Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Bible Study Reception of the Holy Spirit

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.

I'm afraid you are the one that's not only confused but deceived as well in your beliefs.I have no intentions in going on any further with this as I've learned long ago it's all for naught. Nevertheless, to clear up your confusion of the above, It is only Scripture that is God breathed that gave me faith and understanding to believe in the Grace and goodness of Christ Jesus our Lord and Saviour. See-that's not difficult is it?

We all have the truth available to us. Whether we accept it or reject it is ultimately our decision. Whether we believe in man's doctrines and traditions or in the Word of God will forever seal our destiny. I have put my faith in the infalliable Word of God...not the pope of Rome.

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.
 
Terrel,

Again you and D46 avoid the point... The point IS that you do not know what the Catholic Church teaches and that you spread lies about the Catholic Church teachings.




Terrel> 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.

No it is not irrelevant, Eph. 4:5 "One Faith", St. Matt 16:18-19 "Never to be overcome".... So it does matter. The only reason why you would say it wouldn't matter is because you tried to find your faith in the Early Church Fathers and couldn't... which means that Christ did not make your faith so you try to twist scripture to make it fit your view of it instead of changing for Christ. The Early Church Fathers writings are not "Dogma"... they are the first Christian writings that helped explain the faith to people back then, and today... Scripture is inspired by God and it was God who guided the Councils in 400 AD to select the books of the New Testament.

The bible is clear that it is the Church that is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth (1 Tim 3:15)... and Christ is quite clear to "Tell the Church" St. Matt 18:16

And as for 2 Tim. 3:16-17 YOU NEED TO PAY ATTENTION!

2 Tim. 3:14
But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it,
15
and that from infancy you have known (the) sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
16
All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
17
so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.


because you know from whom you learned it,

Because from WHOM you learned it... YES! it does matter what has been taught for 2000 years... If your faith wasn't taught in 33 AD, 400 AD, 1000 AD, 1500 AD, and all the way until today and tomorrow... then YOU DO NOT hold the faith built by Christ.

Come on man, learn to think and apply basic reasoning to Scritpures along with History. It is the only way that you will be able to know that you are not being decieved.

The bible is a Catholic Book... and has been since it was written.


Terrel> Nobody in the Bible is Roman Catholic. Where do you see Peter going to Rome?

So the world of professional historians are wrong and you are right? No, you are mistaken.


Peter's Roman Residency

In other Fathers Know Best tracts we have shown that Jesus made Peter the rock on which the Church is built and that this gave Peter a special primacy. Here we will show that Peter went to the city of Rome and was martyred there.

In order to escape the truth of the doctrine of the papacy, according to which the bishop of Rome is the successor of Peter, some Fundamentalists have tried to deny that Peter ever went to Rome.

But the historical evidence reveals that this assertion is untenable. In his first epistle, Peter tells his readers that he is writing from "Babylon" (1 Pet. 5:13), which was a first-century code word for the city of pagan Rome. Further, the Fathers are unanimous in declaring that he went to Rome and was martyred there under the pagan emperor Nero.

This being the case, the historical evidence is unambiguous in declaring that Peter went to Rome, revealing the Fundamentalist claim to the contrary for what it is: an attempt to deny one of the tenets in the doctrine of the papacy, even if truth must be sacrificed to do so.


Ignatius of Antioch


"Not as Peter and Paul did, do I command you [Romans]. They were apostles, and I am a convict" (Letter to the Romans 4:3 [A.D. 110]).


Dionysius of Corinth

"You [Pope Soter] have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time" (Letter to Pope Soter [A.D. 170], in Eusebius, History of the Church 2:25:8).


Irenaeus

"Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church" (Against Heresies, 3, 1:1 [A.D. 189]).

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the succession of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church [of Rome], because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (ibid., 3, 3, 2).

"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the letter to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21]. To him succeeded Anacletus, and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate. He had seen the blessed apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that he still heard the echoes of the preaching of the apostles and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith. ... To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded . . . and now, in the twelfth place after the apostles, the lot of the episcopate [of Rome] has fallen to Eleutherius. In this order, and by the teaching of the apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us" (ibid., 3, 3, 3).


Gaius

"It is recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and Peter, likewise, was crucified, during the reign [of the Emperor Nero]. The account is confirmed by the names of Peter and Paul over the cemeteries there, which remain to the present time. And it is confirmed also by a stalwart man of the Church, Gaius by name, who lived in the time of Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome. This Gaius, in a written disputation with Proclus, the leader of the sect of Cataphrygians, says this of the places in which the remains of the aforementioned apostles were deposited: ‘I can point out the trophies of the apostles. For if you are willing to go to the Vatican or to the Ostian Way, you will find the trophies of those who founded this Church’" (Disputation with Proclus [A.D. 198] in Eusebius, Church History 2:25:5).


Clement of Alexandria

"The circumstances which occasioned . . . [the writing] of Mark were these: When Peter preached the Word publicly at Rome and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed" (Sketches [A.D. 200], in a fragment from Eusebius, History of the Church, 6, 14:1).


Tertullian

"But if you are near Italy, you have Rome, where authority is at hand for us too. What a happy church that is, on which the apostles poured out their whole doctrine with their blood; where Peter had a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned with the death of John [the Baptist, by being beheaded]" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 36 [A.D. 200]).

"[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter" (ibid., 32:2).

"Let us see what milk the Corinthians drained from Paul; against what standard the Galatians were measured for correction; what the Philippians, Thessalonians, and Ephesians read; what even the nearby Romans sound forth, to whom both Peter and Paul bequeathed the gospel and even sealed it with their blood" (Against Marcion 4, 5:1 [A.D. 210]).


The Little Labyrinth

"Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter" (The Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in Eusebius, Church History 5:28:3).


