B
boppysbud
Guest
I am sorry it was late and I was tired when I posted that link last night. It is really www.bible.ca
Not .com .ca
Not .com .ca
- Status
B
boppysbud
Guest
Try bible.ca/catholic.htm
to see what I was talking about, yes it is extremely bigotted, and does lie about the CC.
to see what I was talking about, yes it is extremely bigotted, and does lie about the CC.
L
latisha1903
Guest
a troll uh? sorry you feel this way…already expressed why i visit the boards… and bobpysbud …no point of debating you…because given an answer to you…a factual answer you still reject it…i say the sky is blue…and you say it is not…i say that the grass at the white house is green and you say…not…and i’m not anti-catholic…so before you say something or assume that i am, ask? you are the one spreading lies, you attitude is horrible…simply horrible. i understand you are on the defensive but you need to chill. you are always unreasonable and you attack me myself more than anything…i have never attacked your church…simply given resources and answers to why i don’t go to your church and why i go to mines…to you first question…you simply have it all wrong, but since you are closed-minded to actually learning i will not answer…i attend the Cherry Valley Church of Christ in Dallas, Texas. and i’ve provided links to what my church teaches and believes. to your second question, the Bible is a source of the CoC being “founded” before 1906…and the resources besides that are not at my fingertips * but i do have access to many books that will provide that information. given…all the facts, any history and all the information provided…you still won’t accept it…you have a wall up…with no door and not even a window… .examine yourself. and learn to communitcate better. and i’m dead serious…its nothing but a turnoff and its not because you attack the CoC…its because you attack me as if you know me, and you speak of my beliefs as if you know me. you are going off of information that you deem is the justification for me. and its so off…but to any other poster that has interest in why i believe what i believe i’ve provided…take it or not…it doesnt’ matter i’m not here to promote…i’m simply giving the facts…its not a matter of proving which is right…thats not my goal here…and bobbysbud doesn’t know me…nor my intentions.
thank you
[and i visit the boards…when i can…]
and i have never endorsed the bible.ca website…it does exsist and makes valid points…but do i support it??? never said i did…i’ve read it and again valid points in my book, but i’m not the webmaster…i’ve posted my sources and links*
L
latisha1903
Guest
dead serious…and you’ve read each site?
given quotes and scripture…you want historical fact written by men after Christ? that souce is more creditable than the Bible? i think not…i’ve provided it…its there…my obligation is fulfilled…only know who will accept it…what more to give.
J
jimmy
Guest
The the NT was written after Christ so by your standards it is not credible. It was written by Catholic. It was compiled by the Catholic Church in the 400s. So, we could give you qoutes from people who live before the bible was ever made.
E
Exporter
Guest
Look no farther.
The Church of Christ was started by a Presbyterian preacher in Illinois in 1846.
The Church of Christ was started by a Presbyterian preacher in Illinois in 1846.
D
Digitonomy
Guest
I’ll take this opportunity to once again plug a book one of the local priests recommended, Separated Brethren by William J. Whalen. In the past I’ve posted some of the key points in the book about a couple denominations that people have asked about. In this case most key points have already been made in this thread. The Church of Christ is a slippery denomination to get your hands around - being associated with Presbyterians, Disciples of Christ, Baptists at various times.
From what I read, you should also take care not to confuse the Church of Christ with the United Church of Christ, which appears to be an entirely separate denomination resulting from a merger of Congregationalists with the (German-descended) Evangelical and Reformed Church.
A
aSaintoneday
Guest
that site boppysbud posted www.bible.ca is one messed up site, the person or people who made that site, have no understanding whatsoever of the Catholic faith, they go so far to say that we adore mary, which is a complete lie, if they would pick of the Catholic Cathecism they would obviously see they are wrong. Plus they are qouting an early church father, out of context first off, and secondly that is his opinon not doctrine by anymeans.
Also in private talks with boppysbud, I think he is right about this total apostasy/restoration dogma the cofc has, and for 5 obvious scripture verse reasons that is a total crock of a belief, and secondly it contradicts history completely. And since this is a false belief therefore if they are the one true church the burden of proof is on them to prove themselves through history which they can not do before 1906.
So unless there are any new arguements that can hold water to them being the one true church, there is no proof to anything they say about being the one true church, and dont anyone dare put it on “faith”, to put it on “faith” is blind delusion, because God even proved his existence, but there is nothing at all to prove that the cofc is the one true church.
Thank you all, for all your (name removed by moderator)ut about the cofc.
Also in private talks with boppysbud, I think he is right about this total apostasy/restoration dogma the cofc has, and for 5 obvious scripture verse reasons that is a total crock of a belief, and secondly it contradicts history completely. And since this is a false belief therefore if they are the one true church the burden of proof is on them to prove themselves through history which they can not do before 1906.
