the ROMAN CATHOLIC HIERARCHY in their own words

[kobuk]

"bump"

[cubanito]

can not argue w your post in regards to the "papacy"

But why is your anger so fixated on the RCC?

The Mormons, the JW's and various others claim as much for themselves. They add to it a denial of the Trinity. This world is full of those, who declare themselves the only way, as many of the Muslims proclaim about their particular sect.

Perhaps this is not appropiate for an open forum, but I find your fixation on the RCC curious.

JR

[Project 86]

But why is your anger so fixated on the RCC?

The Mormons, the JW's and various others claim as much for themselves. They add to it a denial of the Trinity. This world is full of those, who declare themselves the only way, as many of the Muslims proclaim about their particular sect.

If he is like me he'll fight one heresy at a time. If we started a thread on Mormons denying the trinity would you then say why are you fixated on them and not the RCC? Something to think about.

[Vambram]

I am an independent baptist fundamentalist, and I have no hesitation in speaking out against leadership, people, and doctrines with which I have strong disagreements. However, brother kobuk, in order to make this fundamentalist discussion about the RCC more relevant, I prefer for the teachings and edicts of the RCC leadership from the last 30 years to be discussed, instead.

[kobuk]

"bump"

[Albion]

There doesn't seem to be much here to debate. The Papacy tried to assume to itself authority to which it had no right. That was one of the leading reasons why the Protestant Reformation occurred and reasserted the authority of the Word of God instead.

[Horizonol]

If you were really interested in discussing it, you'd post who quotes instead of single line translated sentences that cause confusion.

You can do the same thing with the bible and make it look bad if you want.

[kobuk]

"bump"

[kobuk]

"bump"

[Horizonol]

http://www.reformation.org/pope-kisses-koran.jpg
Pope John Paul II kisses the Koran—the Moslem "holy" Book— during a meeting with Arab leaders at the Vatican.

What exactly does this kiss symbolize within RC-ism doctrine and tradition? Does anyone know? It appears to be some form of formal "blessing". In their definition of that word of course.

As we all know, Islamism, a major false religion, is the source of much persecution of Christianity throughout the world. As well as the source of, in it's radical offshoots, of thousands of suicide bombers. Who have been committing in the name of their god and according to their Koran, many of the world's most heinous atrocities the past hundred years.

(picture source: Reformation.org.) http://www.reformation.org/pope-kisses-koran.jpg

– Ephesians 5:11
"have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.” :cool:;):cool:

How do you know it is a copy of the Qur'an?

BTW- kissing is the appropriate sign when receiving a gift in Arabic cultures. In our culture we just say "thank you" typically. It would be like getting a gift in our culture and not saying thank you if he did otherwise (assuming that is a Qur'an and not an Arabic copy of the bible).

[Horizonol]

RC's are welcomed to start a new thread in the "Debate a Fundamentalist" area of our Forum if they wish to disagree with us here in our Congregation Area.

Disagree about how you present us?

[kobuk]

"bump"

[Albion]

Disagree about how you present us?

That is correct. We are entitled to present views you don't care for. But you can debate, as you obviously like doing, in our debate area.

[lismore]

However, brother kobuk, in order to make this fundamentalist discussion about the RCC more relevant, I prefer for the teachings and edicts of the RCC leadership from the last 30 years to be discussed, instead.

Hello:wave:

I disagree. Past Catholic teachings are relevant because they build on past traditions. No modern pope has come out and said that the doctrines of the medieval catholic church are fatally flawed.

Kobuk makes a good point. The Roman Catholic church teaches something other than what the bible teaches on salvation and should be held to account for it. Otherwise many will be deceived.

To answer the brother who asked why this thread is not about mormons and Jehovah witnesses also, well the Roman Catholic church has got voer 1 billion members, well more than the mormons. WOuld it not be reasonable to talk most about the largest grouping teaching un-biblical doctrine rather than the smaller ones?

:wave:

[lismore]

Disagree about how you present us?

He quoted from the Unanum Sanctum as an example of the Papal Bull. You are presenting yourself that way, he didnt write Unanum Sanctum, one of your popes did. Take it up with them:wave:

[Horizonol]

He quoted from the Unanum Sanctum as an example of the Papal Bull. You are presenting yourself that way, he didnt write Unanum Sanctum, one of your popes did. Take it up with them:wave:

"If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple." - Luke 14:26

Now obviously that needs to be taken in context and not the way it probably sounds to a lot of people. Yet by taking one line out of context and without proper understanding/translation- you can make Jesus sound like something He is not.

When people go to Catholic websites, read one sentence of what a pope says and then three paragraphs of how an anti-Catholic interprets it- they are not being intellectually honest.