The Poem Against the Marcionites

"In this chair in which he himself had sat, Peter in mighty Rome commanded Linus, the first elected, to sit down. After him, Cletus too accepted the flock of the fold. As his successor, Anacletus was elected by lot. Clement follows him, well-known to apostolic men. After him Evaristus ruled the flock without crime. Alexander, sixth in succession, commends the fold to Sixtus. After his illustrious times were completed, he passed it on to Telesphorus. He was excellent, a faithful martyr . . . " (Poem Against the Marcionites 276–284 [A.D. 267]).


Eusebius of Caesarea

"[In the second] year of the two hundredth and fifth Olympiad [A.D. 42]: The apostle Peter, after he has established the church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains as a bishop of that city, preaching the gospel for twenty-five years" (The Chronicle [A.D. 303]).


Peter of Alexandria

"Peter, the first chosen of the apostles, having been apprehended often and thrown into prison and treated with ignominy, at last was crucified in Rome" (Penance, canon 9 [A.D. 306]).


Lactantius

"When Nero was already reigning, Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked . . . he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God. When this fact was reported to Nero . . . he sprang to the task of tearing down the heavenly temple and of destroying righteousness. It was he that first persecuted the servants of God. Peter he fixed to a cross, and Paul he slew" (The Deaths of the Persecutors 2:5 [A.D. 318]).


Cyril of Jerusalem

"[Simon Magus] so deceived the city of Rome that Claudius erected a statue of him. . . .While the error was extending itself, Peter and Paul arrived, a noble pair and the rulers of the Church, and they set the error aright. . . . [T]hey launched the weapon of their like-mindedness in prayer against the Magus, and struck him down to earth. It was marvelous enough, and yet no marvel at all, for Peter was thereâ€â€he that carries about the keys of heaven. And it was nothing to marvel at, for Paul was thereâ€â€he that was caught up into the third heaven" (Catechetical Lectures 6:14 [A.D. 350]).


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]).


Epiphanius of Salamis

"At Rome the first apostles and bishops were Peter and Paul, then Linus, then Cletus, then Clement, the contemporary of Peter and Paul" (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 27:6 [A.D. 375]).


Pope Damasus I

"Likewise it is decreed: . . . [W]e have considered that it ought to be announced that although all the Catholic churches spread abroad through the world comprise one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it.

"In addition to this, there is also the companionship of the vessel of election, the most blessed apostle Paul, who contended and was crowned with a glorious death along with Peter in the city of Rome in the time of Caesar Nero. . . . They equally consecrated the above-mentioned holy Roman Church to Christ the Lord; and by their own presence and by their venerable triumph they set it at the forefront over the others of all the cities of the whole world.

"The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it. The second see, however, is that at Alexandria, consecrated in behalf of blessed Peter by Mark, his disciple and an evangelist, who was sent to Egypt by the apostle Peter, where he preached the word of truth and finished his glorious martyrdom. The third honorable see, indeed, is that at Antioch, which belonged to the most blessed apostle Peter, where first he dwelt before he came to Rome and where the name Christians was first applied, as to a new people" (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).


Jerome

"Simon Peter, the son of John, from the village of Bethsaida in the province of Galilee, brother of Andrew the apostle, and himself chief of the apostles, after having been bishop of the church of Antioch and having preached to the Dispersion . . . pushed on to Rome in the second year of Claudius to overthrow Simon Magus, and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last, that is the fourteenth, year of Nero. At his hands he received the crown of martyrdom being nailed to the cross with his head towards the ground and his feet raised on high, asserting that he was unworthy to be crucified in the same manner as his Lord" (Lives of Illustrious Men 1 [A.D. 396]).


Augustine

"If all men throughout the world were such as you most vainly accuse them of having been, what has the chair of the Roman church done to you, in which Peter sat, and in which Anastasius sits today?" (Against the Letters of Petilani 2:118 [A.D. 402]).
 
A couple more verses to note...

Acts 8:30 Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and said, "Do you understand what you are reading?"
31 He replied, "How can I, unless someone instructs me?" So he invited Philip to get in and sit with him.


2 Peter 3:15
And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you,
16 speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures.
17 Therefore, beloved, since you are forewarned, be on your guard not to be led into the error of the unprincipled and to fall from your own stability.


These verses along with all the other verses that I have mentioned on this thread show a grave need for the Faith established by Christ... and the Church that Christ left us to teach us the Faith. This all means that we do need to know what was taught in 33 AD, 100 AD, 200 AD, 500 AD, 1000 AD, until today and into the future. The True Faith established by Christ will NEVER be overcome... the True Faith will not contradict itself. There will be people who leave the True Faith and take people with them....


"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

This quote speaks volumes... According to Martin Luther the Church was overcome by the Netherworld... I believe Christ... The Church was not overcome and will never be overcome.
 
Merry Menagerie said:
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.

Amen. I agree 100%. I don't base it on events instead of commands. Jesus said for the Apostles to go out in to the world and baptize. He didn't say go out in to the world and get everyone to baptize themselves did he. If you will look at what I have said in this thread I have NOT ONCE stated that repentance or baptism are uneccessary.

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.

I agree. Find me another passage where someone gives himself the Holy Spirit. Thanks.

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.

So give me an example passage where someone gives himself or herself the Holy Spirit simply by believing. Thanks.
 
D46,

You are ignoring my questions. Could you please show us the commandments that you are so aghast about the Catholic Church supposedly leaving one out actually mean something to you. Can you acknowledge that as IM and I have shown the Catholic Church does not leave out your second commandment but includes it with the first? Can you also acknowledge that the quote you attribute to Pope Leo about the fable of Jesus being profitable for him, you cannot defend with first hand or even second (i.e. someone who actually heard him say it) hand sources. That you also cannot provide context for the statement. If you can do these two things I will hold your honesty in much higher regard. Otherwise your posts have NO credibility and are just the same shotgun approach that the scribes and the pharasees used against the trial of Jesus, hoping that something could stick so that they could crucify our savior. They succeeded of course.
 
