It’s not biblical!

[GodsGrace]

I am only responding to you for the sake of others who may read this post, and, not understand, lest they be misled.

1. "There is no room for hate in the Kingdom of God."

1a. Ps. 11:5, "The Lord tests the righteous and the wicked,
And His soul hates one who loves violence."

2. "IF you're a member of the Kingdom, Jesus said you are to
LOVE GOD
LOVE YOURSELF
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR"

2a. There is a difference between heating a system and hating those who practice in that system. When I was a Baptist, we called that "hating the sin, loving the sinner."

3. "If you're ever hungry one day, you'll find food at your local Catholic church,
and clothing and other necessities for families."

3a. This makes them good by human standards, not by God's.

4. "BTW, calling any denomination demonic is against the TOS."

4a. I have-and will continue to do so- respect the ToS, but, they DO NOT supersede the word of God.

5. "Please be civil "

5a. I am being civil and have a relaxed mentally attitude about this while thing.

6. "1.4: Do not misquote or misrepresent another member. Do not state a negative opinion about a member's denomination, leaders, founders, or the veracity of a member's faith."

6a. I have not done this at all. Everything I've quoted is in the Catholic Catechism, which is, their own statement of belief. Furthermore, the RCC is not a Christian denomination as it is- and I will reiterate this- evil, vile and is filled with doctrines and practices of demons that goes directly against the word and Word of God, and that, I will never tolerate or abide.

7. Exodus 20:16

7a. Again, everything I've quoted comes directly from the statement from the Catholic Catechism. If I were giving a false statement about the RCC, I would claim they are a God fearing Christian church, founded on the Word of God, walking by the means of the Spirit.
Gal. 1:8, "But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!"

It's no wonder Catholics are curt with their replies and use a lot of exclamation points and pretty much refuse to reply much to members.
Look what's going on here.

I don't have the time to go back and look for posts,
but YOU STATED in an open thread, this one, that the CC is demonic.
§That breaks TOS 1.4
AND shows no love for a denomination that does not believe anything that is not based on the bible in one way or another. Calling a denomination DEMONIC is not being civil in an open discussion with members you don't even know personally. DO NOT STATE A NEGATIVE OPINION...I'd say calling the CC demonic is VERY negative.

And what have YOU quoted from the CCC?
I must not have been involved in that conversation, so why bring it up?

A different gospel -- that's pretty funny.
We wouldn't be sitting here complaining if it weren't for the CC.
What other church do you think was around back at the beginning that safeguarded all our Christianly tenets?

And you had to go all the way back to the OT to find a verse on hate.
And to think that JESUS is the last and ultimate revelation of God.
Guess that's just not easy to accept, so let's flip back to the OT for some support verse.

Happy New Year JackRabbitSlim.

 

[miamited]

Hi all,

Look, I'm not going to carry on this conversation ad infinitum, but there are, I believe, and I believe that can also be substantiated by the Scriptures, error in the teachings and practices and doctrines of the RCC. Now, no one has to agree with me, but that's my understanding. If anyone cares to really research the other side of this argument, there are plenty of extrabiblical writings that make the case better than I do.

These conversations come up from time to time on these boards and I believe they are worthwhile. However, I believe, just as Paul has instructed us, that we correct and rebuke in love. So, I'm not going to continue on this thread because I have been accused of arguing, and that isn't my purpose. But I certainly encourage anyone who wants to do God's will in their faith to investigate these matters for themselves.

God bless you all,
Ted

 

[miamited]

Hi wondering

First of all, I want to make clear that I'm not Catholic.
I happen to know the doctrine for various reasons that are not important.

Ok, one more. You make the claim that you know the doctrine, but so far all you've been able to say is 'how' the RCC performs these practices. You are correct though that I worded that statement wrong. I meant to say, "Then you tell me that you're not a Catholic believer and that you really have limited understanding". It should have been, "...believer and you seem to have a limited..." I do apologize for putting those words in your mouth. Thanks for the correction.

