Who needs Popes some of them were vile others are not worth talking about.
I could never join up with such a system as Romanism because I simply dont believe the junk the Vatican spews out neither would I believe that the Pope is a Holy Father or anything even resembling it
I also would not bow before lifeless plasrercasts & light candles under them or pray to them that in my opinion is blatant idolatry finally I dont like the Popes dress or his fishes hat
Why is this such a surprise and controversey? The RCC has always taught this.
And..in another BereanBeacon vid the RCC is denounced for ecumenizing, that is, for having dialogue and co-operation with non-Catholic christian churches. Can't these guys even keep their stories straight?
This is a bunch of BUNK...You ever heard of Ignatius of Antioch? Irenaues? Justyn martyr? Hippolytus? Tertulian? Augiustine? Ambrose? Anselm? Cyprian...Not to mention that you can fin any PUBLIC source especially Britanicca with all list of Popes straight from Peter, Linus, etc....NOoo...You are totally off the wall..
Read John 4:19-24 That is the scripture that describes a real church. All that is needed is truth and spirit. So yeah. PLEASE GO READ THE SCRIPTURE. JOHN 4:19-24.
before the 600 there was no idea of the pope until 900 with the rise of the papal states. In the year 1054 the eastern orthodox church split over the pope. There is more to christianty then the bible though and there is no limit to the heresy without a clear order of leadership. I am not saying a pope. I am saying a church leadership that can condem hersery and speak for the church. Prostantism has no limit to its lawlesness and heresy.
@MrRichardwinkel You need to read the list of Popes by Eusebius in 200's AD...Irenaues --179 AD....You need to read simple ECF....or just google list of popes... They're all in them.
this clown is a Fraud Richard Peter Bennett ... The real Father was R M Bennet .....
From 1971, the parish passed to the Dominicans with Rev. Fathers K. Sheridan, Ronan Cusak and R.M. Bennet serving in that order. Also assisting for short periods during this time were Fathers Cockburn, Duffy and Rivas. The latter is currently serving as Archbishop of St. Lucia. Taken from the Parish web site... what a phony bastard
Use what Jehovah God has given you. First of all, he has given you “intellectual capacity” so that you can distinguish truth from falsehood. (1 John 5:20) He has also made it possible for you to identify Satan’s designs. (2 Corinthians 2:11) In fact, he has given you everything you need to counteract Satan’s attempts to mislead you.—Proverbs 3:1-6; Ephesians 6:10-18.
@TheButtascotchbro1 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. John 8:43,44
They will be happy to help you learn about the true God, find out what he requires of you, and enjoy the peace and security that come from worshipping God in the way that he approves. Is that not a worthwhile goal?
—Jehovah’s Witnesses, now numbering over seven million around the world. By advocating and adhering to God’s Word, the Bible, they have done what no other group or organization has been able to do, namely, unite people of diverse nationalities, languages, ethnic backgrounds, and races in worship of the one true God, Jehovah.
One lady who had enjoyed several conversations with Jehovah’s Witnesses drew her own conclusions and said: “I know many religions, and they are all similar to one another. You are the only ones who are completely different from the others.”
*** w09 6/1 p. 15 Do All Religions Lead to the Same God? ***
True Religion Is Set Apart
These fruits—self-sacrificing love, the desire to sanctify Jehovah’s name, the proclamation of God’s Kingdom, separateness from the world, and faith in the Bible—all characterize true worshippers. Such fruits also set genuine worshippers apart from other religions.
Which religion is known for publicizing the name Jehovah and for proclaiming that God’s Kingdom is mankind’s only hope for peace on earth? Jehovah’s Witnesses publish the good news of the Kingdom in 236 countries and territories, disseminating literature in over 470 languages.—Matthew 6:9, 10.
. Let your kingdom come. Let your will take place, as in heaven, also upon earth.” Jesus assigned priority to the sanctification of God’s personal name, Jehovah. He expressed the wish that through God’s Kingdom, Jehovah’s will should be done on earth.
*** w09 6/1 p. 15 Do All Religions Lead to the Same God? ***
What other fruits did Jesus have in mind that would identify genuine disciples? In what is commonly known as the Lord’s Prayer, Jesus started by saying: “Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified
In addition, the Witnesses accept the Bible as God’s Word and are convinced that “all Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.”—John 17:14, 17; 2 Timothy 3:16, 17.
*** w09 6/1 p. 15 Do All Religions Lead to the Same God? ***
Moreover, Jehovah’s Witnesses follow Jesus’ example in staying clear of political and social controversies. “They are no part of the world, just as I am no part of the world,” Jesus said of his disciples.
They can rightfully claim to be the only major conscientious objectors in the Third Reich.” During that conflict, Witnesses in many lands chose to suffer reprisals rather than to promote or support the war.
*** w09 6/1 pp. 14-15 Do All Religions Lead to the Same God? ***
For this reason it would be unthinkable for true Christians to take up arms against one another in war. Do church members keep to this standard? In World War II, the only major religious group that consistently and steadfastly refused to support the war effort in any way were Jehovah’s Witnesses. Dr. Hanns Lilje, former bishop of the Protestant Church in Hannover, Germany, wrote about the Witnesses: “
. By this all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love among yourselves.” True followers of Christ must display love for one another that is so outstanding as to characterize them as true worshippers in the eyes of observers.—John 13:34, 35.
*** w09 6/1 p. 14 Do All Religions Lead to the Same God? ***
First, true worship unites believers in love. Jesus explained to his disciples: “I am giving you a new commandment, that you love one another; just as I have loved you, that you also love one another
The gospel indeed shows the Apostles handed on, ordained other Apostles.
Read Acts 1:24-26- " And praying, they said: You, Lord, who know the heart of all men, show whether of these two you have chosen, to take the place of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas has by transgression fallen, that he might go to his own place. And they gave them lot, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles."
Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Matthew 7:13-15 Which are you on?
If you reformers are the church, then why do you all disagree in beliefs? 35,000 denominations, some believe in infant baptism, some don't some say baptism saves, some deny. some believe one can lose salvation, some don't,etc,etc..
If you are a true christian you should pray for the catholic church the pope and all other people, especially non believers.As christians it is not up to us to judge anyone on this planet, it's not upto christians to try and bring down any christian denomination wether you think it's fake or not.God will judge all, at the right time and it is not for us to say he is good he is bad.Mind your own business make sure you are right with god,make sure you are doing Gods work.The rest is in Gods hands.
Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Matthew 7:13-15. True Christians are the few.
From Bishop Liguoris' "The Glories of Mary", APPROVED by the vatican! "She (Mary) is . . . the only hope of sinners: (p. 69),"We will be heard and saved sooner by going to Mary, and invoking her holy name, than that of Jesus our Savior. We will find salvation sooner going to the mother than going to the Son" (p. 82),"Many things asked of God and not received are asked and received from Mary (p. 82). All obey the precepts of Mary, even God" (p. 115). ALL CATHOLIC LIES!
@kiwichristian2009 Dude, is removing context from statements, quoting sources you havent read & convincing people (yourself) that Catholics are all crazy pagans your Christian mission? Do you think the droves of Protestant scholars who have converted to Catholicism, or the 2000 years of Catholics scholars all missed some obvious heresy? Why not try engaging the opposing arguments & making an argument yourself, instead of lying & slandering something you dont understand.
@johnthreesixteen316 Hello friend. Its not friendly to insinuate that Catholics are not Christian. My point to Kiwi was that just as he can cite random nuns who left the Catholic Church, I can cite many theologians who converted from Protestant to Catholic.
@johnthreesixteen316 Yes, particulary the ex-catholic NUNS and PRIESTS and JESUITS. Surely these people would know MORE about the catholic cult than the normal victims in the pews or confessionals.
@bobert432 I removed nothing, my friend. I have quoted what comments have been approved or endorsed by the vatican. If the statements are not meant at face-value, why approve them? I do not see any other context in the above blasphemous statements. The nazi party had a lot of members, including your current pope, does that make them right? Does that make them valid as a "good cause"? What i am saying is the people who converted to catholicism or the membership numbers mean diddly-squat.
@kiwichristian2009 including the part that goes "..." I'm sure that's in the original text. Almost every president of Germany since WWII was in the Hitler youth, and most of them were Protestants. That could because the Hitler Youth was not a volunteer organization, but compulsory. Pope Pius XII saved the lives of over 1 million Jews during the Holocaust. This is a number of example of your misleading and fallacious statements. You're obviously a master of them.
