|
Author
|
Topic: The mother of all false teachings
|
becauseHElives
Advanced Member
Member # 87
|
posted
Any way you try to make any part of teachings of "the Pope of Roman, and the Roman Catholic Church part of the True Church is Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
Attributing the work of Yahweh to Satan.
--------------------
Strive to enter in at the strait gate:for many, I say unto you will seek to enter in, and shall not be able. ( Luke 13:24 )
Posts: 4578 | From: Southeast Texas | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged | 
|
|
Pio
unregistered
|
posted
The Catholic Church with an uppercase C refers to the Body of believers who hold the Catechism of the Catholic Church as the definition of their beliefs. Lutherans, Anglicans, ect. refer to themselves with a lower case c. When things are said like the Roman Catholic Church has a celebate priesthood, that is a true statement (for the most part their are exceptions). if you say The Catholic Church has a celebate priesthood that would be a false statement, because most of the 23 Rites of the Catholic Church Do not have a celebate priesthood. Roman Catholic means Roman Rite, and anyway you try to twist it the meaning is still the same.
IP: Logged |
|
|
becauseHElives
Advanced Member
Member # 87
|
posted
No I understand my enemy all to well; anything in good standing with the Pope in Rome is part of the Roman Catholic Church.
quote:
________________________________________
Misuse of terminology is the first sign of not understanding the beliefs of your adversary.
________________________________________
I am very careful when referring to the Roman Catholic Church, to never use the term Catholic Church by itself, because most Reformation and post-Reformation Churches use the term Catholic (sometimes with a lower-case c) to refer to the belief that all Christians are part of one Church, regardless of denominational divisions.
In common manner of speaking the term most often refers to the members, beliefs, and practices of the Roman Catholic Church. This Church includes the Latin Rite and twenty-two Eastern Rite Catholic Churches, all in full communion with the Pope (Bishop of Rome). The Eastern Catholic particular Churches in communion with the Pope include the Ukrainian, Greek, Greek Melkite, Maronite, Ruthenian Byzantine, Coptic Catholic, Syro-Malabar, Syro-Malankara, Chaldean, and Ethiopian Rites.
Maronites (Marunoye; Syriac, Mâruniyya are members of an Eastern Catholic Church in full communion with the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church.
The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (UGCC), also known as the Ukrainian Catholic Church, is one of the successor Churches to the acceptance of Christianity by Grand Prince Vladimir the Great (Ukrainian Volodymyr) of Kiev (Kyiv), in 988. UGCC is the largest Eastern Rite sui juris particular church in full communion with the Holy See, and is directly subject to the Pope. The Primate of the Church, in union with the Pope, holds the office of Archbishop-Major of Kiev-Halych and All Rus, though the hierarchs of the church have acclaimed their primate "Patriarch" and have requested Papal recognition and elevation. The Church is now geographically quite widespread, having some 40 hierarchs in over a dozen countries on four continents, including three other metropolitans in Poland, the United States, and Canada.
--------------------
Strive to enter in at the strait gate:for many, I say unto you will seek to enter in, and shall not be able. ( Luke 13:24 )
Posts: 4578 | From: Southeast Texas | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Pio
unregistered
|
posted
Oh the Roman Catholic Chruch is the ***** of Babylon, OK I got it now.
If I'm a member of the Greek Catholic Church then I'm ok. Or if I'm a Marnite Catholic I'm Ok. If I'm a Calcedean Catholic I'm OK, or if I'm a member of 19 other Rites of the Catholic Church that believe the same thing then I'm ok, however if I belong to the ONE the only ROMAN Catholic Church then I'm damned to hell as a member of the ***** of babylon.
Misuse of termonology is the fisrt sign of not understanding the beiliefs of your advesary.
IP: Logged |
|
|
becauseHElives
Advanced Member
Member # 87
|
posted
Maybe you missed it but I said earlier on, that Mystery Babylon is the Mother of all false religions’.
Roman Catholicism has just perfected it, but the 2 are one, Mystery Babylon and the Roman Catholic Church are ONE.
The Apostle Paul warned in his day “For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.”
Pope Confesses Roman Catholicism is the "Mystery of Iniquity"
"Clearly there is a need for a liberating process of purification of memory. For the occasions past and present, when sons and daughters of the Catholic Church have sinned by action or omission against their Orthodox brothers and sisters, may the Lord grant us the forgiveness we beg of Him."
"Some memories are especially painful, and some events of the distant past have left deep wounds in the minds and hearts of people to this day. I am thinking of the disastrous sack of the imperial city of Constantinople, which was for so long the bastion of Christianity in the East. It is tragic that the assailants, who had set out to secure free access for Christians to the Holy Land, turned against their own brothers in the faith. The fact that they were Latin Christians [Roman Catholics] fills Catholics with deep regret. How can we fail to see here the 'mysterium iniquitatis' at work [2 Thess. 2:7] in the human heart? To God alone belongs judgment and, therefore, we entrust the heavy burden of the past to his endless mercy, imploring him to heal the wounds that still cause suffering to the spirit of the Greek people."
- Pope John Paul II, May 4th, 2001
ADDRESS TO HIS BEATITUDE CHRISTODOULOS
ARCHBISHOP OF ATHENS AND PRIMATE OF GREECE
online at the Vatican web site.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/2001/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_20010504_archbishop-athens_en.html
The phrase "mystery of iniquity" appears in only one place in all of scripture, and it refers to the apostate antichrist power:
2 Th 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
2 Th 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.
2 Th 2:5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
2 Th 2:6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
2 Th 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
2 Th 2:8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
2 Th 2:9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
--------------------
Strive to enter in at the strait gate:for many, I say unto you will seek to enter in, and shall not be able. ( Luke 13:24 )
Posts: 4578 | From: Southeast Texas | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Pio
unregistered
|
posted
Iteresting i never knew that Catholicism was the mother oh hinduism, and Confusionism, what about Zorastronism, and when the LDS renounce Catholicism too, does that mean that they come from Rome? Shintu? Taoism? please just tell me that The Egyptian God's we're mothered by Catholicism, and Ba'hal of Course te Catholic Church Mothered this FALSE God battled in the OT before the NT Church was even founded.
But hey what's logic and reasoning got to do with anything whenyour dealing with the scriptures, right?
IP: Logged |
|
|
becauseHElives
Advanced Member
Member # 87
|
posted
What I posted was from the Roman Catholic's own web site.
People try to say the "Holocaust" didn't happen either!
The similarities between Roman Catholicism and Ancient Mystery Babylon are just to great to overcome.
They are one and the same.
Would you try to tell me, the “Inquisition “did not take place?
--------------------
Strive to enter in at the strait gate:for many, I say unto you will seek to enter in, and shall not be able. ( Luke 13:24 )
Posts: 4578 | From: Southeast Texas | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Pio
unregistered
|
posted
History does not show those things, A misinterpretation and misreading of history and the Book of revelations shows that.
IP: Logged |
|
|
becauseHElives
Advanced Member
Member # 87
|
posted
Here is cut and paste from the Wh!ore’s own web site….
http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/MORSOCDM.HTM
What we most need is not amply instruction or precept, but strength. We are weak, and our appetites, passions, propensities, are too strong for us, and enslave us. We feel ourselves sinking; the waves are closing over us, and in fear and agony we cry out: "Lord, save us, we perish!" "Holy Mother of God pray for us, or we are lost!" The soul oppressed with a deep sense of its weakness, of its inability to conquer by its own strength in the battle of life, calls out for supernatural aid, and it is precisely this aid, so much needed, and which enables us to resist and overcome our enemies, that I dare believe, and avow that I believe, the blessed Mary can and does obtain for those who fly to her protection.
There is no superstition in so believing. We do not ask Mary to grant nor do we believe that she can grant us supernatural aid. She is a creature and has no supernatural aid to give. She grants us her prayers, her intercessions, and these she can grant, for so much we can do for one another. The supernatural assistance is granted by God himself, and is the immediate act of the Holy Ghost, the Comforter, the Sanctifier, the Consummator, done at her intercession, which is all-powerful, as we have seen, because it is always in strict accord with the will and pleasure of her divine Son.
---------------------------------------------
Prayer was taught by Yeshua Himself to be directed only to The Father Yahweh in His name, The Name Yeshua
There is no place in scripture directing the followers of Yeshua to pray to anyone but the Heavenly Father.
not Peter, Paul or Mary just Yeshua
--------------------
Strive to enter in at the strait gate:for many, I say unto you will seek to enter in, and shall not be able. ( Luke 13:24 )
Posts: 4578 | From: Southeast Texas | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
becauseHElives
Advanced Member
Member # 87
|
posted
Didn't expect you to, history records what Roman Catholicism is, has done through the ages and where and when got it started.
Babylon the Mother of all false religions, mother of the Great Harlot, the Roman Catholic Church.
--------------------
Strive to enter in at the strait gate:for many, I say unto you will seek to enter in, and shall not be able. ( Luke 13:24 )
Posts: 4578 | From: Southeast Texas | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Pio
unregistered
|
posted
I choose not to respond to interminable cut and paste post.
IP: Logged |
|
|
becauseHElives
Advanced Member
Member # 87
|
posted
The Mother and Child, and the Original of the Child
http://philologos.org/__eb-ttb/images/fig05-06.htm
While this was the theory, the first perons in the Godhead was practically overlooked. As the Great Invisible, taking no immediate concern in human affairs, he was "to be worshipped through silence alone," that is, in point of fact, he was not worshipped by the multitude at all. The same thing is strikingly illustrated in India at this day. Though Brahma, according to the sacred books, is the first person of the Hindoo Triad, and the religiion of Hindostan is callec by his name, yet he is never worshipped, and there is scarcely a single Temple in all India now in existence of those that were formerly erected to his honour. So also is it in those countries of Europe where the Papal system is most completely developed. In Papal Italy, as travellers universally admit (except where the Gospel has recently entered), all appearance of worshipping the King Eternal and Invisible is almost extinct, while the Mother and the Child are the grand objects of worship. Exactly so, in this latter respect, also was it in ancient Babylon. The Babylonians, in their popular religion, supremely worshipped a Goddess Mother and a Son, who was represented in pictures and in images as an infant or child in his mother's arms. (Figs. 5 and 6) From Babylon, this worship of the Mother and the Child spread to the ends of the earth. In Egypt, the Mother and the Child were worshipped under the names of Isis and Osiris. * In India, even to this day, as Isi and Iswara; ** in Asia, as Cybele and Deoius; in Pagan Rome, as Fortuna and Jupiter-puer, or Jupiter, the boy; in Greece, as Ceres, the Great Mother, with the babe at her breast, or as Irene, the goddess of Peace, with the boy Plutus in her arms; and even in Thibet, in China, and Japan, the Jesuit missionaries were astronished to find the counterpart of Madonna *** and her child as devoutly worshipped as in Papal Rome itself; Shing Moo, the Holy Mother in China, being represented with a child in her arms, and a glory around her, exactly as if a Roman Catholic artist had been employed to set her up. ****
* Osiris, as the child called most frequently Horus. BUNSEN.
** KENNEDY'S Hindoo Mythology. Though Iswara is the husband of Isi, he is also represnted as an infant at her breast.
*** The very name by which the Italians commonly designate the Virgin, is just the translation of one of the titles of the Babylonian goddess. As Baal or Belus was the name of the great male divinity of Babylon, so the female divinity was called Beltis. (HESYCHIUS, Lexicon) This name has been found in Nineveh applied to the "Mother of the gods" (VAUX'S Nineveh and Persepolis); and in a speech attributed to Nebuchadnezzar, preserved in EUSEBII Proeparatio Evangelii, both titles "Belus and Beltis" are conjoined as the titles of the great Babylonian god and goddess. The Greek Belus, as representing the highest title of the Babylonian god, was undoubtedly Baal, "The Lord." Beltis, therefore, as the title of the female divinity, was equivalent to "Baalti," which, in English, is "My Lady," in Latin, "Mea Domina," and, in Italina, is corrupted into the well known "Madonna." In connection with this, it may be observed, that the name of Juno, the classical "Queen of Heaven," which, in Greek, was Hera, also signified "The Lady"; and that the peculiar title of Cybele or Rhea at Rome, was Domina or "The Lady." (OVID, Fasti) Further, there is strong reason to believe, that Athena, the well known name of Minerva at Athens, had the very same meaning. The Hebrew Adon, "The Lord," is, with the points, pronounced Athon. We have evidence that this name was known to the Asiatic Greeks, from whom idolatry, in a large measure, came into European Greece, as a name of God under the form of "Athan." Eustathius, in a note on the Periergesis of Dionysius, speaking of local names in the district of Laodicea, says the "Athan is god." The feminine of Athan, "The Lord," is Athan, "The Lady," which in the Attic dialect, is Athena. No doubt, Minerva is commonly represented as a virgin; but, for all that, we learn from Strabo that at Hierapytna in Crete (the coins of which city, says Muller, Dorians have the Athenian symbols of Minerva upon them), she was said to be the mother of the Corybantes by Helius, or "The Sun." It is certain that the Egyptian Minerva, who was the prototype of the Athenian goddess, was a mother, and was styled "Goddess Mother," or "Mother of the Gods."
**** CRABB'S Mythology. Gutzlaff thought that Shing Moo must have been borrowed from a Popish source; and there can be no doubt, that in the individual case to which he refers, the Pagan and the Christian stories had been amalgamated. But Sir. J. F. Davis shows that the Chinese of Canton find such an analogy between their own Pagan goddess Kuanyin and the Popish Madonna, that, in conversing with Europeans, they frequently call either of them indifferently by the same title. DAVIS' China. The first Jesuit missionaries to China also wrote home to Europe, that they found mention in the Chinese sacred books--books unequivocally Pagan--of a mother and child, very similar to their own Madonna and child at home.