God bless,
Ted

 

[GodsGrace]

Hi wondering

Ok, one more. You make the claim that you know the doctrine, but so far all you've been able to say is 'how' the RCC performs these practices. You are correct though that I worded that statement wrong. I meant to say, "Then you tell me that you're not a Catholic believer and that you really have limited understanding". It should have been, "...believer and you seem to have a limited..." I do apologize for putting those words in your mouth. Thanks for the correction.

God bless,
Ted

No Problem.
I'm no expert, but I know what I know.

Happy New year.

 

[Hopeful]

NOTHING the CC teaches leads AWAY FROM GOD or GODLINESS.

NOTHING.

So we are to be tolerant of false doctrines from any one, except those pointing at the cc?
Man must have one unassailable source for information.
I recommend the bible.

 

[GodsGrace]

So we are to be tolerant of false doctrines from any one, except those pointing at the cc?
Man must have one unassailable source for information.
I recommend the bible.

OK Hopeful.
Known you for a while now....
Here's a question for you :

I dislike Calvinism.
It changes the very nature of God, who is love.
IS love, not has love.
I don't HATE calvinism.

Why is there such HATE for the CC?

It can't be only because of false doctrine...
Every church teaches some false doctrine.

A member here called it demonic.
Jesus said a house divided against itself will fall, and indeed it is falling. I'm referring to faith in God.

What are your thoughts?
Which doctrine do you feel are false.
And why is it so difficult to discuss in a loving manner.

I've come to feel sorry for cathilics on forums.
(I'm not one).

 

[Hopeful]

OK Hopeful.
Known you for a while now....
Here's a question for you :

I dislike Calvinism.
It changes the very nature of God, who is love.
IS love, not has love.
I don't HATE calvinism.
Why is there such HATE for the CC?

My personal opinion is that if calvinists had as much wealth, and such an evil reputation, they would also be singled out for hate.
I am with you though on the "hate" thing.
I do hate false doctrines, but I pray for those enslaved by them.

It can't be only because of false doctrine...
Every church teaches some false doctrine.

Their longevity probably has something to do with it.
If another sect had been around as long as them, they too would be feeling the wrath of God,

A member here called it demonic.

I can't argue with that, as the fruit of the "tree" points to its progenitor.
Evil from evil seed.

Jesus said a house divided against itself will fall, and indeed it is falling. I'm referring to faith in God.

If the "it" you refer to is false churches, I agree...and wait patiently for God to expunge all evil edifices.
Faith in God, however, cannot ever be "falling".
It may not be growing very much, but even while Jesus walked amongst the people just 120 were in the upper room. (Acts 1:12-15)

What are your thoughts?
Which doctrine do you feel are false.

Any doctrine that accommodates sin is not of God.
His people are to be pure and holy, with a divine nature, and walk as Christ walked.
A doctrine that wavers from that parameter is not of God.

And why is it so difficult to discuss in a loving manner.

People get stirred up by what affects them the most.
I'ld bet that the most vocal in opposition to catholicism, mormonism, or pentecostalism, etc., have all been hurt by or let down by the target of their fervor.

I've come to feel sorry for cathilics on forums.
(I'm not one).

Turn your sorrow into prayers for their enlightening, so they can be free of whichever sect is not teaching the truth.
I am especially against catholicism because I went to their school for 8 years as a kid.
Did the altar-boy and choir thing.
Went to their mass every school day as well as on Sundays.
But even as a ten or eleven year old, I could see that even though the teachings were to "be good" nobody was "good".
What was the need of continual confessions if everyone was so "good"?
I wondered why I was different.
So I abandoned them when I went out into the world from the home I was brought up in.
God rewarded me for my desire to "be good" by bringing people who taught the truth.
The hows and whys of righteousness.
My first night with them I read 1 Peter 3:21 and realized my baby baptism was erroneous and false.
One night of teaching, and one real baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and a new life started for me.
And I thank God for the real church and the knowledge of the truth.

 

[JackrabbitSlim]

People get stirred up by what affects them the most.
I'ld bet that the most vocal in opposition to catholicism, mormonism, or pentecostalism, etc., have all been hurt by or let down by the target of their fervor.