Roman Catholicism Is A Man-Made Denomination Like Others

Hi Thessalonian, IronMonk (mentioned):

Why even give a title to your threads, if the intention is to drag everyone off to the promised land of Roman Catholic Dogma???? Where does Paul command that being approved to God is rightly dividing the errant suppositions of your church fathers? What kind of Board should this be if every member of every Denomination on earth began rambling on about their church fathers apart from basing their interpretations on the WORD OF GOD??? You and your RC sidekick IronMonk should try to stick to the topic, instead of using these threads to paste your RC Propaganda.

Thessalonian >> You are ignoring my questions. Could you please show us the commandments that you are so aghast about the Catholic Church supposedly leaving one out actually mean something to you.

Paul gives us the “Lord’s Commandment†(1 Corinthians 14:37-38) to ‘rightly divide’ (2 Timothy 2:15 = cut straight) the word of truth. Roman Catholic Dogma mixes everything together pertaining to the ‘gospel of the kingdom’ (Matthew 4:23, etc.) AND Paul’s ‘word of the cross’ (1 Corinthians 1:18) gospel messages to create one of their very own that God sent to NOBODY. Israel keeps the Law and performs the “Lord’s Supper†(1 Corinthians 11:20) once a year. Your Gentile church has transformed that into a daily Eucharistic Sacrificial Hocus Pocus Offering of Christ over and over and over again, as if our Passover (1 Corinthians 5:7) has not yet been sacrificed at all. Paul says that our mystery church (Ephesians 5:32, Colossians 1:24-27) is the ‘body of Christ’ (Ephesians 4:12), but your man-made dogma says that your cracker is the ‘body of Christ.’

Paul says that our forgiveness is through the ‘blood’ of Christ. Ephesians 1:7. Your church says that sins are forgiven through their water ritual derived from the ‘gospel of the kingdom’ (Matthew 9:35) that has saved nobody for almost 2000 years. Scripture says that Paul addressed the Romans in his Epistle to the Romans and that he was taken to Rome in chains. Your dogma says that Peter is the head of your Roman Catholic Church, but you cannot place Peter anywhere near Rome from the Bible. Paul says that Peter is still going “to the circumcised†in Galatians 2:9, which is a far cry from the heart of the Gentile Empire based in Rome in his day.

You and IronMonk continually make references to the writings of your ‘church fathers’ like that means something. Heh . . . No sir. The entire combined works of all those dead guys does not equal One Word from Scripture. All of your statues (idols) and sacraments (no such thing) and candle lighting and squatting and sitting and kneeling is derived from the teachings of your own personal ‘Denomination,’ and quite frankly means NOTHING in light of what God teaches us through His Word.

If your version agreed with God’s Word, then you could simply “Quote God >>†and leave your church fathers out of the mix. Please start some threads describing your Roman Catholicism including your man-made dogma and we shall see if any of that can withstand the testing of Debate.

In Christ,

Terral
 
Terral,

It's my thread and I did not post any church fathers so why do you lump me in with IM. Though I do not have any problem with him posting such info if he likes. It is you that gripes and chides when someone does post exactly as you want them to so
please don't post chat room, off topic, material on my thread. It makes you look like a hypocrit. Thanks.

By the way, in case you haven't notice it is everyone else that has dragged this thread off track, including yourself. I tried for the longest time to stay on to the issue at hand. You of course could not see what that was and went off on this tangent of two gospels where you have Jesus Christ not preaching the real gospel.
 
Who Is The True Hypocrite?

Hi Thessalonian, IronMonk (mentioned):

Thank you for writing.

Thessalonian >> It's my thread and I did not post any church fathers so why do you lump me in with IM.

What did you say above? Oh, here it is . . .

Thessalonian Original (Mon Jan 23, 2006 5:52 pm) >> Can you acknowledge that as IM and I have shown the Catholic Church does not leave out your second commandment but includes it with the first?

You are doing the ‘Lumping’ with your own testimony. This side of the discussion is pointing out the similarities between the Roman Catholic Propaganda of you both.

Thessalonian >> Though I do not have any problem with him posting such info if he likes.

Of course not. He is a fellow member of your Roman Catholic Propaganda team pasting your dogma to this Board.

Thessalonian >> It is you that gripes and chides when someone does post exactly as you want them . . .

There is no griping in my post; simple observations are being made for the benefit of the Board readers.

Thessalonian >> . . . to so please don't post chat room, off topic, material on my thread.

Nobody here is talking about the “Reception of the Holy Spirit,†but you guys are going on and on about your Roman Catholic Dogma. Your name appears atop my post and I am quoting you word for word and giving comment no differently than any other registered member to this Board.

Thessalonian >> It makes you look like a hypocrit. Thanks.

Are you trying to say a ‘hypocrite?’ No sir. I would be a hypocrite for posting the views of my church fathers in the place of the “Word of God,’ while pretending that means something like IronMonk and you. We receive the Holy Spirit today by ‘hearing with faith’ (Galatians 3:2) hearing Paul’s Gospel, but the kingdom disciples hearing the ‘gospel of the kingdom’ received the Spirit by the laying of hands. Acts 8:17, Acts 19:6. Your theology does not recognize the difference and when that was explained to you using Scripture (Mon Jan 16, 2006 6:46 pm, Tue Jan 17, 2006 10:34 pm, Wed Jan 18, 2006 4:42 pm, Thu Jan 19, 2006 8:42 pm), then you had no reply. Now you are trying to convince the readers that Thessalonian is writing on the “Reception of the Holy Spirit†topic, when you are truly intent on passing off your Roman Catholicism as some kind of One World Religion. That is funny. Do you know why? Because that places the ‘hypocrite’ label right back on you . . . again. Keep up the nice work and,

Thank you again for writing,

In Christ Jesus,

Terral
 
I would be a hypocrite for posting the views of my church fathers in the place of the “Word of God,’ while pretending that means something like IronMonk and you.