One of the names of the Chinese Holy Mother is Ma Tsoopo; in regard to which, see
Note
Shing Moo and Ma Tsoopo of China
The name of Shing Moo, applied by the Chinese to their "Holy Mother," compared with another name of the same goddess in another province of China, strongly favours the conclusion that Shing Moo is just a synonym for one of the well known names of the goddess-mother of Babylon. Gillespie (in his Land of Sinim) states that the Chinese goddess-mother, or "Queen of Heaven," in the province of Fuh-kien, is worshipped by seafaring people under the name of Ma Tsoopo. Now, "Ama Tzupah" signifies the "Gazing Mother"; and there is much reason to believe that Shing Moo signifies the same; for Mu was one of the forms in which Mut or Maut, the name of the great mother, appeared in Egypt (BUNSEN'S Vocabulary); and Shngh, in Chaldee, signifies "to look" or "gaze." The Egyptian Mu or Maut was symbolised either by a vulture, or an eye surrounded by a vulture's wings (WILKINSON). The symbolic meaning of the vulture may be learned from the Scriptural expression: "There is a path which no fowl knoweth, and which the vulture's eye hath not seen" (Job 28:7). The vulture was noted for its sharp sight, and hence, the eye surrounded by the vulture's wings showed that, for some reason or other, the great mother of the gods in Egypt had been known as "The gazer." But the idea contained in the Egyptian symbol had evidently been borrowed from Chaldea; for Rheia, one of the most noted names of the Babylonian mother of the gods, is just the Chaldee form of the Hebrew Rhaah, which signifies at once "a gazing woman" and a "vulture." The Hebrew Rhaah itself is also, according to a dialectical variation, legitimately pronounced Rheah; and hence the name of the great goddess-mother of Assyria was sometimes Rhea, and sometimes Rheia. In Greece, the same idea was evidently attached to Athena or Minerva, whom we have seen to have been by some regarded as the Mother of the children of the sun. For one of her distinguishing titles was Ophthalmitis (SMITH'S Classical Dictionary, "Athena"), thereby pointing her out as the goddess of "the eye." It was no doubt to indicate the same thing that, as the Egyptian Maut wore a vulture on her head, so the Athenian Minerva was represented as wearing a helmet with two eyes, or eye-holes, in the front of the helmet. (VAUX'S Antiquities)
Having thus traced the gazing mother over the earth, is it asked, What can have given origin to such a name as applied to the mother of the gods? A fragment of Sanchuniathon, in regard to the Phoenician mythology, furnishes us with a satisfactory reply. There it is said that Rheia conceived by Kronos, who was her own brother, and yet was known as the father of the gods, and in consequence brought forth a son who was called Muth, that is, as Philo-Byblius correctly interprets the word, "Death." As Sanchuniathon expressly distinguishes this "father of the gods" from "Hypsistos," The Most High, * we naturally recall what Hesiod says in regard to his Kronos, the father of the gods, who, for a certain wicked deed, was called Titan, and cast down to hell. (Theogonia)
* In reading Sanchuniathon, it is necessary to bear in mind what Philo-Byblius, his translator, states at the end of the Phenician History--viz., that history and mythology were mingled together in that work.
The Kronos to whom Hesiod refers is evidently at bottom a different Kronos from the human father of the gods, or Nimrod, whose history occupies so large a place in this work. He is plainly none other than Satan himself; the name Titan, or Teitan, as it is sometimes given, being, as we have elsewhere concluded, only the Chaldee form of Sheitan, the common name of the grand Adversary among the Arabs, in the very region where the Chaldean Mysteries were originally concocted,--that Adversary who was ultimately the real father of all the Pagan gods,--and who (to make the title of Kronos, "the Horned One," appropriate to him also) was symbolised by the Kerastes, or Horned serpent. All "the brethren" of this father of the gods, who were implicated in his rebellion against his own father, the "God of Heaven," were equally called by the "reproachful" name "Titans"; but, inasmuch as he was the ringleader in the rebellion, he was, of course, Titan by way of eminence. In this rebellion of Titan, the goddess of the earth was concerned, and the result was that (removing the figure under which Hesiod has hid the fact) it became naturally impossible that the God of Heaven should have children upon earth--a plain allusion to the Fall.
Now, assuming that this is the "Father of the gods," by whom Rhea, whose common title is that of the Mother of the gods, and who is also identified with Ge, or the Earth-goddess, had the child called Muth, or Death, who could this "Mother of the gods" be, but just our Mother Eve? And the name Rhea, or "The Gazer," bestowed on her, is wondrously significant. It was as "the gazer" that the mother of mankind conceived by Satan, and brought forth that deadly birth, under which the world has hitherto groaned. It was through her eyes that the fatal connection was first formed between her and the grand Adversary, under the form of a serpent, whose name, Nahash, or Nachash, as it stands in the Hebrew of the Old Testament, also signifies "to view attentively," or "to gaze" (Gen 3:6) "And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and pleasant to the eyes," &c., "she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat; and gave also unto her husband with her, and he did eat." Here, then, we have the pedigree of sin and death; "Lust, when it had conceived, brought forth sin; and sin, when it was finished, brought forth death" (James 1:15). Though Muth, or Death, was the son of Rhea, this progeny of hers came to be regarded, not as Death in the abstract, but as the god of death; therefore, says Philo-Byblius, Muth was interpreted not only as death, but as Pluto. (SANCHUN) In the Roman mythology, Pluto was regarded as on a level, for honour, with Jupiter (OVID, Fasti); and in Egypt, we have evidence that Osiris, "the seed of the woman," was the "Lord of heaven," and king of hell, or "Pluto" (WILKINSON; BUNSEN); and it can be shown by a large induction of particulars (and the reader has somewhat of the evidence presented in this volume), that he was none other than the Devil himself, supposed to have become incarnate; who, though through the first transgression, and his connection with the woman, he had brought sin and death into the world, had, nevertheless, by means of them, brought innumerable benefits to mankind. As the name Pluto has the very same meaning as Saturn, "The hidden one," so, whatever other aspect this name had, as applied to the father of the gods, it is to Satan, the Hidden Lord of hell, ultimately that all came at last to be traced back; for the different myths about Saturn, when carefully examined, show that he was at once the Devil, the father of all sin and idolatry, who hid himself under the disguise of the serpent,--and Adam, who hid himself among the trees of the garden,--and Noah, who lay hid for a whole year in the ark,--and Nimrod, who was hid in the secrecy of the Babylonian Mysteries. It was to glorify Nimrod that the whole Chaldean system of iniquity was formed. He was known as Nin, "the son," and his wife as Rhea, who was called Ammas, "The Mother." The name Rhea, as applied to Semiramis, had another meaning from what it had when applied to her, who was really the primeval goddess, the "mother of gods and men." But yet, to make out the full majesty of her character, it was necessary that she should be identified with that primeval goddess; and, therefore, although the son she bore in her arms was represented as he who was born to destroy death, yet she was often represented with the very symbols of her who brought death into the world. And so was it also in the different countries where the Babylonian system spread.
--------------------
Strive to enter in at the strait gate:for many, I say unto you will seek to enter in, and shall not be able. ( Luke 13:24 )
Posts: 4578 | From: Southeast Texas | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Pio
unregistered
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by David:
The Bible says that if it were possible for us to merit salvation by keeping God's law, there would have been no reason for Christ to die for us. I will not treat God's gracious gift as pointless. If justice is available through the law, then Christ died to no purpose! (Galatians 2:21). quote:
Catholics do not deny this, let me try to say it another way. Salvation comes from fatih. The book of James says 2:14 What doth it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but have not works? can that faith save him?
2:17-18 Even so faith, if it have not works, is dead in itself. Yea, a man will say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith apart from thy works, and I by my works will show thee my faith
2:20-21 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith apart from works is barren? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, in that he offered up Isaac his son upon the altar?
2:24 Ye see that by works a man is justified, and not only by faith.
2:26 For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, even so faith apart from works is dead.
This is the very word of God. How can you deny this CLEAR teaching of the Holy Bible? These Verses explain EXACTLY what Catholics believe. And every Christian should believe. Not by Bread alone, but by EVERY word that comes from the mouth of God.
[QUOTE]
The Bible explains both why we cannot merit our salvation, and what Christ did about it. He died in our place, and took upon Himself our punishment. All men have sinned, and are deprived of the glory of God. All men are now undeservedly justified by the gift of God, through the redemption wrought in Christ Jesus. Through His blood, God made Him the means of expiation for all who believe so that He might be just and might justify those who believe in Jesus For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from observance of the law (Romans 3:23-28). This passage also explains who will be justified: those who believe in Jesus.
Romans 3:23-28 says that justification is apart from works of the LAW. The law here is the qualifing word. Works of Faith are NOT works of the Law. James as quoted above shows us that Works of Faith ARE part of justification. As Christians we can not choose to follow some scriptures and ignore others. When we find scriptures that on face value appear to contradict each other we must find the reconciliation in the verses, since God's very words can not contridict.
quote:
God says, All men have sinned. Take His word for it. Don't try to convince Him that you are an exception. Repent of your sins because Christ died on the cross to pay the penalty for them, not just for the original sin of Adam, but for all sins. The Apostle John wrote, the blood of His Son Jesus cleanses us from all sin (1 John 1:7). Accept the pardon He offers you!
[/qutoe]
I have NEVER said I wasn't a sinner. I have sinned and I have repented before God. I have never said that Jesus didn't pay the price of all sin. Where did you get the idea i thought this from?
In Italy, when a pope dies, great posters are plastered on the walls of the cities calling the people to pray for his soul because the church believes that he is suffering in purgatory. Roman Catholicism, very frankly, cannot save even its own popes. If you are trusting in that system for your salvation, you should fervently hope for one of two things:
Jesus came to fulfill the law, not remove it. The jews had laws about praying to and for their dead realatives. Jesus fulfilled this in making us all relative and saints. We should pray for ALL of the souls in the world, Christian and non-Christian alike. It is part of loving thy neighbor. When we die in body we do not die in spirit and our spirit can continue to grow in union with God towards the perfect union which all Christians who sustain until the end will realize. I ask what is wrong with praying for the soul of a Christian?
quote:
That the Bible is wrong about how one is saved.
That you are a better Catholic than the popes.
I actually believe the true unadulterated Bible is 100% correct about how one is saved. I do not believe I am a better Catholic or Christian than anybody, that would be greatly arrogant. I believe that as a child of God I can go to my Father in Heaven and ask him to help my Brothers and Sisters in Christ Jesus the Lord.
quote:
Let's face the truth: The Bible is not wrong, and you probably are not a better Catholic than the popes. The wonderfully good news is that God offers salvation in His Son for sinners that have not earned it.
Salvation never has been about EARNING it, that can not be done.
IP: Logged |
|
|
helpforhomeschoolers
Advanced Member
Member # 15
|
posted
To me, it is blasphemous to say that Christ would build his church on Peter. Not that Peter was not dearly loved and not that Peter did not dearly love our LORD. Both are certain. However, Peter was at that time not even born again. Peter was the same man who would deny Christ 3 times. Peter was the man to whom Christ would say... Get thou behind me Satan. Peter is the one whom Paul would have to rebuke face to face for his error against the gentiles.
The foundation of the church is Christ and you can debate whether Matthew was written in Aramaic or Kione Greek or what ever you like and it wont change what the foundation on which the church of Christ would be built.
Paul did not write to the Corinthians in Hebrew I am sure that you will agree there:
1Co 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
CHRIST IS THE FOUNDATION ON WHICH THE CHURCH IS BUILT.
The foundation of the Apostles was Christ. The foundation that the Apostles laid was CHRIST!
Eph 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
The revelation of the Holy Spirit that was given to Peter of who Christ was... The Son of the Living GOD.... the CHRIST... GOD"S CHRIST and MESSIAH this is the ROCK on which the church was to be built.
Later scripture confirms this:
Ro 9:33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
1Co 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
Further, Peter is not in the scripture ever even said to have been in Rome much less to have appointed to the Rome the successor as the Bishop of Rome. Peter is known to have taken the Gospel East, and to have written to the churches in Galatia and Asia and Babylon. Peter was not as Drew has pointed out the head of the church in Jerusalem.
Lastly, it is well know that the Hebrew language was all but lost by the time of Christ and the world had become Hellenized. The majority of the Hebrews spoke Aramaic and Kione Greek. The OT had been translated into Greek.
Posts: 4684 | From: Southern Black Hills of South Dakota | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
KnowHim
Admin
Member # 1
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pio:
Catholics believe we will be judged by our fruits and as such our fruits determine if we had true faith. On this level our faith and works are united.
I hope this clears things up a little, if not let me know where the Catholic Concepts are still foggy, and I'll do my best.
:::::::::::::::::
I am glad they are foggy as they are WRONG.
The Bible says that if it were possible for us to merit salvation by keeping God's law, there would have been no reason for Christ to die for us. I will not treat God's gracious gift as pointless. If justice is available through the law, then Christ died to no purpose! (Galatians 2:21).
The Bible explains both why we cannot merit our salvation, and what Christ did about it. He died in our place, and took upon Himself our punishment. All men have sinned, and are deprived of the glory of God. All men are now undeservedly justified by the gift of God, through the redemption wrought in Christ Jesus. Through His blood, God made Him the means of expiation for all who believe so that He might be just and might justify those who believe in Jesus For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from observance of the law (Romans 3:23-28). This passage also explains who will be justified: those who believe in Jesus.