@kiwichristian2009 Im not a Protestant & I vehemently disagree with the Protestant worldview. But I have a lot of Protestant friends, who are good people. I don't hate Protestants. I'd be a sad person if I devoted more passion to hating/ridiculing Protestantism than to loving Christ & my Catholic faith. Also, Mary was the mother of Christ whom the angel of God (angels speak for God) called 'full of grace;' Elizabeth said all would call her 'blessed.' Does Jesus approve of you disparaging her?
@bobert432 The true church of Jesus Christ is a relationship, not a membership. It isn’t any particular protestant denomination or Roman catholic. It doesn't have a roof or an address. We are the Body of Christ, past, present and future from all around the world who have accepted Christ’s work on the cross for our sins 2000 years ago, once and for all. Our names have been written in the Book of Life from the beginning. 1 cross + 3 nails = 4 given.
@bobert432 Hello friend. Of course Christians love Mary of the Bible. Unfortunately, the 'Mary' of Roman Catholicism has become an elevated entity with attributes of Christ Himself. Due in part to the demonic apparitions pretending to be Mary.....Fatima etc.
@johnthreesixteen316 Hello friend. Its not friendly to insinuate that Catholics worship demons. Perhaps you should learn about these apparitions first.
@bobert432 Hello friend. Any apparition which claims to be our co-redeemer, co-redemptrix, our intercessor, our suffering servant, universal mediator of graces, our refuge, our advocate to save us, our mediator, immaculately conceived, the savior of the world, and suffers on our behalf for the atonement of sins IS A LIAR. Jesus Christ alone is our Saviour. This isn't Mary. This is Satan. Satan's coolaid looks good.....it smells good....it tastes good.....oops you're dead.
@johnthreesixteen316 Are you under the impression that saints & martyrs dont suffer on behalf of others as Christ did? Mary suffered at the foot of the cross. She is our advocate as all the saints are; none are equal to Christ. Read Maccabees. Mary is depicted as a central figure of Revelations; is called full of grace by God Himself through his angel; Elizabeth says all will call her blessed. She bore the son of God, as a virgin. If you want to argue against the Catholic view of Mary, ok [cont]
@bobert432 The woman in revelation is a picture of the Israelite nation as shown in Gen37:9,10 with the sun representing Jacob, the moon his wife Rachel, and the 12 stars representing the tribes of Israel. Christ was born of Israel. The Israelite nation is often referred to as a woman in Isaiah54:5 and Jeremiah31:32.This woman cannot be mary because the woman IS ON EARTH DURING THE TRIBULATION, whereas mary's spirit is in heaven at that time.
@kiwichristian2009 yea, your reading of Revelations is not the universal view. There are dozens of leading interpretation on Revelations. Catholics hold that this is Mary giving birth to the Lamb. Again, since most of the Christian world has never accepted sola scriptura, our reading of Revelations is not simply a literal black and white story of end times. Read the Lambs Supper by Scott Hahn, a former Protestant theologian.
@kiwichristian2009 why is it not the Biblical view: Because you dont find everything we do contained in the Bible? Yea, its precisely a case of the "bible-alone." I dont believe I have the burden of showing the Biblical explanation for every truth. There is certainly Biblical foundation for the role of Mary, which Ive discussed. Jesus never said Mary would be incapable of appearing to children in Portugal in 1917. It isnt unBiblical to believe in Fatima, unless you believe in sola scriptura.
@johnthreesixteen316 Ok, I disagree. And since the Book of Revelation doesnt say she is Israel, the Catholic view is at least as credible as yours. The point being, you press me for Biblical roots of Marion doctrines, I give you one & you submit an opposing interpretation of the verse I gave you. Ok, I don't agree with your interpretation. Still, youll say Marion doctrines are "unBiblical" because they contradict your preferred interpretation of the Bible. So Biblical = what you say is Biblical.
@johnthreesixteen316 Yes, we also consider Mary the new Eve based on this exact text in Gen. She, as a virgin, gave birth to the only Son of God; God's angel called her "full of grace"--NO ONE is called full of grace in the BIble, except Mary. And Angels are messengers of God; meaning they literally speak God's words. Elizabeth said all would call her blessed. Then a woman in revelations gives birth to the lamb of God (Jesus). Also, why can't a woman in prophecy be a literal woman? says who?
@bobert432 Hello friend. The Bible says there is ONE Mediator, not 2, ONE Saviour, not 2, ONE Redeemer, not 2. Is this my interpretation? The apparitions are lying. Satan is wearing a 'Mary' costume and he is trying to grab as many by the collar as he can on the way down.
@johnthreesixteen316 Mary isnt the redeemer or the savior. This isnt Catholic belief, its Protestant spin. Like the first arc of the covenant carrying the Manna, the 10 Comm, Moses' staff, Mary as the 2nd arc (Rev. 11 & 12) carried the Bread of Life, the Word & Christs' Priestly authority in her womb: Christ is all of these things in one person. God chose Mary to carry Christ in her womb, protect him as a child & bring Him into the world. Shes not the redeemer, she "just" gave birth to Him.
@johnthreesixteen316 The term Coredemptrrix does not = co- ("equal to the") redeemer. "Co" = "With." Shes literally, with the redeemer: She carried the redeemer in her womb. She accepted God's call that she give birth to the 2nd member of the Trinity & raise him to manhood. She thus played a unique role in the redemption. Can anyone else claim this? Did God say "Hail, full of grace" to anyone else you know of? Truly, the attempt to diminish the significance of Mary is as "unBiblical" as it gets.
@johnthreesixteen316 [cont] but to act like we are all demon worshippers, is absurd. There is abounding evidence that early Christians universally respected & praised Mary; AND believed in the Assumption. She lived in the house of John in Ephesus. John WROTE Revelations which depicted her as a central figure. I've heard credible arguments against the Catholic view of Mary, yours is not one of them. Like Kiki2009, youd prefer slander & slogans for truth & clarity.. friend.
@bobert432 The devil within the Church today is actually protected by certain Church authorities from the official devil-hunter in the Church -- the exorcist. ... To the question, 'Are there men of the curia who are followers of Satan?' Milingo responded, 'Certainly there are priests and bishops. I stop at this level of ecclesiastical hierarchy because I am an archbishop, higher than this I cannot go.' - Archbishop Milingo
@bobert432 "Archbishop Milingo is a good bishop and his contention that there are satanists in Rome is completely correct. Anybody who is acquainted with the state of affairs in the Vatican in the last 35 years is well aware that the prince of darkness has had and still has his surrogates in the court of St. Peter in Rome." - Malachi Martin. Ex Jesuit
@kiwichristian2009 Martin was a devout Catholic & died one. Pointing out the obvious that evil men have reached places of authority in the Church really doesnt prove anything. Im aware of all of this. Paul VI also died a devout Catholic. You know why? Because no matter how many evil men enter the church, "the gates of hell will not prevail" against her. Christ never said that Satan would not try to attack the Church.
@kiwichristian2009 Quoting devout Catholics like Malachi Martin and Paul VI, who condemned the heretical attacks on the Church, actually proves the virtue of the Church. Many Communist spies became Catholic priests too. John Paul II was followed by Communists in Poland for decades. Why do you think all of this evil targets the Church? What is Satan's interest in trying to bring down what you seem to think is an inherently Satanic institution?
@johnthreesixteen316 [cont] Here, let me try this form of argument: The Bible does not include any reference to "sola scriptura" at any point, anywhere. It is a self-contradicting dogma as it requires one to go outside the Bible in order to arrive at it.....Therefore, Martin Luther must have been a Satanic demon...."opps, you're dead." That's a logical argument, right?
@bobert432 Listen, it is not a case of "sola scriptura" ( a catholic word/phrase ). It is a case of catholic doctrines and teachings being CONTRARY to the Word of God.
@kiwichristian2009 Martin Luther coined sola scriptura. He was a Catholic priest who started the Protestant Revolution. Almost every Protestant subscribes to this view. By your own arguments, you seem to as well. YOU confine the debate to isolated verses, & dont accept that there is extra-Biblical evidence for certain dogmas. Dont you get it? Its not relevant that the Bible doesnt expressly include the word "Confession" for example because the practice came about BEFORE the Bible was canonized.