Please show in one of my posts where I have quoted Church Fathers. Otherwise you are simpply a liar.

By the way you have no church fathers. Your "dogma" is a johnny come lately 20th century tradition that nullifies the word of God because it says we can ignore the words of Jesus Christ in scripture because they contain another Gospel that is not for us. That is a lie.
 
I would be a hypocrite for posting the views of my church fathers in the place of the “Word of God,’ while pretending that means something like IronMonk and you.

Please show in one of my posts where I have quoted Church Fathers. Otherwise you are simply a liar.

By the way you have no church fathers. Your "dogma" is a johnny come lately 20th century tradition that nullifies the word of God because it says we can ignore the words of Jesus Christ in scripture because they contain another Gospel that is not for us. That is a lie.
 
I would be a hypocrite for posting the views of my church fathers in the place of the “Word of God,’ while pretending that means something like IronMonk and you.

Please show in one of my posts where I have quoted Church Fathers. Otherwise you are simply a liar.

By the way you have no church fathers. Your "dogma" is a johnny come lately 20th century tradition that nullifies the word of God because it says we can ignore the words of Jesus Christ in scripture because they contain another Gospel that is not for us. That is a lie.
 
Your Gentile church has transformed that into a daily Eucharistic Sacrificial Hocus Pocus Offering of Christ over and over and over again, as if our Passover (1 Corinthians 5:7) has not yet been sacrificed at all.

More bearing false witness by terral. It is not a sacrifice over and over but a representation of the one same sacrifice. Of course your mind and your own understanding, which you trust, will never allow you to come to some understanding of this great mystery. Catholic teaching is not an over and over sacrifice. This is your own theology about what Catholicism teaches and of course you will claim you know better than I and continue to parrot what you have read in protestant books. And you complain about us quoting Church Fathers (which I have not done)?

Paul says that our mystery church (Ephesians 5:32, Colossians 1:24-27) is the ‘body of Christ’ (Ephesians 4:12), but your man-made dogma says that your cracker is the ‘body of Christ.’

No sir. The Bible says it. "Unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life within you. You might also want to check 1 Cor 10 and 11. The Lords supper wasn't just practiced by your kingdom Church.

Paul says that our forgiveness is through the ‘blood’ of Christ. Ephesians 1:7. Your church says that sins are forgiven through their water ritual derived from the ‘gospel of the kingdom’ (Matthew 9:35) that has saved nobody for almost 2000 years.

More bearing false witness. My Church says sins are forgiven by the blood of Christ. You raise a false dichotomy between this and baptism, which is not from your gospel of the kingdom but from Paul himself when he speaks of the washing of water and the laver of regeneration in Titus I believe it is. But of course you will not acknowledge this but will twist and distort the scriptures so that they are shoehorned in to your false theology.

Scripture says that Paul addressed the Romans in his Epistle to the Romans and that he was taken to Rome in chains. Your dogma says that Peter is the head of your Roman Catholic Church, but you cannot place Peter anywhere near Rome from the Bible. Paul says that Peter is still going “to the circumcised†in Galatians 2:9, which is a far cry from the heart of the Gentile Empire based in Rome in his day.

Peter didn't have to have ever gone to rome for him to be the first pope. He was pope whether in Jerusalem or Antioch or wherever he ended up. It really makes no difference as to his status in the Church, where he ended up. That history proves it was in Rome is another matter. But it really is of little significance to the Catholic doctrine of the papacy which you clearly show ignorance of. You can post red herrings and straw men as you like. They only show your blindness.



You and IronMonk continually make references to the writings of your ‘church fathers’ like that means something
.

Show me ONE reference I have made to a Church Father on this thread or any other I have participated in with you. ONE and even that would not be continual. Bearing false witness means nothing to you apparently.


Thessalonian
 
Paul Is The Steward Of This "Dispensation Of God's Grac

Hi Thessalonian:

Thank you for writing.

Terral Original >> I would be a hypocrite for posting the views of my church fathers in the place of the “Word of God,’ while pretending that means something like IronMonk and you.

Thessalonian’s Reply >> Please show in one of my posts where I have quoted Church Fathers. Otherwise you are simply a liar.

Did you quote me saying “quoted church fathers?†No. I said "I would be a hypocrite for posting the VIEWS of MY CHURCH FATHERS." You “Lumped†yourself to your fellow Catholic here:

Thessalonian Original (Mon Jan 23, 2006 5:52 pm) >> Can you acknowledge that as IM and I have shown the Catholic Church does not leave out your second commandment but includes it with the first?

Your fellow RC Comrade is pasting links to many Roman Catholic websites, which means you do not need to paste those links twice. However, you did post this link, saying:
---------------------
Thessalonian (Fri Jan 20, 2006 9:08 pm) >> Here is a bit of a study for you. http://www.tektonics.org/lp/popeleox.html

Thessalonian Commentary >> 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.
-----------------------

Please simply call Terral a liar . . . as that link is to James Patrick Holding’s commentary on Pope Leo X and the “Jesus is a Myth†fiasco. Your intentions to cover for your Roman Catholic Church here is apparent to everyone in the same “at all cost†fashion of your accusations above.

