Bible Study Reception of the Holy Spirit

[thessalonian]

We disagree. The fact that you cannot visualize or recognize the substance of my presentation speaks only to your lack of vision.

No, I do in fact understand your two Gospel theory. It's an attempt to correct the false theology about the alleged dichotomy between faith and works.

The two gospels of the New Testament EXPLAINS why the kingdom disciples received the Holy Spirit through the ‘laying of hands’ (Acts 8:17, Acts 19:6) AND why we today receive the Spirit by ‘hearing with faith’ (Galatians 3:2).

It is clear you do not understand this thread and so therefore have gone off topic regarding your two Gospel theory. This thread is not about the differnces. Once again it is about whether or not one can conjure up the Holy Spirit for himself. I started the thread and yet you tell me what I intended it to be about. The height of arrogance.

What is your reason for these differences?

Are you trying to derail my thread again sir. Shame on you. :o

 

[Terral]

The Answer For This Thread Was Given On Page 2

Hi Thessalonian:

Thanks again for writing.

Terral Original >> We disagree. The fact that you cannot visualize or recognize the substance of my presentation speaks only to your lack of vision.

Thessalonian’s Reply >> No, I do in fact understand your two Gospel theory. It's an attempt to correct the false theology about the alleged dichotomy between faith and works.

No sir. Scripture clearly says that Christ is preaching the “gospel of the kingdom†(Matthew 4:23, Matthew 9:35) throughout the Four Gospels and years before He died for anyone. To infer that He is preaching Himself crucified (1 Corinthians 2:2, 1 Corinthians 15:3-4) is ridiculous. We can see repentance and water baptism for the ‘forgiveness of sins,’ before (Mark 1:4) and after (Acts 2:38) Calvary. In fact, all of the doctrinal components for the Gospel of the Kingdom have been clearly outlined for you in my post dated (Mon Jan 16, 2006 6:46 pm), which you cannot even begin to answer.

Terral Original >> The two gospels of the New Testament EXPLAINS why the kingdom disciples received the Holy Spirit through the ‘laying of hands’ (Acts 8:17, Acts 19:6) AND why we today receive the Spirit by ‘hearing with faith’ (Galatians 3:2).

Thessalonian >> It is clear you do not understand this thread and so therefore have gone off topic regarding your two Gospel theory.

Heh . . . That first of three posts that you cannot answer was made on the second page of this thread. So why are you now claiming the content is ‘off topic’ on page 5? LOL. Since receiving the Holy Spirit is most certainly connected to hearing and believing the Gospel, then listing the doctrinal elements of our ‘doctrine of salvation’ is indeed part of this topic. Paul writes,

“In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation--having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God's own possession, to the praise of His glory.†Ephesians 1:13+14.

Thessalonian >> This thread is not about the differnces.

“Reception Of The Holy Spirit†is by the laying of hands (Acts 8:17, Acts 19:6) for the ‘gospel of the kingdom’ (Matthew 24:14). “Reception of the Holy Spirit†is by “hearing with faith†(Galatians 3:2) for Paul’s “word of the cross†(1 Corinthians 1:18) Gospel ‘message of truth.’ These differences are part of your Bible, whether you wish to acknowledge this truth or not. The correct answer is already given in my posts above. Nobody can prove otherwise using Scripture, because this is ‘the truth.’

Thessalonian >> Once again it is about whether or not one can conjure up the Holy Spirit for himself. I started the thread and yet you tell me what I intended it to be about. The height of arrogance.

Your words say “Reception of the Holy Spirit†and you opening hypothesis says,

Thessalonian >> “I asked this in theology and apolgetics but it is a Bible Study question I think. What is required to receive the Holy Spirit? i.e. to become a born again Christian. Some of you believe that just belief is neccessary.â€Â

This side is just calling them as you have clearly presented them. Please understand if I ignore your chatter and this thread that has already been killed with the 'truth.' If you have anything directly opposing my three posts, then I will address those things. Otherwise we are done here. Have a nice day and,

Thank you again for writing,

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

 

[thessalonian]

Re: The Answer For This Thread Was Given On Page 2

Hi Thessalonian:

Thanks again for writing.

No sir. Scripture clearly says that Christ is preaching the “gospel of the kingdomâ€Â

Yes it does as I explained before because the Kingdom had not yet been established yet. That is why it is called the Gospel of the Kingdom. But it is not another Gospel as anyone can see but only a part of the story of the fullness of the Gospel which Paul preached.

[quote:f375f](Matthew 4:23, Matthew 9:35) throughout the Four Gospels and years before He died for anyone. To infer that He is preaching Himself crucified (1 Corinthians 2:2, 1 Corinthians 15:3-4) is ridiculous.

First you call him a liar, saying the Gospel he preached wouldn't be preached to the whole world as he commanded, then you call him ridiculous.

19: and deliver him to the Gentiles to be mocked and scourged and crucified, and he will be raised on the third day."

Of course I expect more obfuscations and denials.

We can see repentance and water baptism for the ‘forgiveness of sins,’ before (Mark 1:4) and after (Acts 2:38) Calvary. In fact, all of the doctrinal components for the Gospel of the Kingdom have been clearly outlined for you in my post dated (Mon Jan 16, 2006 6:46 pm), which you cannot even begin to answer.

I have begun. Of course it is a waste of time because you have eyes but do not see and ears but do not hear. I didn't make that up. You can find it I am sure.

Terral Original >> The two gospels of the New Testament EXPLAINS why the kingdom disciples received the Holy Spirit through the ‘laying of hands’ (Acts 8:17, Acts 19:6) AND why we today receive the Spirit by ‘hearing with faith’ (Galatians 3:2).

When you start out with error and must come up with revealed truth I can understand why you would conjure up such theories.

Thessalonian >> It is clear you do not understand this thread and so therefore have gone off topic regarding your two Gospel theory.

Your funny.

Your words say “Reception of the Holy Spirit†and you opening hypothesis says,

The selective quoting begins.

Thessalonian >> “I asked this in theology and apolgetics but it is a Bible Study question I think. What is required to receive the Holy Spirit? i.e. to become a born again Christian. Some of you believe that just belief is neccessary.â€Â

[/quote:f375f]


This side is just calling them as you have clearly presented them. In Christ Jesus,

Of course you leave off my final statement which makes the point of the thread clear.

"In context this passage and the one in Acts 10 where the Holy Spirit came to cornelius and company seem to indicate that someone from the Church has to be present.:

I do believe that the creator of the thread would know what the topic is. That you cannot discern it and arrogantly claim to know better than I what my thread is about tells me allot about you.

But I could really care less about you going off on these tangents except that you chide me for it. It is only to show your hypocrisy which is abundant on both threads.

 

[ironmonk]

Terrel,

What I have posted answers 99% of your reply to it.

I honestly think you do not understand my posts and that is ok. I think you mean well and have a love for Christ.

I ask that you read the Scripture that I posted a few times, maybe write them down, re-read them from time to time pray about them asking God to guide you in their meaning.

We cannot continue to debate when there seems to be a communication problem between us.


God Bless & Christ be with you.

 

[D46]

I get everything in Scripture pertaining to the Catholic Church because the bible is a Catholic book.

Sure...and Pinky Lee is really Superman, too! I hope you don't sincerely think anyone believes that. No one here just fell off the banana wagon yesterday.

Have you studied where we got the bible? The New Testament was not considered to be Scripture until 400 AD. You might want to research New Testament Canon from Encyclopedia Britannica. Also, please note some of the names it mentions... St. Irenaeus, St. Clement, St. Ignatius, St. Augustine, Origen, etc...