So unless there are any new arguements that can hold water to them being the one true church, there is no proof to anything they say about being the one true church, and dont anyone dare put it on “faith”, to put it on “faith” is blind delusion, because God even proved his existence, but there is nothing at all to prove that the cofc is the one true church.
Thank you all, for all your (name removed by moderator)ut about the cofc.
F
flameburns623
Guest
Funny: I thought the New Testament was written by Apostles in the 1st Century. Or the close associates of Apostles, under Apostolic tutelage
The Epistles of both Paul and of Peter are acknowledged within Scripture itself to be Scripture. Your own ‘patristic writings’ cite Scripture as Scripture without the help of ‘Catholic Councils’ yet to come at the time the ‘Fathers’ were writing. The implication is that Christians knew ALREADY in the first century AD what the New Testament Scriptures were/are. Christians didn’t need crypto-pagans in the 4th Century to ratify Christian Scriptures: the crypto-pagans did this on their own, for their own purposes. Or so the Trail of Blood theory runs. (There are better answers to this but the C of C favors the Trail of Blood theory most commonly).
B
boppysbud
Guest
B
boppysbud
Guest
Actually I dont think I have ever mentioned the “total apostacy-Restoration” theory before, but it is critical to understanding the “church of Christ” mindset.
For those interested here goes:
The cofC and the Mormons believe that the original church went strictly by the Bible before the New Testamnt even existed to go by.
According to both organisations when the original “true church” stopped following the Bible to the tee, in legalistic fashion, the original church simply ceased to exist, there were no Christians and no church until Joeseph Smith or the Campbellites respectively “restored” it back into existence.
The “true church” no longer existed, it was replaced by the Catholic Church.
For those interested here goes:
The cofC and the Mormons believe that the original church went strictly by the Bible before the New Testamnt even existed to go by.
According to both organisations when the original “true church” stopped following the Bible to the tee, in legalistic fashion, the original church simply ceased to exist, there were no Christians and no church until Joeseph Smith or the Campbellites respectively “restored” it back into existence.
The “true church” no longer existed, it was replaced by the Catholic Church.
L
latisha1903
Guest
umm ok…sure you know my mindset. glory to God that your family stayed put and are still in THE Church…don’t know where you went wrong with your understanding…simply fustrated because you wanted to do your own thing, instead of accept the truth…so God’s grace be on you correct. nothing more to say to you. you’re dead set on what you know want to believe as the truth. can’t say what happened down in Odessa, Texas. but if you are content on the catholic church so be it, everyone’s own duty to put their soul into Heaven. so be it.
A
aSaintoneday
Guest
Look, if the “church of Christ” does believe in the total apostasy.restoration dogma, than i could acquaint you with 5 scriptural verse that say otherwise and the basic facts of reality that say otherwise to that dogma.
But if the “church of Christ” does not believe in that dogma than the burden of proof is upon them to state their history, with several references in each century to show they actually existed for 1837 and some odd years.
So people belonging to the “church of Christ” have a couple options, believe in a false dogma, be totally oblivious and ignorant of reality, show how they existed for the past 1837 years, or come to grips with reality see the light and convert.
On another note, the “church of Chirst” has no infallible Divine truth, the only truth it has is another fallible humans interpretation of the bible and claiming it as truth, and that is not truth at all. How could you possible tell if one of your preachers is preaching error if you have no objective divine infallible truth? it is all about interpretation of Sacred Scripture, and Sola Scriptura is false because Sacred Scripture is not self-interpreting. Therefore anyone who decides to interpret scripture for his own has just become his own pope, and everyones interpretation of scripture is different, so this is why God has kept someone back here on earth to have an infallible interpretation of His infallible word, to make sure that we humans have God’s truth which is the only truth.
Anyways, so which option do you choose?
But if the “church of Christ” does not believe in that dogma than the burden of proof is upon them to state their history, with several references in each century to show they actually existed for 1837 and some odd years.
So people belonging to the “church of Christ” have a couple options, believe in a false dogma, be totally oblivious and ignorant of reality, show how they existed for the past 1837 years, or come to grips with reality see the light and convert.
On another note, the “church of Chirst” has no infallible Divine truth, the only truth it has is another fallible humans interpretation of the bible and claiming it as truth, and that is not truth at all. How could you possible tell if one of your preachers is preaching error if you have no objective divine infallible truth? it is all about interpretation of Sacred Scripture, and Sola Scriptura is false because Sacred Scripture is not self-interpreting. Therefore anyone who decides to interpret scripture for his own has just become his own pope, and everyones interpretation of scripture is different, so this is why God has kept someone back here on earth to have an infallible interpretation of His infallible word, to make sure that we humans have God’s truth which is the only truth.