Thessalonian >> By the way you have no church fathers. Your "dogma" is a johnny come lately 20th century tradition that nullifies the word of God because it says we can ignore the words of Jesus Christ in scripture because they contain another Gospel that is not for us. That is a lie.

Heh. Surely you jest! Paul became my father “IN†Christ through the gospel (1 Corinthians 4:15) as the ‘protos’ (first) (1 Timothy 1:15-16). How many of your church fathers wrote half of the New Testament? Paul received our gospel for today through a ‘revelation of Jesus Christ’ (Galatians 1:11-12), which he submitted to Peter in ‘fear of failure’ (Galatians 2:2). Your first pope (not) preached the ‘gospel of the kingdom’ (Matthew 24:14) and was given an “Apostleship to the Circumcised†(Galatians 2:8) like Paul was “to the Gentiles†(Galatians 2:8). Your man-made church picked the WRONG Apostle to be their first pope, when nobody in Scripture places Peter anywhere near Rome. Paul is the steward of the ‘dispensation of God’s grace’ (Ephesians 3:2) from God and NOT PETER. Show Peter addressing Gentiles in the first person in either of his Epistles. GL. Your pope is preaching repentance and water baptism for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38) just like John the Baptist from day one (Mark 1:4-5) from the ‘gospel of the kingdom’ that has saved NOBODY for almost 2000 years. Heh . . . you guys have drafted the wrong apostle AND the wrong gospel of the New Testament in complete Ignorance and Misunderstanding. Paul had to correct your pope concerning the ‘truth of the gospel’ (Galatians 2:14) and Peter called the ‘wisdom given him’ something “hard to understand.†2 Peter 3:14-16. Paul’s mystery ‘body of Christ’ (Ephesians 4:12) is much older than your Johnny come lately “RC Church,ââ¬Â but you guys have purchased the counterfeit from the ‘mystery of lawlessness’ (2 Thessalonians 2:7) without knowing the difference.

Anyone following your dogma is deserving of your fate also, but that is the topic of another thread. Thank you again for writing,

In Christ Jesus,

Terral
 
Terrel,

Why do you continue to spread lies about what the Catholic Church teaches and people within the Catholic Church have written?


You keep saying "your church fathers".

I got knews for you Terrel, they are the Christian faith's Church Fathers. Every historian acknowledges them as the first Chrsitians.

They are the people that the Apostles taught.

Maybe you keep saying "your church fathers" because you do not have a reason to believe what you believe except for your own fantasy belief system.

You do not hold the faith as taught by the Apostles, so you must attack it.

Stop lying about the Catholic Church.
 
Re: Paul Is The Steward Of This "Dispensation Of God's

Terral said:
Did you quote me saying “quoted church fathers?†No. I said "I would be a hypocrite for posting the VIEWS of MY CHURCH FATHERS." You “Lumped†yourself to your fellow Catholic here:


"If your version agreed with God’s Word, then you could simply “Quote God >>†and leave your church fathers out of the mix"

This implies that I have somewhere quoted Church Fathers so the answer to your question is yes. Show me where I quoted any Church Fathers to you so that you could make such a statement.

But back to your tecnicallity in which you try to backpedal to the word reference:

You and IronMonk continually make references to the writings of your ‘church fathers’ like that means something

Okay, fine. Show me one quote that you have seen where I referenced a Church Father, naming him and telling where he has expounded on such and such a doctrine? Thanks in advance for showing how you are truly concerned with truth and not bearing false witness on anyone regardless of whether you agree with them or not. The shoe fits dude.

Please simply call Terral a liar . . . as that link is to James Patrick Holding’s commentary on Pope Leo X and the “Jesus is a Myth†fiasco. Your intentions to cover for your Roman Catholic Church here is apparent to everyone in the same “at all cost†fashion of your accusations above.

What does this have to do with me refing or quoting Church Fathers? If it is a fiasco then pleas prove the assertion that some Pope claimed that Jesus was a myth. I've not defended anything yet. I've simply asked him to give me proof that the quote was ever made and show me the context of it so that I can make my own judgements about it. Until one of you does this I will not trust not in man. Especially men who have shown me that they are quite willing to lie about the Catholic Church. I don't have to call you a liar. Your posts speak for themselves.


Blessings
 
Paul Is The Steward Of This "Dispensation Of God's Grac

Hi Thessalonian:

Thank you for the opportunity to write about your RC Church and their dogma, even if this should be the topic of another thread. Please start one on the Eucharist or something Roman Catholic. : 0 ).

Terral Original >> Your Gentile church has transformed that into a daily Eucharistic Sacrificial Hocus Pocus Offering of Christ over and over and over again, as if our Passover (1 Corinthians 5:7) has not yet been sacrificed at all.

Thessalonian >> More bearing false witness by terral.

False witness against what? Your RC Church? Please . . . If your dogma leaves the path of God’s Living Word, then defending His Word means speaking against your dogma.

Thessalonian >> It is not a sacrifice over and over but a representation of the one same sacrifice.

When Christ said “do THIS in remembrance of Me†(Luke 22:19), then He was talking to JEWS participating in the “Lord’s Passover†(Leviticus 23:5) having NOTHING to do with your man-made Eucharistic Hocus Pocus. What you think your sacrament represents is irrelevant to ANYTHING written in Scripture, as that was derived from the Greek and Roman “Love Feasts†connected to the sacrifices to Aphrodite and Diana respectively. Paul teaches that NO ONE is our judge regarding food and drink (Colossians 2:16-17) rituals and he clearly says that when we meet together that it is NOT (1 Corinthians 11:20) to eat the Lord’s Supper.

Thessalonian >> Of course your mind and your own understanding, which you trust, will never allow you to come to some understanding of this great mystery.