I sure have and it wasn't from Catholics.That's all Catholic propaganda perpetrated by the master of deceit himself. All those so-called "church fathers" were all heretics...especially Clement and Origen. The devils scholars perhaps but no church fathers. They were nothing more than Gnostic unbelievers who thought Christ was just a created being (like the JW bunch) and the NAB and the NLT go hand and hand as having the same corrupt mss in their translations.. You left out Eusebius and Jerome who were equally corrupt in their thinking. I don't need linksor information about your heretical church fathers as I know enough about them and don't feel compelled to know more. The true New Testament Church Father's were Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul and James. That's where I draw my strength from. Those that were taught by the Lord who did not teach heresies of the Catholic Church which wasn't even around in their time. Nowhere in the bible is there anything about sacraments, penance, the eurhraist blasphemy (transubstantiation), or counting a bunch of beads, wearing a brown cloth to keep you safe from hell, confessionals, or that we should confess our sins to any man. The true bible says we are to confess our "falult" one to another not our sins. But, if you have a corrupt bible cut apart by Eusebius, Jerome and Origen and injected with Catholic dogma you will find a lot of scripture corrupted by these guys so there is basis for Catholic doctrine. Without twisting the scriptures by deleting, adding to and changing words around to read as they wanted, you wouldn't have a leg to stand on in your theology. You people even delete the second commandmant about bowing down to or worshipping idols because with that in the Decalogue, what would Rome saith then? Wait, that only leaves nine commandments...oh, I see you take the tenth commandment and make two out of it so you now have ten. Hmmmm....I see-more deletions and twisting the Scriptures. Very typical

Your so called church kept the bible from the common folk for hundrreds of years and had it locked in that dead Latin language. Up until 400AD the bible was in about 500 different languages. After that...only one-Latin. Your church had the bible on it's list of forbidden books and tortured and killed people for the mere possession of God's true book and burned people at the stake for possessing a bible in their own language as well as burned them for relenting the false doctrine of the mass. Pope's were called Emperors before they were called Pontifex Mamimus and there has been a bloody history emanating from Romish theology since Old Testament times. The Ceasers just changed costumes. The pope's ultamatum was, accept the corrupt Latin Vulgate by Jerome or suffer the consequences and they did. Jerome was just Constantine's lap dog. Thank God for men like John Wycliff and William Tyndale for bring us a true bible in English, untarnished by popish corruption and heretics like Westcott and Hort.

I would suspect Origen is one of the biggest liars and heretics of all time....
Origen produced a six-column Bible, the Hexapla, which he subtly permeated with Gnostic doctrine. Diocletian (302-312), the last in an unbroken line of pagan emperors, had furiously sought to destroy the Christian sect and pursued every copy of the Scriptures to destroy them also. Constantine succeeded him as Roman emperor and converted to Christianity in 312 A.D. Desiring to bring peace to the Roman Empire, Constantine looked for a Bible which would facilitate the amalgamation of pagan religion and Christianity. "Quite naturally he preferred the one edited by Eusebius and written by Origen, the outstanding intellectual figure that had combined Christianity with Gnosticism in his philosophy, even as Constantine himself was the political genius that was seeking to unite Christianity with pagan Rome . . . Eusebius in publishing the Bible ordered by Constantine, had incorporated the manuscripts of Origen . . . The Church of Rome built on the Eusebio-Origen type of Bible..."

Origen had been pronounced a heretic by a number of general synods in the early Church period. The Church also recognized that the Alexandrian manuscripts produced by Origen had altered the Apostles’ doctrine and rejected them as heretical. Early Christians chose not to use them and they were abandoned in Rome in 500 A.D. However, Origen's influence extended to the Roman Catholic religion during the Middle Ages: "One of the greatest results of his life was that his teachings became the foundation of that system of education called Scholasticism, which guided the colleges of Latin Europe for nearly one thousand years during the Dark Ages. Origenism flooded the Catholic Church through Jerome. Ever wonder why it was called the Dark Ages? That's because Rome was in her monstrous glory with her Inquisitions and keeping God's word locked away. She didn't read it and didn't want anyone else to do so.

Catholicism is the biggest con job in all of history and has sent multitudes to hell. God hates this false religious system and will destroy it with the brightness of his coming. (2 Thessalonians 2:8, Revelation 17 and Revelation 18:2-4.

http://www.sxws.com/charis/apol8.htm

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/finished.htm

http://www.biblelight.net/satan.htm

 

[ironmonk]

D,

D46>>Sure...and Pinky Lee is really Superman, too! I hope you don't sincerely think anyone believes that. No one here just fell off the banana wagon yesterday.

It would be nice if you would take the time to study history.

"We are compelled to concede to the Papists that they have the Word of God, that we received it from them, and that without them we should have no knowledge of it at all." - Martin Luther, Commentary on St. John

Your so called church kept the bible from the common folk for hundrreds of years and had it locked in that dead Latin language.

Common people couldn't read... only the rich could afford school. You have a deranged sense of history and you should really seek unbias professional historians when studying history. You cannot show a single professional and creditable historian that believes what you do.

Latin was not a dead language, it was the written language of scholars... just as Greek was at the time of Christ. The original texts of the New Testament were in Aramaic, Greek, and Hebrew. St. Jerome translated them all to Latin, the Vulgate. The bible was not in 500 languages... there were not 500 languages in that area of the world at that time.

The bible had to be copied by hand until well after 1450 AD with the invention of the printing press. The only reason why you have the bible today is because the Catholic Church has been protecting it and preaching the Gospel since 33 AD.

Encyclopedias agree with me, not you. Look it up in Encarta, Britannica, etc.... And if you don't believe them, then you should not believe a thing you read.


You know absolutly nothing about the Catholic Church. You know very little about the bible. The "Ten Commandments" did not have numbers until AD. There are actually 14 commands, but it is the way they are grouped why they are called 10... count them.

I see-more deletions and twisting the Scriptures. Very typical

The only reason why you say that the scriputures have been twisted is because you see that it makes sense, but since it was a Catholic who said it, surely the Catholic cannot be right... Surely. So the scriptures must be twisted... They are grouped by topic where the Scriptures speak about authority, yeah... that's twisting them.... lol

Come on man, learn to think.

The Sacraments are in the Bible.

The Eucharist is clearly in John 6... Transubstination is simply the word that describes what happens when Christ said "This IS my body" - Christ's made the bread His Flesh because it IS TRUE food... It is the Spirit that gives life, it is the Spirit that turns the bread into Christ's Flesh JUST AS Christ SAID.

Paul affirms this in Corinthians where if someone eats the Body or Drinks the Blood of Christ unworthy eats judgement on himself.



What does the Bible say is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth?

Read 1 Tim. 3:15


Who does Christ say to tell when we disagree on a matter of faith?

Read Matt. 18:17


The Church will never be overcome... The only Church that was around in 33 AD, 200 AD, 500 AD, 1500 AD, 2000 AD, and today is the Catholic Church.


You only show how ignorant of history when you insult the Early Church Fathers. They were taught by the Apostles or the disciples who the Apostles created, or the disciples that they created... Just as Christ commanded in Matt. 28:19.



If you have the faith that started in 33 AD....

Show me two Early Church Fathers that believed as you do.


Get educated, your ignorance is not bliss and is clearly seen in your lack of Christian charity and the hate you have for Catholics.

Bring something creditable and profession, not cheap fly by night joe blow nobody websites to back your ridiculous points that are seen NO WHERE in history until the last couple hundred years.

Here is a little bit from Encyclopedia Britannica that talks about the Church Fathers...

The ante-Nicene period > The Apostolic Fathers
According to conventional reckoning, the earliest examples of patristic literature are the writings of the so-called Apostolic Fathers; the name derives from their supposed contacts with the Apostles or the apostolic community. These writings include the church order called the Didache, or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (dealing with church practices and morals), the Letter of Barnabas, and the Shepherd of Hermas, all of which hovered at times on the fringe of the New Testament canon in that they were used as sacred scripture by some local churches; the First Letter of Clement, the seven letters that Ignatius of Antioch (d. c. 110) wrote when being escorted to Rome for his martyrdom, the related Letter to the Philippians by Polycarp of Smyrna (d. c. 156 or 168), and the narrative report of Polycarp's martyrdom; some fragmentary accounts of the origins of the Gospels by Papias (fl. late 1st or early 2nd century AD), bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia, Asia Minor; and an ancient homily (sermon) known as the Second Letter of Clement. They all belong to the late 1st or early 2nd century and were all to a greater or lesser extent influenced (sometimes by way of reaction) by the profoundly Jewish atmosphere that pervaded Christian thinking and practice at this primitive stage. For this reason alone, modern scholars tend to regard them as a somewhat arbitrarily selected group. A more scientific assessment would place them in the context of a much wider contemporary Jewish-Christian literature that has largely disappeared but whose character can be judged from pseudepigraphal (or noncanonical) works such as the Ascension of Isaiah, the Odes of Solomon, and certain extracanonical texts modeled on the New Testament.