Hello Hopeful,
I enjoy your insight! I am the one that Wondering mentioned calling the RCC demonic. In fairness, I called Catholicism vile evilness that teaches doctrines of demons. However, I do not oppose calling the RCC the appropriate, yet shortened version, "demonic." I agree, that most people that speak out so vehemently against them, have been injured by them, but, I am not one of them. Never been a Catholic, nor, have I had any real "dealings" with a Catholic. It's not the Catholic I hate, it's the evil doctrines that the RCC teaches. I am glad that God delivered you from that cult, and, that the Holy Spirit showed you the truth, our Lord and savior, Jesus Christ.

 

[Hopeful]

Hello Hopeful,
I enjoy your insight! I am the one that Wondering mentioned calling the RCC demonic. In fairness, I called Catholicism vile evilness that teaches doctrines of demons. However, I do not oppose calling the RCC the appropriate, yet shortened version, "demonic." I agree, that most people that speak out so vehemently against them, have been injured by them, but, I am not one of them. Never been a Catholic, nor, have I had any real "dealings" with a Catholic. It's not the Catholic I hate, it's the evil doctrines that the RCC teaches. I am glad that God delivered you from that cult, and, that the Holy Spirit showed you the truth, our Lord and savior, Jesus Christ.

As Elvis would say..."Thank ya darlin !".
The doctrines should be the targets of our animus, and not those subjected to the doctrines.
I try to keep the two separate when dealing with it.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Paul uses a simile to get his point across.
That being, he wasn't around with Jesus.
Look at the context of 1 Cor 15:3-8..."For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time."
What difference would it make if Paul were born of his mom early or late?
The difference was, that Paul wasn't around with the original eleven to see the risen Lord.

This interpretation ignores the element of the violence associated with Paul's untimely birth. The Greek word describes an abortive, violent birth, and so it is 'untimely' and 'abnormal' in that regard (not a 'normal' vaginal delivery). The reason he's bringing this up is not because he wasn't there with the original twelve but because God had to rip him violently from the womb in that untimely manner and so he considered himself unworthy of being called an Apostle, though he surely was one.

1 Corinthians 15:8-10
8And last of all He appeared to me also, as to one of untimely (abnormal - NIV) birth.

9For I am the least of the apostles and am unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10But by the grace of God I am what I am...

 

[jasonc]

I learned from talking to people on line.

Catholic doctrine is so radical I see very little basis for Protestants to have anything in common with Catholics.

Oh ,it is why I believe in reformation ought to be taught in church and the five solas.

 

[jasonc]

I'm sorry Ted, but the CC CANNOT be compared to the mormons.
The JWs, I'd say, are closer to Christianity --- I don't know where the mormons belong.

I'm not doing the WORSE card....
What I fail to understand is why the CC is hated and not the Word of Faith movement FOR EXAMPLE...

Being a man raises in the Kingdom hall.uhm no.

You can't partake in communion unless you somehow know you are on of the 144,000
Birthdays,blood transfusion,Christmas and many holidays ,no
College at one point ,no
Legalism to the extreme .
Never mind their prophecy that fails and they just ignore .replace the papal infallability with the tract society and you get it .

 

[jasonc]

Hi Free,

That's right. Some of the doctrines, practices and beliefs of the JW's and Mormons is different than many or most believers of other denominations. However, I mean if you've been following along here, there are a lot of believers who think the same thing about the RCC. Me, I don't believe the Scriptures tells us that God is ok with anyone claiming to represent Him, allowing for breaking up families and marriage. Do the JW's approve of some form of 'divorce' for their congregants? Well, who's really the bad guy if God says that He hates divorce and His understanding that the RCC allowing it is a divorce. Yes, I know you guys don't call it divorce, but you've just picked some other word to say the same thing and find justification in just the change of a name. I believe that when God sees a married couple not living together and sharing their lives together as they should be doing, whether we want to call it a divorce or not, is a broken marriage in God's sight. God's claim is, without any other qualifiers as to 'why' or 'how' a broken marriage might come about...He hates divorce.

