Proof from the Scriptures .....................
-
-
New Member
Contact:
PM
Member since 06/18/2012
Conclusive proof from the inerrant Scriptures that Catholics are without God! 2 John 9Anyone who runs aheadand does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God;Since Roman Catholics have advanced beyond the teaching of Christ and the apostlesand promote more... Jn 8:43-44 Why is my language not clear to you?
Because you are unable to hear what I say.
You belong to your father, the devil,
and you want to carry out your father’s desires.
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 06/26/2002
quote:
Originally posted by Conqueror
Jesus held up his own body and blood at the last supper and the Catholics present feasted like cannibals hoping to obtain eternal life, by becoming like Jesus.
There were many paedophiles since and failed miserably to become like Jesus.
There are still many Catholics hoping to get the same results.
they are either very deceived or extremely stupid or both!
Funny, but I have never known a pedophile priest. I have know a few pedophile pastors, several adulterers, we all know televangelists who screwed things up pretty bad.. I suggest you apply those stereotypes to yourself conquered. If a pedophile priest means all Catholics are pedophiles, then I suppose a tv evangelist that masturbates on hookers must apply to all evangelists. When you get done spanking it, maybe we can have a real discussion, but if your just going to hide behind sick prejudice then there is no conversation. Your simply not ready for it. 
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 06/26/2002
quote:
Originally posted by God4me
Jesus was speaking metaphorically about eating His body.
The true ancient Church never believed it, Only the false churches believed it.
Jesus gave every believe rthe power and authority, Not just the Apostles, And there is no such Biblical doctrine od Apostiolic succession.
Jesus wasn't speaking metaphorically, the only ancient church which is still here did believe it and Jesus clearly gave the apostles authority. This can easily be seen in the book of acts. The succession is clear in people like Paul who were not original apostles and demonstrated by the simple fact the he wrote epistles. If everyone had the power and didn't need the authority in the apostolic church then Paul didn't need to write one word. That aside from the fact that Paul clearly asserts his authority and office. Use your head for something else than to babble out of man.
-
-
Contact:
Member since 03/26/2010
Mike do you know of any first churches that were in Rome that were burned down by the Romans because of people that believed in the Eucharist being the real body and blood of Jesus?Because this would prove something to me that just because they were in Rome does not mean they were part of the government of Rome that did slaughter the Christians. Does anyone know?
baby3
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 01/25/2012
Location: USA
Baby3,
The open practice of Christianity was illegal in the Roman Empire until 313 AD.
The first open Council was held at Nicaea (Iznik Turkey) in 325.
St. Justin the Martyr, around 150 A.D., a Gentile convert to Christianity wrote his two apologies and a dialogue to:
quote:
1. The First Apology addressed to Antoninus Pius, his sons, and the Roman Senate;[19]
2. a Second Apology addressed to the Roman Senate;
3. the Discourse to the Greeks, a discussion with Greek philosophers on the character of their gods;
4. an Hortatory Address to the Greeks;
5. a treatise On the Sovereignty of God, in which he makes use of pagan authorities as well as Christian;
6. a work entitled The Psalmist;
7. a treatise in scholastic form On the Soul; and
8. the Dialogue with Trypho.
St. Justin's works survive and are available to read online:
here are his quotes from around 150 A.D. on the Eucharist in the Mass:
quote:
EucharistJustin's statements in his First Apology are some of the earliest Christian expressions on the Eucharist.
"And this food is called among us ???a??st?a [the Eucharist] ... For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” [80]
See also multiple other ancient quotes from the Early Church Fathers concerning the Eucharist at:
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html
St. Justin's witness:
quote:
Not only did Justin teach Christianity as the ultimate truth and write in its defense, he also defended Christianity in public discussions.
Two men he publicly debated in Rome were the heretic Marcion and the Cynic philosopher Crescens.
It seems that Crescens was hot at being defeated in public debate and brought Justin and six of his students to the attention of the Roman prefect, Rusticus, around the year 165.
When the Christian believers refused to sacrifice to the Roman gods as demanded, they were condemned, scourged, and beheaded.
Standing a firm witness to Christian truth even in death, Justin gained the name "Martyr" by which he is still known.
Edited by bwellmysoul on 07/06/2012 13:52:51
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 11/17/2007
Location: Canada
Or you could ask an ancient Roman. Pliny the Younger wrote about the early Christians from the perspective of an outsider. He was not a Christian, and he investigated the claims of cannibalism and found them to be false, but the reasons that the Romans thought this were understandable:
quote:
Christians were accused of cannibalism (they ate the body of Christ), incest (“brothers” and “sisters” practiced “agape” at love feasts, i.e. communion), and subversion (they met despite edits prohibiting exclusive gatherings). “They were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food–but ordinary and innocent food.”
Source
This is from his letter (linked to from the link above):
Pliny the Younger, Letters 10.96-97
Pliny the Younger to the Emperor Trajan
quote:
Meanwhile, in the case of those who were denounced to me as Christians, I have observed the following procedure: I interrogated these as to whether they were Christians; those who confessed I interrogated a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; those who persisted I ordered executed. For I had no doubt that, whatever the nature of their creed, stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy surely deserve to be punished. There were others possessed of the same folly; but because they were Roman citizens, I signed an order for them to be transferred to Rome.
He had no trouble sending them for execution. He did not hate Chrisitans per se, but was not a fan either. If they were doing anything that was against the law, he had no qualms about prosecuting them.
quote:
They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food–but ordinary and innocent food. Even this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had forbidden political associations. Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses. But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition.
Pliny the Younger was fair. He was asked to investigate charges of cannibalism and incest among the early Christians.