The proper way to discuss something is to cite it in context, present the other side's defense of it and then critique that. Otherwise it makes one appear not as a fair-minded person. Some people will gladly hand over their intellect and surrender to ignorance in order to slam something they hate - not because they genuine have anything against them, but because they've been dubbed into it and use it as a scapegoat.

[lismore]

"
When people go to Catholic websites, read one sentence of what a pope says and then three paragraphs of how an anti-Catholic interprets it- they are not being intellectually honest.
.

Hello:wave:

Having read the whole Unum Sanctum I dont see what else it could be saying, what context changes the meaning of it so that it doesnt mean what its saying?

Are you being intellectually honest friend, trying to say past popes did not say what they meant?


Pope Boniface VIII - Unum Sanctum
November 18, 1302


This Papal Bull brought forth by Boniface VIII stated the Papal Throne's power over all men and the Divine origins of that very same power. It was somewhat a responce to Philip le Bel's refusal to accept Boniface VIII Papal supremecy.




Unam Sanctam




Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins, as the Spouse in the Canticles proclaims: "One is my dove, my perfect one. She is the only one, the chosen of her who bore her," and she represents one sole mystical body whose Head is Christ and the head of Christ is God . In her then is one Lord, one faith, one baptism . There had been at the time of the deluge only one ark of Noah, prefiguring the one Church, which ark, having been finished to a single cubit, had only one pilot and guide, i.e., Noah, and we read that, outside of this ark, all that subsisted on the earth was destroyed.


We venerate this Church as one, the Lord having said by the mouth of the prophet: "Deliver, O God, my soul from the sword and my only one from the hand of the dog." He has prayed for his soul, that is for himself, heart and body; and this body, that is to say, the Church, He has called one because of the unity of the Spouse, of the faith, of the sacraments, and of the charity of the Church. This is the tunic of the Lord, the seamless tunic, which was not rent but which was cast by lot . Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar of Christ, Peter and the successor of Peter, since the Lord speaking to Peter Himself said: "Feed my sheep" [Jn 21:17], meaning, my sheep in general, not these, nor those in particular, whence we understand that He entrusted all to him . Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not bei ng the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John "there is one sheepfold and one shepherd." We are informed by the texts of the gospels that in this Church and in its power are two swords; namely, the spiritual and the temporal. For when the Apostles say: "Behold, here are two swords" that is to say, in the Church, since the Apostles were speaking, the Lord did not reply that there were too many, but sufficient. Certainly the one who denies that the temporal sword is in the power of Peter has not listened well to the word of the Lord commanding: "Put up thy sword into thy scabbard". Both, therefore, are in the power of the Church, that is to say, the spiritual and the material sword, but the former is to be administered for the Church but the latter by the Church; the former in the hands of the priest; the latter by the hands of kings and soldiers, but at the will and sufferance of the priest.


However, one sword ought to be subordinated to the other and temporal authority, subjected to spiritual power. For since the Apostle said: "There is no power except from God and the things that are, are ordained of God", but they would not be ordained if one sword were not subordinated to the other and if the inferior one, as it were, were not led upwards by the other.


For, according to the Blessed Dionysius, it is a law of the divinity that the lowest things reach the highest place by intermediaries. Then, according to the order of the universe, all things are not led back to order equally and immediately, but the lowest by the intermediary, and the inferior by the superior. Hence we must recognize the more clearly that spiritual power surpasses in dignity and in nobility any temporal power whatever, as spiritual things surpass the temporal. This we see very clearly also by the payment, benediction, and consecration of the tithes, but the acceptance of power itself and by the government even of things. For with truth as our witness, it belongs to spiritual power to establish the terrestrial power and to pass judgement if it has not been good. Thus is accomplished the prophecy of Jeremias concerning the Church and the ecclesiastical power: "Behold today I have placed you over nations, and over kingdoms" and the rest. Therefore, if the terrestrial power err, it will be judged by the spiritual power; but if a minor spiritual power err, it will be judged by a superior spiritual power; but if the highest power of all err, it can be judged only by God, and not by man, according to the testimony of the Apostle: "The spiritual man judgeth of all things and he himself is judged by no man". This authority, however, (though it has been given to man and is exercised by man), is not human but rather divine, granted to Peter by a divine word and reaffirmed to him (Peter) and his successors by the One Whom Peter confessed, the Lord saying to Peter himself, "Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven" etc., [Mt 16:19]. Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God, unless he invent like Manicheus two beginnings, which is false and judged by us heretical, since according to the testimony of Moses, it is not in the beginnings but in the beginning that God created heaven and earth . Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

[Horizonol]

Hello:wave:

Having read the whole Unum Sanctum I dont see what else it could be saying, what context changes the meaning of it so that it doesnt mean what its saying?

