the one who loved us enough to offer His own Son as sacrifice for us, even when we were yet His enemies.

There are most certainly men we are not to follow but this paragraph seems contradictory to Heb 13:17. Perhaps you could reconcile them. I personally don't see it as an either or situation. We are to follow the men that God has appointed as rightful religous authorities over us. What happened when Korah and Dathan tried to usurp the authority of Moses? You might say, oh, well that was the Old Testament. Jude doesn't allow you that angle however. Korah's rebellions go on today against the rightful leaders of the Church.

[8] Yet in like manner these men in their dreamings defile the flesh, reject authority[/b], and revile the glorious ones.
[9] But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you."
[10] But these men revile whatever they do not understand, and by those things that they know by instinct as irrational animals do, they are destroyed.
[11] Woe to them! For they walk in the way of Cain, and abandon themselves for the sake of gain to Balaam's error, and perish in Korah's rebellion. [12] These are blemishes on your love feasts, as they boldly carouse together, looking after themselves; waterless clouds, carried along by winds; fruitless trees in late autumn, twice dead, uprooted;

OK,

While we were instructed to 'heed' to the apostles and their teachings, we ARE TO FOLLOW NO MAN save CHRIST the SON OF GOD. That's what THEY taught.

Are you suggesting that Heb 13:17 is out of date or the only obeying we need to do is to a book? Paul doesn't specify just apostles in Heb 13:17. He also instructs the early Church to appoint leaders so I don't think he is just talking about Apostles here. Nor do I think this command to obey and submit to leaders is obsolete.

[quote:c0e40]While what you offer may 'sound' good, it is nothing more than 'one' man speaking from the flesh. Your scripture sounds good also, but taken out of context in the way in which you try to present it.

Heb 13:17 is not me speaking. You obvuscate it. You have given me nothing to show my context is wrong. Either there are leaders today who in following we follow Christ or there are not and the verse is false. Now you and I may disagree on who those leaders are but they must exist or the passage is a lie.

You indicate that YOU know who these 'righteous' men are that you preach to follow. I DON'T know who they are and have no indication that they are any better than myself to have been 'chosen' to continue 'The Way'. They also deny the truth and continue to follow this ruinuous path and lead others in the same direction.

"preach to follow" not sure what that means. I'm not doing any preaching here. You don't know who they are and have no idication they are any better than yourself? Read Prov 3:5. You are not to trust on your own understanding but rely on the Lord. Then read Jer 3:15. It says "I will give you shepherds after my own heart who will give you knowledge and understanding". Both Peter and Paul talk about the shepherds they left with us so I don't think you can claim that passage is just talking about the Apostles. Now it would seem that these shepherds will help us to follow Chirst and so we should be able to discern who they are. You seem to be admitting that God is defeated in the area of letting us know who his shepherds are today.

I'm quite sure that the Jew's of Christ's time believed the same thing. They trusted and followed their religious leaders. Now, go back to the Word and see what Christ himself taught us of their ways and His warning against them.

Yes, they trusted in following Moses and Joshua and others accross the desert. Hmmmmm, what happened to the ones who did not follow these leaders. Were they following God? The warning against following men is not against following all men. Once again who are the ones today that God has left as shepherds of his sheep. By the way, you might want to check out Matt 23 where Christ says "the scribes and the pharasees sit on Moses seat, therefore DO WHATEVER THEY TELL YOU". Interesting, Christ does not tell them to ignore the religious leaders of the day. He says exactly the opposite, though he tells them not to imitate their wicked deeds.

All I have tried to point out here is that we were also instructed to 'judge the fruit' and by this test, determine 'who' may or may not be 'chosen' to offer God's will. And the track record of those that you defend bears some very rotten fruit.

They are all wrotten? We are told "there will be wolves among you". But I most certainly do not see all the leaders of the Catholic Church as being wicked. There are some great saints among the popes and JP II was certainly a man of great virtue as is our current pope.

I believe that the 'true' Church, (body of Christ), was 'stolen' from the people and replaced by a 'man-made' church called the RCC. This is not only obvious to me but to to any that choose to see it. I judge not the people that were forced to follow this idolatrous, man-made institution, but it's creators and leaders.

