L
lordjules
Guest
There’s only one other thing I would say, be confident, God, Mary and Jesus are strong enough to defend themselves you don’t always need to do it for them.
Ask him to find a verse that says all doctrine must be found in the Bible. He’ll probably cite Scripture that says all Scripture is God-breathed (sure, but that doesn’t establish Scripture as the only authority) and not to add or take away from His words (where does it say that His words would only be in Scripture?), but there is not a single verse in the Bible that says the Bible/Scripture is the main authority of doctrine. Scripture is helpful and inspired, definitely, but not the be all end all of authority. What he’s promoting is actually nowhere in the Bible, so it’s funny that he accuses you of believing in things not found in Scripture.I do hate the doctrine because it promotes things that were never in the bible
Actually it’s quite easy to prove that "Gods word is outside of Scripture ". Scripture itself says so. It says God’s Word is not only the written word. It is quite explicit.This is his new reply
I was a atheist I never believed in God then I started to follow RC doctrine because I didn’t know scripture yet then I started noticing what RC church beliefs doesn’t add up with Gods word
Sweetness I’ll say this GODS WORD is the authority
The Torah was the Jews and that was the divine word of God then when Jesus came the New Testament was added and you said you believe in Jesus so we could agree the Old Testament and new are the Devine word of God
In the beginning the word was with God and was God ,
Anything out of the bible is made of Mans assumption
I think you would have a hard time proving Gods word is outside of Scripture
Jesus when talking of history only referred to the Old Testament no other sources and all Old Testament events were accurate No other nation had Gods word the canaanites or the Babylon’s
I would still say if it’s not Gods word as in which Jesus claimed the Torah to be why believe any other doctrine right?
To do what you just said why not believe Mormons when they say you will become God because Jospeh smith said it in the 1800’s or not Believe Islam that Muhammad was actually speaking Gods word?
I understand your views but the more I focussed on the bible and forgot everything else I just couldn’t agree with the Bible and what’s preached in the RC church because I never found they were adding up
I look at it this way: If a person told me that they were a “practicing” Catholic, I would not assume that they necessarily understood the stated position of the Church, on a given theological issue. They may or may not. That’s why I posted a link - to website started by Messianic Jews…so Messianic Jews could speak for themselves, on the subject of what they hold. mjaa.org/engine.cfm?i=3&sl=18 reen
So his beliefs are man’s assumption? Why bother to believe in what he says is true then because it’s all man’s assumption?Anything out of the bible is made of Mans assumption
Simple. We have a Church established by God to deal with that, which, as Scripture itself says, is the pillar of truth.To do what you just said why not believe Mormons when they say you will become God because Jospeh smith said it in the 1800’s or not Believe Islam that Muhammad was actually speaking Gods word?
I don’t think he does.I understand your views
Like what? The Rosary that he doesn’t seem to understand?the more I focussed on the bible and forgot everything else I just couldn’t agree with the Bible and what’s preached in the RC church because I never found they were adding up
Not so, is the Word of God true ? yes John 17:17 Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth.I think philosophical assumptions are being used again.
yes, i wish we all could be united to Christ but no one could be as close and united like the Mother of God here the verse quoted was about Mary united in spirited with Jesus one in mind and spirit Mother Mary being the Mother of God, know him more than any human can ever know who suffered and accepted the will of god and offered up everything united with Christ to the Father 1 Corinthians 2:16 “For who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ. here Mary was one with the mind with Christ. The verse in Corinthians is about sexual immorality and says that anyone who joins themselves to the Lord is one Spirit with Him. This could equally be interpreted as any follower of Christ.
Its the Word of God not assumptions Psalm 118 was quoted as everything in the life of the Mother of God is marvelous Revelation11: 19 Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant =(The Ark of the covenant Mother Mary) was seen within his temple; and there were flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail.Again philosophical assumptions about Mary. It’s all in the interpretation and Psalm 118 can be interpreted as referring to Christ (see the previous verse). I have no problem in thinking that Mary was a very special person and chaste, but whether she should be venerated I’m not so sure. However this is not a debatable point since the Catholic Church has decided these matters to be doctrine whether they are literally true or not.
Complete fabrication. See this topic:Does anyone know what oath the pope takes? He’s now telling lies about the pope calling him the Antichrist he sad this is the oath the pope takes I want to correct him does anyone know the real oath that the pope takes he also called the pope the “dope of Rome” I must have deleted the picture as I can’t find it but it was some sort of jesuit oath I can’t really remember it but it was a vow to kill people who disagree
Hi - this is my first posting, so I hope I’m doing this right. Has anyone heard of a “Jesuit Oath” that a friend sent me on the internet - it’s a long oath where Jesuits swear to kill, strangle, dismenber heretics and those who oppose the Pope. Is this a true hisorical document? If so, how do we respond?