Are you being intellectually honest friend, trying to say past popes did not say what they meant?

I'm talking about one liners with commentary, not whole documents. Since you brought it up, what is your objection to Unum Sanctum exactly?

[lismore]

I'm talking about one liners with commentary, not whole documents.


No idea what you're talking about there friend. I thought this was a discussion on the catholic documents in the OP and how they contradict the gospel?


Since you brought it up, what is your objection to Unum Sanctum exactly?

I thought brother kobuk outlined that in the OP?

His points are excellent and I support them:thumbsup:

Ordinary Catholics are wonderful people, God Bless them, but their hierarchy says some awful things.

[lismore]

But why is your anger so fixated on the RCC?
JR

There wasnt any 'anger' coming over in the post I read. May I ask why this gentleman is not allowed to discuss the RCC? Is it an embargoed topic on this board too?

:scratch:

[Horizonol]

No idea what you're talking about there friend. I thought this was a discussion on the catholic documents in the OP and how they contradict the gospel?


My earlier quote of Luke contradicts the Gospel at first look, does it not? Telling people they have to hate others to be a disciple of Christ and yet the Gospel message is to love others.

In order to actually have a discussion or make an argument- you need to use words, not citations.

So what the OP needed to do was first quote the past Popes and explain how they contradict the Gospel.

[Horizonol]

Allow me if you would please, to set the proper tone for this discussion. I have members of my own family who are RC. The doctor who re-attached my arm was RC. In the past, i've been helped by a couple seperate RC community services. So i understand these are human beings whom Yahshua died for on the Cross and who are loved by Him as much as anyone else.

But, ...RC-ism's LEADERSHIP is a whole other subject. Let's look at them shall we. Those men dressed in scarlet and purple. Let's give them center stage to speak. A fair chance to state their position. What are they saying to the world? What are they saying to their own followers. What are they saying to us specifically as Christians, who reject their many claims on us? Lastly and most importantly, how does what they say compare to what our Creator has said in His Word the Holy Bible?

I will ask at this time for Fundamentalists only to participate and all RC's to restrict their responses to posting them at the top of this Forum in the "Ask a Fundamentalist" subforum or our debate subforum that is located there as well...

I begin with 3 statements from their top leaders, followed by 3 passages from Scriptures that put those statements of their's in the proper Biblical perspective.
--------------------------------------------------------

Roman Catholicism's words

“For the Pope holdeth place on earth,
not simply of a man but of the one true God.”
Pope Innocent III, 1215
Fourth Lateran Council

“Either sword is in the power of the church, that is to say, the spiritual and the material. The former is to be used by the church. The one in the hand of the priest, the other in the hand of the kings and soldiers, but at the will and pleasure of the priest. It is right that the temporal sword and authority be subject to the spiritual power. The Roman Pontiff [the Pope] judges all men, but is judged by no one. We declare, assert, define and pronounce to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is to every human creature altogether necessary for salvation . . . That which was spoken of Christ . . . ‘Thou has subdued all things under his feet’, may well seem verified in me. I have the authority of the King of kings. I am all in all and above all, so that God Himself and I, the Vicar of God, have but one consistory, and I am able to do almost all that God can do. What therefore can you make of me but God?”
Pope Boniface VIII, 1302
Papal Bull: Unam Sanctam

“We [the Popes] hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty.”
Pope Leo XIII, 1894
Encyclical Letter

Our Creator's words...

– Acts 16:31; 4:12
"What shall we do? “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved"

"Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.”

- Romans 3:10, 12, 23; 6:23
“As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one"

"there is none that doeth good, no, not one"

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God"

"For the wages of sin is death;”

– Ephesians 5:11
"have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.” :cool:;):cool:

Are you suggesting the top is in any way in contradiction to the bottom? Could you explain how you drew this conclusion?

[Albion]

May I ask why this gentleman is not allowed to discuss the RCC? Is it an embargoed topic on this board too?

:scratch:

The topic is certainly not 'embargoed.' He is not supposed to debate on this particular forum because he is not a member, and this forum is for members.

Most of us believe in respecting others and abiding by the rules of the various forums. He does not. He knows this, but he doesn't care, because he thinks no one should even talk about his church without being under his supervision or, I suppose, some other censor.

It should be noted that has repeatedly been invited to take his complaints to a forum set aside by us for debating with non-fundamentalist Christians like himself and he won't do that, either.

[kobuk]

"bump"

[lismore]

The topic is certainly not 'embargoed.' He is not supposed to debate on this particular forum because he is not a member, and this forum is for members.
.

Sorry, didnt know, am new here!

But this topic is embargoed on a couple of the boards.