Where does Paul or anyone write about your ‘great mystery’ tied up in food and drink rituals? NOWHERE. The only place the terms ‘great’ and ‘mystery’ are used together in Scripture is in Ephesians 5:32 in a reference to Christ and our ‘church,’ the ‘mystery of godliness’ (1 Timothy 3:16) and in Revelation 17:5 regarding “Babylon the Great.†From which do you borrow to prop up your food and drink ritual?

Thessalonian >> Catholic teaching is not an over and over sacrifice. This is your own theology about what Catholicism teaches and of course you will claim you know better than I and continue to parrot what you have read in protestant books. And you complain about us quoting Church Fathers (which I have not done)?

Again, there is no complaining here. This side is simply pointing out that you and your cohort are using this thread to paste your Roman Catholic Propaganda. What either of us think about your Eucharistic Mumbo Jumbo is irrelevant, because there is no such command in the Bible for Gentile believers to do this every day or every week for any purpose. That is YOUR denominational tradition invented by men to add vast numbers of pagans to their early church who practiced the same things in the Temples of Aphrodite and Diana. Some of those were in Paul’s Corinthian church getting drunk (1 Corinthians 1:21) and Paul told them to eat at home (1 Corinthians 11:34) in their houses (1 Corinthians 11:22). Where do we find any Bible writer giving instructions for your Holy Eucharistic Sacrament anywhere in Scripture? Heh . . . Good Luck.

Terral Original >> Paul says that our mystery church (Ephesians 5:32, Colossians 1:24-27) is the ‘body of Christ’ (Ephesians 4:12), but your man-made dogma says that your cracker is the ‘body of Christ.’

Thessalonian >> No sir. The Bible says it. "Unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life within you. You might also want to check 1 Cor 10 and 11. The Lords supper wasn't just practiced by your kingdom Church.

Please start a thread on this topic, so we can properly address the points. You are trying to quote John 6:53 and from Christ’s testimony before He died for anyone. That has NOTHING to do with Paul’s ‘word of the cross’ (1 Corinthians 1:18) gospel message through which we are saved today. Why not run all the way back to Genesis 6:14 and try to convince me to build and ark? Because those commands also were not written “to†me. How much of Christ’s testimony to ISRAEL ONLY (Matthew 15:24) are you borrowing from the Four Gospels? First you took your water baptism for the ‘forgiveness of sins’ (Mark 1:4-5) from the ‘gospel of the kingdom’ (Matthew 9:35) preached by Christ and rejected by Israel. Now you are also borrowing from Christ’s John 6 teachings addressed specifically to Israel also. He teaches Israel that obtaining eternal life was done through keeping the commandments (Matthew 19:16-17). Is that your position also? Does the Law remain for Thessalonian just like for all Israel, until heaven and earth pass away (Matthew 5:18)?? Paul’s Gospel for today is according to the ‘revelation of the mystery’ (Romans 16:25), which was given to him as the ‘wisdom given him.’ 2 Peter 3:14-16. You are mixing Kingdom Doctrine for Israel and the kingdom ‘bride’ (John 3:29) with grace doctrine that God sent to the Gentiles through Paul. Christ is addressing Israel only in the Four Gospels, but Paul is speaking directly ‘to’ us today (1 Corinthians 14:37-38). Heh . . this takes us right back to ‘you picked the wrong apostle’ to head your church . . . again . . .

Terral Original >> Paul says that our forgiveness is through the ‘blood’ of Christ. Ephesians 1:7. Your church says that sins are forgiven through their water ritual derived from the ‘gospel of the kingdom’ (Matthew 9:35) that has saved nobody for almost 2000 years.

Thessalonian >> More bearing false witness. My Church says sins are forgiven by the blood of Christ.

This is where we are drawn back to the fact that this side of the Discussion knows more about your dogma than you. What does the Catholic.com library ( http://www.catholic.com/library/Forgiveness_of_Sins.asp ) say on this topic? They appear to have things right in the introduction, but they add their works below.
----------------------
Catholic Library >> “The Forgiveness of Sins - All pardon for sins ultimately comes from Christ’s finished work on Calvary, but how is this pardon received by individuals? Did Christ leave us any means within the Church to take away sin? The Bible says he gave us two means.

Baptism was given to take away the sin inherited from Adam (original sin) and any sins we personally committed before baptismâ€â€sins we personally commit are called actual sins, because they come from our own acts. Thus on the day of Pentecost, Peter told the crowds, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38), and when Paul was baptized he was told, "And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name" (Acts 22:16). And so Peter later wrote, "Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet. 3:21).â€Â
-----------------------

Your RC Church is doing EXACTLY what I stated above and have borrowed their ‘baptism’ for the ‘forgiveness of sins’ from the “Gospel of the Kingdom†(Matthew 24:14) that contains John’s Baptism (Mark 1:4-5, Acts 19:3) for that very purpose. They FAIL to realize that the ‘one baptism’ (Ephesians 4:5) has NOTHING to do with water. They break down this ‘original sin’ hocus pocus and use Peter’s preaching of the “gospel of the kingdom†in Acts 2:38 as their doctrinal support for their Sacrament #1. The “Office for the Catechism†says in Article 10 ( http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1 ... 3art10.htm ) :

-------------------------
I. One Baptism for the Forgiveness of Sins

977 Our Lord tied the forgiveness of sins to faith and Baptism: "Go into all the world and preach the gospel* to the whole creation. He who believes and is baptized will be saved."521 Baptism is the first and chief sacrament of forgiveness of sins because it unites us with Christ, who died for our sins and rose for our justification, so that "we too might walk in newness of life."522
------------------------

Paul’s “My Gospel†(Romans 2:16, 16:25) was not even revealed to him (Galatians 1:11-12), until after the start of Acts 9 and his conversion. The ONLY ‘gospel*’ in Scripture in the Four Gospels is the “gospel of the kingdom†(Matthew 24:14), which is the topic of Christ’s conversation* in Mark 16:15-16 above. Your entire church does not know the difference between the “gospel of the kingdom†from the Four Gospels and Paul’s “word of the cross†(1 Corinthians 1:18) gospel message. I explain the differences here ( http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=20385 ).