God says, All men have sinned. Take His word for it. Don't try to convince Him that you are an exception. Repent of your sins because Christ died on the cross to pay the penalty for them, not just for the original sin of Adam, but for all sins. The Apostle John wrote, the blood of His Son Jesus cleanses us from all sin (1 John 1:7). Accept the pardon He offers you!
In Italy, when a pope dies, great posters are plastered on the walls of the cities calling the people to pray for his soul because the church believes that he is suffering in purgatory. Roman Catholicism, very frankly, cannot save even its own popes. If you are trusting in that system for your salvation, you should fervently hope for one of two things:
That the Bible is wrong about how one is saved.
That you are a better Catholic than the popes.
Let's face the truth: The Bible is not wrong, and you probably are not a better Catholic than the popes. The wonderfully good news is that God offers salvation in His Son for sinners that have not earned it.
--------------------
Video Tracts
Christian Media
LiveTracts
Friend Me On Facebook
Evangelism TackleBox
Posts: 3276 | From: Charlestown, IN | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
KnowHim
Admin
Member # 1
|
posted
Question: Wasn’t it the Catholic Church that was responsible for the Bible being written?
Answer: No. The Catholic Church tried to take credit for what the Lord did without their help.
Here is a short history of the Bible.
1. Old Testament
The Old Testament was written by Moses, David and Solomon, prophets, seers and kings. There was no "church" of any kind to claim responsibility for it. God inspired individuals to bring God's word to the people. The Old Testament is the recorded revelation of God up until about 400 BC.
2. The Inter-Testamental Period
The time between about 400 BC and about 5 BC is usually called the Years of Prophetic Silence. This is because God created a process that lasted 400 years to create a world climate ready for the coming of the promised Messiah. There was no "church" at this time, either. But there was the new creation of the "synagogue," since the Jewish people needed to worship God and did not have the Temple when they were in exile. When many came back 400-500 BC, they already had functional synagogues; and even though the Temple was being rebuilt by those returning from exile, the synagogue idea remained and more were built. This was the beginning of the "congregation" or "church" as we have it today.
But there was no Scripture being written during this period. That was yet to come after one came "in the spirit and power of Elias" (Luke 1:17).
3. The Time of Christ
It is likely that Matthew (Levi) the tax collector and later disciple of Jesus took notes of what happened during Jesus' ministry. However, it is also true that were God in the flesh living among you, His words would burn into your soul. I am sure, as the apostles clearly recollected as they wrote the New Testament (2 Peter 1:16-21; 1 John 1:1-3; 4:14), they could not escape the image and words of Jesus Christ, God the Son and Son of God, when He spoke into their hearts (Luke 9:44; 24:32).
But it wasn't a "church" that made them write.
2 Timothy 3:16-17
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
And
2 Peter 1:19-21
19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
God the Holy Spirit inspired them, perfectly and accurately, to write the words of God for the church. The church did not "inspire" anything.
4. The Church Age
When the apostles wrote their letters, the congregations received them. They read them. They spread them. They copied them for other brethren in Christ Jesus. And they recognized their authority in the Christian's life. So the Scriptures were produced by men of God, not by "the church." But they were produced FOR the church.
The last book of the Bible was Revelation, written about 96 AD, just before the apostle John died around 100 AD. After the apostles died, the churches continued to collect the letters they did not have, to read them and understand the authority under God by which they wrote.
But no one else shared that place. There is an "epistle of Barnabas" (which bears no proof it was written by Barnabas), which many think was penned in the first century. But the difference between its message of salvation and of the apostolic writings is too easy to see. If you believe the Scriptures, you cannot believe the so-called "epistle of Barnabas."
There are the writings of Polycarp, disciple of John (when John was very aged). There are writings of Clement and others. But those are all writings of Christians. Just Christians. Some were even martyrs, but their writings depended on the Scriptures--they were not Scripture themselves. Anyone who would base their faith on them would have a horrid foundation, just as if there were "Lutherans" today, learning of God's word only what they find in Martin Luther's writings. Interesting writing, at times "inspirational" writing, fine. Inspired? Not a chance.
The Roman Catholic church has had only one aim from its earliest, pagan and political origins: To destroy the true Christians, and to destroy their Bible. That is why they substituted the corrupt Alexandrian perversions of scripture, instead of using the preserved, prophetic and apostolic Words of God as found in Antioch of Syria, where "the disciples were first called Christians" (Acts 11:26). That is why they also added the Alexandrian writings we now call "Apocrypha" to their perverted bibles. That is why they used their Jesuits to infiltrate the Protestant Seminaries, Colleges and Bible Schools. Their Jesuits became the "teachers" and planted seeds of doubt in the Christians' minds. These doubt-ridden Christians then taught at other colleges and schools. All the while they planted that same seed of doubt of God's word in their students.
The stage was set: Once people no longer believed in God's Preserved Words, which we find perfectly presented in the King James Bible, they were ripe for destruction. Now, 120 years after the switch from God's Word to devil's lies (the King James abandoned for the Alexandrian texts), while pretending to "improve" our copies of God's words, they really set up the abandonment of God's words. Now almost every Bible in the English-speaking world (and most other languages) is just another re-translation of the Alexandrian polluted stream.
Another way to view it is that the Scriptures as we find them preserved in the King James is like God's fountain ...
Jeremiah 2:13
13 For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.
And that's the point: The bible spewed out by the Catholic church, which now almost all Protestants and other Christians use, ... simply doesn't hold water.
--------------------
Video Tracts
Christian Media
LiveTracts
Friend Me On Facebook
Evangelism TackleBox
Posts: 3276 | From: Charlestown, IN | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Pio
unregistered
|
posted
Ok, this might get a little long winded, and deals with the entire concept of suffering. So I'm going to give you some premises and try to explain them as little as possible to save you reading.
Ahar you ask; If this is so, why was the sacrifice of God not enough? Is he not Omnipotent, therefore the sacrifice is enough?
lets start with an even greater, but at the same time simpler question. Why does God allow suffering to exist?
1)God created man out of love.
2)The Greatest show of Love is to allow the object of your love to reject you, but still love them anyway.
3)God giving man freewill allows man to reject God, thus proving God's love for us.
4)when we use Free will to reject God, then consequences happen and pain and suffering enter the world.
5)Therefore, in order for God to show is Great love, suffering also had to exist.
paul speaks about joining his suffering with Christ on the Cross to make complete, what Christ left incomplete. This statement creates the same question you asked.
why was the sacrifice of God not enough? Is he not Omnipotent, therefore the sacrifice is enough?
What was left incomplete? Christ can not make us choose him, so when we recognize that by lifting our sufferings up to God, we are at the same time accepting that they are a result of the misuse of freewill. And we recognize God'd love for us. In joining these sufferings on the Cross then we accept Christ's suffering all the more.
I think your point of confusion lies in mixing together Salvation, and Healing. Salvation allows us into God's Grace and begins healing the damage from sin. Christ's Sacrifice was Once and for All. From this comes God's forgiveness. The healing process, that is not completed here on earth, through prayer, Fasting, almsgiving, ect (all these things are completed out of Love for God, not as requirement of Law)Are completed in Purgatory.
Now indulegences are SO powerfull, because when we obtain one it helps to repair our souls even faster (earth time).
In 1999 the Catholic and Lutheran Church issued a statement ending the dispute since the Reformation on Faith and Works. The Orthodox Church signed onto the agreement earlier this year. Salvation is a Gift from God through Grace, and shown by our works.
Catholic believe very strongly in the verse from James, that faith without works is dead, and that if you ask him to show his faith he will show you works. Catholics believe we will be judged by our fruits and as such our fruits determine if we had true faith. On this level our faith and works are united.
I hope this clears things up a little, if not let me know where the Catholic Concepts are still foggy, and I'll do my best.
IP: Logged |
|
|
ahar
Advanced Member
Member # 5810
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pio:
I ask do you own the Catechism of the Catholic Church? If you do the practice of indulgences are explained in detail in paragraphs 1471-1479
No, I'm not a Catholic. But after some discussions here I realised that my knowledge of what the Catholic church actually teaches is not too wide, hence the question.
quote:
Originally posted by Pio:
Let me give you an example. Lets say that on a certain day you Go to Confession (fulfilling scripture), Go to Mass (Fulfilling scripture) and Pray (Fulfilling Scripture) you can recieve an indulgence. This is not to say EVERYDAY, but there are several days through out the year where this takes place. The point I'm trying to make is that the Healing takes place through an indulgence. The healing still comes from God in recognition of our Hearts.
So you believe an indulgence is a recognition for doing the things that God has told you to. So it's not permission to do something bad, it's more a recognition of what you believe to be a healing process. Like a McDonald's star for good work?
This all seems linked to the belief that Christ's sacrifice was not enough, and that we have to under take some action to bridge the gap. If this is so, why was the sacrifice of God not enough? Is he not Omnipotent, therefore the sacrifice is enough?
It seems to me that this belief diminishes the sacrifice, and undermines the entire concept of salvation. The famous verse in John...
16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[f] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.
...doesn't say He gave the world his only son to go part of the way there. If salvation is linked explictly to practices defined by the church, how is Christianity different from Judaism? Both would then teach that the path to God comes down to following rules and regulations.
Doing things like regularly praying and worshiping God seem to be a symptom of being saved, rather than the path to salvation itself.
--------------------
Cheers
Andy
Posts: 290 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Pio
unregistered
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by ahar:
While I don't want to gang up on you Pio, and I certainly don't have the vast array of cutnpaste almost answers that Drew has at his fingertips, I would like to hone in on a single point - Indulgences.
First I'd like to ask that with indugences, what is the dogma? Is it that if the Pope declares that you free from sin in advance of a certain defined action then you are? If so, is this because the Pope says so, or because he is generally a wise person and so can be trusted to make a sound judgement. What if God doesn't agree? Surely there are some circumstances where the Pope could be fooled or tricked by the person so that the Pope thinks that it is a Righteous action whereas in fact it is not? If this this the case how does it fit with the doctrine of Papal infallibility?
Looking forward to your reply
Andy
quote:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm
To facilitate explanation, it may be well to state what an indulgence is not. It is not a permission to commit sin, nor a pardon of future sin; neither could be granted by any power. It is not the forgiveness of the guilt of sin; it supposes that the sin has already been forgiven. It is not an exemption from any law or duty, and much less from the obligation consequent on certain kinds of sin, e.g., restitution; on the contrary, it means a more complete payment of the debt which the sinner owes to God. It does not confer immunity from temptation or remove the possibility of subsequent lapses into sin. Least of all is an indulgence the purchase of a pardon which secures the buyer's salvation or releases the soul of another from Purgatory. The absurdity of such notions must be obvious to any one who forms a correct idea of what the Catholic Church really teaches on this subject.
The above quote really explains alot. I ask do you own the Catechism of the Catholic Church? If you do the practice of indulgences are explained in detail in paragraphs 1471-1479
Basically put, Sin does two things to us First is seperates us from God. and Second it Harms our soul. Christ's suffering on the Cross Forgives our sin. This brings us back to God. However this action (Christ dying) does not heal us completely by itself. By doing certain actions (case by case basis) we help ourselves heal by accepting Graces from God. The most important thing I believe however is the status of the Heart while doing these things.
Let me give you an example. Lets say that on a certain day you Go to Confession (fulfilling scripture), Go to Mass (Fulfilling scripture) and Pray (Fulfilling Scripture) you can recieve an indulgence. This is not to say EVERYDAY, but there are several days through out the year where this takes place. The point I'm trying to make is that the Healing takes place through an indulgence. The healing still comes from God in recognition of our Hearts.
I do not do a great job of explaining indulgences, and I recomend some of the following links.
::::::::::::::::::
Links have been removed by David.
DON'T post Catholic links on this message board. And don't try and teach people they need to confess to a Priest.
Jesus is all we need. We don't need someone trying to take His place for us.
Period
[ September 15, 2006, 12:41 PM: Message edited by: David ]
IP: Logged |
|
|
Pio
unregistered
|
posted
CareTaker The Canon of the Bible was set at the Council of Nicea.
[quote/]The Journey From Texts to Translations and Development of the Bible-Paul D. Wagner c.1999, pg 102
Later the word (canon) came to mean a list of books held to be authoritative, as seen in writings of the church father Athanasius (296-373), in the Decrees of the Synod of Nicea[/qutoe]
What was this Canon set for from the Council of Nicea?
Gensis
Exdodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deutoronomy
Joshua
Judges
Ruth
1-2 Kings (1-2 Sam.)
3-4 Kings (1-2 Kings)
Ezra (1 Esdras)
Nehemaiah (2Esdras)
Tobit
Judith
Esther
1-2 Macabees
Job
Psalms
Proverbs
Canticle of Canticles(Song of Songs)
Wisdom (of Solomon)
Ecclesiasticus (Sirach)
Baruch
Exekiel
Daniel
Hosea
Joel
Amos
Obadiah
Jonah
Micah
Habakkuk
Zephaniah
Haggi
Zechariah
Malachi.
This is the Canon of Nicea, I have the evidence and support of HISTORY to show that Luther removed these book, and the Catholic Church did not just create them in the 1546.
Luther removed them thus changing the Bible, and what a Sola Scriptura approach would reveal about God.
