God wrote the Bible not the Catholic Church

[Ani_Ibi]

VoiceofOne:

Actually, I asked that question. and if I must also answer, then yes it is a command.

Thank you.

VoiceofOne:

Your point?

A question is not a point. Unless of course it is a rhetorical question. Mine was not a rhetorical question. It was a request for information.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

logical fallacy = oxymoron

To what are you referring?

 

[VoiceofOne]

No, just exasperated. It’s like someone coming in to teach a Math class who thinks that 2+2=5, or that Algebra is a sexually transmitted disease - but keeps going on and on and on, and wondering why nobody in the room is respecting his “expertise.”

I’m not wondering or wishing anything. Don’t respect me, if you like. It doesn’t change the fact that the Church of Rome is not a Christian church. I believe there are Christians in it, after all I used to go too. I married a devout catholic(used to be), the in-laws are all really religious.

There are glaring innaccuracies between Roman catholocism and scriptural truths.

God Bless you all
Goodbye

 

[wanner47]

I’m not wondering or wishing anything. Don’t respect me, if you like. It doesn’t change the fact that the Church of Rome is not a Christian church. I believe there are Christians in it, after all I used to go too. I married a devout catholic(used to be), the in-laws are all really religious.

There are glaring innaccuracies between Roman catholocism and scriptural truths.

God Bless you all
Goodbye

No, there’s not and if you would take the time to actually READ about Catholic beliefs, you’d see that for yourself.

 

[jmcrae]

I’m not wondering or wishing anything. Don’t respect me, if you like. It doesn’t change the fact that the Church of Rome is not a Christian church.

Of course it is. It’s the only one that Christ founded. We see it written in Matthew 16:18-19, and again in John 21:15-19.

There are glaring innaccuracies between Roman catholocism and scriptural truths.

This is simply impossible. You are misunderstanding at least one of the two, if not both, if you think that they contradict each other. It’s like saying that the Old Testament contradicts the New Testament, or that what Christ said contradicts what was written in the Gospels - which is also impossible.

Of course, an atheist or an unbeliever can even find contradictions within the New Testament all by itself, but that doesn’t mean that they are actually there - it just means that the atheist misunderstands what is written.

 

[hosemonkey]

When did Jesus use the term “ONE HOLY AND CATHOLIC CHURCH.”?

A pope named Constantine (your first pope) said that. Christ founded His church on the confession of Peter. Peter confessed He was the Messiah God. Jesus said that His church would be persecuted, not the persecutor. Catholics are responsible for the deaths of over 100 000 000 European non-catholics between 350 AD and 1808 AD. How could this be Christ’s church, when it follows an elected fool who wears gold, purple and scarlet… like the whore of Babylon in Revelations.

follow Jesus not the pope

Christ declared that He would build His Church on Peter, whom He declared to be the "Rock."He then empowered Peter and the other Apostles and their successors to administer and advance His Church through time and eternity. He empowered them “to heal the sick, raise the dead, preach the Gospel and to forgive sins in His name.” He gave these powers to His Apostles and their successors and promised to remain with His Church “until the end of days.” His successors, the Pope, Bishops and Priests of the Catholic Church, whom you so grossly disrespect, are His representatives on earth. Protestants are the disobedient children of heresy and rebellion against the express wishes of Our Lord, who prayed “that all may be one.” You are a victim of bad information, the idea that the Church killed 100,000,000 of anyone is stupid, please cite your source. Spouting crude anti-Catholic drivel mere exposes your ignorance.

 

[Sixtus]

Don’t respect me, if you like.

My friend as a fellow human being and fellow sibling of Christ, of course I respect you.

It doesn’t change the fact that the Church of Rome is not a Christian church.

Ah, so I have met my match. A fellow rhetoricalist but of the opposite persuasion
.

There are glaring innaccuracies between Roman catholocism and scriptural truths.