Thessalonian >> You raise a false dichotomy between this and baptism, which is not from your gospel of the kingdom but from Paul himself when he speaks of the washing of water and the laver of regeneration in Titus I believe it is. But of course you will not acknowledge this but will twist and distort the scriptures so that they are shoehorned in to your false theology.

There is no water in Titus 3:5 where Paul speaks of ‘washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit.’ Paul’s ‘one baptism’ (Ephesians 4:5) is done by the “one Spirit†(1 Corinthians 12:13) Himself. You are trying to include John’s Baptism into Paul’s Gospel, when we have Christ’s shed blood (Ephesians 1:7) for our forgiveness today. Since your water baptism is a work done by human hands, then obviously that is NOT part of Paul’s gospel that must be accepted by faith apart from works (Ephesians 2:8-9). None of the seven “ones†of Ephesians 4:4-6 are visible, but all are Spirutual.

Terral Original >> Scripture says that Paul addressed the Romans in his Epistle to the Romans and that he was taken to Rome in chains. Your dogma says that Peter is the head of your Roman Catholic Church, but you cannot place Peter anywhere near Rome from the Bible. Paul says that Peter is still going “to the circumcised†in Galatians 2:9, which is a far cry from the heart of the Gentile Empire based in Rome in his day.

Thessalonian >> Peter didn't have to have ever gone to rome for him to be the first pope.

Heh . . . Now that is funny. In other words, your church fathers can elect him as their first pope a hundred or two hundred or three hundred years later if that pleases them . . .

Thessalonian >> He was pope whether in Jerusalem or Antioch or wherever he ended up.

Is that the gospel according to Thessalonian? Because nothing like that is found in God’s Living Word.

Thessalonian >> It really makes no difference as to his status in the Church, where he ended up.

The fact is that your church fathers could pen anything they wanted to their documents and you feel justified that Peter is your first pope, even though Scripture gives no hint or clue about that anywhere. Then, the fact that you are borrowing Doctrinal components from the ‘wrong gospel’ of the New Testament also makes no difference to you. And, the fact that your water baptism becomes a ‘second’ baptism to the one taught by Paul (1 Corinthians 12:13) is also of no consequence. The fact of the matter is that your Roman Catholic man-made church replaces a spiritual component for something physical and seen all the way down the line. Instead of Christ at the right hand of God (Romans 8:34) being your Intercessor, then your local priest is yours. You have your water baptism for the forgiveness of sins, instead of Paul’s gospel and salvation by God’s grace through faith apart from works (Ephesians 2:8-9). Your second sacrament is the confirmation of the first sacrament that your priest did with his own hands (how convenient). There is a great difference in what God’s Word says and what your Catholicism teaches, whether you recognize it or not.

Thessalonian >> That history proves it was in Rome is another matter.

History has nothing to do with it. Paul is the steward of this ‘dispensation of God’s grace’ (Ephesians 3:2) and NOT PETER. Paul’s words to us today represent the “Lord’s Commandment†(1 Corinthians 14:37-38) and NOT PETER’S. Paul uses the term “musterion†(Mystery) twenty times to teach on things “Hidden In God†(Ephesians 3:9) to be revealed in his Epistles for us today. Hebrews, Peter, John and James never use the term once in any Epistle bearing their name. Why??? Because, Paul is the steward over this ‘dispensation of God’s grace’ and NOT PETER . . . You are borrowing from Peter’s instructions to the ‘bride’ (John 3:29) while pretending that those things apply to Paul’s mystery ‘body of Christ’ (Ephesians 4:12) when they DO NOT. Satan’s counterfeit does not even look like the real deal and MANY are drawn to him and his ‘mystery of lawlessness’ (2 Thessalonians 2:7) anyway.

Thessalonian >> But it really is of little significance to the Catholic doctrine of the papacy which you clearly show ignorance of. You can post red herrings and straw men as you like. They only show your blindness.

Heh . . . This side of the discussion sat, squatted and knelt in Catholic pews for six years and knows your dogma very well. Your church mixes the two gospels together into one that DOES NOT SAVE, because they blend the works of the first (gospel of the kingdom) with Paul’s Gospel, which makes ‘void’ (1 Corinthians 1:17) the power of the cross to save anyone.

Terral Original >> You and IronMonk continually make references to the writings of your ‘church fathers’ like that means something.

Thessalonian >> Show me ONE reference I have made to a Church Father on this thread or any other I have participated in with you. ONE and even that would not be continual. Bearing false witness means nothing to you apparently.

Holy Molies . . . you are calling Peter one of your church fathers and he is clearly preaching the ‘gospel of the kingdom’ in Matthew 10:5-7 to Jews only and in Acts 2 again to Jews only. Paul says that he is going to the circumcised in Galatians 2:9 and there is no mention of him after Acts 15:14 doing anything else. The Catholic websites I posted show the forgiveness of sins by water baptism and they quote Peter in Acts 2. Your church fathers are the ones who created all the church dogma for the Roman Catholic Church. Are you trying to separate yourself from their dogma now? Your previous statement was:

Thessalonian Original (Mon Jan 23, 2006 7:26 pm) >> By the way you have no church fathers. Your "dogma" is a johnny come lately 20th century tradition that nullifies the word of God because it says we can ignore the words of Jesus Christ in scripture because they contain another Gospel that is not for us. That is a lie.