Ah, conspiracy theories. You need to read up on the church fathers. You will find that your theory has no basis in historical fact. It is obvious to you because you want it to be. Are you sure they were forced? I certainly am not forced to be Catholic. Show me WHO created it. It was not constantine. That is just plain silly.

Your beliefs and 'religion' are yours. I have no desire to persuade you to follow anything other than God through Christ. But, there are those that are lost and looking for the truth and they certainly should have the benefit of understanding before being expected to follow ANY religion.

Empty rhetoric. You want to persuade me to your way. It is quite apparent you do not understand Catholicism or history.

The RCC has taught and insisted that their teaching to follow 'men' is the ONLY way for almost two thousand years. Their way is certainly NOT the only way, and as far as I'm concerned, couldn't be much further from the 'truth'.

Actually the Catholic Church does not teach that we are to follow men as opposed to following Christ. You think there are multiple ways of following Christ?

Constantine was a ruthless, murdering, pagan emperor. This is historical FACT. Comparing this man to an apostle is like comparing satan to Christ.
The RCC was concerned with power and control of people and this simple FACT proves that they COULDN'T have been chosen by God to spread his will among men.

I could really care less who Constantine was. He did not start the Catholic Church and anyone who does not see that is smokin peyote.

There has NEVER been anything humble about this organization that persecuted ALL that wouldn't follow their ways. Taking the wealth of the masses a penny at a time in order to live in splendor among their pagan artifacts and thrones. Wanting nothing more than complete and utter control of the kingdoms in which they practiced, and destroying all that got in the way of their desires.

Rhetoric.

The truth speaks for itself and there is nothing that can be done about that except to 'refuse to accept it'. Like all aging individuals facing the folly of their youth, many choose to hide from it and deny it. That doesn't make it go away. It not only makes that person dishonest to others, but dishonest to themselves and God.

You sound bitter.

Step away from the folly of men and accept the grace offered by God through His Son. NO MAN CAN GIVE YOU THIS NOR DENY IT TO YOU. This is between YOU and GOD. Forgiveness is a plea away, and no one can do it for you. It doesn't matter how many people choose to follow ANYTHING, numbers don't prove ANYTHING. If anything, always remember that there have been cities and whole civilizations destroyed except for individuals in the past for their collective beliefs that were contrary to the will of God.

You claim much about my state of repentence but really know little. I will leave it up to Jesus Christ as to whether I have sufficiently repented and asked for his mercy, relying on his grace.

If the world flocks to it, RUN FROM IT. For those that love the world have but one master and he is NOT GOD. The flesh is corrupt. Shed this diabolical skin and follow God through Christ. There is ONLY ONE MASTER that can offer LIFE. And there has NEVER been a man-made institution that offers His will.

[/quote:c0e40]

I do agree that man made institutions fail. But Christ founded a Church and no matter how much you guys try to prevail, the gates of hell have not. 2000 years and still ticking.

Blessings

 

[D46]

But Christ founded a Church and no matter how much you guys try to prevail, the gates of hell have not. 2000 years and still ticking.

Christ wasnt the founder of the Catholic Church...satan was. Still ticking? Uh, huh...and time's running out.

Revelation 18:4-5 (KJV) And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.

An interesting link...there's about ten seconds between slides...worth the wait.

http://www.remnantofgod.org/flash/whore/whore3.html

 

[thessalonian]

But Christ founded a Church and no matter how much you guys try to prevail, the gates of hell have not. 2000 years and still ticking.

Christ wasnt the founder of the Catholic Church...satan was. Still ticking? Uh, huh...and time's running out.

Revelation 18:4-5 (KJV) And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.

An interesting link...there's about ten seconds between slides...worth the wait.

http://www.remnantofgod.org/flash/whore/whore3.html

Find me a nation or institution that has lasted for 2000 years. There can be only one Church founded by Christ on which the gates of hell shall not prevail. Protestantism has a track record of 500 years. Proof, name a protestant for 1247 AD? You can't because there were none. That the Catholic Church has been around for 2000 years is proof enough that the gates of hell have not prevailed, though you still try with nonsensical tripe such as the above. Satan even tries to use God's very own scriptures against his Church. sad.