Perhaps we need a good study on the term. Here's what one Jewish site says about the actual word that is translated as 'divorce' for us: Divorce, Jewish (כּריתוּת, kerithuth', a cutting apart, Jer 3:8; ἀποστάσιον, desertion or separation; both usually rendered "divorcement;" the verb is גָּרִשׁ, garash', to expel, Le 21:14; Le 22:13; Nu 30:9; ἀπολύω, to dissolve or dismiss, Mt 5:32), or repudiation.

Look, it seems that as far as the Jewish community understands the word, what the RCC is doing is divorcing married people. So, the RCC, as I understand it, directly goes against the word and will of God in this matter of marriage.

Sure the Mormons believe that there was some guy that found a bunch of gold tablets, supposedly left by Jesus when he lived in North America. Wrong! But the RCC teaches you that there are ways that you can actually save the dead.

Finally, I look at the massive, massive wealth of the RCC, and I don't know how familiar you are with the finances of the RCC, but they are the wealthiest 'organization' on the planet. They fill their worship centers with all kinds of statuary. They believe that there is some allowance given in the Scriptures that we can pray to a saint. That isn't Scriptural. Only the trinity hears our prayers. Saints, even if they are in heaven, are just people like you and I. I can't find any Scriptural reference that they somehow gain some special power that they can hear our prayers, too. Maybe when we pray it comes out in heaven over some loudspeaker and everyone hears all of our prayers...Naaaaah!

So, I get it that you think that these other faith practices that you mention sure have some pretty egregious errors, but I think you should be just as careful in the practices of your own group, as far as whether some of the things that they do is really honoring to God.

Now, if I'm correct, and I understand that's still debatable, then there is no way that the Pope, running this faith organization filled with so much wrong theology, it God's representative on the earth. I'm pretty sure that God wouldn't let His representative on the earth be a party to so much ignorance of His ways.

God bless,
Ted

I do from local parishes,st.anastia,st Helens .

The later buys old homes by it and has petetioned the city to abandon it's right of way .

The former has John Carroll high school and elementary.you probably left ft.piercd when they used the one east of 25 the st ,with it's school,nun school as St Helens as well has one and st.anastia moved west of 33rd St ,deleware ave .

I can post photos of that .

 

[Hopeful]

This interpretation ignores the element of the violence associated with Paul's untimely birth. The Greek word describes an abortive, violent birth, and so it is 'untimely' and 'abnormal' in that regard (not a 'normal' vaginal delivery). The reason he's bringing this up is not because he wasn't there with the original twelve but because God had to rip him violently from the womb in that untimely manner and so he considered himself unworthy of being called an Apostle, though he surely was one.

1 Corinthians 15:8-10
8And last of all He appeared to me also, as to one of untimely (abnormal - NIV) birth.

9For I am the least of the apostles and am unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10But by the grace of God I am what I am...

Who taught you this?
What evidence is there that Paul was "violently" born?
He was just born too late to walk with Christ.

 

[miamited]

8 Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.

9 For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not in …

Doesn't the Apostle answer the question himself: He uses a phrase 'one born out of due time'.

I think the next two sentences explain what he means. You know I write often and sometimes make a statement and then restate that statement in a different way. Sometimes restating it several times. All in a different way.

God does that also: Daughter Zion is left like a shelter in a vineyard, like a hut in a cucumber field, like a city under siege.

Here God uses several descriptors to define the same thing. 'like a shelter in a vineyard' then he uses another reference to say the same thing, 'like a hut in a cucumber field'. Then God does it a third time, 'like a city under siege. All of these phrases to paint the picture of the same thing.

He says that he was 'as by one born out of due time'. Then the next sentence starts, 'for I am'. Now, I would think that most linguists would say that starting the next sentence in that way means that he is continuing on with the previous phrase, words or thoughts that he was immediately speaking of. Explaining what he means is that he wasn't one of the original, but had been installed as an Apostle far later, out of due time, than all of the others. Because of this he says,"For I am the least of the Apostles." He is the least of the Apostles because he wasn't with them when they were together as a band of brothers with Jesus. He was born an Apostle out of due time.