CareTaker,
As for your Post on the Mass, why should I take the time to respond to a cut and paste from a website, I have been to many times before, and read the article many times before? You still did not respond to the FACT that the mass is refered to in the book of Revelations, and the Didache.
Please if you want me to refresh on that web page, please just post a link. your lack of personal analysis is insulting to me.
I will still respond, because who knows, i may be the only person who can share True Catholic teaching to you. The Mass IS a participation in the Sacrifice on Calvary, however it (the sacrifice) is not as your article would lead to believe done over and over again. God exist outside the bounds of time, and as such God is Always Present, Always was present, and Always will be Pressent in all forms for the entirety of the Earth's existence. Meaning, when the mass is offered what appears on the Alter is not a re-sacrifice of Christ, but Christ's body and Blood on Calvary given to us by the Power of the Holy Spirit.
IP: Logged |
|
|
ahar
Advanced Member
Member # 5810
|
posted
While I don't want to gang up on you Pio, and I certainly don't have the vast array of cutnpaste almost answers that Drew has at his fingertips, I would like to hone in on a single point - Indulgences.
First I'd like to ask that with indugences, what is the dogma? Is it that if the Pope declares that you free from sin in advance of a certain defined action then you are? If so, is this because the Pope says so, or because he is generally a wise person and so can be trusted to make a sound judgement. What if God doesn't agree? Surely there are some circumstances where the Pope could be fooled or tricked by the person so that the Pope thinks that it is a Righteous action whereas in fact it is not? If this this the case how does it fit with the doctrine of Papal infallibility?
Looking forward to your reply
Andy
--------------------
Cheers
Andy
Posts: 290 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Caretaker
Advanced Member
Member # 36
|
posted
http://www.justforcatholics.org/a102.htm
The Mass: A Sacrifice For Sin
Question: I am a Roman Catholic but I was never taught that the Mass is a sacrifice for sin as you wrote in your website. The mass is the commemoration of Jesus giving himself for us on the cross. In fact Christ himself said, "Do this in remembrance of me."
Answer: Many people wrongly think that the Mass is a commemoration of the sacrifice of Christ, much the same as the Lord's Supper in Evangelical churches. It is not; the Mass is something more than a memorial. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that the Mass is a real sacrifice for sin. Please read carefully the following citations from Catholic sources.
1. If anyone says that the sacrifice of the mass is one only of praise and thanksgiving; or that it is a mere commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross but not a propitiatory one; or that it profits him only who receives, and ought not to be offered for the living and the dead, for sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities, let him be anathema (Council of Trent, session 22, canon 3).
2. The Mass is the unbloody sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ...The Mass is the same sacrifice as that of the Cross because the offering and the priest are the same - Christ our Blessed Lord; and the ends for which the sacrifice of the Mass is offered are the same as those of the sacrifice of the Cross...The ends for which the sacrifice of the Cross was offered were to honor and glorify God; to thank Him for all the graces bestowed on the whole world; to satisfy God's justice for the sins of men; to obtain all graces and blessings (Baltimore Catechism).
3. As often as the Sacrifice of the Cross in which 'Christ, our Passover, has been sacrificed' (1 Corinthians. 5:7) is celebrated on the altar (i.e. during the mass), the work of our redemption is carried on (Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church).
4. The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1366).
5. The august sacrifice of the altar, then, is no mere empty commemoration of the passion and death of Jesus Christ, but a true and proper act of sacrifice, whereby the High Priest by an unbloody immolation offers Himself a most acceptable victim to the Eternal Father, as He did upon the cross (Mediator Dei, Encyclical of Pope Pius XII)
6. It is a good idea to recall at the very outset what may be termed the heart and core of the doctrine, namely that, by means of the Mystery of the Eucharist, the Sacrifice of the Cross which was once carried out on Calvary is re-enacted in wonderful fashion and is constantly recalled, and its salvific power is applied to the forgiving of the sins we commit each day (Mysterium Fidei; Encyclical of Pope Paul VI).
So, the Catholic Church officially teaches the Mass is a sacrifice -- indeed the very same sacrifice of Christ on Calvary -- and it is offered to satisfy God's justice and atone for sins. During the Mass Christ's sacrifice on the cross is not only remembered but it is also carried on, perpetuated, renewed, re-presented and re-enacted.
The Catholic doctrine on the Mass is a distortion of the biblical doctrine of the Lord’s Supper. The Bible describes the Eucharist as a "memorial" or "commemoration" of Christ, and a "proclamation" of His death, and not as a sacrifice for sin. More seriously, the Mass is the denial of the perfection and sufficiency of the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ on the cross of Calvary. If it needs to be carried on, perpetuated, renewed re-presented and re-enacted, the implication is that His once-for-all sacrifice was not enough for the forgiveness of His people. Let's say that I go to my friend's house. If there is no answer when I knock at the door, I will renew my efforts and keep on knocking. If, however, the door is opened, I would stop knocking because my purpose would have been achieved. Even so, having accomplished the redemption of His people by His death on the cross, Christ ascended into heaven and is now seated on the right hand of God. His mission is accomplished!
Please read the following passages from the book of Hebrews and note carefully how the author emphasizes that the sacrifice of Christ is done once for all:
1. Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. For such a High Priest was fitting for us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and has become higher than the heavens; who does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the people’s, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself (Hebrews 7:25:27).
2. For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another - He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation (Hebrews 9:24-28).
3. By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified. But the Holy Spirit also witnesses to us; for after He had said before, “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them,” then He adds, “Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.” Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin (Hebrew 10:10-18).
The Bible repeats over and over again that Christ offered His sacrifice "once" and "once for all." He "does not need daily to offer up sacrifices." He is in heaven "not that He should offer Himself often." Today "there is no longer an offering for sin." His purpose was achieved: by His once-for-all sacrifice, He "put away sin" and thus He "sanctified" and "perfected forever" His people.
You have two choices. You can either continue to attend Mass, thus showing that you do not really believe that Jesus can save you to the uttermost by His once-for-all sacrifice on the cross. Or else, if you are certain that His sacrifice is finished, perfect and complete, put your trust in Him, and join a Christian community where the Gospel is faithfully preached, and Christ's ordinances (Baptism and the Eucharist) are observed according to the pattern and teaching of the New Testament. It is the great privilege of all believers to meet together to remember the Lord and proclaim His death by observing the Lord’s Supper together.
Copyright Dr Joe Mizzi. Permission to copy and distribute this article without textual changes.
--------------------
A Servant of Christ,
Drew
1 Tim. 3:
16: And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh..
Posts: 3978 | From: Council Grove, KS USA | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Caretaker
Advanced Member
Member # 36
|
posted
Pio:
1. Prayers for the dead .....300 A.D.- II Macabees(one of the books Luther graced your faith with by removing)
2. Making the sign of the cross .....300 A.D.-The sign of the Cross is a prayer with physical actions, it allows us to WORSHIP GOD with our whole bodies
3. Veneration of angels & dead saints .....375 A.D-Old Jewish Custom, I&II Macabees
4. Use of images in worship .....375 A D-Do you have a Cross in your Church? Image during worship if you do...
5. The Mass as a daily celebration .....394 A.D.-What's the problem with praying everyday?
6. Beginning of the exaltation of Mary; the term, "Mother of God" applied at Council of Ephesus .....431 AD.-Isn't Mary Jesus' Mother? Isn't Jesus God? If so then isn't mary mother of God?
7. Extreme Unction (Last Rites) .....526 A.D.-uh oh, praying for a dying person, surely God wouldn't approve of that.
8. Doctrine of Purgatory-Gregory I .....593 A.D.- Again an understanding from II Macabees, as well as several NT scriptures.
9. Prayers to Mary & dead saints .....600 A.D.-Old jewish Custom, evidence of this starts as early as the 1st century. Pray=to ask, therefore you ask me to pass you the salt you prayed to me. learn your English.
10. Worship of cross, images & relics .....786 A.D.-Worship of these items has NEVER been approved of in fact if you did you would break the First Commandment. I believe the word you want is Veneration, and that would be at the level of Dulia.
11. Canonization of dead saints .....995 A.D.-OK so now we've said that I believe this person is in Heaven. Doesn't this happen at most Protestant Funerals?
12. Celibacy of priesthood .....1079 A.D.-This is a Discipline not Dogma, and only effective in the Roman Rite I believe, Most other Rites allow Priest to be married before Ordination, besides didn't Jesus say some men would make themselves eunichs for the Glory of God? And didn't paul uphold the Celebates? Sounds like scripture to me.
13. The Rosary .....1090 A.D.- This is Praying Scripture, just like the isrealites prayed the psalms. Do you regularly pray to God with scripture,? I do.
14. Indulgences .....1190 A.D.-Removes temporal punishment due to sin, because of the status of the heart in completing the task. The heart and contrition are key here.
15. Transubstantiation-Innocent III .....1215 A.D.-Believe LONG before that, had to be defined to defend against heresies.
16. Auricular Confession of sins to a priest .....1215 A.D.Happened since day 1
17. Adoration of the wafer (Host) .....1220 A.D.-The Eucharist has ALWAYS been understood as the Body and Blood of Christ. Adoration was brought forth to appreciate Jesus's body.
18. Cup forbidden to the people at communion .....1414 A.D.-Lots of reasons behind this read about Trent, anyway that Discipline was changed with Vatican II
19. Purgatory proclaimed as a dogma .....1439 A.D.-Doesn't change the fact it's true. Defined to protect against heresy.
20. The doctrine of the Seven Sacraments confirmed .....1439 A.D. Confirmed so heretic can't lie.
21. Tradition declared of equal authority with Bible by Council of Trent.....1545 A.D. They had to try to fix Luther's errors somehow, defining things helps people stay faithful.
22. Apocryphal books added to Bible .....1546 A.D.-NOOO this happen 400 years before Christ.
23. Immaculate Conception of Mary .....1854 A.D.-Hail Mary Full of Grace, what does this mean to you? Definitions support Catholic Theology here.
24. Infallibility of the pope in matters of faith and morals, proclaimed by the Vatican Council .....1870 A.D.-Confirmed what was held by the Orthodox even at the time of the Seperation.
25. Assumption of the Virgin Mary (bodily ascension into heaven shortly after her death) .....1950 A.D.-Just because it was defined then doesn't mean it was "made up" then
26. Mary proclaimed Mother of the Church .....1965 A.D. Well, She is.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
That is why the Apocriphal books were declared to be inspired by the Roman Catholic Church in 1546, so as to validate many of the non-Biblical faith and practices of the RCC.
Catholic Catechism:
969 "This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation . . . . Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix."512
47. The RC teaches: Mary is the co-mediator to whom we can entrust all our cares and petitions. (Catechisms 968-970, 2677).
The Bible teaches: Christ Jesus is the one mediator to whom we can entrust all our cares and petitions. I Timothy 2:5, John 14:13&14, I Peter 5:7.
Main Entry: me•di•a•trix
Pronunciation: -'A-triks
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin, feminine of mediator
Date: 15th century
: a woman who is a mediator
http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/pray0685.htm
Prayer to Our Lady, Health of the Sick
Virgin, most holy, Mother of the Word Incarnate, Treasurer of graces, and Refuge of sinners, I fly top your motherly affection with lively faith, and I beg of you the grace ever to do the will of God.
Into your most holy hands I commit the keeping of my heart, asking you for health of soul and body, in the certain hope that you, my most loving Mother, will hear my prayer.
Into the bosom of your tender mercy, this day, every day of my life, and at the hour of my death, I commend my soul and body.
To you I entrust all my hopes and consolations, all my trials and miseries, my life and the end of my life, that all my actions may be ordered and disposed according to your will and that of your Divine Son. Amen.
http://www.justforcatholics.org/a64.htm
Every Christian should consider Mary with respect. She is forever to be called blessed. Yet, I think it is a sign of disrespect when people expect from her things that she cannot give. Why would people pray to her, when the Bible clearly teaches us that we should pray to God and that God alone knows our hearts (1 Kings 8:39)? Why would people ask grace from Mary, when the Bible teaches us that all grace comes from God (1 Peter 5:10)? Why should people call her "our life" and "our hope", when the Bible teaches us that the Lord is our life and hope (Colossians 3:4; 1 Timothy 1:1)? Why would people make her a mediator, when the Bible says that there is one mediator, Jesus Christ (1 Timothy 2:5)? And why should people trust even the hour of their death wholly to her care? Isn't the Good Shepherd of the sheep willing to keep His own and bring them safely to glory (John 10:27,28)?
Sadly, in practice many Catholics worship Mary because they pray to her, trust in her and attribute to her titles and honors, which belong to God alone. May God grant them repentance. Rather than looking unto a creature, we should follow Mary in her godly example and apply to the Lord for salvation and all spiritual blessings.
--------------------
A Servant of Christ,
Drew
1 Tim. 3:
16: And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh..
Posts: 3978 | From: Council Grove, KS USA | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Pio
unregistered
|
posted
[QB] Here is a list of Catholic practices and dates instigated by papal decree that
have ABSOLUTELY NO BIBLICAL FOUNDATION:
1. Prayers for the dead .....300 A.D.- II Macabees(one of the books Luther graced your faith with by removing)
2. Making the sign of the cross .....300 A.D.-The sign of the Cross is a prayer with physical actions, it allows us to WORSHIP GOD with our whole bodies
3. Veneration of angels & dead saints .....375 A.D-Old Jewish Custom, I&II Macabees
4. Use of images in worship .....375 A D-Do you have a Cross in your Church? Image during worship if you do...
5. The Mass as a daily celebration .....394 A.D.-What's the problem with praying everyday?
6. Beginning of the exaltation of Mary; the term, "Mother of God" applied at Council of Ephesus .....431 AD.-Isn't Mary Jesus' Mother? Isn't Jesus God? If so then isn't mary mother of God?