:wave:

[Albion]

Sorry, didnt know, am new here!

But this topic is embargoed on a couple of the boards.

:wave:


Ahhh. Now that you mention it, I recall that this is the case.

Anyway, welcome, and we hope you find these forums a place worth staying with! :thumbsup:

[lismore]

So what the OP needed to do was first quote the past Popes and explain how they contradict the Gospel.

Hi there.

The OP posted three quotes from Popes and three scripture references that said the opposite..........

If you dont like this then you will have to take it up with your church leadership, they said it not anyone here!

My family were originally catholic, I was Christened as a catholic myself. There came a point when we accepted Christ and could no longer continue under some of the teachings of the RCC. I have nothing against individual catholics, many of them are wonderful people. I have just seen that many of the doctrines of the RCC are unscriptural.

Please friend do what the Bereans did with Paul's preaching to them:

Acts 17:11 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=17&verse=11&version=31&context=verse)
Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

Please listen to what your church teaches, listen to what the Christians here are saying and check it all out with the scriptures.

If its not in line with the scriptures then its not right!

God Bless You:wave:

[Seeker of the Truth]

RC's are welcomed to start a new thread in the "Debate a Fundamentalist" area of our Forum if they wish to disagree with us here in our Congregation Area.
I think it's pretty arrogant of you to attack the RCC, but you dare not speak to a Catholic about the matter.

Be careful where you get your information and your interpretation of it.

[VCViking]

An excellent book on the subject matter:



http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/51Q8VQDET9L._AA240_.jpg (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/images/1565071999/sr=8-1/qid=1189616577/ref=dp_image_0/104-3519988-8229568?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books&qid=1189616577&sr=8-1)

[lismore]

An excellent book on the subject matter:



http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/51Q8VQDET9L._AA240_.jpg (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/images/1565071999/sr=8-1/qid=1189616577/ref=dp_image_0/104-3519988-8229568?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books&qid=1189616577&sr=8-1)

I also have that book and I second VCViking's recommendation. Well worth a read.

:wave:

[kobuk]

"bump"

[FreeinChrist]

I am closing this for staff review.

[FreeinChrist]

Reopening this thread as it has been about 8 hours since it was closed for review. But I am still hoping for review.

[kobuk]

"bump"

[LivingWordUnity]

I think it pretty cheap to have a thread in the Fundamentalist sub-forum that is all about attacking Catholicism while hiding behind the "debating" rules so that Catholics aren't allowed to answer back. It's like spitting on someone and then running to hide behind your mother.

If this is the Fundamentalist sub-forum, why is the topic Catholicism? :scratch:

Kobuk started a thread about apologetics, but a true apologist is not afraid of getting an answer back.

[Seeker of the Truth]

I think it pretty cheap to have a thread in the Fundamentalist sub-forum that is all about attacking Catholicism while hiding behind the "debating" rules so that Catholics aren't allowed to answer back. It's like spitting on someone and then running to hide behind your mother.

If this is the Fundamentalist sub-forum, why is the topic Catholicism? :scratch:

Kobuk started a thread about apologetics, but a true apologist is not afraid of getting an answer back.
That's exactly what I was trying to say.

Wimps... :P

[Horizonol]

The truth of course is that our Creator sent His son Yahshua to fulfill the plan of Redemption and then establish Local Churches as the only institution that's authorized to carry out the tasks He set forth for all christians to do and accomplish. The 12 Apostles and then Paul the Apostle carried Yahshua's design blueprints with them as they established hundreds of Local Churches throughtout the Mediterrenean. Each Local Church was independent of the other and each was responsible to perform all of the duties and tasks that it was designed perfectly to do. This is true Christianity and this is how it is to be organized.

Where is your source on this? How do you explain the epistles?
This seems to contradict every single writing from early Christianity. In fact, the only people who would even consider such a notion were the heretical Gnostics that rejected God.

RC-ism came out of the Roman Empire after 300 A.D. A perfect parallel carried over between the old and new. RC-ism's Pope is comparable to a Caesar and it's cardinals comparable to the Senate. Vatican City is centered on the same exact grounds that were once occupied by the most important Palaces of the Roman Emperors.Who was the first pope? The first bishop or Rome? How does the Bishop and Church of Rome fall into first the paragraph I quoted?

This article also shows that ecumenism from RC-ism's perspective is only engaged in with one specific purpose and goal in mind. And that is to bring Orthodox and Protestants back into the Mother Church.
Well, the Catholic Church fully admits this. Why should that be a surprise?

[Horizonol]

Roman Catholicism's words
"Into this fold of Jesus Christ no man may enter unless he be led by the Sovereign Pontiff, and only if they be united to him can men be saved."
John XXIII, Unam Sanctam

"it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every creature to be united to the Roman Pontiff"Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam


Do you understand what these mean?

