Can I get some help with these questions

[Gottle_of_Geer]

…

-God condemn the worship of the queen of heaven

Several problems here:​

• Zeus is called Saviour. Jesus is called Saviour. That does not make them the same individual. If it did, every US President would be one and the same individual - because they share one and the same title. Two beings can share a title, without being the same in any other way.
• Jeremiah 7 & 44 don’t even describe the way the BVM is honoured - so how can those passages be intended as rebukes of the veneration of the BVM ?
• And what would be the point of talking about her in that passage ? The exiles Jeremiah was addressing would not have the faintest idea what it was talking about, if he was talking about the BVM.
• Such an interpretation makes the texts meaningless - for they cease to be addressed to their first hearers, & come to mean something only a very long time afterwards. But in that case, Jeremiah might as well have given them a lecture on the history of the writing of “The Great Controversy”, or on the Apollo 11 moon-landing, for all the good it would do them.

the CC sacrifice Jesus every mass

This is not true - the very idea directly contradicts Catholic teaching. It’s high time that mis-statement was forgotten, because it reveals a distressing ignorance of Catholic theology.​

-the bible says Jesus was once sacrifice for us

Which it does, because He was. This fact is essential to Catholic doctrine.​

the CC says that she has the keys of heaven and hell

“…and hell” ? I would like a quotation in support of that, please - from a Catholic source.​

-Jesus says I have the keys of heaven and Hell

In Revelation, yes. And of course He does. This fact is also essential to Catholic doctrine.​

the CC says she can forgive sins

The claim is made, certainly. And it has NT support, in John 20.21-23. IF Jesus is Messiah, & if He founded a Church at all, & if He ascended to Heaven: one would expect Him to provide some such ministry in the Church, because forgiveness of sins is a Messianic work. It is something He did (see Mark 2) and was criticised for doing - if He is not on earth, that Messianic work is not being done. Unless, that is, He works through others to do it, by empowering them to do it.​

-the bible says only od can forgive sins

Those words are in Mark 2 - on the lips of Jesus’ critics. They are not part of the Bible’s teaching: not everything in the Bible is.​

do you know what anti means? it means to stand in the place of.

Well, “instead of”. That objection does not carry much weight, because there is more than one way to be “instead of” another person. One may be:​

• a representative of another person, acting with authority as his representative - as the Apostles did in relation to Jesus, and as Jesus did in relation to His Father, & as every Christian does in relation to Christ - or one may be
• a deputy for another person; Vice-Presidents sometimes deputise, as after the assassination of JFK in 1963
• or one may be an usurper, who lays hands on an authority to which he has not been called & which he takes upon himself to exercise

In the Churches, the office-holders are not replacements for Christ, but act as his representatives. When Paul called himself an “ambassador for Christ”, that is what he was doing: acting on behalf of, & by the choice & the authority of, his Head. Otherwise, he would have had no business being an apostle.

So why can Popes not be allowed to act on behalf of Christ ? Nothing is taken from Christ - on the contrary, He holds the keys by right, & always retains them; in addition, He shares with men some part of the authority & power by which He acts as Messiah. They gain something of what is His - but He loses nothing of what His. Instead, He gives them a share in His own Work - something that they could never have of themselves.

what you want to say is that the Catholic church give us our bible. that is totaly and completely false. as i said the church did every thing in its power to keep the bible out of the hands of the people. and for good reason. it was not untill the people started to get there and on a bible that they could understand that the church started to have seriouse problems.

There were 18 printings of the Bible in German before Luther’s “September Testament” of 1522. There were forty Italian editions of the Bible after 1471 - the first translation in print was made by a monk. If anything, the countries that were badly off for Bibles tended to be the ones that became Protestant - those with vernacular Bibles, tended to remain Catholic. Spain stayed Catholic, & had no vernacular Bible. England had none, but gained a flood of them when it turned to Protestantism.​

Why haven’t the Greek Orthodox become Protestants, if knowledge of the Bible is so deadly to that kind of religion ? It

• exalts the BVM as much as Catholicism does
• has seven sacraments - as Catholicism does
• believes in the infallibility of the Church - as Catholicism does
• is governed by bishops - like Catholicism
• believes the Eucharist is true sacrifice - like Catholicism

and, in short - despite several significant differences from Catholicism - shares a great many beliefs & doctrines & attitudes with it. The Greek Orthodox have never had the split between liturgical & vernacular languages that developed in the West; yet their doctrines have not been Protetestantised by their ability to read the NT without recourse to translations. On the Protestant theory of the Bible’s incompatibility with Catholic doctrines, the GOs should have become Protestants a very long time ago. Yet it is the West & not the GOs who had a Reformation. Something is wrong with the theory - the facts are the reverse of what it suggests should be the case.

The Fathers could read the Bible - why did they find in the Bible all the things that the theory claims are not there ? They were more than capable of disagreeing with Rome, & they often did: but they did not come up with the Protestant distinctives; they came up with the Catholic ones.

…>

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

<…

you seams to think that back then when the CC ruled the world things was better than they are today.
do you know why America came to the the best country in the world? it was because of freedom. i ask you, freedom from what? it was freedom from the catholich church.
did you now that in the 1800 the pope could not even put foot on american soil?

Maybe that’s an objection to the laws of the USA. BTW, “God is an Englishman” - I thought everyone knew that ​

BTW, To say that country X is “the best in the world” is fine and patriotic (though the NT knows nothing of patriotism) but it is no more than an opinion. It is not a verifiable fact. The US has a great many shortcomings - just like any other country. Those of us who are not from there, aren’t going to be too impressed by an argument based on patriotism.

this country is the best country for 2 reasons. seperation of church and state. a county with out a king and a church without a pope.

This assertion overlooks everything that is wrong with the US, so it is not persuasive.​

but the bible say that the CC will rule the world again.

Not in Daniel, not in Revelation, & nowhere else either.​

and it is only years off now by the way things are going now. Jesus said: give unto ceaser the things that are of ceaser and to God the things that are God’s. that is seperation of church and state.

May God bless you

Jesus side-steps the issue - He does not say that Church & state should be separate. If He had, some of his opponents would have used it against Him.​

 

[Michael_Francis]

Having wandered all over it’s topic and the some this thread is now closed.