7. Extreme Unction (Last Rites) .....526 A.D.-uh oh, praying for a dying person, surely God wouldn't approve of that.
8. Doctrine of Purgatory-Gregory I .....593 A.D.- Again an understanding from II Macabees, as well as several NT scriptures.
9. Prayers to Mary & dead saints .....600 A.D.-Old jewish Custom, evidence of this starts as early as the 1st century. Pray=to ask, therefore you ask me to pass you the salt you prayed to me. learn your English.
10. Worship of cross, images & relics .....786 A.D.-Worship of these items has NEVER been approved of in fact if you did you would break the First Commandment. I believe the word you want is Veneration, and that would be at the level of Dulia.
11. Canonization of dead saints .....995 A.D.-OK so now we've said that I believe this person is in Heaven. Doesn't this happen at most Protestant Funerals?
12. Celibacy of priesthood .....1079 A.D.-This is a Discipline not Dogma, and only effective in the Roman Rite I believe, Most other Rites allow Priest to be married before Ordination, besides didn't Jesus say some men would make themselves eunichs for the Glory of God? And didn't paul uphold the Celebates? Sounds like scripture to me.
13. The Rosary .....1090 A.D.- This is Praying Scripture, just like the isrealites prayed the psalms. Do you regularly pray to God with scripture,? I do.
14. Indulgences .....1190 A.D.-Removes temporal punishment due to sin, because of the status of the heart in completing the task. The heart and contrition are key here.
15. Transubstantiation-Innocent III .....1215 A.D.-Believe LONG before that, had to be defined to defend against heresies.
16. Auricular Confession of sins to a priest .....1215 A.D.Happened since day 1
17. Adoration of the wafer (Host) .....1220 A.D.-The Eucharist has ALWAYS been understood as the Body and Blood of Christ. Adoration was brought forth to appreciate Jesus's body.
18. Cup forbidden to the people at communion .....1414 A.D.-Lots of reasons behind this read about Trent, anyway that Discipline was changed with Vatican II
19. Purgatory proclaimed as a dogma .....1439 A.D.-Doesn't change the fact it's true. Defined to protect against heresy.
20. The doctrine of the Seven Sacraments confirmed .....1439 A.D. Confirmed so heretic can't lie.
21. Tradition declared of equal authority with Bible by Council of Trent.....1545 A.D. They had to try to fix Luther's errors somehow, defining things helps people stay faithful.
22. Apocryphal books added to Bible .....1546 A.D.-NOOO this happen 400 years before Christ.
23. Immaculate Conception of Mary .....1854 A.D.-Hail Mary Full of Grace, what does this mean to you? Definitions support Catholic Theology here.
24. Infallibility of the pope in matters of faith and morals, proclaimed by the Vatican Council .....1870 A.D.-Confirmed what was held by the Orthodox even at the time of the Seperation.
25. Assumption of the Virgin Mary (bodily ascension into heaven shortly after her death) .....1950 A.D.-Just because it was defined then doesn't mean it was "made up" then
26. Mary proclaimed Mother of the Church .....1965 A.D. Well, She is.
IP: Logged |
|
|
Caretaker
Advanced Member
Member # 36
|
posted
Here is a list of Catholic practices and dates instigated by papal decree that
have ABSOLUTELY NO BIBLICAL FOUNDATION:
1. Prayers for the dead .....300 A.D.
2. Making the sign of the cross .....300 A.D.
3. Veneration of angels & dead saints .....375 A.D
4. Use of images in worship .....375 A D.
5. The Mass as a daily celebration .....394 A.D.
6. Beginning of the exaltation of Mary; the term, "Mother of God" applied at Council of Ephesus .....431 AD.
7. Extreme Unction (Last Rites) .....526 A.D.
8. Doctrine of Purgatory-Gregory I .....593 A.D.
9. Prayers to Mary & dead saints .....600 A.D.
10. Worship of cross, images & relics .....786 A.D.
11. Canonization of dead saints .....995 A.D.
12. Celibacy of priesthood .....1079 A.D.
13. The Rosary .....1090 A.D.
14. Indulgences .....1190 A.D.
15. Transubstantiation-Innocent III .....1215 A.D.
16. Auricular Confession of sins to a priest .....1215 A.D.
17. Adoration of the wafer (Host) .....1220 A.D.
18. Cup forbidden to the people at communion .....1414 A.D.
19. Purgatory proclaimed as a dogma .....1439 A.D.
20. The doctrine of the Seven Sacraments confirmed .....1439 A.D.
21. Tradition declared of equal authority with Bible by Council of Trent.....1545 A.D.
22. Apocryphal books added to Bible .....1546 A.D.
23. Immaculate Conception of Mary .....1854 A.D.
24. Infallibility of the pope in matters of faith and morals, proclaimed by the Vatican Council .....1870 A.D.
25. Assumption of the Virgin Mary (bodily ascension into heaven shortly after her death) .....1950 A.D.
26. Mary proclaimed Mother of the Church .....1965 A.D.
--------------------
A Servant of Christ,
Drew
1 Tim. 3:
16: And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh..
Posts: 3978 | From: Council Grove, KS USA | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Caretaker
Advanced Member
Member # 36
|
posted
Pio:
"We are compelled to concede to the Papists that they have the Word of God, that we received it from them, and that without them we should have no knowledge of it at all."
~ Martin Luther, Commentary on St. John
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The protestants of the reformation came out of the apostasy of the Roman Catholic Church and her traditions. However there have been Believers separate from Rome from the First century, and Greek manuscripts not dependent upon the filtration through Rome's Latin.
A fascinating incident which occurred at the Vatican I Council illustrates Rome's relationship with the Bible:
"A curious thing happened at the so-called Ecumenical Council, held in the Vatican in 1869-70, at which the infallibilty of the Pope was decreed. Dollinger and Dupanloup, in supporting their arguments against the insensate proposal, wished to refer to some passages of Scripture; but NO ONE HAD A BIBLE IN THE WHOLE COUNCIL, nor could one be procured for them within the bounds of the Church, so one had to be borrowed from the Protestant chaplain of the Prussian Embassy!" (Alexander Robertson, The Roman Catholic Church in Italy, 1903, p. 216).
"At the time ROME was made the capital of Italy in 1870, a papal law required that copies of the Bible found in the possession of visitors to the papal city be confiscated" (Schaff, History of the Christian Church, VI, p. 727).
"That this hostility to the Word of God is not confined to the occupant of the Vatican, but pervades the entire body of the Romish clergy in all parts of the world, is evident from the RECENT WELL-AUTHENTICATED INSTANCES OF THE BURNING OF BIBLES BY PRIESTS IN BELGIUM, IN IRELAND, AND IN MADEIRA. Not less significant is the fact, stated in evidence before the Commissioners of Education, that among the four hundred students attending the College of Maynooth, there were not to be found more than ten Bibles or Testaments; while every student was required to provide himself with a copy of the works of the Jesuits Bailly and Delahogue" (Ireland in 1846-47, p. 33, by Philip Dixon Hardy, cited by Wylie, The Papacy, p. 183).
--------------------
A Servant of Christ,
Drew
1 Tim. 3:
16: And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh..
Posts: 3978 | From: Council Grove, KS USA | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Pio
unregistered
|
posted
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_primacy
You claim that I have been indoctronated By the Catholic Church, yet you know nothing of my faith journey to make such a claim. I was taught by PROTESTANTS that mathew was written in Aramaic long before I became Catholic
IP: Logged |
|
|
Caretaker
Advanced Member
Member # 36
|
posted
Pio:
Your understanding of Mathew exists as solid ONLY if Mathew was Originally written in Greek, which it wasn't. Mathew was the Only book of the New Testament written in Hebrew. It was held as such by ALL of Christianity until the 16th Century. It does not matter if the Oldest Copy of the New Testament that Scholars have is in Greek it doesn't mean that is the original language anymore than me saying My oldest bible is written in english, so the Bible must have been written in English.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Your statement is from the indoctrination of your church, not from reality.
The New Testament ALL of the New Testament was written in Greek first, Matthew was a later book, reflective of the earlier books of Mark and Luke.
http://www.bible.ca/jw-YHWH-hebrew-matthew.htm
Matthew, J. W. McGarvey, p8
2. The Language
There has been much difference of opinion among scholars as to whether Matthew originally wrote his narrative in Greek, or in the Hebrew dialect of his age. The most satisfactory statement of the evidence pro and on accessible to the general reader may be found in Smith's Bible Dictionary, Art. MATTHEW, gospel. or. The essential facts in the case are the following: All of the ancient writers, whose extant writings allude to the question, represent Matthew as having written a narrative in Hebrew; but not one of them claims to have seen it except Jerome, and he subsequently expresses doubt as to whether the book which he saw under this name was the genuine Matthew. If a genuine Hebrew narrative at anytime existed, it perished with the age which gave it birth. All of the writers just named were familiar with the Greek Matthew; and none of them speak of it as a translation. A large majority of the modern writers regard the Greek as the original, and it is a singular confirmation of the correctness of this opinion that Alford, who, in the first edition of his commentary, took ground in favor of a Hebrew original, in the later editions acknowledges that he has been constrained to abandon that position.
--------------------
A Servant of Christ,
Drew
1 Tim. 3:
16: And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh..
Posts: 3978 | From: Council Grove, KS USA | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Pio
unregistered
|
posted
"We are compelled to concede to the Papists that they have the Word of God, that we received it from them, and that without them we should have no knowledge of it at all."
~ Martin Luther, Commentary on St. John
IP: Logged |
|
|
Pio
unregistered
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by Caretaker:
http://www.gpcredding.org/petra.html
The Church of Rome says that because the Aramaic/Syriac original of Matthew 16:18, underlying the existing Greek text, uses the word KE'PHA' both as the proper name given to Simon bar Jonas and as the word for the Rock upon which Christ promised to build His Church, that therefore Peter (Aramaic, Ke'pha') is the rock and the foundation of the Church. Rome bases many of its claims of papal supremacy on this identification of the Apostle Peter with the Rock mentioned by Christ in this passage of Matthew's Gospel. If the defenders of Rome are wrong at this point then their argument that Peter is the Rock fails.
1. The Greek text is the inspired original of the New Testament. No Aramaic underlying text is extant. Though there are Syriac/Aramaic translations of these original Greek texts they cannot be relied upon to accurately represent any supposed original Aramaic usage. They are merely uninspired translations of the original Greek text and may or may not represent any Aramaic/Syriac original.
Conclusion
a. A reconstructed Aramaic/Syriac of the passage would properly be: "You are KE'PHA' (a movable stone) and upon this SHU`A' (a large massive rock) I will build my church."
This is in exact correspondence to the original inspired Greek text: "You are PETROS (a movable stone) and upon this PETRA (a large massive rock) I will build my church."
b. The Peshitta Syriac New Testament text, at least in its extant Manuscripts, mistranslated the passage in Matthew 16:18, incorrectly using the Syriac word KE'PHA' for both Greek words PETROS and PETRA.
c. The Church of Rome bases its doctrine of Peter being the Rock upon which the Church is built on this mistranslation and/or a falsely reconstructed Aramaic/Syriac original, ignoring the distinctions in the Aramaic language.
d. The Greek text does not teach that Peter is the rock. The rock is either Peter's confession of Christ, or Christ Himself, in Peter's answer to Jesus' earlier question "Who do men say that I the Son of man am?"
It's interesting that a copy of Mathew which lines up with Catholic Understanding is labeled a mistranslation based upon the translated Greek.
IP: Logged |
|
|
Pio
unregistered
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by Caretaker:
http://www.gpcredding.org/petra.html
The Church of Rome says that because the Aramaic/Syriac original of Matthew 16:18, underlying the existing Greek text, uses the word KE'PHA' both as the proper name given to Simon bar Jonas and as the word for the Rock upon which Christ promised to build His Church, that therefore Peter (Aramaic, Ke'pha') is the rock and the foundation of the Church. Rome bases many of its claims of papal supremacy on this identification of the Apostle Peter with the Rock mentioned by Christ in this passage of Matthew's Gospel. If the defenders of Rome are wrong at this point then their argument that Peter is the Rock fails.
1. The Greek text is the inspired original of the New Testament. No Aramaic underlying text is extant. Though there are Syriac/Aramaic translations of these original Greek texts they cannot be relied upon to accurately represent any supposed original Aramaic usage. They are merely uninspired translations of the original Greek text and may or may not represent any Aramaic/Syriac original.
Conclusion
a. A reconstructed Aramaic/Syriac of the passage would properly be: "You are KE'PHA' (a movable stone) and upon this SHU`A' (a large massive rock) I will build my church."
This is in exact correspondence to the original inspired Greek text: "You are PETROS (a movable stone) and upon this PETRA (a large massive rock) I will build my church."
b. The Peshitta Syriac New Testament text, at least in its extant Manuscripts, mistranslated the passage in Matthew 16:18, incorrectly using the Syriac word KE'PHA' for both Greek words PETROS and PETRA.
c. The Church of Rome bases its doctrine of Peter being the Rock upon which the Church is built on this mistranslation and/or a falsely reconstructed Aramaic/Syriac original, ignoring the distinctions in the Aramaic language.
d. The Greek text does not teach that Peter is the rock. The rock is either Peter's confession of Christ, or Christ Himself, in Peter's answer to Jesus' earlier question "Who do men say that I the Son of man am?"