There are other writings by others that get even more detailed, and quite disgusting, but as outsiders are providing guesses at what they think we do. One Q. Caecilius Natalis wrote about Christians sacrificing infants covered in meal so that they would appear like bread to the participants, and these infants would be consumed by those present. Others wrote about a man being sacrificed and eaten to represent Jesus.
These rumours caused many Pagan Romans to hate the Christians and be all to willing to turn them in. Why would they think these things? Well, the early Christians believed that they really were eating the flesh and blood of their Lord, Jesus Christ. What else were the Romans to believe?
And there is no need to look for burning churches in ancient Rome - the early Christians were not allowed to worship publically so they hid in the catacombs beneath the City during periods of persecution and at times even worshipped in there among the dead. Would you do that if your church was in cahoots with the Government?
Christian art in the Catacombs show the Eucharist.
Now a better way to see if the Pagan Roman Government liked the Catholic Church is to look at the early Persecutions. And it would also be useful to note that all of the earliest Popes were executed in Rome. Starting with Peter. This was not the case of the Catholic Church going after the "true" Christians. The Catholics were the ones being killed, starting with the Popes.
Pax et Bonum,
Faith_at_Large
"There are some in the Church, who not only do not do what is good, but even persecute it, and hate in others what they neglect to do themselves. The sin of these men is not that of infirmity or ignorance, but deliberate willful sin." — Pope St. Gregory the Great (AD 540-604)
-
-
Contact:
Member since 03/26/2010
Wow I guess my curiosity has been relinquished and my thirst for truth is over flowing in abundance:) Now I would like to know when the Vatican started how old is the building when did it come into existence?So far I know that Rome was a devil and hated the Christians and all Protestants agree with this but did they know that the Catholics agree also? And all the bones in the catacombs are of those who choose to stay hidden and die rather then face the Romans? Where did their food and water come from?I'm sure there is history on this?Why was it so important for the Christians to stay in Rome? Was there any conflict of interest after the Romans said they could practice their beliefs openly? Why was it in 15th century the church and the protestants were killing? Why didn't the church just let them go instead of playing God and making it worst? If one of your family members wants to leave would you kill them because they did not agree with what you believed?People had intelligence back then and knew better this is the part I don't understand.Can you shed some light?
baby3
Edited by baby3 on 07/15/2012 13:12:22
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 11/17/2007
Location: Canada
The pagan Roman Government was the Beast and the various emperors in the first three centuries of Christianity arrested and executed many Catholics.
The Catecombs were a burial place for those who had died, regardless of the reason. Christians did not generally die down in the Catecombs, they were caught and executed above ground. Sometimes in the arenas.
It was important for the Christians to remain in Rome because that was God's Plan.
Jesus did not send Christians out to hide in the shadows but commanded them to make disciples of ALL nations. THe early Christians were warned that many would die for their faith, that they would be hated for Christ's name. This as not a surprise.
But they also knew that Christ would overcome, that no matter how bad it seemed, the Church would prevail. And it did. The Catholic Church outlasted the Roman Empire. That is the Power of God.
And as for the Reformation, Where was the Church supposed to let them go. Many Reformers allied themselves with secular governments that sought to attack the Church. The Devil has always sought to destroy what Christ had built, and he never fought harder or won more souls than during the Reformation.
Heresy doesn't save.
As the Bible says, fear not that which can kill the body, but fear that which can destroy the body and soul in Hell.
If a Christian is wrongly executed in a state of Grace, he or she would go strait to Heaven. But if a heretic is allowed to spread his heresy, that heretic will take many souls to Hell.
The Church's responsibility is to save souls not earthy lives at any cost. That said, most were not killed by the Church but by secular authorities seeking to enforce their own power on earth.
Pax et Bonum,
Faith_at_Large
"There are some in the Church, who not only do not do what is good, but even persecute it, and hate in others what they neglect to do themselves. The sin of these men is not that of infirmity or ignorance, but deliberate willful sin." — Pope St. Gregory the Great (AD 540-604)
-
-
Fifth Member
Contact:
PM
Member since 07/20/2012
Location: Namibia
quote:
Originally posted by God4me
There is no such Biblical teachings as the body & blood of Christ in the eucharist.
There is no such Biblical teachinngs as the Apostolic succession.
Okay God4me,
You actually believe that your understanding of the Bible is infallible. If that is not what you believe, then your interpretation is simply your opinion and any one can disagree with it.
I repeat: you can only insist that your understand of Scripture is the only correct one if you believe that you are infallible and can make infallible statements about the Bible.
[I will come back later to ask you how you became infallible and why others (those who disagreew ith you) can not be infallible.]
-
-
Fifth Member
Contact:
PM
Member since 07/20/2012
Location: Namibia
quote:
Originally posted by God4me
[1]Jesus wasn't speaking literally when he said it was His body, It was metaphorically.
1. Where does the Bible say "Jesus wasn't speaking literally when he said it was His body, It was metaphorically"?
2. Do you know what that means? That means that we should not trust what the Bible says but rather trust what God4me says the Bible says (i.e. Bible+God4me=Word of God).
3. But who appointed God4me to that position? that is the question.
-
-
Fifth Member
Contact:
PM
Member since 07/20/2012
Location: Namibia
What I found out recently is that most (if not all) proponents of Sola Scripura are hypocrites:
1. After telling us to read the Bible for ourselves; that we do not need priests to tell us what the Bible says; that we do not need an infallible interpreter,
2. They suddenly turn around and tell us that we should not believe what the Bible says but rather believe what they say the Bible says.
3. We need an infallible interpreter, after all!
|
|
Subscribe by Email
RSS