@kiwichristian2009 This is the arrogance of the Protestant position. Your Bible would not exist as it does without Luther, Calvin, Zwingli & the English Reformation. You obviously subscribe to Sola Scriptura. And then you say you're not a Protestant & therefore dont have to defend Protestant dogmas. You are a Christian who "protests" the Catholic Church & reads a Protestant Bible and endorses a Protestant view of the Bible, are you not? Yea, you're a Protestant, sorry.
@kiwichristian2009 Protestants like yourself play a bit fast & loose with the term "Biblical." If I said to show me the Catholic teaching about Mary that is not-Biblical, youd go into your usual isolated verses that appear to contradict something. The problem is, your whole approach is not-Biblical. Sola Scriptura isnt Biblical. Isolating verses to the exclusion of other verses, as well as history & tradition, isnt Biblical. And from where did you get the authority to determine what is Biblical?
@bobert432 I'm not a protestant, my friend. And again, you cannot show me anything that i have said that is contrary to the Word of God. The Holy Spirit of God gives me authority. We are told repeatedly to study the Word of God, to search the scriptures. We are NOT talking about BIBLE-ALONE. We are talking about you guys saying one thing, and the Bible saying PLAINLY the complete opposite. Now, SHOW ME where i have said something about mary that is NOT in the Bible.
@kiwichristian2009 I don't believe the Bible contradicts any of what you have said it does. Christ says Peter was his rock, & that whatever he binds & loses on earth will be bound & loosed in heaven; & the gates of Hell will not prevail against His Church. Since I dont subscribe to sola scriptura, I accept that the early Church, being one, Catholic & Apostolic, began certain practices under the authority vested in Peter. Confession was a way of avoiding harsh public punishments for sin. [cont]
@kiwichristian2009 [cont] I therefore dont need to show you the Biblical verse for "Confession" because I dont subscribe to sola scriptura, like YOU DO.
@kiwichristian2009 Hello friend. Shameful isn't it? "the only hope of sinners". Thanks again for bringing light into this world of darkness. Unfortunately, many will see the light and turn their faces away.
@johnthreesixteen316 It is shocking. Yet catholics say "oh, the context is wrong". To that i say "rubbish!". If the statements do not mean what they say, why say them?
"On August 24, 1527, Roman Catholics in France, by prearranged plan, under Jesuit influence, murdered 70,000 Protestants within the space of two months. The Pope rejoiced when he heard the news of the successful outcome."-Western Watchman, Nov.21, 1912 (Catholic)
The apocrypha was never quoted or alluded to by Jesus Christ or any of the apostles. The sermons in the Book of Acts, which outline Jewish history, do not included apocryphal events. Josephus explicitly excluded them from his list.They are not, and have never been, in the Jewish canon.Many of the Apocryphal books teach heresy, contrary to the Word of God.Their literary style is legendary and fantasy. Some stories are grotesque and demonic.
In the 1490’s another Oxford professor, and the personal physician to King Henry the 7th and 8th, Thomas Linacre, decided to learn Greek. After reading the Gospels in Greek, and comparing it to the Latin Vulgate, he wrote in his diary, “Either this (the original Greek) is not the Gospel… or we are not Christians.” The Latin had become so corrupt that it no longer even preserved the message of the Gospel
If the Bible is a Catholic book, why does it nowhere mention the Catholic Church? Why is there no mention of a pope, a cardinal, an archbishop, a parish priest, a nun, or a member of any other Catholic order? If the Bible is a Catholic book, why is auricular confession, indulgences, prayers to the saints, adoration of Mary, veneration of relics and images, and many other rites and ceremonies of the Catholic Church, left out of it?
@kiwichristian2009 Protestantism, sola scirptura, sola fide, calvinism, predestination & reference to the Bible itself are not found in the Bible. Nor is individual interpretation, Pastors, Bible studies, Anglicanism or the existence of thousands of individual sects. In fact, John is crystal clear about church unity. Catholic is a Latin term that = universal. Since Catholics dont believe in sola scriptura, there is no dilemma in accepting that there should be a universal church.
These guys don't even understand what the Pope said. But they have been denouncing Catholics as pagans anyway for years and now the Pope puts out a statement saying basically there are not Churches for Christ established HIS CHURCH, one Church and they go off on a rant of nonsense.
@imromancatholic Pope Nicholas assumed the title of God. His words are:—‘I am all in all and above all, so that God Himself, and I, the Vicar of God, hath both one consistory, and I am able to do almost all that God can do . . . Wherefore, if those things that I do be said not to be done of man, but of God. WHAT CAN YOU MAKE ME BUT GOD? Again, if prelates of the Church be called and counted of Constantine for gods, I then, being above all prelates, seem by this reason to be ABOVE ALL GODS. "
lucy993, It sure wasn't the protestants who put the bible together. There were no protestants back then. The Bishops and Pope can be traced back through history. The people you talk about were CATHOLIC. There is no evidence that they weren't.
@imromancatholic It cannot be proven that the Catholic Church is solely responsible for the gathering and selection of the New Testament books. In fact, it can be shown that the New Testament books were gathered into one volume and were in circulation long before the Catholic Church claims to have taken its action in 390 at the council of Hippo.
Before the council of Hippo those people were CATHOLICS. Sorry. Are you talking about the 50 Bibles Constantine had made up? I certainly would not claim that the Bible was only established at the end of the 4th century. The Church Fathers certainly had much to say on which books were canonical and the councils and popes took this in to consideration when stating the canon. So any point your trying to make with me is pointless.
the rcc says that evolution is in line with Christianity and catholics can believe in it. This is CONTRARY to the Bible. the rcc says mary was sinless. this is CONTRARY to the Bible. the rcc says confess your sins to a priest. this is CONTRARY to the Bible. the rcc says mary can save you. this is CONTRARY to the Bible. the rcc says peter was "the rock". this is CONTRARY to the Bible. The rcc murdered MILLIONS of Christians. This is CONTRARY to the Bible.
@kiwichristian2009 Jesus expressly said Peter is his "Rock" in Matthew. Also, am I just supposed to accept your opinion that these things are contrary to the Bible? Which Bible? Protestants removed 7 books from the Bible which was canonized by Catholic Bishops in the 2nd cent. Peter, Paul & John were priests & bishops & wrote most of the NT. Now you're going to claim, 2000 yrs later, that this is all contrary to the Bible. Was removing 7 books contrary? Is sola scriptura in the Bible?
@bobert432 Protestants did NOT remove any books, the catholic cult added UNINSPIRED books to what IT would use as the Bible. the 7 books support Roman Catholicism. The remaining 66 contradict Roman Catholicism.
@bobert432 According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, St. Jerome was hesitant to include most of the apocryphal books in the canon, due to numerous errors. Even after he did concede to include them (in the fourth century), they were not decreed to be inspired scripture until April 8, 1546 at the Council of Trent. So for 1100 years, they were part of the canon, but not officially scripture. The reason for this is again, because of the numerous errors. He even wrote a footnote about it!
@bobert432 Judith falsely states that Nebuchadnezzar reigns over the Assyrians,whereas he ruled Babylon instead.Torbit could not have witnessed the division of Israel into the northern and southern kingdoms in 931BC(Tor1:4),and have been deported 200 years later in 734BC(Tor1:10).Ecc3:3 states that giving money forgives sins. This contradicts Christs' work on the cross. Jesus and the apostles quote 260 times from the 35 out of 39 OT books, yet they NEVER quoted the apocrypha.
@kiwichristian2009 300/350 references to the OT, found in the NT are based on the Greek Septuagint, which included all 7 of these books. You ignore the fact that Scripture was written after centuries of oral testimony, and thus focus on insignificant misstatements of dates and names... who cares? Its entirely feasible that Genesis includes some historical inaccuracies.... we'll never know because we don't have written history from the dawn of time to check it with.
@bobert432 Now you are attacking the Word of God, saying there are errors and "inaccuracies" in them?! Can you please quote Jeromes footnote regarding the apocrypha?
@kiwichristian2009 You really need to reevaluate the way you debate. There are too many fallacies and ad hominems for me to keep up with, so I'm going to stop here.
@kiwichristian2009 haha, Catholics are obsessed with "child rapists" and the pope is a "nazi" and saying that I've "attack[ed]" the Word of God as being inaccurate when I did no such thing..... just for starters. I wont ask you to show me what ive said is unBiblical because we clearly have different views on what is Biblical. I think removing books from the canon is unBiblical. You think those books are self-evidently uninspired. I think the self-evident inspiration of books is extra-Biblical.