Even with this qualification the Apostolic Fathers, with their rich variety of provenance and genre (types), illustrate the difficult doctrinal and organizational problems with which the church grappled in those transitional generations. Important among these problems were the creation of a ministerial hierarchy and of an accepted structure of ecclesiastical authority. The Didache, which is Syrian in background and possibly the oldest of these documents, suggests a phase when Apostles and prophets were still active but when the routine ministry of bishops and deacons was already winning recognition. The First Letter of Clement, an official letter from the Roman to the Corinthian Church, reflects the more advanced state of a collegiate episcopate, with its shared authority among an assembly of bishops. This view of authority was supported by an emergent theory of apostolic succession in which bishops were regarded as jurisdictional heirs of the early Apostles. The First Letter of Clement is also instructive in showing that the Roman Church, even in the late 1st century, was asserting its right to intervene in the affairs of other churches. The letters of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch at the beginning of the 2nd century, depict the position of the monarchical bishop, flanked by subordinate presbyters (priests) and deacons (personal assistants to the bishop), which had been securely established in Asia Minor.

 

[ironmonk]

John 13:34
I give you a new commandment: love one another. As I have loved you, so you also should love one another.
35 This is how all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another."

1 John 4:7
Beloved, let us love one another, because love is of God; everyone who loves is begotten by God and knows God.
8 Whoever is without love does not know God, for God is love.

 

[D46]

It would be nice if you would take the time to study history.

I've taken a lot of time thanks...moreso than the vast majority of Catholics I've known. Most do not even know the historical background of their own Church. Many I've talked with had no idea what transubstantiation even meant nor the fact that before the host was called Jesus it was called Osiris by the Egyptians and Mary was called Isis.. Rome just picked up on this blasphemy. Your average Cathoic never heard of Pope's Urban, Leo or Sixtus(and I believe it was Leo who made the statement, "...the fable of Christ has been most profitable to me") or what they stood for nor when the concept of Immaculate Conception came about. Neither do most know of the bloody history of their own church so, don't tell me I need to study.

The bible had to be copied by hand until well after 1450 AD with the invention of the printing press. The only reason why you have the bible today is because the Catholic Church has been protecting it and preaching the Gospel since 33 AD.

Yes, I know that it was copied by hand. That's no new revelation. The only reason we have the bible today is because true believers in Christ copied down the word of God and had to go undeerground to keep Rome from burning it and themselves. Were it not for this, the Vaudois and reformers like Tyndale who brought us the bible in our own language, we may well still be in the dark as to the glorious gospel of Christ. The Catholic Church protecting and preaching the Gospel since 33 AD? That's a good one!! The Bible was complete by about 100 AD...the Catholic Church was still over 200 years away! Constantine claimed religious freedom(about 325 AD) and united Christians with Pagans, renamed their gods and hence, the Catholic Church was born....not before.

Latin was not a dead language, it was the written language of scholars... just as Greek was at the time of Christ. The original texts of the New Testament were in Aramaic, Greek, and Hebrew. St. Jerome translated them all to Latin, the Vulgate. The bible was not in 500 languages... there were not 500 languages in that area of the world at that time.

It was dead at the time of Christ. The true bible was in the Old Latin which Jerome corrupted by using some of Origens words minced with his own and called it the Latin Vulgate. Many people could not read then and that's true because you control the people by controlling their education and you control their education by controlling their language and nothing but Latin was allowed in the bible by Rome.

You know absolutly nothing about the Catholic Church. You know very little about the bible. The "Ten Commandments" did not have numbers until AD. There are actually 14 commands, but it is the way they are grouped why they are called 10... count them.

Why don't you count them and explain to everyone why papist took out the 2nd commandment and made the 10th into two parts. We both know why. If the 2nd was left it would convict the Romish doctrine of bowing before their plaster of Paris god, Mary. The Sacraments are NOT in the bible...not one. Baptising babies is no more there than oral confession to a priest or the Last Rites prayed over the dying. The elements of bread and wine were not declared to be the physical body and blood of Christ prior to 1215 AD. The doctrine of transubstantiation didn't exist prior to that. Semper eadem? I don't think so. that's absurd to believe a mere man has the power to transform the King of Glory into a cracker-sheer blasphemy. Have you ever seen a host that bleeds? If that's not a trick of satan I don't know what is.

You're wrong on another point. I don't hate any Catholic person. They are just following what they've been taught and I fault no man for his upbringing. I abhorr what Rome teaches...that's all. I especially detest the fact that knowingly they teach error that has doomed many by the lies and deceit that has went on for centuries that's brainwashed the faithful in believing all this heresy and have consigned multitudes to hell as a result. Unless they accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour and believe He and He alone can forgive sins and that He is the ONLY mediator between man and God, there is no hope. This is the last of my posts on this matter as we will believe what we will and it's useless to try and debate the matter. God's word is not up for debate. Sacraments can't save, penance won't and Mary can't save...only Jesus our Lord.

1Timothy 2:5-6 (KJV) For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

John 8:24 (KJV) I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

Romans 10:13 (KJV) For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

John 14:6 (KJV) Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

 

[thessalonian]

D46

Why don't you count them and explain to everyone why papist took out the 2nd commandment and made the 10th into two parts.

Took it out of where? We have the commandment to keep holy the sabaath. You likely are talking about the commandment you have of "thou shall not make any graven image". Fact is it is not a commandment in itself but clearly a part of the first which is precisely where the Catholic Catechism puts it, where the Bible has it, and where it belongs. If one worships a graven image he has a false God before him which is what the first commandment is all about. Now do tell how it is that the Bible tells you it should be a commandment on it's own. Keep in mind that when the Bible was written there were no paragraphs, numbering, chapters, punctuation, etc.. In other words the numbering of the commandments is a tradition pure and simple.

Two types of people would make an accusation such as you have made. One who is ignorant and one who makes accusations without understanding or reasoning them out based on pure hatred of something. Bearing false witness goes out the window in such a man. We are commanded not to bear false witness (that's one of your 10 isn't it?).. Not to bear false witness unless it is against someone or something we hate.

By the way, do the women in your church enjoy being lumped in with men's property?

Blessings

 

[ironmonk]

D46 > I've taken a lot of time thanks.

Then you really need to critically analyze your sources.

Here is a webpage that I put up that everyone can see that you are wrong about so many things Catholic....

http://www.IanPaisley.net


Get educated from a creditable source.

Show me with links to the Catechism at http://www.USCCB.org
Where the things are that you claim.... you can't.

I have links to the Catechism at http://www.IanPaisley.net that clearly show you are wrong.

If the people you listen to are so wrong about what the Catholic Church teaches, then it would be foolish to listen to them about Christian history.

http://www.IanPaisley.net <- My page... Everyone can see that you are wrong. It has the direct links to the Catechism to sections that show you are wrong about what the Church teaches.

 

[thessalonian]

(and I believe it was Leo who made the statement, "...the fable of Christ has been most profitable to me")

Yes, the quote is attributed to Leo by those who believe it's authenticity. Perhaps however you could do better than them and actually give a proper citation for the quote, complete with the document that it came out of or a first hand source of someone who heard him say it. Context would be important in such a statement for it could have been said in jest of sorts, as in someone could have said to Leo that Christ was a a fable to which he may have responded in context that Christ had been spirtually profitable to him. You know, "the flesh profiteth nothing". My guess is that you will not be able to give proper credentials for the quote any more than the hundreds of low rent and aethist internet sites that quote it.

Here is a bit of a study for you.