Anyways, so which option do you choose?
B
boppysbud
Guest
Latisha I never said that I understand your own personal mindset. I said I understand the mindset of the so-called “churches of Christ”.
My family has never been in “THE” church, they are still in the Protestant Fundamentalist SECT that CALLS itself the “church of Christ” and isn’t, and can’t be. It has the wrong parents, wrong birthplace, and wrong birthday to be the"church of Christ" regardless of what they call themselves. I don’t think that anyone would accept me as President just because I started calling myself George W. Bush. I would not be George W. Bush.
Yes my family is so fortunate to be members of this hyper-legalist fundamentalist sect. They are so fortunate that none of them even speak to each other either last I heard, because of issues involving divorce (with no re-marriage) the drinking of a single glass og wine with dinner. Yep that’s what I call fortunate.
By the way, I do accept the truth, but the truth has been around a lot longer than 1906. Was there no truth before 1906?
And BTW I don’t think that you are familiar with this Latisha, but the CC does not accept the “sola Scriptura” (Bible only) theory held by the “csofC”. But that is OK since sola scriptura itself is taught no where in the Bible, your paper and ink God.
L
latisha1903
Guest
contrary it is taught in the scriptures, but some seem to interpret how they see fit. and you say sola scriptura isn’t taught in the Bible…and everything that the catholic doctrine supports is in the Bible? i think not…
J
jimmy
Guest
No one says that all of Catholic teaching is in the bible. The Catholic Church follows both tradition and the bible. Sola scriptora is not taught in the bible. The bible is closer to teaching sola eclesia than it is to teaching sola scriptura
A
aSaintoneday
Guest
Well, interpreting scriptures how you see fit is wrong, because there is on one true interpretation of Scripture and that is God’s interpretation, and there is only one man on the face of this planet that has God’s divine approval to interpret scriptures and it is not he who interprets them it is God’s inspired interpretation through him, and that him is the Pope.Sola scriptura breeds anarchy and destroys humility.
J
jimmy
Guest
True but that is still after Christ. Who is to say it is scripture other than the church? The first books of the bible were written 15 or 20 years after the resurection. What makes those writings credible other than that the church says they are? Luke was the disciple of Paul. Why are his writings any better than those of Ignatius, who was the disciple of John?
Tell me where in scripture it says the writings of Peter and Paul are scripture and inspired by God. I would like to see this verse. No they obviously did not know what was scripture, every church was using diferent sets of canons, that is why they decided to have the councils. If you follow your view, then you are not using what the early Christians thought to be scripture. Ignatius, Ireneous, and Justin write about the Septuagint being authoritative. The septuagint included the deutero books. You are living in Heresy according to these Christians because you are subtracting from scripture. There were clear diferences with some of the peoples canons. Some people were using the Apocalipse of Peter instead of that of John. Why don’t you give me some proof that says they knew what was scripture in the first century. Give me more than one quote so that I can see that it is not just one persons opinion.
The trail of blood traces the history of there baptists back to heretical groups like the monatists and the donatists and claims that baptists are 2000 years old. These groups did not believe anything like what the baptists believe today. They did not deny the true presence like the baptists do and the C of C does. There is no proof that the baptists ever existed, it all comes from the writings of one man in the 19th century who takes a term, Anabaptists, from the writings of a cardinal in the 17th century and misunderstands what he means. Anabaptists were groups that baptised more than once, which is a heresy.
B
boppysbud
Guest
Where is sola scriptura taught in the Bible Latisha? I am very familiar with 2nd Timothy 3:16, it only says that the Bible is useful… not mandatory, not the only source of Christian belief. This verse is reffering to the OT only since that was the only part of the Bible that was written when that part of the Bible was given. You can search the Bible all day and no-where does it say “Bible only”. That is only your own (the “cofC”'s) given mindset.
You may be shocked to hear this, but I don’t care if everything Catholic doctrine supports is in the Bible…I don’t believe in sola scriptura only your so-called “church of Christ”.
J
Jehu13
Guest
I came back to the Church about four years ago. I used to belong to the International Church of Christ. They are a separetist church that believe only their member will go to Heaven and anyone not in thier church will go to Hell. The church started in 1972 as part of the Crossroads movement or also called the Boston Movement. It was began by Kip Mckean.
I was recently looking at one of thier handbooks and boy are they off on what they think that catholic believe. One thing that I thought was funny was that they Claim the Catholic church orders people to worship the Pope. To me that was so weird.
I was recently looking at one of thier handbooks and boy are they off on what they think that catholic believe. One thing that I thought was funny was that they Claim the Catholic church orders people to worship the Pope. To me that was so weird.
- Status