IP: Logged |
|
|
Pio
unregistered
|
posted
Your understanding of Mathew exists as solid ONLY if Mathew was Originally written in Greek, which it wasn't. Mathew was the Only book of the New Testament written in Hebrew. It was held as such by ALL of Christianity until the 16th Century. It does not matter if the Oldest Copy of the New Testament that Scholars have is in Greek it doesn't mean that is the original language anymore than me saying My oldest bible is written in english, so the Bible must have been written in English.
IP: Logged |
|
|
Caretaker
Advanced Member
Member # 36
|
posted
http://www.gpcredding.org/petra.html
The Church of Rome says that because the Aramaic/Syriac original of Matthew 16:18, underlying the existing Greek text, uses the word KE'PHA' both as the proper name given to Simon bar Jonas and as the word for the Rock upon which Christ promised to build His Church, that therefore Peter (Aramaic, Ke'pha') is the rock and the foundation of the Church. Rome bases many of its claims of papal supremacy on this identification of the Apostle Peter with the Rock mentioned by Christ in this passage of Matthew's Gospel. If the defenders of Rome are wrong at this point then their argument that Peter is the Rock fails.
1. The Greek text is the inspired original of the New Testament. No Aramaic underlying text is extant. Though there are Syriac/Aramaic translations of these original Greek texts they cannot be relied upon to accurately represent any supposed original Aramaic usage. They are merely uninspired translations of the original Greek text and may or may not represent any Aramaic/Syriac original.
Conclusion
a. A reconstructed Aramaic/Syriac of the passage would properly be: "You are KE'PHA' (a movable stone) and upon this SHU`A' (a large massive rock) I will build my church."
This is in exact correspondence to the original inspired Greek text: "You are PETROS (a movable stone) and upon this PETRA (a large massive rock) I will build my church."
b. The Peshitta Syriac New Testament text, at least in its extant Manuscripts, mistranslated the passage in Matthew 16:18, incorrectly using the Syriac word KE'PHA' for both Greek words PETROS and PETRA.
c. The Church of Rome bases its doctrine of Peter being the Rock upon which the Church is built on this mistranslation and/or a falsely reconstructed Aramaic/Syriac original, ignoring the distinctions in the Aramaic language.
d. The Greek text does not teach that Peter is the rock. The rock is either Peter's confession of Christ, or Christ Himself, in Peter's answer to Jesus' earlier question "Who do men say that I the Son of man am?"
--------------------
A Servant of Christ,
Drew
1 Tim. 3:
16: And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh..
Posts: 3978 | From: Council Grove, KS USA | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Caretaker
Advanced Member
Member # 36
|
posted
The NT was written in Greek Pio, not Aramaic. The few uses of Aramaic words are then translated into Greek. The oldest manuscripts are in Greek.
Greek was the language which unified, and Rome which provided the roads.
The language of commerce was in Greek, the Septuagent was the Greek tanslation of the Old Testament, neccesary for the Jews of the Diaspora. It was James who was the Head of the Jerusalem Church, not Peter and rendered the final decision on the Gentile controversy.
It is the confession of faith, not the person of Peter upon which the true Church Catholic, (Universal) is founded, not the Roman Catholic Church.
--------------------
A Servant of Christ,
Drew
1 Tim. 3:
16: And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh..
Posts: 3978 | From: Council Grove, KS USA | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Pio
unregistered
|
posted
CareTaker,
can i ask a favor? I think I will continue to enjoy this discussion, but 1 when you respond can you aviod the large cut and paste? just post the link. and if you are quoting scripture I don't need it always typed out just put look up... I can do that much quicker than reading on here. It helps my pages load quicker when there's not as much text.
Thanks, pio
IP: Logged |
|
|
Pio
unregistered
|
posted
Caretaker, God bless you...
After you called me convoluted you posted all of that... ![[BooHoo]](graemlins/boohoo.gif) ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Anyway to your arguments...
quote:
Originally posted by Caretaker:
[QB] http://www.justforcatholics.org/a124.htm
Even if this can be conclusively proven (and I think it cannot), it does not confirm the papacy, i.e. the universal rule of the bishop of Rome over the whole church. In fact there is a sense in which the apostle Peter, together with the other apostles and the prophets, form the foundation of the church because the Gospel was first given through them. This has nothing to do with the claimed universal jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome as the Roman apologist would have us believe.
The key to the Catholic Understanding is that Peter is the Rock and he was the First to be given the keys to the kingdom. You seem to insist that the Holy Spirit guided the translation of Mathew from Hebrew to Greek. I don't know why, because if The holy Spirit Did then why would we have so many different English translation? The Holy Spirit Guided the writing, but translation seems to fall on the wisdom of man for the most part here. The reason why Catholics are so certain kepha was the word used by Christ...it's the only feasible word that could have spawned the meaning obtained by both Petros and Petra being in the Greek. Kepha means BOTH. So a translator reading in context understands that a "Big Rock" is needed for the second half of the statement, but that since the "small rock" can be used for peter's masculine name. Further the Bible also at time calls Peter Cephas, which seems like a clear reference to the Aramiac name/word used.
quote:
Still, assuming they know what Jesus originally said in Aramaic, the Catholic apologist goes on to explain why Jesus employs the two different Greek words.
Jesus didn't employ two Greek words, he employed ONE Aramaic word. The Translators took the ONE word and employed two Greek Words.
quote:
Why not use petros in the second part of the sentence if the Holy Spirit wanted to make it absolutely clear that He was building His church on the son of Jona, and avoid the gender problem? If petra and petros mean the same thing (as the Catholic apologist insists), Jesus could have said:
because then you would say..."See peter is the little rock Jesus is still the Big Rock..." And would still refuse to see the Divine meaning of the scripture.
quote:
I hope you can see the emptiness of the Catholic argument. They want it to sound that it is obviously clear that Jesus built His church on Peter. It is not so. And though any Catholic reading this article may not be inclined to trust me, I would appeal to you to listen to St Augustine’s explanation of this message:
“For on this very account the Lord said, ‘On this rock will I build my Church,’ because Peter had said, “Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God.’ On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed, I will build my church. For the Rock (petra) was Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself also built. For other foundation no man lay that this is laid, which is Christ Jesus.” (Augustine, Homilies on the Gospel of John).
So EVERYTHING Augustine said is right? Then why aren't you Catholic?
IP: Logged |
|
|
Caretaker
Advanced Member
Member # 36
|
posted
Amen Dale!!!!!
It was the Apostolic confession of who Christ is, not the person of Peter upon which the Church Universal is founded. Not the Roman Catholic Church, but the true Body of Christ, His Church which is made up of all who place their faith and trust alone in Christ alone and are truly justified by the Blood of the Passover Lamb of God.
We are justified solely through the Blood of Christ.
Romans 5:1,9 “Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:” “Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.” Man’s legal standing with Heaven is one of condemnation, and worthy of the righteous wrath of almighty God. Romans 3:23 “ For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God;”
Justification is the act of God whereby He accepts the blood of Christ as the complete and satisfying sacrifice for all human sin, propitiation, thus changing our legal status and establishing a means of reconciliation with man.
Believers are justified by the grace of God through faith. Titus 3:7 “That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.” Romans 3:28 “ Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.” We see that the status of man is changed from that of the condemned to that of an heir, one who is able to inherit. Thus man is reconciled to God through the propitiation of Jesus Christ and restored to full legal righteous standing.
If one is truly saved, justified, then the Holy Spirit will begin the process of Sanctification, with the evidence of the Fruit of the Spirit. The Believer will turn their heart more and more to God, and thus from the heart keep His Commandments.
The word sanctification means to be set apart. The Holy Spirit is endeavoring to make the believer holy (set apart from the world), and spiritual (set apart to reflect the character of God). This is being accomplished in four phases.
First, the believer at conversion in receiving Christ, is set apart from sin (forgiven) and set apart to Christ, this is preparational sanctification. Matt. 23:19 “Ye fools and blind; for which is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift.”
Second, the believer is set apart from the worldly realm and is set apart to the Heavenly realm, this is positional sanctification. John 17:21 “That they all may be one, as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.”
The third form of sanctification sets apart the believer from the “old man” (sin nature), to the “new man” (thirst after righteousness). This is practical sanctification. 1Thess. 5:23 “And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
The fourth form of sanctification sets apart from the stain of sin and sets us apart to be presented pure and without blemish before the judgment seat of Christ. This is prospective sanctification. Eph. 5:27 “That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
What could be clearer than the contrast of fleshly fruit and spiritual fruit found in Galations 5:
19
Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20
Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21
Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
22
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23
Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
24
And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
25
If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.
26
Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.
And these are the commandments which we are to keep:
1 John 3:
23: And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.
24: And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.
Step away from the sacraments as the bestowal of grace, Pio.
Step away away from Mariology and the practices of idolotry Pio.
Open your heart to the Word of God and the God of the Word, not some wafer on the alter.
Open your heart to the pure faith that can ONLY be found when one opens their heart solely to the Lord Jesus Christ.
There is only ONE Mediator between God and man:
I Timothy 2:5,
5: For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
John 14:13&14,
13: And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
14: If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.
I Peter 5:7.
7: Casting all your care upon him; for he careth for you.
Open your heart to the TRUE Jesus, Pio.
Romans 10:
8: But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
9: That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10: For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
11: For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
12: For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
13: For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
--------------------
A Servant of Christ,
Drew
1 Tim. 3:
16: And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh..
Posts: 3978 | From: Council Grove, KS USA | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
becauseHElives
Advanced Member
Member # 87
|
posted
Amen Drew,
Pio, Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, the translation does not change the meaning of what Yeshua was saying….
Yeshua was not referring to Peter as the Rock He was going to build the Church on,
but the revelation that Yeshua was the Son of the living God.
“You are the Mashiach, the Son of the living God”
--------------------
Strive to enter in at the strait gate:for many, I say unto you will seek to enter in, and shall not be able. ( Luke 13:24 )
Posts: 4578 | From: Southeast Texas | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Caretaker
Advanced Member
Member # 36
|
posted
http://www.justforcatholics.org/a85.htm
James On Justification By Works
Question: Contrary to the Protestant "Justification by Faith Alone," James tells us clearly that justification is not by faith only! "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only" (James 2:24).
Answer: Like many other Catholics, perhaps you misunderstand what we mean by "sola fide." If you understand what Protestants mean by "faith alone" you would never use James 2 to oppose it. Please allow me to clarify this important issue.
Historically, Protestants use the slogan "faith alone" to express the Gospel so clearly explained by the apostle Paul, "that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law" (Romans 3:28; 4:5-8; Galatians 2:16; 3:10-13, 5:2-4). An ungodly person is not freed from guilt by the deeds of the law, that is, by loving God and his neighbor (because no one keeps the law perfectly). To become right with God, the sinner must believe in Another, in Christ Jesus. God freely justifies the person who does not rely on his works, but who believes in the Lord Jesus Christ. The believer is legally acquitted and treated as righteous - all because of Christ.
In Romans and Galatians, the apostle Paul has this question in mind: How can a guilty sinner be justified by God? Essentially Paul answers that a sinner is justified by faith in Christ, and not by the merit of his works. That is what we mean by "sola fide." In his letter, James deals with a different question altogether. There is a man who claims to have faith and who assents to the cardinal doctrines of the Gospel, including the first, namely, the unity of God. Yet this person is devoid of good works and is full of hypocrisy, so much so, that he insults a poor beggar with pious words without giving him anything. So, says James, can this sort of faith save him? "What does it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have no works? Can faith save him?"
James is not asking whether a person is saved by faith plus the merit of his good works. He is asking about the kind of faith that saves. He mentions two types, the real and the counterfeit. Works distinguish one from the other: "Show me your faith without your works; and I will show you my faith by my works." Real faith is living, manifesting itself in good works. Counterfeit faith is dead, mere assent to doctrine, devoid of works.
James asks, "Can faith save him?" The answer is simply this, "If it is real faith, manifest in good works, yes. But if it is a counterfeit 'faith', no, it cannot save him."
No contradiction exists between Paul and James. The apostle Paul insists that it is the man "that worketh not, but believeth" that is justified by God. But that is not all. Paul also describes the character of true faith - "faith which worketh by love."
It is also important to note that Paul and James use the word 'justification' in different senses. In the Bible the word 'justification' is often used in the legal sense. 'To justify' denotes a judge declaring a person righteous; it is the opposite of 'to condemn' which means to declare guilty (Deuteronomy 25:1; Job 13:18; Isaiah 50:7-8; Matthew 12:37; Luke 18:14; etc.). Paul often uses the word 'justification' in this legal sense.
'To justify' is also used in a declarative sense. A person who tries to show himself that he is in the right is said to be trying to justify himself (see Job 32:2; Luke 10:28,29; 16:14,15). James has this aspect of justification in mind. We have seen that his concern is to show the reality of the faith professed by the individual.
Thus when James says, "You see then how that by works a man is justified," he simply means that his works show that he is for real. Furthermore, he insists that a man is not justified "by faith only" - because the 'faith' that is alone is dead. Profession of faith is not enough. Mere mental assent to the Gospel truths is not enough. One must have living faith, and that is manifest by good works. His good works declares that he and his faith are genuine.
A Roman Catholic commentary concurs: "James does not here imply the possibility of true faith existing apart from deeds, but merely of the making of such a claim...James is not opposing faith and works, but living faith and dead faith...What was true in the case of Abraham is true universally. 'by works and not by faith alone': As is clear from the context, this does not mean that genuine faith is insufficient for justification, but that faith unaccompanied by works is not genuine." [1]
In brief: 1. A sinner is saved by faith in Christ and not on account of his own works. 2. True, saving faith always produces good works. 3. Mere assent and profession of faith alone, without works, do not save.