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/popeleox.html

Your use of this quote without verifying it in any manner and without citing a proper source only shows that you are willing to disparrage the Catholic Church at all cost, bearing false witness to your enemies even though those commandments that you hold in such high regard do not say, thou shalt not bear false witness except when it is against thy enimies. Further you are quite willing to pass along such gossip. Very sad. You show that you are willing to believe anything in the name of your vendetta against those whom you do not like. You have "studied" but you have not studied. You clamp on to what you hear about the Catholic faith without verifying the veracity of it before you publish it as your own. You don't really care if it is true or not, as long as it supports your prejudice. That is clear. You lack principle it seems. Your credibility is destroyed by your lack of due dilligence. VERY VERY SAD.

 

[D46]

Here is a webpage that I put up that everyone can see that you are wrong about so many things Catholic....

http://www.IanPaisley.net


Get educated from a creditable source.

Show me with links to the Catechism at http://www.USCCB.org
Where the things are that you claim.... you can't.

I have links to the Catechism at http://www.IanPaisley.net that clearly show you are wrong.

A creditable source would certainly not be the Catholic Catechism. That's like believing the Council of Trent's rebuttal to the Reformation and how they pronounced 125 curses on all Protestants for their belief in the Scriptures. Rather foolish I would think.

I'm aware of Ian Paisley's website, Jack Chick's and the works of Malachi Martin as well as others. I don't just arbitrarily believe something just because I read it on the Internet. In fact, when I began my study on all this, I had a hard time believing what I read and said to myself that surely, all this can't be true. It blew me away. But when you start reading the same thing over and over from hundreds of sources and checking areas against the scriptures and undeniable historical evidence, one can only conclude that Roman Catholicism is not what it appears to be. It would behoove all to delligently search the scriptures in all things and do their own research to come up with their own conclusions...not necessarly believing me or you. I still marvel at how so many can be so brain washed in light of scripture and history.

You clamp on to what you hear about the Catholic faith without verifying the veracity of it before you publish it as your own. You don't really care if it is true or not, as long as it supports your prejudice.

Yes, I do care-that's why I sought out the truth because I didn't necessarily want to believe what all I had read and heard. It was too bizaare for me to grasp at the time. I didn't get into attempting to understand just what Catholicism was all about with a pre-conceived idea because I had none. I only had what my former wife had told me and showed me, being an ex-Catholic herself. Her own mother disowned her as she was sure she was hell bound for leaving the Catholic faith. That's real love and understanding! She never would discuss religion...her's or anyone else's.

Before Robert left the forum, he was quite instrumental in bringing about scripture and facts about Catholicism and he should know being a former Catholic himself. Was all his words and evidence false and in vain. I don't think so. The evidence stacks heavily against Rome for her deceit, I'm afraid.

Consider some of the statements made by popes over the centuries....

We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty."

--POPE LEO XIII

Cited in Double Cross by Chick Publications, p. 27
quoting THE GREAT ENCYCLICAL LETTERS OF POPE LEO XIII
p. 304, Benziger Brothers (1903)

"I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another..."

Isaiah 42:8

"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely NECESSARY FOR the SALVATION of every human creature to be SUBJECT TO THE ROMAN PONTIFF (POPE)."

--POPE BONIFACE VIII, BULL UNUN SANCTUM, 1302

Acts 4:12 "Neither is there salvation in any other [than Jesus]: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved."


1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

I'll let these antichrists speak for themselves--

Leo XIII, Jucunda Semper, 1894: "When Mary offered herself completely to God together with her Son in the temple, she was already sharing with him the painful atonement on behalf of the human race ... (at the foot of cross) she willingly offered him up to the divine justice, dying with him in her heart, pierced by the sword of sorrow."

Pius X, Ad Diem Illum, 1904: "Owing to the union of suffering and purpose existing between Christ and Mary, she merited to become most worthily the reparatrix of the lost world, and for this reason, the dispenser of ALL favors which Jesus acquired for us by his death . . .

Benedict XV, Inter Sodalicia, 1918: "To such extent did Mary suffer and almost die with her suffering and dying Son; to such extent did she surrender her maternal rights over her Son for : man's salvation . . that we may rightly say she redeemed the human race together with Christ."

Plus XI, 1935, in a prayer to close a jubilee, we find the first use of the word Coredemptrix by a pope: "O Mother of love and mercy who, when thy sweetest Son was consummating the Redemption of the human race on in the altar of the cross, didst stand next to him suffering with him as a Coredemptrix."

Plus XII, in a radio broadcast in 1946: "Mary, for having been associated with the King of Martyrs in the ineffable work of human Redemption as Mother and cooperatrix, she remains forever associated with him, with an almost unlimited power, in the distribution of graces which flow from the Redemption."

John XXIII, Vatican II's Lumen Gentium, 1965.

Paul VI, Christi Matri. "The Church ... been accustomed to have recourse to that most ready intercessor, her Mother Mary ... For as St. Irenaeus says, she 'has become the cause of salvation for the whole human race"

John Paul II, Mother of the Redeemer, 1987.

Pius IX, Ubi Primum, 1849: "For God has committed to Mary the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know that THROUGH HER are obtained every hope, every grace, and ALL SALVATION. For this is his will, that we obtain everything through Mary."

Leo XIII, Supremi Apostolatus, 1883: "O Mary, the guardian of our peace and the dispensatrix of heavenly graces."

Plus X, Ad Diem Illum, 1904: "It was granted to the august Virgin to be together with her Only-begotten Son the most powerful Mediatrix and Conciliatrix of the whole world. So Christ is the source . . . Mary, however, as St. Bernard justly remarks, is the channel, or she is the neck by which the Body is united to the Head... through which ALL spiritual gifts are communicated to his Body."

Benedict XV, In a decree on Joan of Are: "In every miracle we must recognize the mediation of Mary, through whom, according to God's will, every grace and blessing comes to us."

Plus XI, Miserentissimus Redemptor, 1928: "Confiding in her intercession with Jesus, "the one Mediator of God and man, who wished to associate his own Mother with himself as the advocate of sinners, as the dispenser and mediatrix of grace."

Plus XII, Superiore Anno, 1940: "As St. Bernard declares, 'it is the will of God that we obtain favors through Mary, let everyone hasten to have recourse to Mary."

Catholics say they don't worship Mary or the other Saints. That is a dogma of the church and the Catechism exalts her so, if you're Catholic and adhere to the teachings of the church, you worship Mary. Anytime anyone bows before her or the Eurcharist, that is idolatry.

Priests all over the world sacrafice Christ hundreds of times a day worldwide when they offer the host and "pray" the "victim" down from the throne of grace to be transposed into a wafer. You do believe the priest has this power, I assume. If so, this can only be considered a blatant act of Idolatry and blasphemy against God. Christ was sacraficed once for all humanity...not to be continued on a daily basis around the world. If people "truly, really, and indeed" believe that any man, Priest or otherwise, has the ability to put Christ in a wafer, blood, body and all, and eat it, that's nothing short of cannibalism. However, this was one of the 125 anathemas the Council of Trent pronounced if no one believed it. Therefore, I can only assume all Catholics believe this. And, THAT is sad.

Romans 1:28 (KJV) And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

2 Thessalonians 2:11-12 (KJV) And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

John 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.
The sacrifice was FINSIHED on the cross.

1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also hath ONCE suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

Romans 6:10 For in that he died, he died unto sin ONCE: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.

The Bible makes it abundantly clear that the sacrifice is not ongoing. [Then what about the mass?]

1 Corinthians 10:20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.

 

[thessalonian]

D46,

I see rather than addressing the accusations of bearing false witness you just move on to other things. I guess that means you accept the verdict and are guilty of violating one of those commandments you hold so dearly.

could you quote that citation from a credible source from Leo X. Perhaps show me an encyclical or bull in which he made such a statement, citing the document, page, etc.. Or do you just expect Catholics to take your word for it since you know more about Catholicism than even the Catechism and are more official than the council of trent. Thanks.

 

[Merry Menagerie]

I asked this in theology and apolgetics but it is a Bible Study question I think.

What is required to receive the Holy Spirit? i.e. to become a born again Christian.

Some of you believe that just belief is neccessary.

John.7
[39] Now this he said about the Spirit, which those who believed in him were to receive; for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.
Acts.19
[2] And he said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" And they said, "No, we have never even heard that there is a Holy Spirit."