The inference is that my church has no church fathers, but yours does. They are all that you have in this discussion, so do not turn loose of them now. You are the one passing of the Roman Catholic Church as your church with your long tradition of church fathers, popes, etc.. Now you appear to be offended by my references to the very thing that separates your church from my ‘johnny come lately 20th century tradition.’ Now THAT is funny. Scorn me for not having 2000 years of church fathers like you, then scorn me again for trying to infer that your dogma came from the same church fathers about which you take such pride. Please make up my mind . . .

Please start a thread on this topic, so we can write and try to stay near the point of your Roman Catholicism.

Thank you again for writing,

In Christ Jesus,

Terral
 
Terral,

I can suggest a couple of good books on logic for you in order to improve your reasoning skills. :-D
 
Holy Molies . . . you are calling Peter one of your church fathers

Can you show me where I called Peter a Church Father? Do you know what a Church Father is? I thought you spent six years in Catholics pews. Apparently from your ridiculous posting you learned nothing.
 
D46,

You are ignoring my questions.

No, I'm not ignoring them-I'm convinced whether I answer or not it will just be refuted and explained away as you've done over and over again anyway. However, check this link out and you'll see why I mentioned what I did about your ten commandments and how all was left out about "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me. Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any manner of likeness, of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; Thou shalt not bow down unto them, nor serve them; for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God,..." I don't see that in the "Catholic ten commandments". Of course, this was not the only place I've seen this-they're are others. Scroll down until you see, "Which Ten Commandments" Do you deny this?

http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/whichcom.htm

As for Leo, that also is found in books and multiplied hundreds of other places. Whether he said it or not I don't know. The're been other worse things said by popes to render his "fable of Christ..." a rather mild speech whether true or not, compared to what others has exclaimed over the centuries and I have posted some of this in this thread.

The point is I see no need to further continue in this as you know as well as I we will just go in circles. Listen-I don't fault you or IM for standing up for your beliefs. I wouldn't think much of either of you if you didn't, but; bear in mind while I know you are sincere, you ARE sincerely wrong. The mass is still blasphemy in the eyes of God, Mary is NOT a co-redeemer or co-redemptrix and she has nothing to do with our salvation. Bowing to anything or anyone is still idolatry in the eyes of God and don't tell me you (the RCC) don't do it as I've seen it first hand. You can say the rosary...15 decades a day and it's all in vain. No amount of Novenas will help anyone, nor will any priest have the capability of absolving anyone's sins and he most assuredly doesn't have the power to bring Christ down from Heaven and install him ain a cookie for all to eat.. It doesn't make a bit of difference how many pilgrimages you go on or recite any other dogma of the church. Ultimately you will have to answer to God one day for rejecting the simplicity of God's truth and will not be able to deny the bloodshed by your church and all the deceit and lies perpetrated by her over the centuries.

You serve a violent, hateful and bloody organization that history bears evidence to. Wiping out entire populaces of people like the Waldensians, Albigenes and Hugenots for which a coin was even struck to commemorate the event of the slaughter of some 10-15,000 in a single day and had a murial painted in the Vatican so no one would forget that conquest. And, while JPII made a half hearted attempt at apologizing for this, odd that the "Holy"Office of the Inquisition still exist today under the title of Office for the Congregation of the Faith, it's still the same and could be resurrected if Rome ever had the power she once had and Inquisitors would be knocking on doors again. Far fetched? I don't think so at all. Perhaps not to the degree it was in Europe in this country but, I believe it could happen. Rome is a wolf in sheeps clothing that currently has her claws clipped but is trying to regain them through the ecumenical movement that far too many Protestants are falling for.

I'm through and going to bed.
 
D46 said:
D46,

You are ignoring my questions.

No, I'm not ignoring them-I'm convinced whether I answer or not it will just be refuted and explained away as you've done over and over again anyway. However, check this link out and you'll see why I mentioned what I did about your ten commandments and how all was left out about "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me. Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any manner of likeness, of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; Thou shalt not bow down unto them, nor serve them; for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God,..." I don't see that in the "Catholic ten commandments". Of course, this was not the only place I've seen this-they're are others. Scroll down until you see, "Which Ten Commandments" Do you deny this?

http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/whichcom.htm

A yes. Aethism, a great place to go for truth. D46 do you get it? There is not a numbering of 10 commandments in the Bible. That my friend is a TRADITION. The Catholic teaching on the commandments quotes in its entirety, what you call the second commandment as a part of protestant tradition in our first commandment. That's not hard to understand except out of blindness. The ten commandments are not just about the 10 statments. The are about all the teaching that goes with them and the Catholic Church does not neglect the part about graven images. I heard it hundreds of times growing up. So you are in fact bearing false witness. But I do hope it is out of ignorance.

As for Leo, that also is found in books and multiplied hundreds of other places. Whether he said it or not I don't know. The're been other worse things said by popes to render his "fable of Christ..." a rather mild speech whether true or not, compared to what others has exclaimed over the centuries and I have posted some of this in this thread.

At least an admission that the quote about the fable is a fable. Of course you present it as something every Catholic should know about and head for the exits over. Of course it is multiplied hundreds of times by those wh hate the Catholic faith and want to believe anything they can find that is disparaging against it.

.

The rest is just ranting with little understanding of Catholicism or history. Or at least a coloring of history tainted with an extreme hatred of the truth. To your exagerrated accusations (to be sure there were atrocities committed by Catholics but not near the number you would allege) about Catholicism killing (evidently you don't understand romans 13 and the purpose of governments), we could add the affiliation of baptists in the KKK, the killing of Servetus, the atrocities of England from which your KJV comes from, the slaughter of nuns and priests by the Calvinists in Sweden and France and many other murders by those who allegedly have the true religion.

Blessings

Blessings
 
Back
Top