@bobert432 Neither their authors nor the circumstances of their writings are known.The Jews nor the early Christians accepted them as inspired scripture.The books themselves dont claim inspiration.There's no"Thus saith the Lord"'s .Although the N.T has 263 direct quotes from and 370 allusions to the O.T,there's not a single reference to the books of the apocrypha.It was at Trent,Ap.8th1546,that the pope declared tradition+the apocrypha to be canonical and authoritative.
@kiwichristian2009 Excuse me, but switching back and forth between the OT and the NT, in order to 'prove me wrong' doesn't work when it is so obviously misleading. The OT was largely transmitted through oral testimony. And while the NT was to some extent as well, the NT is the same for all Christians: Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox. It is the OT we were discussing not the NT. You've already proved yourself a dishonest and slanderous debater, so this tactic doesn't shock me.
@bobert432 Jesus said "it is WRITTEN", so the OT scriptures were around at the time of Jesus. I know where you are heading, my friend. Dishonest? Show me where i have been dishonest, my friend. I still challenge you to show me ANYTHING that i have said that is unbiblical.
@kiwichristian2009 Uhuh, I've challenged you many times to show me the Biblical verse that includes "sola scriptura." But what is your point here? I realize that the OT existed at the time of Jesus. So...?
@bobert432 Jerome rejected the Deuterocanonical books when he was translating the Bible into Latin circa 450 CE, (see the Vulgate). This was because no Hebrew version of these texts could be found, even though they were present in the Greek Old Testament (the Septuagint). However, they eventually were accepted by the Church, and most of them remained part of the Bible. Protestants rejected these books during the Reformation as lacking divine authority....
@kiwichristian2009 You continue to avoid my question: From where does one get the dogma of "sola scriptura" (the Bible alone)? For if one really believed that the Bible (which was not complete at the time of Pentecost) alone is the single dogmatic authority, they would still have recognize at least one non-Biblical truth: That the Bible is the sole dogmatic authority for the church. That dogma is not in the Bible (I dare say it "contradicts" the Bible).
@bobert432 I don't avoid it at all. You have failed to answer my questions, or you answer them with a question. Show me anything i have said that is unbiblical, since you say or imply i have been lieing, etc.
@bobert432 They either excised them completely or placed them in a third section of the Bible. The Roman Catholic Council of Trent, on the other hand, declared in 1546 that the Deuterocanonical books were indeed divine.
@bobert432 Jerome plainly rejects all the apocryphal books from the canon. In his Prologus Galeatus he says “As there are twenty and two letters, so there are counted twenty and two books. Therefore the Wisdom of Solomon, and Jesus, and Judith, and Tobit, are not in the canon.” (See the intro. to the Vulgate in his own hand.)Gregory the Great,in his commentaries on Job,(Lib.XIX.C16) expressly writes that the books of Mac, isnt canonical,as well as the rest.Josephus agrees.
@bobert432 The Roman Catholic Church was not really in effect as an organization in the first couple hundred years of the Christian Church. The Christian church was under persecution and official church gatherings were risky business in the Roman Empire. Catholicism as an organization with a central figure located in Rome did not occur for quite some time, in spite of its false claim they can trace the papacy back to Peter.
@bobert432 Are popes, nuns, purgatory, extreme unction, confession to a priest, the mass, mary worship, rosary, child rape, indulgences, etc in the Bible? Yet all these things catholics are obsessed with.
@kiwichristian2009 Read Maccabees II... Its one of the 7 books removed by Protestants. Is there a place in the Bible where Martin Luther and John Calvin were given the right to personally remove the books they didn't like? Again, is "sola scriptura" in the Bible? Its actually a self-contradicting term. Because it is not in the Bible.... and yet if you believe it, you're not allowed to go outside the Bible.... and yet to arrive at sola sciptura you MUST go outside the Bible as Luther had to.
@bobert432 Again, the apocrypha is NOT inspired. 2 macc. contains a catholic contradiction. Catholics defend purg. by quoting the uninspired 2Mac12:40-46 where a "sin offering" is offered for dead soldiers who had committed the sin of idolatry. This not only contradicts the Bible, but also catholic teaching, because idolatry is a "mortal sin" that would confine a person to hell. An ex-nun said the only purgatory that exists is the priests' pockets.
@kiwichristian2009 You make claims like the 7 books removed during the Protestant Revolution were "NOT inspired" as if this is readily understood by all. Is it obvious to you which books are "inspired" just by a simple reading? And I assume you read an English translation, not the original languages. I was inspired by To Kill a Mocking Bird, is it scripture. Many ex-Protestants agree with me about the absurdity of this argument.
@bobert432 You really are trying hard to twist my words around to facilitate a constant arguement, aren't you? You know what i mean by "inspired", so stop playing games. And yes, you can tell if a book is the Word of God by reading and studying it, just as God has commanded us to do. Again, you DIVERT attention away from the points and facts i have made rather than directly addressing them.
@kiwichristian2009 No I have directly addressed your points. You fail to see that it is simply a bad argument to say that certain books are self-evidently inspired. Explain this. Does this inspiration transcend every language it was written in? Do you read Koine Greek & ancient Hebrew? If a Bible scholar says Maccabees is inspired, is he wrong? Why? You really take quite a bit for granted with arguments like this.
@kiwichristian2009 Btw, lots of the OT can be said to "contradict" the NT if you want to put it that way. Its incredibly simplistic to look at isolated snippets of the Bible & say that it contradicts all the rest of the Bible.
"You must add nothing to what I command you, and take nothing from it, but keep the commandments of Yahweh your God just as I lay them down for you." Deut. 4:2. Moses said that way before most of the OT & before any of the NT was written. Does this contradict the Bible?
@kiwichristian2009 where was arrogance / slander found in the teachings of Jesus? And yet Kiwichristian2009, the Pope of Protestants, thinks it is an acceptable approach to call all his opponents child rapists. Where was the genocidal conduct of Henry VIII and Elizabeth I? How about Protestant pastors who molest children and the opulence of your Televangelists? Teach me oh Christ-like sage. The compassion of Jesus just emanates from your Godly Youtube posts. Its clear that youre a true believer!
Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Matthew 7:13-15
@bobert432 Hello friend. Christ called Peter petros, not petra. Peter says the 'Rock' is Christ.....1 Peter 2:6-8 “Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture, Behold, I lay in Zion a chief cornerstone, elect, precious, and he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame. Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient, The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone, and a stone of stumbling and a rock petra of offense."
Hello @johnthreesixteen316 Petros and petra were synonymous in the Koine Greek. The distinction between petros (small pebble) and petra (large rock) is only found in the Attic Greek, which was spoken centuries before Christ. When Matthew's Gospel was rendered into Greek, this distinction had been lost. Matthew was written in Koine not Attic. Jesus would've called Peter "lithos" if wanted to call him a "small rock," though I don't know why he would've wanted to call him a small rock.
@bobert432 Hello friend. Peter himself says the 'Rock' is Christ.....1 Peter 2:6-8 “Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture, Behold, I lay in Zion a chief cornerstone, elect, precious, and he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame. Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient, The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone, and a stone of stumbling and a rock [petra] of offense."
@johnthreesixteen316 How does this undermines the point I just made? First, Peter is not directly calling Christ the rock here & even if he were, this doesnt moot the fact that Christ called Peter, rock. Its an extremely inflexible way of reading Scripture to say that "rock" can only have 1 context; conveniently, you pick the context of Peter rather than the context of Matthew.
@bobert432 .....and here......1 Corinthians 10:4 "And all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock [petra] that followed them, and that Rock [petra] was Christ."
@johnthreesixteen316 Paul was talking about the Israelites in the dessert. Again, you isolate portions of scripture & pretend that other portions dont exist. The spiritual rock Paul is talking about typified Christ. Christ is given the attribute of a rock here for many reasons. Just as he given the attributes of a lamb in John & Revelations. Are these mutually exclusive? Do I need to accept that Christ can only be lamb & not rock?
@johnthreesixteen316 Again, Christ called Peter his rock. You havent disproved this. Pointing out other places in scripture where the term rock is used doesnt moot the Gospel of Matthew. In Corinthians, Paul is using a literally type to show that the spirit of Christ followed the Israelites through the dessert. In Matthew, Jesus is expressly and directly call Peter his rock. Why would he do that? What might his point have been?