This passage in Acts 19 was after Christ had been glorified, yet they apparently had not received the Holy Spirit even though they believed in Christ. So it seems that while belief is necessary there is more. In context this passage and the one in Acts 10 where the Holy Spirit came to cornelius and company seem to indicate that someone from the Church has to be present.

It's not wise to base salvational doctrine on events instead of commands. Peter stood up and told us that we must repent, be baptised and then we SHALL receive the gift of the HOly Spirit.

Now the fact that these people in Acts hadn't received as yet would merely be the case that they didn't yet know that the Holy Spirit had been poured out. Understand that the Acts of the apostles were the transitional period of the time - going from the old to the new covenant. Today we understand that the Holy Spirit fulfillment comes after belief - but back then they would have been told. Otherwise they would have been given all this 'power' and not known what was going on.

 

[ironmonk]

D>> A creditable source would certainly not be the Catholic Catechism.

Pay attention.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church knows more about the Catholic Church than you do.

IT PROVES THAT YOU LIE ABOUT WHAT THE CHURCH TEACHES.

Are you that stupid that you cannot understand the simple basic reasoning in my post?

I asked you to show me with the Catechism the teachings that you claim are there.
NOT about history.


You have the power to become knowledgable on the subject, but you choose to show your ignorance and lack of English comprehension.

D>> I'm aware of Ian Paisley's website

http://www.IanPaisley.NET IS MY WEBSITE. YOU ARE NOT AWARE OF IT BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T GO. I OWN IT.

http://www.ianpaisley.ORG is ian's website.


It is impossible to have an intelligent dialog with you because you think you know something and show you don't know anything about the subject.



Jack Chick is a LIAR... and anyone who thinks he's not hasn't done their homework.


Jack Chicks "quotes" on his websites ARE FAKED - OR Taken out of context. They are no where else in history. JACK CHICK KNOWINGLY LIES.

Check unbias professional historian websites... Open a Encyclopedia Britannica... take a few English comprehension courses.


You have been lied to and you continue to bear false witness to and about Catholics.

If one thing Jack Chick claimed was true I would not be Catholic.



GO TO http://www.IanPaisley.NET



MY POINT IS ABOUT WHAT THE Catholic Church REALLY TEACHES - NOT WHO IS RIGHT OR WRONG ABOUT Christ.

YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT WHAT THE Catholic Church TEACHES - YOU HAVE BEEN LIED TO.

If you loved Christ you would be just and listen to all sides and seek the truth. You have not listened to both sides because you still POST LIES and DISTORTIONS about what the Catholic Church teaches.

 

[ironmonk]

I asked this in theology and apolgetics but it is a Bible Study question I think.

What is required to receive the Holy Spirit? i.e. to become a born again Christian.

Some of you believe that just belief is neccessary.

John.7
[39] Now this he said about the Spirit, which those who believed in him were to receive; for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.
Acts.19
[2] And he said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" And they said, "No, we have never even heard that there is a Holy Spirit."

This passage in Acts 19 was after Christ had been glorified, yet they apparently had not received the Holy Spirit even though they believed in Christ. So it seems that while belief is necessary there is more. In context this passage and the one in Acts 10 where the Holy Spirit came to cornelius and company seem to indicate that someone from the Church has to be present.

It's not wise to base salvational doctrine on events instead of commands. Peter stood up and told us that we must repent, be baptised and then we SHALL receive the gift of the HOly Spirit.

Now the fact that these people in Acts hadn't received as yet would merely be the case that they didn't yet know that the Holy Spirit had been poured out. Understand that the Acts of the apostles were the transitional period of the time - going from the old to the new covenant. Today we understand that the Holy Spirit fulfillment comes after belief - but back then they would have been told. Otherwise they would have been given all this 'power' and not known what was going on.

Dear Mary,
The way Thess. and I have described it throughout the thread is the way it is and has been taught since 33 AD. Just as the Apostles taught and the chain of disciples all the way until today.

If you believe I am wrong, please show me with quotes to the Early Church Fathers... you can find them here for Free: http://www.NewAdvent.org/Fathers/

Or buy them for $250 at http://www.Logos.com

The Early Church Fathers collection is the first 800 years or so of Christian writings... which were distributed to all the Churches mentioned in the bible... Which were copied year after year so that we would have them today.

Check out http://www.Britannica.com and type in "Church Fathers" and "New Testament Canon"... note the names then look up their writings... things dating all the way back to the first century back what we have been trying to show.

My main point here is not to try to convince you all here that Catholicism is correct, as I believe it is, but to clear up the misunderstandings and lies told about Catholicism.

Jack Chick and Ian Paisley lie about Catholicism. D46 and Terrel on this board bear false witness about Catholicism.

Everyone can see who is telling the truth by going to any of these websites below:

http://www.Catholic.com/
http://www.ScriptureCatholic.com/
http://www.IanPaisley.net/ <- I own this website... I bought it because Ian would not allow me to clearify the Catholic teachings on his board.

If you want to talk to knowledgable Catholics (some are, some are not) you can go to http://www.Phatmass.com/Phorum/ There are a few Catholics on that board that don't know what they are talking about but there are some really knowledgable ones also.

Another one of my sites: http://www.MoralTruth.com/


Get the facts, hear both sides, and you'll see who knows what the Catholic Church really teaches.

Now, if you see that we are telling the truth about what the Catholic Church teaches, and everyone has the same access to this information about the Catholic Church... If people tell you so many wrong things and lies about the Catholic Church, how can you trust their research in anything else? They have a hidden motive and it is wicked for them to propagate such lies about the Catholic Church.

In Christ....

 

[D46]

Jack Chick and Ian Paisley lie about Catholicism. D46 and Terrel on this board bear false witness about Catholicism.

WE bare false witness? That's almost humorous if not so sad. The RCC is nothing but false witness and I'll site just two points out of hundreds.

At Fatima three children supposedly had a vision of the "Virgiin Mary" who gave them these 15 promises of the Rosary of which I'll only site several. I submit that this was a message from a demon instead. Has not satan the ability to be transformed into and angel of light?

2 Corinthians 11:13-14 (KJV) For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

This message supposedly from the "Queen of Heaven"...

QUOTE:

The Rosary will be a very powerful armor against hell; it will destroy vice, deliver from sin and dispel heresy.

Those who trust themselves to me through the Rosary will not perish.

I will deliver promptly from purgatory souls devoted to my Rosary.

True children of my Rosary will enjoy great glory in heaven.

What you shall ask through my Rosary you shall obtain.

To those who propagate my Rosary I promise aid in all their necessities.

Also, praying the rosary can't dispel heresy because it is heresy itself. The Bible teaches that heresy is exposed by shining the light of God's Word upon the darkness (Psalm 119:105). The Bible is a "lamp" unto our feet to light the path. God's Holy Spirit is our guide to "guide us into all truth" (John 16:13). If a doctrine doesn't fit within the parameters of the Bible, then it is heresy! If you don't like this, then it is only because you do NOT believe the Bible. Praying the rosary will do nothing but waste your time and upset God.

How about the mass. Is it not "bearing false witness" for a priest to claim he can stuff Jesus Christ into a wafer, body, blood, divinity, etc and have you eat him? Such heresy!! And, supposedly offered in an "unbloody" sacrafice. My Jesus doesn't reside in a cracker but within the hearts of true believers. Of course, sometimes the host does bleed as witnessed by this link...works of the devil.

http://www.madredelleucaristia.it/eng/dec30.htm

http://www.madredelleucaristia.it/eng/jan15.htm

 

[D46]

Peter was Never a Pope



The meaning of the words of Peter are too well known and available on the Internet to spend time dealing with here. Suffice it to say, that if you look in a Greek New Testament, there is No way to interpret Peter being called a ROCK in any way, shape or form.

He did a good job of getting the word out about Jesus Christ, and his gospels even survived and are part of the 66 Books of the Bible. He was a good missionary and took risks for the Lord. He trained other church leaders also. But in all the time he was around, he just didn’t get around to putting anything in writing about his own succession. Pretty amazing for the first pope.