These teachings in the 'Unam Sanctum' are often summarized by the phrase, extra Ecclesiam nulla salus ("outside the RCC exists no salvation"), which has been reaffirmed by many popes throughout the centuries.


Do you know what that actually means, though?

] Popes are elected by winning a majority of votes from the Cardinals. Prior to Ratzinger's win, he was years ago during WWII a Nazi Youth.


Here is one the lies that anyone can easily research for themselves. Ratzinger was not a 'Nazi Youth', Ratzinger came from an anti-Nazi and was FORCED into the Hitler youth. He DESERTED the army and became a priest.




Before John Paul II won, he was years ago during WWII a travelling chemical salesmen for IG Farbin. They were not Gods then. They were people with jobs and bosses over them giving them orders. Then suddenly the moment these two men won the title of "pope" in their election, they became the same as God at that time?. No way.


You're right, they aren't gods nor do they believe they are gods. In fact, it completely contradicts Catholic teaching.


That's irrational gibberish. I will never buy into the religious invention that says (quote)... "The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in Heaven and earth." Pope Pius V


You don't have a citation of that quote. It completely contradicts Catholic teaching.

2] The reason RC Leaders banned the Bible for over 1000 years is because it totally exposes the obsurd claims and teachings of which i just gave about a dozen examples.


The Catholic Church NEVER banned the bible.

3] I've been reading a lot of history related to RC-ism's role in it. One things stands out high above everything else. Their constant insistence that often went to very great extremes, that everyone on Earth be put under their 'Temporal Power' as they call it.


I'd suggest you learn about the Catholic Church from a real source and not from some guy on the internet or someone with an axe to grind that writes a book.

[Horizonol]

I mean seriously, do you believe everything you read? Do you really think the pope thinks he's a god? Are you really that tricked?

[kobuk]

"bump"

[Seeker of the Truth]

You three RC's know you are welcome to create a debate thread in the new Debate with a Fundamentalist (http://foru.ms/f830-debate-with-a-fundamentalist.html) area.

Go there. But first please clean up the mess you've made in our Sanctuary.

thank you. ;)

sanctuary definition

A sacred place.

Immunity from persecution.

A place of refuge.

A reserved area in which inhabitants are protected from molestation.
Actually, this is a place of hiding, so I'd call that a shelter not a sanctuary. You're hiding from the truth...

[kobuk]

"bump"

[Seeker of the Truth]

Irrelevant.

Official posting rules on these Forums have directed you to place your questions and debates in the proper place. You three RC's are still insisting that non-RC's can be deprived of that simple very important courtesy.

A courtesy that maintains peace. ;)

And keeps you ignorant of the truth.

And BTW, I'm not even a Christian. When I say "truth", I only mean that you've been deceived of what the RCC actually believes.

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

You three RC's know you are welcome to create a debate thread in the new Debate with a Fundamentalist (http://foru.ms/f830-debate-with-a-fundamentalist.html) area.

Go there. But first please clean up the mess you've made in our Sanctuary.

thank you. ;)

sanctuary definition

A sacred place.

Immunity from persecution.

A place of refuge.

A reserved area in which inhabitants are protected from molestation.

You mean a place to give false witnesses?

The Popes don't believe their gods - that's an outright lie. Look at what you are doing here- talking about another group of Christians and getting mad at them for correcting how you are presenting their beliefs.

[kobuk]

"bump"

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

And we're talking just the lessor aspects. The major discovery that has been the belief for most of the past 1700 years is still the silken glove perfect fit.


2000 - btw.

[Seeker of the Truth]

It's just too bad you can't attack a Protestant church because hey, there's just way too many! (Actually, there are over 3,000 sects.) heh, half the time, the same denominations don't even agree with each other.

Way to go Protestant churches! The most illusive churches today!

[lismore]

I mean seriously, do you believe everything you read? Do you really think the pope thinks he's a god? Are you really that tricked?

Well we can only go by what the pope says. If you are uncomfortable with what the pope says then you can only take that up with the RCC. I challenge you to take the test of the berean (Acts 17:11) to test everything you have been taught against what the scripture teaches.

P.S Please dont start any debates here. You dont do your cause any credit. I dont go to OBOB and try to debate there, please offer members here the same courtesy. Friendship is welcome, debates for non fundamentalists are illegal.

God Bless You!

:wave:

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

Well we can only go by what the pope says. If you are uncomfortable with what the pope says then you can only take that up with the RCC.

Catholics don't have to do what the Pope's says, that's absurd.