Who cares what the antichrist pope says or believes? 1 Timothy 2:5. "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus"
@JesusOurSalvation - Not so, unless you do the will of the Father who is in heaven. Remember, the tares among the wheat are Christian who are disobedient to Christ - in another word, they are not disciple of Christ because they do not denounce themselves. Only those who walk by the spirit are sons of God, not those who are in the flesh.
@hamcard79s Romans 10:9 "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."
@luy993 Nice propaganda. Sadly, a knowledge of History and the plethora of Roman lies (admitted to even by Rome) shows your twaddle for what it is.
New Rome (RCC), in having Erasmus hand Tyndale and the Reformers a slightly less error riddled form of lie, plied the same gambit that Old Rome used on the Goths.
Scripture was never born of Rome...it is a product of the East, which is why the so-called 'Princes of Rome' allude to Eastern Rite in their 'Apostolic Succession'.
YOU MAY ASK YOURSELF - WHO GAVE YOU THE BIBLE IN THE FIRST PLACE? THE CATHOLIC CHURCH OF COURSE. WHO PUT THE PAGES, THE BOOKS OF SCRIPTURE TOGETHER FOR USE TO ALL TRUE CHRISTIANS? THE CATHOLIC CHURCH DID. HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT THERE IS MORE TO SCRIPTURE THEN WHAT YOU ALREADY HOLD IN YOUR HAND? YOU DONT! THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS THE PILLAR AND FOUNDATION OF ALL TRUTHS! WITHOUT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN THE FIRST PLACE, YOU WOULDNT BE REFERRING TO SCRIPTURE.. THINK!
@luy993 Hello friend. You might want to ask yourself this.....what came first, scripture or the Roman Catholic church? Scripture obviously is the authority by which the Roman Catholic church should be judged.
@johnthreesixteen316 First, friend defined: "a person who is on good terms with another; a person who is not hostile: Who goes there? Friend or foe?" Although I'm not necessarily a foe of yours I wouldn't classify us as friends at this point! Second, Scripture was written by MAN, not some god as much as you would like to think so! You will say, "it's inspired by god" my response, SIMPLY PROVE IT! Third, SOME OF THE SCRIPTURE was clearly added and is STILL ADDED by men AFTER (CONTINUED)
Continued here: The formation of the Roman catholic church(you've heard of interpolation?) Finally, scripture as you well know is as previously stated written by men, AND was written 2,000 years ago in the greco roman times thus is just a wee bit out dated hence cannot and should not be used as the authority by which to judge anyone! If you're going to try to do that then you need to stone all gays.
@johnthreesixteen316 If I(or a group)wanted prophecy to come true especially back in that time frame there's a number of ways to do it. Example: The prophecy for Jerusalem to be destroyed! A group of mine sets fire to Jerusalem, it burns down hence prophecy comes true! You don't think Zionists are working their @sses off to fulfill end time prophecy? some religious authorities talk about it frequently!! I'm sorry but to claim that proves the bible is inspired fails (CONTINUED:)
Continued here: Not to mention that it isn't proof of anything!! Christians have tried to make your claim for decades/centuries yet they're constantly being debunked via the scientific method! You seriously can't make claims and not be able to prove them and expect reasonable people to embrace your claims! I guess you will get many uneducated, ignorant, emotion, and superstitious people to jump on your band wagon but it still doesn't make it true!
@theyanna Bull crap! He doesn't love me like I don't love him! Those statements are a part of your delusion! Once I have gotten to know someone well THEN AND ONLY THEN do I decide to hate, dislike, like, or love someone! To say you love someone you don't know anything about is shallow to say the least!
Who needs Popes some of them were vile others are not worth talking about.
I could never join up with such a system as Romanism because I simply dont believe the junk the Vatican spews out neither would I believe that the Pope is a Holy Father or anything even resembling it
I also would not bow before lifeless plasrercasts & light candles under them or pray to them that in my opinion is blatant idolatry finally I dont like the Popes dress or his fishes hat
RCC IS TOTALLY USELESS IN SALVATION
glizag 1 month ago
Why is this such a surprise and controversey? The RCC has always taught this.
And..in another BereanBeacon vid the RCC is denounced for ecumenizing, that is, for having dialogue and co-operation with non-Catholic christian churches. Can't these guys even keep their stories straight?
3thepass 2 months ago
The Vatican is nothing more than the Great Whore of Revelation 17. End of story.
LUONG4YAHWEH 2 months ago
This is a bunch of BUNK...You ever heard of Ignatius of Antioch? Irenaues? Justyn martyr? Hippolytus? Tertulian? Augiustine? Ambrose? Anselm? Cyprian...Not to mention that you can fin any PUBLIC source especially Britanicca with all list of Popes straight from Peter, Linus, etc....NOoo...You are totally off the wall..
JDNWF66 3 months ago
Read John 4:19-24 That is the scripture that describes a real church. All that is needed is truth and spirit. So yeah. PLEASE GO READ THE SCRIPTURE. JOHN 4:19-24.
TheJmanso1 4 months ago
@umhalil I know right
THESJRECORDS 5 months ago
before the 600 there was no idea of the pope until 900 with the rise of the papal states. In the year 1054 the eastern orthodox church split over the pope. There is more to christianty then the bible though and there is no limit to the heresy without a clear order of leadership. I am not saying a pope. I am saying a church leadership that can condem hersery and speak for the church. Prostantism has no limit to its lawlesness and heresy.
MrRichardwinkel 5 months ago
@MrRichardwinkel You need to read the list of Popes by Eusebius in 200's AD...Irenaues --179 AD....You need to read simple ECF....or just google list of popes... They're all in them.
JDNWF66 3 months ago
I heard the Pope also denounced No True Scottsmans
pgt1027 7 months ago
this clown is a Fraud Richard Peter Bennett ... The real Father was R M Bennet .....
From 1971, the parish passed to the Dominicans with Rev. Fathers K. Sheridan, Ronan Cusak and R.M. Bennet serving in that order. Also assisting for short periods during this time were Fathers Cockburn, Duffy and Rivas. The latter is currently serving as Archbishop of St. Lucia. Taken from the Parish web site... what a phony bastard
martlut 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@martlut Where is the Eucharist in the Book of Acts?
h t t p://w w wDOTyoutubeDOTcom/watch?v=36_2vhvUMGM
BereanBeacon1 8 months ago
Use what Jehovah God has given you. First of all, he has given you “intellectual capacity” so that you can distinguish truth from falsehood. (1 John 5:20) He has also made it possible for you to identify Satan’s designs. (2 Corinthians 2:11) In fact, he has given you everything you need to counteract Satan’s attempts to mislead you.—Proverbs 3:1-6; Ephesians 6:10-18.
TheButtascotchbro1 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheButtascotchbro1 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. John 8:43,44
BereanBeacon1 8 months ago
*** w10 9/1 p. 12 Guard Against Being Deceived ***
How Can You Guard Against Being Deceived?
So how can you guard against being deceived by Satan? How can you make sure that you “worship [God] with spirit and truth”? (John 4:24)
TheButtascotchbro1 8 months ago
They will be happy to help you learn about the true God, find out what he requires of you, and enjoy the peace and security that come from worshipping God in the way that he approves. Is that not a worthwhile goal?
TheButtascotchbro1 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
—Jehovah’s Witnesses, now numbering over seven million around the world. By advocating and adhering to God’s Word, the Bible, they have done what no other group or organization has been able to do, namely, unite people of diverse nationalities, languages, ethnic backgrounds, and races in worship of the one true God, Jehovah.
TheButtascotchbro1 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
*** w09 6/1 p. 15 Do All Religions Lead to the Same God? ***
Clearly, all religions do not lead to the same God. But there is one group that stands apart from all others
TheButtascotchbro1 8 months ago
One lady who had enjoyed several conversations with Jehovah’s Witnesses drew her own conclusions and said: “I know many religions, and they are all similar to one another. You are the only ones who are completely different from the others.”
TheButtascotchbro1 8 months ago
*** w09 6/1 p. 15 Do All Religions Lead to the Same God? ***
True Religion Is Set Apart
These fruits—self-sacrificing love, the desire to sanctify Jehovah’s name, the proclamation of God’s Kingdom, separateness from the world, and faith in the Bible—all characterize true worshippers. Such fruits also set genuine worshippers apart from other religions.