We wonder where his headquarters were. They could theoretically have been in Rome, except that the Bible says that PAUL is the one who was in Rome, not Peter. Then, there is the little matter of the Persecution Of Christians that was headquartered at Rome through the Roman Emperor NERO.

Obviously, the "Pope"could not be functioning as the Pontifex Maximus of the Roman Empire, with the official title in Rome, AND at the same time - also be the head of the Christians who were being physically persecuted and hunted down by Roman Soldiers and the Imperial Guard by Rome. Remember that the Roman Empire made being a Christian a crime. Anyone claiming to be their leader was understood to be challenging the power of the Roman Empire (even though the Christians had no such intention). The Roman Emperor Nero set Christians on fire. This point about the persecution of Christians - during the time when the RCC today is claiming that there was a "Pope" in charge of the early Christians - only underscores how since the Christians where nowhere in charge in Rome for 300 years after Christ, and remained outlaws, it it impossible that either the position of Pope existed or that the "pope" was officiating at Rome. The Vatican would not exist for another 350 years.


The interesting thing is – for a man so highly esteemed as Peter, not only did he not leave any documents about him being Pope, or about his succession, but His successors didn’t leave any documentation either.

On the other Hand, we know that Polycarp was the disciple of John. He was trained by an apostle and could have claimed succession but – he didn’t. He could have written about Peter the first Pope. Who better to be an eyewitness to this ? But Polycarp mentions not one word on this topic.

The Fact is that the Roman Catholic Church got its start from a Pagan Sun-Worshipping Emperor named Constantine in 325 A.D. – AFTER the Council of Nicea that Constantine had called together to attempt to "co-opt the church. He could not co-opt it entirely, so he simply founded the Church of the Roman Emperor, called himself a "Christian" and then gave money and a piece of real estate.

There is no “Unbroken†record of succession between Peter and Constantine. In fact the records of the Catholic Church are contradictory as they have issued different lines of succession between 325 A.D. back to Peter. You Can check this out for yourself in the Book Vicars of Christ by Peter deRosa. So which list are we supposed to believe ? Those lists are fictional and there is no proof of the existence of the Roman Catholic Church prior to 325 A.D.

It is not accurate that the Catholic Church remained uncontested in its leadership of Christians around the world. That is simply nonsense. The Church of the true Christians had been living underground in Cities of Catacombs for the first 250 years of Christianity. They had thriving communities and their leaders were chosen independently from within, and not appointed by any hierarchy. That false belief is simply basic Roman Catholic propaganda. The Catacomb cities are a verifiable fact of history, and more than 26 cities have been found.

When the Catholic Church began its quest to declare itself the undisputed Church Leader, their leadership was greatly contested from the outset. One of the main groups to contest them was the African Church in Carthage. The pope(about 380 AD) tried to say that he was in charge of all of the churches, and said the he had the documents of the Council of Nicea to prove it. The Church at Carthage responded that they had these documents as well, and those documents conferred no such authority on the Roman Catholic pope. It was a very public rebuke and is well know in history as the Donation of Constantine.



DONATION OF CONSTANTINE (Donatio Constantini), the supposed grant by the emperor Constantine, in gratitude for his conversion by Pope Silvester, to that pope and his successors

forever, not only of spiritual supremacy over the other great patriarchates and over all matters of faith and worship, but also of temporal dominion over Rome, Italy and “the provinces, places and civitates of the western regions.†The famous document, known as the Constitutum Constantini and compounded of various elements (notably the apocryphal Vita S. Silvestri), was forged at Rome some time between the middle and end of the 8th century, was included in the 9th century in the collection known as the False Decretals, two centuries later was incorporated in the Decretum by a pupil of Gratian, and in Gibbon’s day was still “enrolled among the decrees of the canon law,†though already rejected “by the tacit or modest censure of the advocates of the Roman church.†It is now universally admitted to be a gross forgery.

One of the ways that the Forgery discovered:

The Donation of Constantine quoted from St. Jerome's Latin translation of the Bible. St. Jerome wasn't born until 26 years after the Donation of Constantine was supposed to have been written


Source: 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica


Another fine example of "bearing false witness".

 

[ironmonk]

D,

You are wrong on what the Catholic Church teaches and that is why you change the subject. This is the typical action of an anti-Catholic. Instead of admitting fault and accepting the truth you try to change the subject. This is also a sign that you do not know Christ. Christ is Love, and Love is...

1 Corinthians 13:6 it (Love) does not rejoice over wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth.


John 13:34
I give you a new commandment: love one another. As I have loved you, so you also should love one another.
35 This is how all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another."

1 John 4:7
Beloved, let us love one another, because love is of God; everyone who loves is begotten by God and knows God.
8 Whoever is without love does not know God, for God is love.



I'm sorry D that you have been lied to about the Catholic Church, but you do not have to keep bearing false witness against the Church by spreading lies about what it teaches.

So, I'm going to answer a few of your further misunderstandings below...


You seem to be very confused. Your own signature shows it... "Sola Scriptura,Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Christus" means "Only Scripture, Only Faith, Only Grace, Only Christ".... "Only" means "no other but"... You have four things listed.

We are saved because Christ died for our sins, just as the Catholic Church teaches.


It was Mary who visited those childen in Fatima... the spirit was tested just as the Scriptures say to...

1 John 4:1 Beloved, do not trust every spirit but test the spirits to see whether they belong to God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
2 This is how you can know the Spirit of God: every spirit that acknowledges Jesus Christ come in the flesh be longs to God,
3 and every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus 2 does not belong to God. This is the spirit of the antichrist that, as you heard, is to come, but in fact is already in the world.


Learn all about Fatima at http://www.Fatima.org


Just as Moses came to visit Christ, God has allowed Mary to come and visit a lucky few.



Peter was the head Bishop, which is now called "Pope".


St. Matt 16:18 "And so I say to you, you are Peter (Cephas), and upon this rock (Cephas) I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it."
19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."


Jesus is speaking directly to Peter here, this english version has been translated 3 times... Originally in Aramaic (Cephas = rock)... Then the Greek were we get the different endings of 'Petros', one is masculine and one is feminine... following proper grammer they could not give Peter the feminine and that is why there is a differnence in the Greek to English... An Aramaic to English would read "...you are Rock, and upon this Rock I will build my church..."

Peter's name in Aramaic was Kepha/Cephas as shown in John's Gospel and in Paul's letter to the Cornithians. Aramic is what was spoken and it means Rock.


John 1:42
Then he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon the son of John; 30 you will be called Kephas" (which is translated Peter).

The argument that Jesus was not calling Peter the Rock is wrong.


John 21:15
When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs."
16 He then said to him a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep."
17 He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, "Do you love me?" and he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." (Jesus) said to him, "Feed my sheep."

This also shows the same as with St. Matt 16:18 that Peter was the leader of the Apostles after Jesus went to Heaven. Peter was the first Pope.



The Early Church Fathers:

Tatian the Syrian

"Simon Cephas answered and said, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.’ Jesus answered and said unto him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah: flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee also, that you are Cephas, and on this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it" (The Diatesseron 23 [A.D. 170]).


Tertullian

"Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the Church would be built’ [Matt. 16:18] with the power of ‘loosing and binding in heaven and on earth’ [Matt. 16:19]?" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 22 [A.D. 200]).

"[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys" (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).


The Letter of Clement to James

"Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter" (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).


The Clementine Homilies

"[Simon Peter said to Simon Magus in Rome:] ‘For you now stand in direct opposition to me, who am a firm rock, the foundation of the Church’ [Matt. 16:18]" (Clementine Homilies 17:19 [A.D. 221]).


Origen

"Look at [Peter], the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church [Matt. 16:18]. And what does our Lord say to him? ‘Oh you of little faith,’ he says, ‘why do you doubt?’ [Matt. 14:31]" (Homilies on Exodus 5:4 [A.D. 248]).


Cyprian of Carthage

"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. . . . If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

"There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering" (Letters 43[40]:5 [A.D. 253]).