I challenge you to take the test of the berean (Acts 17:11) to test everything you have been taught against what the scripture teaches.The story of the Bereans had nothing to do with testing what someone says against scripture- it had to do with the revelation of the OT in the NT. The Bereans saw that what the OT foretold was being fulfilled in their day.

Using scripture to test teachings is useless, as clearly demonstrated by the 10,000 different doctrines and theologies out there. This forum is filled with people that believe in scripture and yet look how many teachings there are out there.

They only way to find the truth is to listen to the apostles, what they taught and the authority they left Christianity with- which is in the Catholic Church.

[lismore]

Catholics don't have to do what the Pope's says, that's absurd.


:D

Then why have one?



The story of the Bereans had nothing to do with testing what someone says against scripture-


Acts 17:

11 Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

Examine evey message against the scriptues to see if it is true.

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

:D

Then why have one?




Acts 17:

11 Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

Examine evey message against the scriptues to see if it is true.

What scriptures do you think they were reading?

They were reading the OT. That couldn't be checking if what Paul said was true within the New Testament as it hadn't been written yet.
Again, it was about seeing the OT in light of the Gospel. It wasn't about checking what Paul wrote against scripture, because what Paul taught (about Christ) hadn't been written yet (New Testament). Try thinking these things through.

[Albion]

Again, it was about seeing the OT in light of the Gospel. It wasn't about checking what Paul wrote against scripture, because what Paul taught (about Christ) hadn't been written yet (New Testament). Try thinking these things through.

OK, thought it through.

Since the first of the NT epistles (Galatians) is older than Acts, it is possible that the Bereans were reading scripture that was not the OT. This would be the most obvious way of checking Paul with regard to the Gospel, not by reading the OT.

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

OK, thought it through.

Since the first of the NT epistles (Galatians) is older than Acts, it is possible that the Bereans were reading scripture that was not the OT. This would be the most obvious way of checking Paul with regard to the Gospel, not by reading the OT.

The age of the documents don't matter, only the events within Acts relative to the circulation of the Epistle to the Galatians in that region.

What they were doing was something common in the early Church- comparison of Christ and His message to the Old Testament. Unfortunately fundamentalists and other legalists within Christianity don't want to look at the bible that way- but more as a constitution of laws and explicit revelations.

[kobuk]

"bump"

[BAFRIEND]

The Catholic Church cannonized the New Testament. Please feel free to continue to use it against us. Without it, you are nada.

Without the RCC there would be no Christianity. We outdate you by over 1500 years.

[BAFRIEND]

We just have thread-maulers now working this area of Foru.ms. Easy to spot. They show no respect for our rights to sanctuary. Based on our Forum rules.

I have not checked. Is the entire Forum out there beyond our Congregation under seige from that kind of rude nonsense?

Who started an anti-Catholic thread ? Now, you are under attack ?

[Albion]

The Catholic Church cannonized the New Testament. Please feel free to continue to use it against us. Without it, you are nada.

Without the RCC there would be no Christianity. We outdate you by over 1500 years.

If you want to try out that theory on us and have it demolished by use of historical evidence, by all means accept our invitation to post it in the proper place--the debate with a Fundamentalist subforum.

[Vambram]

The Catholic Church cannonized the New Testament. Please feel free to continue to use it against us. Without it, you are nada.

Without the RCC there would be no Christianity. We outdate you by over 1500 years.
EXCUSE ME????
It is well documented that for several centuries, the RCC Church was the farthest thing from Scriptural Christianity during those centuries than anything else pretending to be Biblical Christianity ever thought about being.
The Scriptures were canonized before the RCC was founded, and I praise the Lord Jesus Christ that there were 300 years of Church History well before the founding of the RCC.
The RCC does have good, born-again believers, but the RCC is also responsible for much of the heinous heresies that the RCC has taught for 1500 years. Need I remind anyone of the heresies of Purgatory? or the praying and worshipping to Mary, or the praying to saints in heaven?
The List goes on and on, but you get my point, so you need to deal with the plain and simple fact that for 1500 years and counting the RCC is not Biblical Christianity.

[david01]

Interestingly, I was just at the OBOB forum where they are busy bashing the idea of salvation by faith alone in Jesus Christ. I recommended that if they were serious about it, they should post it in a conservative Lutheran forum. As it was, all they were doing was bashing Protestants. Their excuse was that Protestants are always bashing Catholics in their forums, which is true. So, if you are serious about exposing the errors of Catholicism, then debate a Catholic. Don't waste your time preaching to the choir.

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

EXCUSE ME????
It is well documented that for several centuries, the RCC Church was the farthest thing from Scriptural Christianity during those centuries than anything else pretending to be Biblical Christianity ever thought about being.

Well documented in that it is only the rambling of internet crackpots.