Then my friend do not go, please stay and tell us some…just one will do! Please tell us any catholic teaching which is not grounded on the Scriptures. But it must be an authentic catholic teaching, not something someone has invented. There are a lot of alleged catholic teachings which have no reality beyond the mind of the person who expressed it

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Please tell us any catholic teaching which is not grounded on the Scriptures. But it must be an authentic catholic teaching, not something someone has invented. There are a lot of alleged catholic teachings which have no reality beyond the mind of the person who expressed it

We can’t fight it, you know. :nope: So I say let’s hear some imaginary catholic teachings too. But they have to rhyme in dactylic pentameter. That’s the only thing I ask. And no chorus.

 

[obadiah]

We can’t fight it, you know. :nope: So I say let’s hear some imaginary catholic teachings too. But they have to rhyme in dactylic pentameter. That’s the only thing I ask. And no chorus.

How about this?

There was an old priest in missouri
who always taught of purgatory
if you bought his indulgence
and said lots of rosaries
he’d give you a free pass quite quickly.

 

[wanner47]

How about this?

There was an old priest in missouri
who always taught of purgatory
if you bought his indulgence
and said lots of rosaries
he’d give you a free pass quite quickly.

Very nice.

How about this:

Under the Vatican, in a cellar damp,
Is a big musty book and a little lamp.
In this book is every name in the world
Of every Protestant boy and Protestant girl.

 

[obadiah]

or this?

The Jesuit secrets are dark and deep
It’s something that everyone must always keep
If revealed then you die
Inquisition sky high
and then you’re elected the Pope.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

VoiceofOne:

Don’t respect me, if you like.

Oh we wouldn’t dream of not respecting you. We are afterall Catholic. However do you think it might be possible for you to respect us?

VoiceofOne:

It doesn’t change the fact that the Church of Rome is not a Christian church.

What would change the ‘fact’ to your way of thinking that the Church of Rome is not a Christian church?

VoiceofOne:

I believe there are Christians in it, after all I used to go too.

Oh! Now that has me truly thunderstruck! You were Christian when you were in the Catholic church? And then presumably you left? And you stopped being Christian? Am I understanding you right? Is that what happened?

If you were Christian while you were in the Church, then do you think there might have been other Christians in the Church? Lord Kelvin used to say to measure is to know. So please quantify this. How many Christians are in the Catholic Church?

Another thing that has me truly flummoxed: If you went to a Catholic church, then how is it that you have such hugely inaccurate ideas of what the Church teaches? I mean why do you make up stuff about the Church when you obviously have such a huge store of fact at your disposal?

What I mean to say is that if it ain’t broke, then why fix it? You seem to be saying if it ain’t broke, then fix it til it is. Why not just take the simple route of referencing fact?

Oh, I’ve been wondering about this too: do you think that your understanding of ‘false witness’ might hold a meaning somewhat different from that of the Church’s? If so, then what is your understanding of it?

VoiceofOne:

I married a devout catholic(used to be), the in-laws are all really religious.

And your spouse was a devout Catholic? I note that you use the past tense ‘was.’ What happened? Does your spouse and relatives being Catholic support your position in any way? If so, how?

VoiceofOne:

There are glaring innaccuracies between Roman catholocism and scriptural truths.

This makes no sense at all. Why would the Church compile the Bible only to disagree with it? I find it so difficult to believe that someone claiming to have once been a Catholic could believe for a moment that the Church opposes the Bible that She Herself compiled.

Separating the Church from Her own Bible just seems – please correct me if I am wrong – such futile endeavour and to what end? What is the payoff for doing such a thing? So you can see where some of us might be a bit concerned.

 

[Janet_S]

I don’t know why Jo Anna.

Perhaps the devil confuses things really well with his lies.

To be a Protestant one would have to come after Martin Luther.

My church is from the first century, we do not follow Luther or Calvin or anybody on Earth. We follow Christ.

Read the Trail of Blood.