TheButtascotchbro1 8 months ago
Which religion is known for publicizing the name Jehovah and for proclaiming that God’s Kingdom is mankind’s only hope for peace on earth? Jehovah’s Witnesses publish the good news of the Kingdom in 236 countries and territories, disseminating literature in over 470 languages.—Matthew 6:9, 10.
TheButtascotchbro1 8 months ago
. Let your kingdom come. Let your will take place, as in heaven, also upon earth.” Jesus assigned priority to the sanctification of God’s personal name, Jehovah. He expressed the wish that through God’s Kingdom, Jehovah’s will should be done on earth.
TheButtascotchbro1 8 months ago
*** w09 6/1 p. 15 Do All Religions Lead to the Same God? ***
What other fruits did Jesus have in mind that would identify genuine disciples? In what is commonly known as the Lord’s Prayer, Jesus started by saying: “Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified
TheButtascotchbro1 8 months ago
In addition, the Witnesses accept the Bible as God’s Word and are convinced that “all Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.”—John 17:14, 17; 2 Timothy 3:16, 17.
TheButtascotchbro1 8 months ago
*** w09 6/1 p. 15 Do All Religions Lead to the Same God? ***
Moreover, Jehovah’s Witnesses follow Jesus’ example in staying clear of political and social controversies. “They are no part of the world, just as I am no part of the world,” Jesus said of his disciples.
TheButtascotchbro1 8 months ago
They can rightfully claim to be the only major conscientious objectors in the Third Reich.” During that conflict, Witnesses in many lands chose to suffer reprisals rather than to promote or support the war.
TheButtascotchbro1 8 months ago
*** w09 6/1 pp. 14-15 Do All Religions Lead to the Same God? ***
For this reason it would be unthinkable for true Christians to take up arms against one another in war. Do church members keep to this standard? In World War II, the only major religious group that consistently and steadfastly refused to support the war effort in any way were Jehovah’s Witnesses. Dr. Hanns Lilje, former bishop of the Protestant Church in Hannover, Germany, wrote about the Witnesses: “
TheButtascotchbro1 8 months ago
. By this all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love among yourselves.” True followers of Christ must display love for one another that is so outstanding as to characterize them as true worshippers in the eyes of observers.—John 13:34, 35.
TheButtascotchbro1 8 months ago
*** w09 6/1 p. 14 Do All Religions Lead to the Same God? ***
First, true worship unites believers in love. Jesus explained to his disciples: “I am giving you a new commandment, that you love one another; just as I have loved you, that you also love one another
TheButtascotchbro1 8 months ago
The gospel indeed shows the Apostles handed on, ordained other Apostles.
Read Acts 1:24-26- " And praying, they said: You, Lord, who know the heart of all men, show whether of these two you have chosen, to take the place of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas has by transgression fallen, that he might go to his own place. And they gave them lot, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles."
hockeyrulesus 10 months ago
Comment removed
hockeyrulesus 10 months ago
Comment removed
hockeyrulesus 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hockeyrulesus Who are the many? Who are few?
Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Matthew 7:13-15 Which are you on?
BereanBeacon1 10 months ago
If you reformers are the church, then why do you all disagree in beliefs? 35,000 denominations, some believe in infant baptism, some don't some say baptism saves, some deny. some believe one can lose salvation, some don't,etc,etc..
hockeyrulesus 10 months ago
Comment removed
hockeyrulesus 10 months ago
If you are a true christian you should pray for the catholic church the pope and all other people, especially non believers.As christians it is not up to us to judge anyone on this planet, it's not upto christians to try and bring down any christian denomination wether you think it's fake or not.God will judge all, at the right time and it is not for us to say he is good he is bad.Mind your own business make sure you are right with god,make sure you are doing Gods work.The rest is in Gods hands.
2wheels88 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@2wheels88 Who are the many? Who are few?
Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Matthew 7:13-15. True Christians are the few.
BereanBeacon1 11 months ago
oh please, The Catholic Church is nothing more than the Holy Roman Empire paganism thinly covered in generic *Christianity*.
Prayers to Virgin Mary is worship of the zodiac sign Virgo.
The sign of the cross is a modified motion to signal Saturn worship.
The Catholic Church is a LIE.
dodgyhingst 11 months ago
And the protestant churches recognise Rome?
mjacobson73 11 months ago
From Bishop Liguoris' "The Glories of Mary", APPROVED by the vatican! "She (Mary) is . . . the only hope of sinners: (p. 69),"We will be heard and saved sooner by going to Mary, and invoking her holy name, than that of Jesus our Savior. We will find salvation sooner going to the mother than going to the Son" (p. 82),"Many things asked of God and not received are asked and received from Mary (p. 82). All obey the precepts of Mary, even God" (p. 115). ALL CATHOLIC LIES!
kiwichristian2009 11 months ago
@kiwichristian2009 Dude, is removing context from statements, quoting sources you havent read & convincing people (yourself) that Catholics are all crazy pagans your Christian mission? Do you think the droves of Protestant scholars who have converted to Catholicism, or the 2000 years of Catholics scholars all missed some obvious heresy? Why not try engaging the opposing arguments & making an argument yourself, instead of lying & slandering something you dont understand.
bobert432 11 months ago
@bobert432 Not to mention the 'droves' of Roman Catholics who have become Christians.
johnthreesixteen316 11 months ago
@johnthreesixteen316 Hello friend. Its not friendly to insinuate that Catholics are not Christian. My point to Kiwi was that just as he can cite random nuns who left the Catholic Church, I can cite many theologians who converted from Protestant to Catholic.
bobert432 11 months ago
@bobert432 I can back up my "insinuations" with Biblical proof.
kiwichristian2009 11 months ago
@johnthreesixteen316 Yes, particulary the ex-catholic NUNS and PRIESTS and JESUITS. Surely these people would know MORE about the catholic cult than the normal victims in the pews or confessionals.
kiwichristian2009 11 months ago
@bobert432 I removed nothing, my friend. I have quoted what comments have been approved or endorsed by the vatican. If the statements are not meant at face-value, why approve them? I do not see any other context in the above blasphemous statements. The nazi party had a lot of members, including your current pope, does that make them right? Does that make them valid as a "good cause"? What i am saying is the people who converted to catholicism or the membership numbers mean diddly-squat.
kiwichristian2009 11 months ago
@kiwichristian2009 including the part that goes "..." I'm sure that's in the original text. Almost every president of Germany since WWII was in the Hitler youth, and most of them were Protestants. That could because the Hitler Youth was not a volunteer organization, but compulsory. Pope Pius XII saved the lives of over 1 million Jews during the Holocaust. This is a number of example of your misleading and fallacious statements. You're obviously a master of them.
bobert432 11 months ago
@bobert432 What i said was NOT false.
kiwichristian2009 11 months ago
@kiwichristian2009 Im not a Protestant & I vehemently disagree with the Protestant worldview. But I have a lot of Protestant friends, who are good people. I don't hate Protestants. I'd be a sad person if I devoted more passion to hating/ridiculing Protestantism than to loving Christ & my Catholic faith. Also, Mary was the mother of Christ whom the angel of God (angels speak for God) called 'full of grace;' Elizabeth said all would call her 'blessed.' Does Jesus approve of you disparaging her?
bobert432 11 months ago
@bobert432 The true church of Jesus Christ is a relationship, not a membership. It isn’t any particular protestant denomination or Roman catholic. It doesn't have a roof or an address. We are the Body of Christ, past, present and future from all around the world who have accepted Christ’s work on the cross for our sins 2000 years ago, once and for all. Our names have been written in the Book of Life from the beginning. 1 cross + 3 nails = 4 given.
johnthreesixteen316 11 months ago
@bobert432 Hello friend. Of course Christians love Mary of the Bible. Unfortunately, the 'Mary' of Roman Catholicism has become an elevated entity with attributes of Christ Himself. Due in part to the demonic apparitions pretending to be Mary.....Fatima etc.
johnthreesixteen316 11 months ago
@johnthreesixteen316 Hello friend. Its not friendly to insinuate that Catholics worship demons. Perhaps you should learn about these apparitions first.
bobert432 11 months ago
@bobert432 Hello friend. Any apparition which claims to be our co-redeemer, co-redemptrix, our intercessor, our suffering servant, universal mediator of graces, our refuge, our advocate to save us, our mediator, immaculately conceived, the savior of the world, and suffers on our behalf for the atonement of sins IS A LIAR. Jesus Christ alone is our Saviour. This isn't Mary. This is Satan. Satan's coolaid looks good.....it smells good....it tastes good.....oops you're dead.