These Scriptural truths agree with the teaching of historic Protestantism. "Faith which receives Christ's righteousness and depends on Him is the sole instrument of justification, yet this faith is not alone in the person justified, but is always accompanied by all the other saving graces. And it is not a dead faith, but works by love" (1689 Baptist Confession of Faith). It is by faith alone (and not by the merits of our works) that we are justified on account of Christ; yet the faith that justifies is never alone (solitary, unfruitful, barren) if it is genuine.
James’ teaching is altogether different from the doctrine of the Roman Church on justification. The Council of Trent teaches that good works are not merely the fruit and signs of justification received by faith, as James teaches. The Roman church goes way beyond that: the Catholic performs good works to maintain and increase personal righteousness by which he is ultimately accounted to have fully satisfied the Law of God and allowed into heaven (Trent, session 6, chapter 16 and canon 24). Instead of demonstrating faith, his religious works done with the intent to gain merit only goes to show that he does not really trust Jesus for salvation.
Let us not think that "justification" is simply the polemic between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. Our understanding and commitment to this doctrine determines our eternal destiny. We do well to take the opportunity to test the reality of our religion:
1. Do I really believe in Christ? Or am I trusting in my own works for salvation?
2. Do I really believe in Christ? Or am I deceiving myself with empty words about faith without the evidence of good works, love and holiness in my experience?
Reference
[1] Leahy T. W. "The Epistle of James," The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, ed. Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Roland E. Murphy (Bangalore: Theological Publications in India, 2000), 912-913. [back]
Further study
Justification by Faith, by Brian Schwertley. Chapter 4 is entitled: "What About the Book of James?"
Copyright Dr Joe Mizzi. Permission to copy and distribute this article without textual changes.
--------------------
A Servant of Christ,
Drew
1 Tim. 3:
16: And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh..
Posts: 3978 | From: Council Grove, KS USA | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Caretaker
Advanced Member
Member # 36
|
posted
http://www.justforcatholics.org/a124.htm
Rocks And Stones
Question: Please comment on the following argument which I read in a Catholic website. It can be summarized like this:
1. Jesus spoke Aramaic. So, what Jesus said to Simon in Matthew 16:18 was this: ‘You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church.’
2. The Aramaic word kepha is translated petra or petros in Greek. The two words are synonyms in first century Greek.
3. Jesus could not have said, ‘You are petra, and on this petra I will build my Church’ because that would have entailed giving Simon a feminine name. So, Jesus changed the ending of the noun to render it masculine. “You are Petros, and on this petra I will build my Church.”
4. That is the real reason why Jesus employed two different words and not as Protestants argue, that ‘this rock’ may refer to something or somebody else other than Peter.
Answer: The question about the papacy is broader than the interpretation of petros and petra in Matthew 16:18. Do not be fooled by Catholic apologists who make a big deal about ‘this rock’ as if the papacy is vindicated if it could be proved that ‘this rock’ refers to Peter. This passage says nothing about universal jurisdiction, successors or Roman bishops.
Even if this can be conclusively proven (and I think it cannot), it does not confirm the papacy, i.e. the universal rule of the bishop of Rome over the whole church. In fact there is a sense in which the apostle Peter, together with the other apostles and the prophets, form the foundation of the church because the Gospel was first given through them. This has nothing to do with the claimed universal jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome as the Roman apologist would have us believe.
But let me just deal with the convoluted Aramaic/Greek argument that you kindly sent to me.
It is true that Jesus spoke in Aramaic. But how do the Catholic scholars know what Jesus said in the Aramaic language, since all the existing manuscripts of the Gospel of Matthew are written in Greek? You realize that this business of what Jesus must have said in Aramaic is pure speculation. I don’t know what were Jesus’ original words in Aramaic, neither do our Catholic friends. Should we build an argument - indeed the structure of the church of Jesus Christ - on mere speculations?
The Catholic apologist bends over backwards to convince us that petros and petra are equivalent Greek words that mean the same thing. They say that it is merely a question of different gender ending. The truth of the matter is that these are two distinct Greek words with similar, but not identical meaning. According to the Greek Lexicon, petros is “a rock or a stone”, whereas petra is “a rock, cliff or ledge.” Jesus illustrates the meaning of petra as a massive foundational rock: “Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock” (Matthew 7:27).
Still, assuming they know what Jesus originally said in Aramaic, the Catholic apologist goes on to explain why Jesus employs the two different Greek words. He puts these words in the mouth of a Protestant missionary:
"Wait a second," he said. "If kepha means the same as petra, why don’t we read in the Greek, ‘You are Petra, and on this petra I will build my Church’? Why, for Simon’s new name, does Matthew use a Greek word, Petros, which means something quite different from petra?"
To this the Catholic apologist answers triumphantly:
“Because he had no choice," I said. "Greek and Aramaic have different grammatical structures. In Aramaic you can use kepha in both places in Matthew 16:18. In Greek you encounter a problem arising from the fact that nouns take differing gender endings. You have masculine, feminine, and neuter nouns. The Greek word petra is feminine. You can use it in the second half of Matthew 16:18 without any trouble. But you can’t use it as Simon’s new name, because you can’t give a man a feminine name—at least back then you couldn’t. You have to change the ending of the noun to make it masculine. When you do that, you get Petros, which was an already-existing word meaning rock.”
So that’s why He uses Petros! Not to give Simon a feminine name!
But I’m sure that the reader can think of a third option. Contrary to the Catholic apologist assertion, He had another choice!
Why not use petros in the second part of the sentence if the Holy Spirit wanted to make it absolutely clear that He was building His church on the son of Jona, and avoid the gender problem? If petra and petros mean the same thing (as the Catholic apologist insists), Jesus could have said:
“Thou art PETROS and upon this PETROS I will build my church.”
There, the third option! That way any ambiguity would have been avoided – if indeed Jesus wanted to identify the foundation rock with the apostle Peter! Needless to say, that is not what Jesus said. Rather, He said:
“Thou are PETROS and upon this PETRA I will build my church.”
Christ insisted on a distinction! At the very least we can say that the rock upon which the church is built could refer to something other than Peter.
So, rather than speculate on Jesus’ original words in Aramaic, we should study the inspired words of the Holy Scriptures, and in Matthew 16:18, the Holy Spirit employed two different words to distinguish between ‘Peter’ and ‘the rock’. That is what we can say with certainty.
I hope you can see the emptiness of the Catholic argument. They want it to sound that it is obviously clear that Jesus built His church on Peter. It is not so. And though any Catholic reading this article may not be inclined to trust me, I would appeal to you to listen to St Augustine’s explanation of this message:
“For on this very account the Lord said, ‘On this rock will I build my Church,’ because Peter had said, “Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God.’ On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed, I will build my church. For the Rock (petra) was Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself also built. For other foundation no man lay that this is laid, which is Christ Jesus.” (Augustine, Homilies on the Gospel of John).
"This rock" is Peter's confession; the rock, the foundation is Jesus Christ!
Copyright Dr Joe Mizzi. Permission to copy and distribute this article without textual changes.
--------------------
A Servant of Christ,
Drew
1 Tim. 3:
16: And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh..
Posts: 3978 | From: Council Grove, KS USA | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Pio
unregistered
|
posted
You have posted alot, all of which I do have a response, give me some time to disect it into smaller chunks to respond to. Meanwhile, I'll take care of a couple of foundational ideas.
1)Jesus spoke Aramaic, NOT GREEK. Mathew was written in Hebrew, NOT GREEK. To analyze Mathew Chp 16 by analysis of the Greek language is leading yourself down a path of false rationalism. The Aramaic work for Petros and Petras is Kepha. There is NO distinction between small and little in this form. We can see evidence in the Bible which shows that this word was the one used by Christ when they call Peter Cephas.
When you translate the Aramaic word Kepha into greek you get the word Petra. Now when translating Mathew from Hebrew into greek you can not give a feminie name (petra) to a male therefore the word petra is changed into petros which in greek, coincidentally means small rock. you analysis of the meaning is flawed.
2)Mathew Chp 18 DOES give authority to the entire group of the Disciples confirmed to them by the day of Pentecost. This is understood by the Catholic Church by recognizing the Magiserium of the Church. This does not Change the Fact that Peter was named the first, upon which the Church would be built.
3) The book of Acts shows us in the first two Chapters the creation of a unified Church structure, When PETER stands up and indicates that a successor of Judas must be elected from within themselves. This is the start of Apostolic Succession. This Authority is Also confirmed when Paul goes to Jerusalem to meet with Peter, in order to obtain his blessing on the ministry.
4)We are save by the Grace of God, through faith and shown by our works. if there are no works then True faith does not exist.
James 2:14-17 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well," but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it? So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
If you keep reading the rest of the Chapter it is CLEAR that works are neccessary.
5) Deeds of the LAW and deeds of Faith are not the same things. There are Laws that are created, but they are not meant to stifle faith, but to create rules to help in the practice the Works of Faith. It becomes necessary to UNDERSTAND the meaning of those laws when you are following them. Gods laws ARE neccessary to keep.
The verses you posted about being saved apart from the law are not violated using the reasoning of #4 and #5
6)The last thing I would like to adress right now is the idea of the Church. The bible refers to many different forms of the Church.
As you assert there are individual Local Churches. These Churches have the ability to do many things hopefully for the positive.
These Churches still followed the teachings of another, for example Paul, or Timothy. They were instructed by these men who were the Apostles or Apointed successors of the Apostles.
We also then have the Church as a whole. Jesus wished that we may remain ONE. not 8,000 individual homegrown, I don't like your music splinter groups. Paul tells us that we are all part of the body of Christ. How can a foot walk without knowing what the leg is doing? or can a hand grab without the arm being attached? The body must be unified in belief in order to be effective.
unfortunately the split of the Orthodox and Catholic Churches in 1072?? began a horrible chain of events followed up by the Anglican breakoff, the protestant Reformation, and protoreformation. The Church has many parts who are not together. It is time that we recognize the fact that dispite good intentions, the CHURCH needs to be unified, and following the teachings of Christ Unified under the Apostles, not the local pastor.
IP: Logged |
|
|
Caretaker
Advanced Member
Member # 36
|
posted
http://www.justforcatholics.org/a71.htm
One True Catholic Church
Question: I am an ex-Protestant and I hope to be received into full communion with the Catholic Church. I am not so much eager to become a Catholic, as I am eager to be united with the True Church that Christ founded (and I do believe there can be only one, not many), and to follow the apostles' teaching.
Answer: Tragically you mistake the Roman Catholic Church for the one true church of Jesus Christ. You want to become catholic - and yet by joining the Church of Rome, you will become "Catholic" in name only and not in truth. In Christian theology the word "catholic" describes the entire church of Jesus Christ. The word "catholic" simple means "universal". All God's people from every nation and in every era, all who are redeemed by the blood of Jesus, together form the catholic church.
The Lord Jesus has one universal - or catholic - church. He is the head, and all the redeemed are members of His body.
"...the church is subject to Christ...Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish...For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones." (See Ephesians 5:24-30).
Aren't Evangelical Christians subject to Christ since they follow the teaching of His Word? Doesn't Christ love them too? Didn't He give Himself on the cross for them also? Yes surely, and therefore Evangelicals are members of His body, the catholic church! But when Rome boasts that it is the one and only true church of Christ, what shall we conclude? Shall we say that Christ loved and died for Roman Catholics only?
In the New Testament, every local congregation is called a church, and in this sense, there are many churches. The distinguishing feature of a true church of Christ is not the submission to the church of Rome, but faithfulness to the teaching of Christ and love for the brethren (John 8:31; John 13:35). The various churches we read about in the New Testament, though undoubtedly different in character and emphasis, recognized each other as members of the same one true church of Jesus Christ. They were genuinely catholic and universal in their outlook.
But you, recognizing only the Roman church as the one true church of Christ, would immediately exclude the millions of faithful Christian churches in the Orthodox, Waldensian, Protestant, Baptist and other traditions. That is certainly against the spirit of catholicism we read in the Bible. John Gerstner argues:
Strictly speaking "Roman Catholic" is a contradiction of terms. Catholic means universal; Roman denotes a particular place. It is the Protestant and not the Romanist who believes in the catholic church. Protestants believe the church is universal or catholic; Rome cannot discover it beyond her own communion (Gerstner J., The Gospel According to Rome).
As a Baptist you did not regard your denomination as the exclusive church of Jesus Christ, did you? You regarded other churches as valid manifestations of His Church, despite the differences in some doctrines and practices. You embraced all Christians as dear brothers and sisters in Christ despite the different denominational labels. What happened since then that compels you to look at the church from such a narrow and sectarian perspective? No denomination or local assembly is perfect in doctrine or practice. The reality is that the church, God's family, is found in all the local assemblies of Christians that believe in Him, obey His Word and love the brethren (imperfectly and yet truly).
Copyright Dr Joe Mizzi. Permission to copy and distribute this article without textual changes. < BACK TO Q&A
--------------------
A Servant of Christ,
Drew
1 Tim. 3:
16: And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh..
Posts: 3978 | From: Council Grove, KS USA | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Caretaker
Advanced Member
Member # 36
|
posted
Pio:
With the exception that the Holy Spirit guides him to a greater degree, because he holds the Apostolic Succession of Peter
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Your statement is the error taught by the Roman Catholic Church. Come to the truth of Christ Pio. It is by faith alone in Christ alone that one is redeemed.