"There [John 6:68–69] speaks Peter, upon whom the Church would be built, teaching in the name of the Church and showing that even if a stubborn and proud multitude withdraws because it does not wish to obey, yet the Church does not withdraw from Christ. The people joined to the priest and the flock clinging to their shepherd are the Church. You ought to know, then, that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishop, and if someone is not with the bishop, he is not in the Church. They vainly flatter themselves who creep up, not having peace with the priests of God, believing that they are
secretly [i.e., invisibly] in communion with certain individuals. For the Church, which is one and Catholic, is not split nor divided, but it is indeed united and joined by the cement of priests who adhere one to another" (ibid., 66[69]:8).


Firmilian

"But what is his error . . . who does not remain on the foundation of the one Church which was founded upon the rock by Christ [Matt. 16:18], can be learned from this, which Christ said to Peter alone: ‘Whatever things you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:19]" (collected in Cyprian’s Letters 74[75]:16 [A.D. 253]).

"[Pope] Stephen . . . boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid [Matt. 16:18]. . . . [Pope] Stephen . . . announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter" (ibid., 74[75]:17).


Ephraim the Syrian

"[Jesus said:] ‘Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples’" (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).


Optatus

"You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was headâ€â€that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]â€â€of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).


Ambrose of Milan

"[Christ] made answer: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church. . . . ’ Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]?" (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).

"It is to Peter that he says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18]. Where Peter is, there is the Church. And where the Church is, no death is there, but life eternal" (Commentary on Twelve Psalms of David 40:30 [A.D. 389]).


Encyclopedia Britannica:

Saint Peter the Apostle
died c. AD 64, Rome

original name Simeon, or Simon disciple of Jesus Christ, recognized in the early Christian church as the leader of the disciples and by the Roman Catholic church as the first of its unbroken succession of popes. Peter, a fisherman, was called to be a disciple of Jesus at the beginning of his ministry. He received from Jesus the name Cephas (i.e., Rock, hence Peter, from the Latin petra).

 

[Terral]

The Combined Dogma Of Roman Catholicism is Totally Useless

Hi Merry, IronMonk:

Thank you both for writing on this thread. Please allow me this opportunity to chime in on where you both appear to be WAY off using Scripture.

Merry >> It's not wise to base salvational doctrine on events instead of commands.

Your statement here oversimplifies the process of obtaining kingdom doctrine relating to the ‘gospel of the kingdom’ (Matthew 4:23, Matthew 9:35, etc.) OR grace doctrine related to Paul’s “word of the cross†(1 Corinthians 1:18) gospel messages. To try and separate ‘events’ from ‘commands’ has no basis in Scriptural fact. Scripture shows John the Baptist baptizing for the forgiveness of sins in Mark 1:4-5 apart from any commands. Christ follows behind him preaching the “gospel of God†(Mark 1:14) telling Israel that the “time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is ‘at hand’ (Matthew 3:2, Matthew 4:17, Matthew 10:7) and that they were to ‘believe in the gospel’ where the ‘event’ is being described with the ‘commands.’ We know that the ‘gospel of the kingdom’ (Matthew 24:14) was seen by the Old Testament prophets by the prophecies of Isaiah (Isaiah 40:3) and Malachi (Malachi 3:1) who clearly see John the Baptist as the ‘messenger’ (Isaiah 40:3) and Jesus Christ as the “Lord†(Malachi 3:1) following him to His Temple. Those two references prophesy of ‘events’ totally apart from any ‘commands’ by anyone. Christ commands “Israel ONLY†(Matthew 15:24) to ‘obtain eternal life’ (Matthew 19:16) by ‘keeping the commandments’ (Matthew 19:17), which again is an ‘event’ combined with ‘commands.’

To try and establish your basis for obtaining your ‘doctrine of salvation’ on strictly events OR commands is most unwise. Paul teaches that our gospel for today was NOT seen by the Old Testament Prophets by saying that ‘my gospel’ is ‘according to the revelation of the mystery’ (Romans 16:25), which is neither an ‘event’ nor a ‘command.’ Gospel messages are ‘preached’ to the unsaved with kingdom doctrine (for the gospel of the kingdom) OR grace doctrine (for Paul’s Gospel), but ‘taught’ using doctrinal precepts; whether that information is derived through events, commands or simply teachings on that topic. Paul says that “the things which I write to you are the Lord’s Commandment†(1 Corinthians 14:37-38) whether he is describing any of the above.

Merry >> Peter stood up and told us that we must repent, be baptised and then we SHALL receive the gift of the HOly Spirit.

No. Peter stood up and addressed the “Men of Judea†(Acts 2:14), the “Men of Israel†(Acts 2:22) and “all the house of Israel†(Acts 2:36) on the Day of Pentecost. This was a holy feast day in the most legalistic city on earth and it was “unlawful for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him.†Acts 10:28. Having contact with Gentiles before or during a feast would make the Jew UNCLEAN and create the need of going to the Temple to make a sacrifice. No Jew would take the chance of associating with any Gentiles (except proselytes = Acts 2:10) or they risked disqualification from feast activates or even worse (Acts 21:28-31).

Do we see Peter preaching salvation by God’s grace through faith apart from works AND forgiveness of sins through Christ’s shed blood in Acts 2? No. Peter is still preaching the same repentance and baptism for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:28), just like John the Baptist from the beginning (Mark 1:4). Therefore, your attempts to declare that Peter is addressing “us†are also made in vain, because Paul is addressing “us†today, as the “apostle of Gentiles†(Romans 11:13). Peter is teaching the laying of hands for the Holy Spirit like for the Samarians of Acts 8:12-17, where you can clearly see the ‘good news concerning the Kingdom of God’ (Gospel of the Kingdom = Matthew 24:14) in Acts 8:12. You are trying to say that Peter is teaching “us†about the ‘gospel of the kingdom’ for today, when in truth he is addressing “Israel ONLY†like Christ says in Matthew 15:24.

Merry >> Now the fact that these people in Acts hadn't received as yet would merely be the case that they didn't yet know that the Holy Spirit had been poured out.

“Merely?†The “Helper†(John 16:7) was just sent in Acts 2:1-4 and these “Men of Israel†(Acts 2:22) were just seeing these things for the very first time. Receiving the “Holy Spirit†for those obedient to the “gospel of the kingdom†(Matthew 24:14) was a three step process. The first step in the process was John’s Baptism (Acts 8:12, Acts 19:3), which was followed by the baptism in the ‘name of the Lord Jesus’ (Acts 8:16, Acts 19:5). Only then could the kingdom disciple lay hands on the new convert to the kingdom, so he could received the ‘gift of the Holy Spirit’ (Acts 2:38 = Acts 8:17, Acts 19:6). The ‘future’ tense is added to Peter’s words in Acts 2:38, because he was presenting the ‘gospel of the kingdom,’ but they still needed to take a trip to the water for the very first baptism of the three baptism process. Of course the Jews in Acts 2 knew the Holy Spirit was poured out, because Peter is telling them that very thing in Acts 2:17-19 in quoting Joel 2:28-30.

Merry >> Understand that the Acts of the apostles were the transitional period of the time - going from the old to the new covenant.

John the Baptist divided the Old Testament from the New Testament, according to Christ’s statements in Matthew 11:13. God had been offering the ‘gospel of the kingdom’ since all the way back in Mark 1:4-5 (Acts 1:5) and Christ picked up the Holy Spirit baton from John the Baptist at His baptism in Matthew 3:15-16. Christ was now passing that “Helper†(Holy Spirit) to the Twelve to begin His ministry of doing the same exact thing. Peter was taking over as the head of the kingdom church, according to Christ’s predictions in Matthew 16:16-19 concerning that ‘bride’ (John 3:29) church (Matthew 18:17-18) of PROPHECY. Our ‘dispensation of God’s grace’ (Ephesians 3:2) for the Gentiles would not start until the conversion of Paul in Acts 9:15, so that God could give our gospel to him through a ‘revelation of Jesus Christ’ (Galatians 1:11-12). Since Paul had to go up and ‘submit the gospel I preach among the Gentiles’ (Galatians 2:2) some twenty years LATER in Acts 15 (Galatians 2), then OBVIOUSLY Peter was not preaching our gospel for today in Acts 2. Peter and the Twelve were just then starting the third leg of God offering the ‘gospel of the kingdom’ to Israel of the flesh through the third and final ministry of the Holy Spirit. The transition from Peter’s Kingdom ‘bride’ church to Paul’s Grace ‘body’ (Ephesians 5:30-32, Colossians 1:24) church of MYSTERY (Ephesians 5:32) takes place in Acts 15 at this famous meeting between the two churches of our New Testament. That is why you see no more mention of Peter (Simeon in Acts 15:14) after this transitional chapter that begins focusing exclusively on Paul.