johnthreesixteen316 11 months ago
@johnthreesixteen316 Are you under the impression that saints & martyrs dont suffer on behalf of others as Christ did? Mary suffered at the foot of the cross. She is our advocate as all the saints are; none are equal to Christ. Read Maccabees. Mary is depicted as a central figure of Revelations; is called full of grace by God Himself through his angel; Elizabeth says all will call her blessed. She bore the son of God, as a virgin. If you want to argue against the Catholic view of Mary, ok [cont]
bobert432 11 months ago
@bobert432 The woman in revelation is a picture of the Israelite nation as shown in Gen37:9,10 with the sun representing Jacob, the moon his wife Rachel, and the 12 stars representing the tribes of Israel. Christ was born of Israel. The Israelite nation is often referred to as a woman in Isaiah54:5 and Jeremiah31:32.This woman cannot be mary because the woman IS ON EARTH DURING THE TRIBULATION, whereas mary's spirit is in heaven at that time.
kiwichristian2009 11 months ago
@kiwichristian2009 yea, your reading of Revelations is not the universal view. There are dozens of leading interpretation on Revelations. Catholics hold that this is Mary giving birth to the Lamb. Again, since most of the Christian world has never accepted sola scriptura, our reading of Revelations is not simply a literal black and white story of end times. Read the Lambs Supper by Scott Hahn, a former Protestant theologian.
bobert432 11 months ago
@bobert432 I think the issue here is that the catholic view of mary is not the Biblical view of her. Again, it is NOT a case of "bible-alone"
kiwichristian2009 11 months ago
@kiwichristian2009 why is it not the Biblical view: Because you dont find everything we do contained in the Bible? Yea, its precisely a case of the "bible-alone." I dont believe I have the burden of showing the Biblical explanation for every truth. There is certainly Biblical foundation for the role of Mary, which Ive discussed. Jesus never said Mary would be incapable of appearing to children in Portugal in 1917. It isnt unBiblical to believe in Fatima, unless you believe in sola scriptura.
bobert432 11 months ago
@bobert432 The woman in Revelation is Israel. Maccabees isn't inspired by God. Actually, none of the apocrypha are.
johnthreesixteen316 11 months ago
@johnthreesixteen316 Ok, I disagree. And since the Book of Revelation doesnt say she is Israel, the Catholic view is at least as credible as yours. The point being, you press me for Biblical roots of Marion doctrines, I give you one & you submit an opposing interpretation of the verse I gave you. Ok, I don't agree with your interpretation. Still, youll say Marion doctrines are "unBiblical" because they contradict your preferred interpretation of the Bible. So Biblical = what you say is Biblical.
bobert432 11 months ago
@bobert432 Dear friend. The Book of Genesis will tell you exactly who the woman of Revelation is. A 'woman' in prophecy is never a literal woman.
johnthreesixteen316 11 months ago
@johnthreesixteen316 Yes, we also consider Mary the new Eve based on this exact text in Gen. She, as a virgin, gave birth to the only Son of God; God's angel called her "full of grace"--NO ONE is called full of grace in the BIble, except Mary. And Angels are messengers of God; meaning they literally speak God's words. Elizabeth said all would call her blessed. Then a woman in revelations gives birth to the lamb of God (Jesus). Also, why can't a woman in prophecy be a literal woman? says who?
bobert432 11 months ago
@bobert432 Hello friend. The Bible says there is ONE Mediator, not 2, ONE Saviour, not 2, ONE Redeemer, not 2. Is this my interpretation? The apparitions are lying. Satan is wearing a 'Mary' costume and he is trying to grab as many by the collar as he can on the way down.
johnthreesixteen316 11 months ago
@johnthreesixteen316 Mary isnt the redeemer or the savior. This isnt Catholic belief, its Protestant spin. Like the first arc of the covenant carrying the Manna, the 10 Comm, Moses' staff, Mary as the 2nd arc (Rev. 11 & 12) carried the Bread of Life, the Word & Christs' Priestly authority in her womb: Christ is all of these things in one person. God chose Mary to carry Christ in her womb, protect him as a child & bring Him into the world. Shes not the redeemer, she "just" gave birth to Him.
bobert432 11 months ago
@johnthreesixteen316 The term Coredemptrrix does not = co- ("equal to the") redeemer. "Co" = "With." Shes literally, with the redeemer: She carried the redeemer in her womb. She accepted God's call that she give birth to the 2nd member of the Trinity & raise him to manhood. She thus played a unique role in the redemption. Can anyone else claim this? Did God say "Hail, full of grace" to anyone else you know of? Truly, the attempt to diminish the significance of Mary is as "unBiblical" as it gets.
bobert432 11 months ago
@johnthreesixteen316 [cont] but to act like we are all demon worshippers, is absurd. There is abounding evidence that early Christians universally respected & praised Mary; AND believed in the Assumption. She lived in the house of John in Ephesus. John WROTE Revelations which depicted her as a central figure. I've heard credible arguments against the Catholic view of Mary, yours is not one of them. Like Kiki2009, youd prefer slander & slogans for truth & clarity.. friend.
bobert432 11 months ago
@bobert432 "early Christians universally respected & praised Mary; AND believed in the Assumption." Who cares? The apostles did not.
kiwichristian2009 11 months ago
@kiwichristian2009 John did. And not every Apostle wrote a portion of the NT. The Nicene Creed refers to Mary, as did the Church Fathers.
bobert432 11 months ago
@kiwichristian2009 Exactly. Who cares. What I care about is what is contained in God's Word.....what Christ said and what the apostles said.
johnthreesixteen316 11 months ago
@bobert432 The devil within the Church today is actually protected by certain Church authorities from the official devil-hunter in the Church -- the exorcist. ... To the question, 'Are there men of the curia who are followers of Satan?' Milingo responded, 'Certainly there are priests and bishops. I stop at this level of ecclesiastical hierarchy because I am an archbishop, higher than this I cannot go.' - Archbishop Milingo
kiwichristian2009 11 months ago
@bobert432 "Archbishop Milingo is a good bishop and his contention that there are satanists in Rome is completely correct. Anybody who is acquainted with the state of affairs in the Vatican in the last 35 years is well aware that the prince of darkness has had and still has his surrogates in the court of St. Peter in Rome." - Malachi Martin. Ex Jesuit
kiwichristian2009 11 months ago
@kiwichristian2009 Martin was a devout Catholic & died one. Pointing out the obvious that evil men have reached places of authority in the Church really doesnt prove anything. Im aware of all of this. Paul VI also died a devout Catholic. You know why? Because no matter how many evil men enter the church, "the gates of hell will not prevail" against her. Christ never said that Satan would not try to attack the Church.
bobert432 11 months ago
@kiwichristian2009 Quoting devout Catholics like Malachi Martin and Paul VI, who condemned the heretical attacks on the Church, actually proves the virtue of the Church. Many Communist spies became Catholic priests too. John Paul II was followed by Communists in Poland for decades. Why do you think all of this evil targets the Church? What is Satan's interest in trying to bring down what you seem to think is an inherently Satanic institution?
bobert432 11 months ago
@bobert432 “Through some crack or other in the temple of God, the smoke of Satan has entered .” — Pope Paul VI, 1972
kiwichristian2009 11 months ago
@johnthreesixteen316 [cont] Here, let me try this form of argument: The Bible does not include any reference to "sola scriptura" at any point, anywhere. It is a self-contradicting dogma as it requires one to go outside the Bible in order to arrive at it.....Therefore, Martin Luther must have been a Satanic demon...."opps, you're dead." That's a logical argument, right?
bobert432 11 months ago
@bobert432 Listen, it is not a case of "sola scriptura" ( a catholic word/phrase ). It is a case of catholic doctrines and teachings being CONTRARY to the Word of God.
kiwichristian2009 11 months ago
@kiwichristian2009 Martin Luther coined sola scriptura. He was a Catholic priest who started the Protestant Revolution. Almost every Protestant subscribes to this view. By your own arguments, you seem to as well. YOU confine the debate to isolated verses, & dont accept that there is extra-Biblical evidence for certain dogmas. Dont you get it? Its not relevant that the Bible doesnt expressly include the word "Confession" for example because the practice came about BEFORE the Bible was canonized.
bobert432 11 months ago
@bobert432 luther was an apostate, i don't know why you catholics are so obsessed with him. i don't study him or follow him.