So I'm going with Paul's words referring to 'how' he became an Apostle, rather than some questionable references that may or may not be true as regards Paul's birth.

Just my thoughts.

 

[Hopeful]

8 Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.

9 For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not in …

Doesn't the Apostle answer the question himself: He uses a phrase 'one born out of due time'.

I think the next two sentences explain what he means. You know I write often and sometimes make a statement and then restate that statement in a different way. Sometimes restating it several times. All in a different way.

God does that also: Daughter Zion is left like a shelter in a vineyard, like a hut in a cucumber field, like a city under siege.

Here God uses several descriptors to define the same thing. 'like a shelter in a vineyard' then he uses another reference to say the same thing, 'like a hut in a cucumber field'. Then God does it a third time, 'like a city under siege. All of these phrases to paint the picture of the same thing.

He says that he was 'as by one born out of due time'. Then the next sentence starts, 'for I am'. Now, I would think that most linguists would say that starting the next sentence in that way means that he is continuing on with the previous phrase, words or thoughts that he was immediately speaking of. Explaining what he means is that he wasn't one of the original, but had been installed as an Apostle far later, out of due time, than all of the others. Because of this he says,"For I am the least of the Apostles." He is the least of the Apostles because he wasn't with them when they were together as a band of brothers with Jesus. He was born an Apostle out of due time.

So I'm going with Paul's words referring to 'how' he became an Apostle, rather than some questionable references that may or may not be true as regards Paul's birth.

Just my thoughts.

Agreed, the context shows why he considered himself born out of due time.
He converted too late to walk with Jesus, like the other apostles did.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Who taught you this?
What evidence is there that Paul was "violently" born?
He was just born too late to walk with Christ.

G1626 - ektrōma - Strong's Greek Lexicon (kjv)

G1626 - ἔκτρωμα éktrōma, ek'-tro-mah; from a comparative of and τιτρώσκω titrṓskō (to wound); a miscarriage (abortion), i.e. (by analogy) untimely birth:—born out of due time.

www.blueletterbible.org

 

[JackrabbitSlim]

I think it is important to note the "ek" here, as it means "out from." So, if "ek" means out from, titrosko means "to wound," it would seem that he is speaking of being wounded from birth. This, of course, had nothing to do with his conversion and/or spiritual walk. I would venture to say that it is in reference of how he was looked upon due to his "condition" as, often times for that time period, people born with birth defects were treated with mild neglect to outright horribly. This could be why Paul referred to himself as "least of all saints" cf. Eph. 5:8. Although, that could be a statement of humility, or, a statement of his post actions against God and His people.

 

[GodsGrace]

I think it is important to note the "ek" here, as it means "out from." So, if "ek" means out from, titrosko means "to wound," it would seem that he is speaking of being wounded from birth. This, of course, had nothing to do with his conversion and/or spiritual walk. I would venture to say that it is in reference of how he was looked upon due to his "condition" as, often times for that time period, people born with birth defects were treated with mild neglect to outright horribly. This could be why Paul referred to himself as "least of all saints" cf. Eph. 5:8. Although, that could be a statement of humility, or, a statement of his post actions against God and His people.

Could this be the thorn in his flesh?

 

[JackrabbitSlim]

Could this be the thorn in his flesh?

That's a very good question. It possibly could be. It's commonly taught that Paul was experiencing a certain sin, often connecting this verse to Romans 7. However, when we look at the Greek, it speaks of a disability. Here is the Greek word for "thorn:"
σκόλοψ skólops, skol'-ops; perhaps from the base of G4628 and G3700; withered at the front, i.e. a point or prickle (figuratively, a bodily annoyance or disability):—thorn.
I remember, several years ago, I searched for a physical description of Paul, while I do not remember the actual source-I believe it was an apocryphal book-it described him as being "deformed", stating he was "bow-legged."

Sidenote: I do not consider the apocrypha as the divinely inspired word of God, I view it as extra-biblical.

***Edited***
I just looked up G4628 and it speaks of "the leg."

σκέλος skélos, skel'-os; apparently from σκέλλω skéllō (to parch; through the idea of leanness); the leg (as lank):—leg.