Any serious historian knows the Catholic Church was the early Church. The Reformation came 1500 years later.

The Scriptures were canonized before the RCC was founded, and I praise the Lord Jesus Christ that there were 300 years of Church History well before the founding of the RCC.

The Catholic Church was not founded in the 4th Century, it was founded in 33AD.

The RCC does have good, born-again believers, but the RCC is also responsible for much of the heinous heresies that the RCC has taught for 1500 years. Need I remind anyone of the heresies of Purgatory? or the praying and worshipping to Mary, or the praying to saints in heaven?
The List goes on and on, but you get my point, so you need to deal with the plain and simple fact that for 1500 years and counting the RCC is not Biblical Christianity.


I don't see anything wrong with purgatory or asking people to pray for you. We don't worship Mary though.
The Catholic Church is what made 'biblical Christianity' possible.

[Rhamiel]

um, guys, you should not debate with the fundamentalists on there own forum, if you want to debate them go to GT or the debate a funamentalist subforum on this site, this is not the place, all you are doing is getting people upset with catholics
If they are flamming the Catholic Church then report it if they are not flaming us then leave them be

[Vambram]

Well documented in that it is only the rambling of internet crackpots.
You are incorrect. But then again, it does not shock me that a defender of RCC is totally incorrect about something.

Any serious historian knows the Catholic Church was the early Church. The Reformation came 1500 years later.

Any serious historian knows that The Roman Catholic Church was not the Early Church as described in the Book of Acts. Any serious and honest historian knows that the RCC did not begin until around 300 years later after the Resurrection of Jesus Christ







The Catholic Church was not founded in the 4th Century, it was founded in 33AD.

That is completely incorrect and unScriptural to say that the Roman Catholic Church was founded in 33 AD.




I don't see anything wrong with purgatory or asking people to pray for you. We don't worship Mary though.
The Catholic Church is what made 'biblical Christianity' possible.

The Roman Catholic Church is not what made Biblical Christianity possible. Instead, I praise my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ that I never have been and never shall be a member of the Roman Catholic Church, and that never shall my faith and salvation by grace through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ be the result in any way related to any thing that the RCC has ever done.
Also, the very fact that you believe Purgatory is Biblical is more proof that RCC is not Biblical Christianity. The Old Testament prophets and teachers never spoke of Purgatory. In the four Gospels, Jesus Christ never spoke about purgatory, and in the rest of the New Testament, never was the doctrine of purgatory ever taught by the Apostles.
There is one mediator between God and man, the God-man, Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior. But the RCC would have one believe that we ought to pray to Mary, and we ought to pray to saints in heaven. Is that Biblical Christianity? No, and again a thousand times NO, I say it is not.

[Seeker of the Truth]

Where do you think the Bible came from?

[Vambram]

The books of the Bible were canonized before the founding of the RCC.

[Seeker of the Truth]

The books of the Bible were canonized before the founding of the RCC.
I didn't ask that.

I simply asked where'd the Bible came from?

[Vambram]

I didn't ask that.

I simply asked where'd the Bible came from?
I offer to you my sincere apologies, then.
Because of the topics of the last few posts, I mistakenly believed that you were implying with your question that you believed that the Bible was first canonized by the RCC. I do apologise.

[Seeker of the Truth]

I offer to you my sincere apologies, then.
Because of the topics of the last few posts, I mistakenly believed that you were implying with your question that you believed that the Bible was first canonized by the RCC. I do apologise.
It's cool. I just wanted to know if Fundamentalists recognize the early Church (before the Great Schism).

[Vambram]

It's cool. I just wanted to know if Fundamentalists recognize the early Church (before the Great Schism).
yes, Fundamentalists do recognise the Early Church and Church history from the day of Christ's Ascension and all of the churches established by the apostles and disciples of Christ. May I ask exactly what do you refer to as the Great Schism?

[kobuk]

"bump"

[Rhamiel]

I only ment such things like "catholics are not christian" and things like that as flaming,
the fact that there have been a lot of bad popes is not a flame
your view of when the Catholic Church was formed was not a flame
Listen. And i'm being fair here. If you have the truth as you clain to have, woo others into your belief with a powerful presentation of that truth? Using fair principles of debate and logic and not coercision or demanding "confessions" and causing "forced conversions" that are meaningless from Yahshua's perspective coercision and force??? my priest is an old hippie, he would never hurt anybody and I do not think he could if he tried lol

[Seeker of the Truth]

May I ask exactly what do you refer to as the Great Schism?

IMO, it's between the RCC and the other 4 Sees. Most people tend to say that it's between the RCC and the EO church, but when Rome isn't in communion with the other Sees, I would like to think they've split from them too.