So you believe JM Carroll’s booklet Trail of Blood is a reliable account of Church history. Did your church descend from the Albigenses, the Cathari, the Paulicians, the Arnoldists, and the Henricians? If that is true, then your church must teach that Christ was an angel with a phantom body whose death and resurrection were only allegorical and the Incarnation was impossible since the body was evil. You must believe this because this is what the Cathari and the Albigenses taught and you are directly descended from them (according to your account of history). They also rejected the resurrection of the body and the existence of hell. Does your church reject these two teachings just like the Cathari and the Albigenses–two of the groups to which you claim to trace your roots?

Also, your church must believe that there are two fundamental principles: a good God and an evil God; the first is the ruler of the world to come and the second the master of the present world. Do you believe that Christ could not have been the Son of God because the good God could not take human form? The Paulicians believed this, and since you trace your roots to the Paulicians, you must believe the same as they do. That’s what the Trail of Blood says, and you say that is an accurate account of history.

Does your church believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary, the efficacy of the sacraments, infant baptism, the true presence of Christ in the sacrifice of the Mass, and that good deeds of the faithful may benefit the dead? The Waldenses believed all those things, and they are one of the groups to which you trace your roots (according to your history book, The Trail of Blood).

The fact is no Baptist historian accepts the Trail of Blood as a reliable work of history. Here are a few books written by Baptists which address the history of the Baptist movement:

The Baptist Heritage by Leon H McBeth
amazon.com/gp/product/0805465693/103-6410260-2445439?v=glance&n=283155

Baptist Successionism by James Edward McGoldrick
amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0810827263/defendeofthecath

 

[GregoryPalamas]

From what I heard the Bible floated out of the sky one day and it was caught by none other than Martin Luther…or was that Pastor Bob and his International True Gospel Church and Trailer Court?

CDL

 

[Church_Militant]

Sorry, but the Early Church recognized 73 books as inspired canon and even the KJV had them all up until some Bible society removed them in the mid 1800s.

As for your 2nd statement. I can’t tell. Different Baptists teach differing doctrines and they in turn differ from the, Methodists, Assembly of God, Presbyterians, Lutherans, and the myriad other non-Catholic denoms and non-denoms.

You assert that you have Biblical authority, and yet you offer something different from the New Testament and the early church on a whole host of beliefs. That’s not the Holy Spirit’s doing…
That’s not what the Word of God says.
1st Corinthians 11:2 & 2nd Thessalonians 2:15 and 3:6.

The apostle Jude would disagree since he quotes two traditional non-canonical Jewish texts in verses 9, 14 & 15 of his epistle.

Seems he did not consider tradition to be “folly” at all. Really? Matthew 2:5 & 6 disagree, since verse 6 is not found in the OT and therefore is taken from traditional Jewish writings.

Matthew 2:23 find that in the OT. You won’t.But not scripture alone

…You need to get off the anti-pope bit. You don’t even know the man.

Nor do you know what Catholics believe or who we follow. You just seem to know what you’ve been told. That’s teachings of men in error right off the top.You never even bothered to respond to my post. Why is that? No facts that you can supply? Y’know, if there are no facts… that means that the allegation is false.

I don’t know why Jo Anna.
**
Perhaps the devil confuses things really well with his lies.**

To be a Protestant one would have to come after Martin Luther.

My church is from the first century, we do not follow Luther or Calvin or anybody on Earth. We follow Christ.

Read the Trail of Blood.Well I’d agree. Look at the facts of your position. Losing the Trail or the Trail of Lies.

You can make up stories about your denom’s supposed past but that won’t fill in the history with facts. It remains just one thing…fiction.

Here’s a good example. The number of alleged dead you have cited is wildly inaccurate. If it was true, Europe would have been depopulated, and since it was not your propaganda falls flat on it’s backside.

Lessee then, I personally have disproved at least two of your rhetorical propaganda statements without a substantive response from you, that probably means that you have done nothing more than load us up with things you believe and wish were true.

I’m sorry, but my faith is not based on fantasy.:dts:

 

[MGEISING]

God inspired the writers (40 of them) to write down His infallible Word (66 books) for our use.