Merry >> Today we understand that the Holy Spirit fulfillment comes after belief - but back then they would have been told.

Heh . . . Please forgive, but where do you see the Holy Spirit given to those obedient to either gospel message apart from their obedience? Those who did not believe Peter in Acts 2 were disqualified from being baptized (Matthew 16:15-16) in the name of the Lord Jesus OR having hands laid on them for the Holy Spirit. Paul says that we receive the “Holy Spirit of promise†today by hearing the message of truth and believing (Ephesians 1:13-14). If the Samarians (Acts 8:12-17) OR the Disciples (Acts 19:1-6) heard Paul’s “word of the cross†(1 Corinthians 1:18) gospel message, then they would have received the Spirit by “hearing with faith†(Galatians 3:2) right from the beginning apart from the ‘gaps’ of time existing between those three separate kingdom baptisms. There is only ‘one baptism’ (Ephesians 4:5) connected to Paul’s Gospel for us today and that has NOTHING whatsoever to do with water, because we are baptized into Christ (Galatians 3:27) by the “one Spirit†(Holy Spirit) Himself (1 Corinthians 12:13). Peter could not preach that to Israel only in Acts 2, because Paul would not even submit the ‘gospel I preach among the Gentiles’ (Galatians 2:2) for another twenty years in Acts 15.

Merry >> Otherwise they would have been given all this 'power' and not known what was going on.

Peter is rectifying that situation throughout his long Acts 2 discourse, which was given in tongues for the benefit of all the Jews on the Day of Pentecost in Jerusalem. Since there is a three baptism process for receiving the Holy Spirit through the laying of hands (Acts 8:12-17, Acts 19:1-6), then the kingdom disciple was made ready for that power by those bringing them the ‘gospel of the kingdom.’

IronMonk >> Dear Mary, The way Thess. and I have described it throughout the thread is the way it is and has been taught since 33 AD. Just as the Apostles taught and the chain of disciples all the way until today.

The way men have taught kingdom AND grace doctrine for the past 2000 years is irrelevant to this discussion. Scripture is inspired BY GOD (2 Timothy 3:16-17) and the dogma of your church fathers is inspired BY MEN.

IronMonk >> If you believe I am wrong, please show me with quotes to the Early Church Fathers... you can find them here for Free: http://www.NewAdvent.org/Fathers/ Or buy them for $250 at http://www.Logos.com

Please . . . the combined work of all your church fathers are utterly useless. If they happen to agree with Scripture (NOT), then you can quote from God’s Word and say the very same thing.

IronMonk >> The Early Church Fathers collection is the first 800 years or so of Christian writings... which were distributed to all the Churches mentioned in the bible... Which were copied year after year so that we would have them today.

There is no Scriptural evidence for your assertion anywhere in the Bible. Exactly thirteen books of Scripture were addressed to Gentiles, and all of them begin with Paul stating his name. How many times to Hebrews, Peter, John and James address the “Gentiles†in the first person? NEVER. They are all addressing the kingdom ‘bride’ (John 3:29) as the ‘sons of the bridal chamber’ (Mark 2:19), as James’ Epistle is addressed to the twelve tribes dispersed abroad (James 1:1). James teaches obedience to the ‘whole Law’ (James 2:10), just like Christ says in Matthew 5:18 for ISRAEL ONLY (Matthew 15:24). Paul teaches that the Gentiles saved by “my gospel†(Romans 2:16, Romans 16:25) are under grace and NOT under law (Romans 6:14).

Your church fathers have taking Peter’s commands to the kingdom bride and mixed them in with Paul’s commands to the ‘body of Christ’ (Ephesians 4:12) in the world today. They invented this “Holy Eucharist†mumbo jumbo totally apart from anything written in your Bible. Christ was doing the “Lord’s Passover†(Leviticus 23:5) Supper like He did one day every year on the fourteenth day of Nisan. When He told the JEWS participating in this Levitical ritual to “do THIS in remembrance of Me†(Luke 22:19), then He was talking about this same ‘once a year’ Passover Supper done strictly BY ISRAEL.

There is no precedence for doing this ritual more than one time every year ANYWHERE IN THE BIBLE. The Denominations have made these things up from a combination of the Lord’s Supper done once a year AND the pagan rituals in Paul’s day to Aphrodite (Greek) and Diana (Roman) the goddesses of fertility. The Catholics invented the name “Eucharist†from Christ giving “thanks†(Luke 22:17, Luke 22:19, etc.), where they transformed the verb (eucharisteo #2168) into their noun (Eucharist). Paul says that when we meet together that it is NOT to eat the Lord’s Supper (1 Corinthians 11:20), but your church fathers have used every excuse to remove the “NOT†from that verse. Instead of doing the Lord’s Passover Supper once a year like the Jews, they do their rendition of the pagan “Love Feast†rituals over and over again in their attempts to sacrifice time after time after time . . .

IronMonk >> Check out http://www.Britannica.com and type in "Church Fathers" and "New Testament Canon"... note the names then look up their writings... things dating all the way back to the first century back what we have been trying to show.

Please . . . You claim that your church fathers and their dogma say exactly what God is saying in His Word. If that is the case, then quoting God is FAR better than relying upon their combined testimony. Showing yourself approved to God is all about ‘rightly dividing’ the word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15), which has NOTHING to do with your church fathers at all.

IronMonk >> My main point here is not to try to convince you all here that Catholicism is correct, as I believe it is, but to clear up the misunderstandings and lies told about Catholicism.

Heh . . . Spoken like one thoroughly blinded by the dogma of your church fathers.

IronMonk >> Jack Chick and Ian Paisley lie about Catholicism. D46 and Terrel on this board bear false witness about Catholicism.

That would be your job to prove using Scripture. 2 Timothy 2:15. Since you are intent on passing your RC Propaganda off as Scripture, and cannot write a paragraph of solid commentary on your own, then we all might be very old before you begin proving anything out of God’s Living Word. If the truth were in IronMonk, then he would be sending you into your Bible instead of to his RC dogma.

IronMonk >> Everyone can see who is telling the truth by going to any of these websites below: I own this website... I bought it because Ian would not allow me to clearify the Catholic teachings on his board. (snip)

Nobody in the Bible is Roman Catholic. Where do you see Peter going to Rome? Nowhere. Paul shows Peter still going ‘to the circumcised’ in Galatians 2:9 and there is no mention of Peter going to any Gentiles after Acts 15 at all. Paul addresses the church at Rome in his Epistle to the Romans, as he teaches them we are justified by faith APART from works (Romans 4:4-6). James teaches just the opposite to the twelve tribes in James 2:20-24, saying that men are justified by works and not by faith alone (James 2:24). In short, the Roman Catholic Church picked the ‘wrong apostle’ to head their Denomination AND they borrow doctrinal components from the ‘gospel of the kingdom’ to prop up their very own false gospel. Christ came in water AND in blood (1 John 5:6), but your Denomination mixes everything into one pot to take out what tasted good to your church fathers. Now you follow in their footsteps and to the same doom, because Paul’s Gospel is veiled to those who are perishing (2 Corinthians 4:3-4). The reason you guys run to your church dogma is because those blinded by Catholicism are incapable of proving their points from God’s Living Word. There is no maturity or stature found among any of them and they must rally around their Catechism books and other man-made creeds to back up their errant testimony. I worked in the Roman Catholic Denomination for six years and know their church doctrines as well as anyone here; and never have met another group so blind and in need of being led by the hand. The ‘deluding influence’ forces them to continue believing ‘what is false’ (2 Thessalonians 2:11) and there is nothing you can say to break that spell.

In Christ Jesus,

Terral