[Vambram]

What are you referring to as "the other 4 Sees?"

[Albion]

It's cool. I just wanted to know if Fundamentalists recognize the early Church (before the Great Schism).

I'd say "yes."

It would be a rare Christian who didn't think that there were Christians between AD 33 and 1054, but that doesn't mean that we think they were all members of the Roman Catholic Church or any other particular denomination, for that matter. That's simply a contention that flies in the face of historical fact.

Most Fundamentalists would say, I think, that the churches of that era fell into error and were in need of correction, but of course there were followers of Christ then.

[Seeker of the Truth]

What are you referring to as "the other 4 Sees?"
Wiki it, I'm sure others can do better at explaining history than I.

Great Schism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East-West_Schism).

Great Sees or Pentarchy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentarchy).

[Albion]

What are you referring to as "the other 4 Sees?"

Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem.

All of these are EO, so I have no idea what might have been meant by saying that Rome separted itself not only from the EO churches but also from the other (4) sees. ("Most people tend to say that it's between the RCC and the EO church, but when Rome isn't in communion with the other Sees, I would like to think they've split from them too")

Perhaps by "the EO church" was meant the Church at Constantinople.

[Seeker of the Truth]

Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem.

All of these are EO, so I have no idea what might have been meant by saying that Rome separted itself not only from the EO churches but also from the other (4) sees. ("Most people tend to say that it's between the RCC and the EO church, but when Rome isn't in communion with the other Sees, I would like to think they've split from them too")

Perhaps by "the EO church" was meant the Church at Constantinople.
I meant that when the Schism occurred, a certain church (Rome) did not value communion between the other Sees.

[kobuk]

"bump"

[WarriorAngel]

Allow me if you would please, to set the proper tone for this discussion. I have members of my own family who are RC. The doctor who re-attached my arm was RC. In the past, i've been helped by a couple seperate RC community services. So i understand these are human beings whom Yahshua died for on the Cross and who are loved by Him as much as anyone else.

But, ...RC-ism's LEADERSHIP is a whole other subject. Let's look at them shall we. Those men dressed in scarlet and purple. Let's give them center stage to speak. A fair chance to state their position. What are they saying to the world? What are they saying to their own followers. What are they saying to us specifically as Christians, who reject their many claims on us? Lastly and most importantly, how does what they say compare to what our Creator has said in His Word the Holy Bible?

I will ask at this time for Fundamentalists only to participate and all RC's to restrict their responses to posting them at the top of this Forum in the "Ask a Fundamentalist" subforum or our debate subforum that is located there as well...

I begin with 3 statements from their top leaders, followed by 3 passages from Scriptures that put those statements of their's in the proper Biblical perspective.
--------------------------------------------------------

Roman Catholicism's words

“For the Pope holdeth place on earth,
not simply of a man but of the one true God.”
Pope Innocent III, 1215
Fourth Lateran Council

“Either sword is in the power of the church, that is to say, the spiritual and the material. The former is to be used by the church. The one in the hand of the priest, the other in the hand of the kings and soldiers, but at the will and pleasure of the priest. It is right that the temporal sword and authority be subject to the spiritual power. The Roman Pontiff [the Pope] judges all men, but is judged by no one. We declare, assert, define and pronounce to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is to every human creature altogether necessary for salvation . . . That which was spoken of Christ . . . ‘Thou has subdued all things under his feet’, may well seem verified in me. I have the authority of the King of kings. I am all in all and above all, so that God Himself and I, the Vicar of God, have but one consistory, and I am able to do almost all that God can do. What therefore can you make of me but God?”
Pope Boniface VIII, 1302
Papal Bull: Unam Sanctam

“We [the Popes] hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty.”
Pope Leo XIII, 1894
Encyclical Letter

Our Creator's words...

– Acts 16:31; 4:12
"What shall we do? “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved"

"Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.”

- Romans 3:10, 12, 23; 6:23
“As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one"

"there is none that doeth good, no, not one"

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God"

"For the wages of sin is death;”

– Ephesians 5:11
"have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.” :cool:;):cool:

I am going to research the words of the Popes. :)
ALL their words on the subject.

IF there is another debate elsewhere....send me the link. :)

[WarriorAngel]

I cannot participate in a discussion but I did make one in the fundamentalist debate section, for anyone interested.

God Bless.

[kobuk]

"bump"

[WarriorAngel]

Popes are very visible characters. What they have said since the year 300's has established their positions on for instance the topic about them self-proclaiming themselves to be infallible and on and on it goes.

Every Christian has the right to exercise spiritual discernment in all matters of importance in this world.

Yahshua said beware of anything that is not in accord with His Word. That's a command. We therefore have a duty to obey it.


To be fair, I made a link to a debate...