It is a story of God (all of Him) creating, dealing with, loving and forgiving us… His greatest creation.

It is the only authority we need, and we can interperet it through prayer and wisdom gained via the Holy Spirit.

Tradition is folly.

Jesus never followed tradition, He did His Father’s will, and cited scripture.

Jesus rebuked traditionalists to their face using scripture.

Scripture is above the pope.

Follow Jesus not the pope.

VOICE OF ONE:

BE VERY CAREFUL IN THROWING YOUR THOUGHTS AROUND ON THIS SITE. WE ARE VERY WELL VERSED IN SCRIPTURE AND TRADITON … WE BELIEVE THAT JESUS IS WAY ABOVE THE POPE.

BEFORE YOU START COMMENTING, I SUGGEST YOU READ POSTS OF ON DIFFERENT SUBJECTS YOU HAVE BEEN TAUGHT. I GUARANTEE THAT YOU WILL DEFINATELY, AS LONG AS YOU HAVE AN OPEN HEART, FIND OUT THAT YOU HAVE MOST PROBABLY BEEN MISGUIDED BY YOUR CHURCH ON WHAT OUR CHURCH BELIEVES.

DON’T TAKE VERSES OUT OF CONTEXT … THAT WILL LEAD TO DISASTER.

GOOD LUCK ON YOUR INVESTIGATION …

 

[GregoryPalamas]

Voice of None,

Please, tell us the complete and accurate succession of people who are members of your mysterious group that date from the first century with St. Peter all the way to the present. Which ones of those groups that popped up from time to time belong to your group?

How about the Gnostics? Which ones in particular? Marcionites? Manichaens? Arians? Docetists? Monophysites? Nestorians? The Sabataens? The Pelagians? The Cathars?..stop me when I’m close…how about the Waldensians? Or is it another equally vile group?

Once you have identified which group or groups you claim accurately passed along the faith from Christ to your group then show how they did this with an unbroken succession?

Go ahead, do it. You’ve made some boastful claims. Now back them up.

CDL

 

[PauloFreire2]

People wrote the Bible. Don’t forget that. It was ***PEOPLE.***Yes, they were inspired. Nonetheless, they were not God. Such thinking is idolatrous.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

GregoryPalamas:

Which ones of those groups that popped up from time to time belong to your group?

I am feeling particularly kind this morning and so will post some links to those groups to which Voice may wish to claim lineage.

First an overall description of heresy from Catholic Answers itself: The Great Heresies

To commit heresy, one must refuse to be corrected. A person who is ready to be corrected or who is unaware that what he has been saying is against Church teaching is not a heretic.

A New Advent list of links to descriptions of the various heresies.

Gnostics? For a refutation of gnosticism see St Irenaeus.

Marcionites? Manichaens? Arians? Docetists? Monophysites? Nestorians? Pelagians? The Cathars? Waldensians?

Coudn’t find a link for the Sabataens. Perhaps someone else could pipe in?

GregoryPalamas:

Or is it another equally vile group?

The more the merrier.

GregoryPalamas:

Go ahead, do it. You’ve made some boastful claims. Now back them up.

Your turn, Voice. We wait in respectful anticipation.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

From Matt Newsome*, Losing the Trail*

One does not have to agree with Catholic doctrine to understand that it is not as portrayed in “The Trail of Blood.” One does not have to be a graduate level historian to understand that many of the facts as presented in this “history” are just plain wrong. One does not have to be a theologian to see that the various heretical groups that have plagued Christendom from almost the beginning are anything but proto-Baptists.

Catholic or Protestant, we all share a common Church history. When one refuses to accept revisionist accounts of our past, when one recognizes crack historians with an agenda for what they are, and when the true history of our faith can be learned and discussed and seen for what it is, warts and all – then, my brothers and sisters in Christ, we can begin a most wonderful conversation.

Note, he says ‘conversation’ not ‘debate.’ Interesting distinction, don’t you think, Voice?