The Jesuit kill oath, if I remember correctly, is some lie from a Jack Chick track, so, completely bogus. If he retorts that it came from a Jesuit priest, the Jesuits have no record of him ever being ordained.Does anyone know what oath the pope takes? He’s now telling lies about the pope calling him the Antichrist he sad this is the oath the pope takes I want to correct him does anyone know the real oath that the pope takes he also called the pope the “dope of Rome” I must have deleted the picture as I can’t find it but it was some sort of jesuit oath I can’t really remember it but it was a vow to kill people who disagree
I’m not going to post the text for the full oath, as it’s mentioned in the article I linked.“This alleged Papal Coronation oath has been used by several such groups as “proof” that the Church has abandoned the true faith… A Wikipedia article on this topic points out, “The only historical source claimed for this ‘Papal Oath’ is Migne’s Patrologia Latina , referring, it can be supposed, to volume 105, columns 40-44. Patrologia Latina , 105, columns 9-188 reproduces, with notes and commentary, the full text of Garnier’s 1680 edition of the Liber Diurnus Romanorum Pontificum . The article in The Catholic Encyclopedia on this book states that Garnier’s edition ‘is very inaccurate, and contains arbitrary alterations of the text’; it describes as the first good edition the one published by Eugène de Rozière in 1869. Later editions have been able to take into account not only the oldest surviving manuscript, which is preserved in the Vatican but also two other manuscripts of slightly later date, which were rediscovered, one in 1889, the other in 1937. The Liber Diurnus Romanorum Pontificum is in fact a ‘miscellaneous collection of ecclesiastical formularies used in the papal chancery until the 11th century.’ It then fell into disuse and was soon forgotten and lost, until a manuscript containing it was discovered in the 17th century. Its rediscovery in the 17th century caused surprise precisely because the text declared acceptance of the condemnations of the Sixth General Council, which were directed also against Pope Honorius I. In the opinion of one writer, the oath had the effect of confirming that an ecumenical council could condemn a Pope for open heresy and that Honorius was justly condemned.””
That’s something that sounds like it would come from Chick. His “Jesuit” reference Alberto Rivera was proven to be a con man.Rosie11:
The Jesuit kill oath, if I remember correctly, is some lie from a Jack Chick track, so, completely bogus. If he retorts that it came from a Jesuit priest, the Jesuits have no record of him ever being ordained.Does anyone know what oath the pope takes? He’s now telling lies about the pope calling him the Antichrist he sad this is the oath the pope takes I want to correct him does anyone know the real oath that the pope takes he also called the pope the “dope of Rome” I must have deleted the picture as I can’t find it but it was some sort of jesuit oath I can’t really remember it but it was a vow to kill people who disagree
As for the Papal oath:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/liturgy/zlitur397.htm
I’m not going to post the text for the full oath, as it’s mentioned in the article I linked.“This alleged Papal Coronation oath has been used by several such groups as “proof” that the Church has abandoned the true faith… A Wikipedia article on this topic points out, “The only historical source claimed for this ‘Papal Oath’ is Migne’s Patrologia Latina , referring, it can be supposed, to volume 105, columns 40-44. Patrologia Latina , 105, columns 9-188 reproduces, with notes and commentary, the full text of Garnier’s 1680 edition of the Liber Diurnus Romanorum Pontificum . The article in The Catholic Encyclopedia on this book states that Garnier’s edition ‘is very inaccurate, and contains arbitrary alterations of the text’; it describes as the first good edition the one published by Eugène de Rozière in 1869. Later editions have been able to take into account not only the oldest surviving manuscript, which is preserved in the Vatican but also two other manuscripts of slightly later date, which were rediscovered, one in 1889, the other in 1937. The Liber Diurnus Romanorum Pontificum is in fact a ‘miscellaneous collection of ecclesiastical formularies used in the papal chancery until the 11th century.’ It then fell into disuse and was soon forgotten and lost, until a manuscript containing it was discovered in the 17th century. Its rediscovery in the 17th century caused surprise precisely because the text declared acceptance of the condemnations of the Sixth General Council, which were directed also against Pope Honorius I. In the opinion of one writer, the oath had the effect of confirming that an ecumenical council could condemn a Pope for open heresy and that Honorius was justly condemned.””
Indeed. This person she’s talking with loves her so much that he cites lies from known and baseless anti-Catholic propaganda and calls one of the most respected figures in her faith (the Pope) a “dope” out of Christian charity. Some stuff!That’s something that sounds like it would come from Chick. His “Jesuit” reference Alberto Rivera was proven to be a con man.