Catholic Catechism
816 "The sole Church of Christ [is that] which our Savior, after his Resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care, commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it. . . . This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in (subsist it in) the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him."267
The Second Vatican Council's Decree on Ecumenism explains: "For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained. It was to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, that we believe that our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the People of God."268
824 United with Christ, the Church is sanctified by him; through him and with him she becomes sanctifying. "All the activities of the Church are directed, as toward their end, to the sanctification of men in Christ and the glorification of God."292 It is in the Church that "the fullness of the means of salvation"293 has been deposited. It is in her that "by the grace of God we acquire holiness."294
"Outside the Church there is no salvation"
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336
882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."402 "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."403
883 "The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter's successor, as its head." As such, this college has "supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff."404
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The Greek word used for rock (petra) is played against Peter (petros). Some use this passage to teach that Peter was the foundation stone of the church, that he had a primacy among the apostles, and that he became bishop of Rome. The verse will scarcely bear the first of these propositions, and certainly none of the others. Peter may be meant by the rock, but he was not the exclusive foundation.
The twelve-fold foundation of the apostles of the church:
Ephesians 2:
19
Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20
And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
21
In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
22
In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.
Rev. 21:
14
And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
This seems borne out by the fact that the words spoken unto Peter in Matt. 16:18, were spoken to all of the disciples in Matt. 18:
Matt. 18:
18
Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
19
Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.
20
For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
The rock or foundation of the church is the confession (ultimately the doctrine) of the apostles, which became normative for the true church.
The word church (Greek ekklesia), means literally “ a chosen or called out assembly”. Thus the use of the word as a technical term for an assembly or group of believers in Christ was quite natural. It was not viewed as an external organization, denomination, or hierarchical system. The New Testament Church is a local autonomous congregation or an assembly which is a church in and of itself. John writes to 7 churches, in His Revelation, not to one.
Scofield commentary:
16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Peter
There is the Greek a play upon the words, "thou art Peter petros-- literally 'a little rock', and upon this rock Petra I will build my church." He does not promise to build His church upon Peter, but upon Himself, as Peter is careful to tell us
(1 Peter 2:4-9)
2:4 Coming to Him, a living stone--rejected by men but chosen and valuable to God--
2:5 you yourselves, as living stones, are being built into a spiritual house for a holy priesthood to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
2:6 For it stands in Scripture: Look! I lay a stone in Zion, a chosen and valuable cornerstone, and the one who believes in Him will never be put to shame!
2:7 So the honor is for you who believe; but for the unbelieving, The stone that the builders rejected-- this One has become the cornerstone, and
2:8 A stone that causes men to stumble, and a rock that trips them up. They stumble by disobeying the message; they were destined for this.
2:9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for His possession, so that you may proclaim the praises of the One who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light.
church:
2 (Greek - ajpovllumi (ek=="out of," kaleo =="to call"), an assembly of called out ones). The word is used of any assembly; the word itself implies no more, as, e.g., the town-meeting at Ephesus Acts 19:39 and Israel, called out of Egypt and assembled in the wilderness Acts 7:38. Israel was a true "church," but not in any sense the N.T. church--the only point of similarity being that both were "called out" and by the same God. All else is contrast.
Following are several of the doctrinal statements made on Justification at the council of Trent. After each Canon are scriptures that contradict that Canon.
Finally, you will see the word "anathema" used many times by the Council. This means that those who disagree with the doctrines of this Council are cursed. In Gal. 1:8-9, the word "anathema" is used. The curse must come from God. Therefore, we conclude that according to Roman Catholicism, anyone who disagrees with the following Canons are cursed of God. The Roman Catholic church excommunicates those under anathema. In other words, excommunication means being outside the Christian church. Being outside the church means you are not saved.
In spite of what Catholicism states, the Bible speaks differently. Following each Canon is a list of appropriate scriptures countering the Catholic position.
1. CANON 9: "If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema."
"Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin" (Rom. 3:20).
B. "Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 3:24).
C. "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law" (Rom. 3:28).
D. "For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness" (Rom. 4:3).
E. "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ" (Rom. 5:1).
F. "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8).
G. "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost" (Titus 3:5).
2. CANON 12: "If any one shall say that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in the divine mercy pardoning sins for Christ's sake, or that it is that confidence alone by which we are justified ... let him be accursed"
.
"But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name" John 1:12).
A. "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law" (Rom. 3:28).
B. "For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness" (Rom. 4:3).
C. "Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; 27Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself" (Heb. 7:25-27).
D. For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day" (2 Tim. 1:12).
3. Canon 14: "If any one saith, that man is truly absolved from his sins and justified, because that he assuredly believed himself absolved and justified; or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and justification are effected; let him be anathema."
.
"For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness" (Rom. 4:3).
A. "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ" (Rom. 5:1).
4. Canon 23: "lf any one saith, that a man once justified can sin no more, nor lose grace, and that therefore he that falls and sins was never truly justified; or, on the other hand, that he is able, during his whole life, to avoid all sins, even those that are venial,- except by a special privilege from God, as the Church holds in regard of the Blessed Virgin; let him be anathema."
.
"He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him" (John 3:36).
A. "And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day" (John 6:40).
B. "And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand" (John 10:28).
C. "That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord" (Rom. 5:21).
D. "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us" (1 John 2:19).
E. "These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God" (1 John 5:13).
•
Canon 24: "If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema."
. "O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? 2This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?" (Gal. 3:1-3).
A. "Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. 2Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. 3For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law" (Gal. 5:1-3).
•
Canon 30: "If any one saith, that, after the grace of Justification has been received, to every penitent sinner the guilt is remitted, and the debt of eternal punishment is blotted out in such wise, that there remains not any debt of temporal punishment to be discharged either in this world, or in the next in Purgatory, before the entrance to the kingdom of heaven can be opened (to him); let him be anathema."
. "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ" (Rom. 5:1).
A. "And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; 14Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross" (Col. 2:13-14).
• Canon 33: "If any one saith, that, by the Catholic doctrine touching Justification, by this holy Synod inset forth in this present decree, the glory of God, or the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ are in any way derogated from, and not rather that the truth of our faith, and the glory in fine of God and of Jesus Christ are rendered (more) illustrious; let him be anathema.
. This council declares that if anyone disagrees with it, they are damned.
--------------------
A Servant of Christ,
Drew
1 Tim. 3:
16: And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh..
Posts: 3978 | From: Council Grove, KS USA | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Pio
unregistered
|
posted
"If you really do some studying on the Catholic, you ll find out quickly how far off base they are.
Did you know when the Pope puts on that big helmet, he supposedly is linked to God and God is talking thru him? "
That is not quite True to Catholic Teaching. God and the Pope are never "linked" anymore to God than you or I. With the exception that the Holy Spirit guides him to a greater degree, because he holds the Apostolic Succession of Peter. The ONLY time the Pope is infallibile is when he speaks Ex Cathedra (from the Chair).
This is not to imply that EVERY TIME the Pope sits down he is speaking infallibly. I means that when the Pope speaks on matters of defining Morals and Dogma, the Holy Spirit will guide him. This has only happened two times in the entire History of the Catholic Church.
I believe you are refering to the Papal Tiara. It is a sign of the Pope's role as the leader of the Country of the Vatican, like a Crown a king would wear.
From Wikipedia...
"Pope John Paul I, decided against a coronation, replacing it with a ceremony of what was called "Inauguration of the Supreme Pontificate"; and after John Paul I's sudden death, Pope John Paul II told the congregation at his Inauguration:[1]
"The last Pope to be crowned was Paul VI in 1963, but after the solemn coronation ceremony he never used the tiara again and left his Successors free to decide in this regard. Pope John Paul I, whose memory is so vivid in our hearts, did not wish to have the tiara; nor does his Successor wish it today. This is not the time to return to a ceremony and an object considered, wrongly, to be a symbol of the temporal power of the Popes. Our time calls us, urges us, obliges us to gaze on the Lord and immerse ourselves in humble and devout meditation on the mystery of the supreme power of Christ himself."
If a pope believe that his connection with God rest in a helmet then why would he stop using it?
IP: Logged |
|
|
shadowmaker
Advanced Member
Member # 3696
|
posted
If you really do some studying on the Catholic, you ll find out quickly how far off base they are.
Did you know when the Pope puts on that big helmet, he supposedly is linked to God and God is talking thru him?
Posts: 272 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
ahar
Advanced Member
Member # 5810
|
posted
As I recall the first inquisition was in the 13th Century, under the Dominicans ("the black friars") as a reaction to the Cathars (at term that grew up later, as at the time they were known simply as the 'heretici') in what is now southern France (Pays d'Oc).
It was the first Crusade on European soil against fellow Catholics, and although it was started because of the spread of the Cathar religion in sourthern France, the King of France and northern Barons went along with it as an opportunity to steal land from the southern barons who came under Pedro II rather than the French monarch.
As I remember, they mostly concentrated on burning any Cathars they found.
--------------------
Cheers
Andy
Posts: 290 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Aaron
unregistered
|
posted
There is no doubt that the Catholic religion is corrupt and that some of her members are responsible for grave evils against the saints.
I am studying "Babylon" at his time. I am quite certain the Catholic religion is of her offspring. However, her influence reaches far before the Catholic institution was even created...as far back as Cain and Abel. She has always sought to fill her cup with the blood of the saints.
What I'm realizing is that false religion is not content with merely preaching false teaching. She systematically attempts to snuff out the true believers, the saints whose mother is "the Jerusalem that is above". Cain did this with Abel, and so on. All who promote Babylon's ministry are diametrically opposed to those "in Christ" and "our destruction" is their motivation. Grave matters indeed.
Ah, but our Lord reigns, does He not? ![[Cross]](graemlins/cross.gif)
IP: Logged |
|
|
Caretaker
Advanced Member
Member # 36
|
posted
Amen Dale!
It was the Society of the Jesuits, founded by Ignatious under Paul III in 1540, which was the enforcement arm, militia of the Roman Catholic Church. The original intent was the conversions of Moslems, but they soon spread into the pagan lands, and throughout Europe to counteract the reformation. It was the Jesuits who were the primary instigators of the Inquisition and the sadistic torture and murder of millions. Accountable only to the Pope, they held sway over Kings and Bishops alike.
The Council of Trent was also during this time frame, and a premice of their Canons was that faith alone in Christ alone was anathema and whoever supported such doctrine was condemned.
--------------------
A Servant of Christ,
Drew
1 Tim. 3:
16: And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh..
Posts: 3978 | From: Council Grove, KS USA | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
becauseHElives
Advanced Member
Member # 87
|
posted
Roman Catholicism and Christianity are as far apart as the east is from the west.
The Inquisition is an institution of the Roman Catholic religion. It was developed to stem "heresy", i.e., the gospel of salvation as found in the Bible. The Inquisition was zealously carried out by Romish Inquisitor-Generals, priests, and monks. And oh yes, they had the support of the secular authorities. Know ye not that the Dark Ages were dark because the papacy was at the height of its monstrous glory--ruling over kings and queens and encouraging recusancy towards any ruler that did not bow to the devil/papacy? Romanism is the Devil's religion, therefore papists do the works of the Devil. Only the Devil could inspire men to the deeds recounted by Samuel Clarke in his book Martyrology circa 1651. Papists have tortured and killed Christians for centuries. These are grievous crimes that are loathsome to even list but multitudes endured these for the gospel's sake. Christian friend, if YOU were before the Inquisition and they wanted you to say Jesus is a piece of bread, would you do it? Many of your brothers and sisters held out for the cause of Christ. They resisted to the blood striving against sin. Here are a just a few of the tortures they went through--
Skin flayed off of head, face and body
Nipples pulled off
Fried alive in pans
Bound to pillar head down and roasted
Mouth slit back to ears
Crucified upside down
Put in cauldrons of boiling oil
Thrown out of windows upon upward facing spears
Bodies gored through mouths with pikes
Arms cut off
Torturous slow burning e.g., burn soles of feet, then up to ankles, mid-calf, etc. until dead
Bellies burnt until bowels fell out
Women stripped, hung from tree by their hair and scourged
Tourniquet placed on head and twisted until eyes came out
Ears bored out
Tongue cut out
Set down (by pulley) into a fire by degrees
Thrown to dogs
Hung up by the heels and choked with smoke
Smothered in caves on mountains
Hearts pulled out, which the papists gnawed with their teeth.
Some roasted upon spits over a soft fire
Some had their bowels pulled out
A smith had his brains beaten out on his anvil with a hammer
Some had sharp instruments forced under their nails and other body parts
Some racked until their bowels broke out
Some had their throats cut with butcher knives
Knocked on the head with axes
Naked women left hung up by one leg on trees until they died
Some slain and their body parts set on stakes for 30 miles streches
Some had their noses and breasts pulled off with red hot pinchers
Some had their flesh torn with the claws of wild animals
Murdered in a church during sermon
Some hanged by one foot, their hands and breasts in the water
Some hung up by one hand with weights of lead at their heels
Two tied together and slain
Some were torn in pieces by horses
A legion of soldiers cut some to pieces with swords
Some had boots of boiling oil put on their legs over a small fire.
Some hung up on trees by the middle til they died of hunger
Women's bellies ripped up and their children trod underfeet
--------------------
Strive to enter in at the strait gate:for many, I say unto you will seek to enter in, and shall not be able. ( Luke 13:24 )
Posts: 4578 | From: Southeast Texas | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