kiwichristian2009 11 months ago
@kiwichristian2009 This is the arrogance of the Protestant position. Your Bible would not exist as it does without Luther, Calvin, Zwingli & the English Reformation. You obviously subscribe to Sola Scriptura. And then you say you're not a Protestant & therefore dont have to defend Protestant dogmas. You are a Christian who "protests" the Catholic Church & reads a Protestant Bible and endorses a Protestant view of the Bible, are you not? Yea, you're a Protestant, sorry.
bobert432 11 months ago
@johnthreesixteen316 Amen. This person still has not shown me ANYTHING that i have said about mary that is not in the Bible.
kiwichristian2009 11 months ago
@bobert432 Good, neither am i a protestant. Show me where i have said ANYTHING about mary that is NOT Biblical, please?
kiwichristian2009 11 months ago
@kiwichristian2009 Protestants like yourself play a bit fast & loose with the term "Biblical." If I said to show me the Catholic teaching about Mary that is not-Biblical, youd go into your usual isolated verses that appear to contradict something. The problem is, your whole approach is not-Biblical. Sola Scriptura isnt Biblical. Isolating verses to the exclusion of other verses, as well as history & tradition, isnt Biblical. And from where did you get the authority to determine what is Biblical?
bobert432 11 months ago
@bobert432 I'm not a protestant, my friend. And again, you cannot show me anything that i have said that is contrary to the Word of God. The Holy Spirit of God gives me authority. We are told repeatedly to study the Word of God, to search the scriptures. We are NOT talking about BIBLE-ALONE. We are talking about you guys saying one thing, and the Bible saying PLAINLY the complete opposite. Now, SHOW ME where i have said something about mary that is NOT in the Bible.
kiwichristian2009 11 months ago
@kiwichristian2009 I don't believe the Bible contradicts any of what you have said it does. Christ says Peter was his rock, & that whatever he binds & loses on earth will be bound & loosed in heaven; & the gates of Hell will not prevail against His Church. Since I dont subscribe to sola scriptura, I accept that the early Church, being one, Catholic & Apostolic, began certain practices under the authority vested in Peter. Confession was a way of avoiding harsh public punishments for sin. [cont]
bobert432 11 months ago
@kiwichristian2009 [cont] I therefore dont need to show you the Biblical verse for "Confession" because I dont subscribe to sola scriptura, like YOU DO.
bobert432 11 months ago
@kiwichristian2009 Hello friend. Shameful isn't it? "the only hope of sinners". Thanks again for bringing light into this world of darkness. Unfortunately, many will see the light and turn their faces away.
johnthreesixteen316 11 months ago
@johnthreesixteen316 It is shocking. Yet catholics say "oh, the context is wrong". To that i say "rubbish!". If the statements do not mean what they say, why say them?
kiwichristian2009 11 months ago
@kiwichristian2009 Hello friend. The 'context' is always wrong when it contradicts Roman Catholic doctrine.....of course.
johnthreesixteen316 11 months ago
"On August 24, 1527, Roman Catholics in France, by prearranged plan, under Jesuit influence, murdered 70,000 Protestants within the space of two months. The Pope rejoiced when he heard the news of the successful outcome."-Western Watchman, Nov.21, 1912 (Catholic)
kiwichristian2009 11 months ago
The apocrypha was never quoted or alluded to by Jesus Christ or any of the apostles. The sermons in the Book of Acts, which outline Jewish history, do not included apocryphal events. Josephus explicitly excluded them from his list.They are not, and have never been, in the Jewish canon.Many of the Apocryphal books teach heresy, contrary to the Word of God.Their literary style is legendary and fantasy. Some stories are grotesque and demonic.
kiwichristian2009 11 months ago
In the 1490’s another Oxford professor, and the personal physician to King Henry the 7th and 8th, Thomas Linacre, decided to learn Greek. After reading the Gospels in Greek, and comparing it to the Latin Vulgate, he wrote in his diary, “Either this (the original Greek) is not the Gospel… or we are not Christians.” The Latin had become so corrupt that it no longer even preserved the message of the Gospel
kiwichristian2009 11 months ago
Comment removed
bobert432 11 months ago
If the Bible is a Catholic book, why does it nowhere mention the Catholic Church? Why is there no mention of a pope, a cardinal, an archbishop, a parish priest, a nun, or a member of any other Catholic order? If the Bible is a Catholic book, why is auricular confession, indulgences, prayers to the saints, adoration of Mary, veneration of relics and images, and many other rites and ceremonies of the Catholic Church, left out of it?
kiwichristian2009 11 months ago
@kiwichristian2009 Protestantism, sola scirptura, sola fide, calvinism, predestination & reference to the Bible itself are not found in the Bible. Nor is individual interpretation, Pastors, Bible studies, Anglicanism or the existence of thousands of individual sects. In fact, John is crystal clear about church unity. Catholic is a Latin term that = universal. Since Catholics dont believe in sola scriptura, there is no dilemma in accepting that there should be a universal church.
bobert432 11 months ago
These guys don't even understand what the Pope said. But they have been denouncing Catholics as pagans anyway for years and now the Pope puts out a statement saying basically there are not Churches for Christ established HIS CHURCH, one Church and they go off on a rant of nonsense.
imromancatholic 11 months ago 3
@imromancatholic Pope Nicholas assumed the title of God. His words are:—‘I am all in all and above all, so that God Himself, and I, the Vicar of God, hath both one consistory, and I am able to do almost all that God can do . . . Wherefore, if those things that I do be said not to be done of man, but of God. WHAT CAN YOU MAKE ME BUT GOD? Again, if prelates of the Church be called and counted of Constantine for gods, I then, being above all prelates, seem by this reason to be ABOVE ALL GODS. "
kiwichristian2009 11 months ago
lucy993, It sure wasn't the protestants who put the bible together. There were no protestants back then. The Bishops and Pope can be traced back through history. The people you talk about were CATHOLIC. There is no evidence that they weren't.
imromancatholic 11 months ago
@imromancatholic It cannot be proven that the Catholic Church is solely responsible for the gathering and selection of the New Testament books. In fact, it can be shown that the New Testament books were gathered into one volume and were in circulation long before the Catholic Church claims to have taken its action in 390 at the council of Hippo.
kiwichristian2009 11 months ago
@kiwichristian2009
Before the council of Hippo those people were CATHOLICS. Sorry. Are you talking about the 50 Bibles Constantine had made up? I certainly would not claim that the Bible was only established at the end of the 4th century. The Church Fathers certainly had much to say on which books were canonical and the councils and popes took this in to consideration when stating the canon. So any point your trying to make with me is pointless.
imromancatholic 11 months ago
the rcc says that evolution is in line with Christianity and catholics can believe in it. This is CONTRARY to the Bible. the rcc says mary was sinless. this is CONTRARY to the Bible. the rcc says confess your sins to a priest. this is CONTRARY to the Bible. the rcc says mary can save you. this is CONTRARY to the Bible. the rcc says peter was "the rock". this is CONTRARY to the Bible. The rcc murdered MILLIONS of Christians. This is CONTRARY to the Bible.
kiwichristian2009 1 year ago
@kiwichristian2009 Jesus expressly said Peter is his "Rock" in Matthew. Also, am I just supposed to accept your opinion that these things are contrary to the Bible? Which Bible? Protestants removed 7 books from the Bible which was canonized by Catholic Bishops in the 2nd cent. Peter, Paul & John were priests & bishops & wrote most of the NT. Now you're going to claim, 2000 yrs later, that this is all contrary to the Bible. Was removing 7 books contrary? Is sola scriptura in the Bible?
bobert432 11 months ago
@bobert432 Protestants did NOT remove any books, the catholic cult added UNINSPIRED books to what IT would use as the Bible. the 7 books support Roman Catholicism. The remaining 66 contradict Roman Catholicism.
kiwichristian2009 11 months ago
@bobert432 According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, St. Jerome was hesitant to include most of the apocryphal books in the canon, due to numerous errors. Even after he did concede to include them (in the fourth century), they were not decreed to be inspired scripture until April 8, 1546 at the Council of Trent. So for 1100 years, they were part of the canon, but not officially scripture. The reason for this is again, because of the numerous errors. He even wrote a footnote about it!
kiwichristian2009 11 months ago
@bobert432 Judith falsely states that Nebuchadnezzar reigns over the Assyrians,whereas he ruled Babylon instead.Torbit could not have witnessed the division of Israel into the northern and southern kingdoms in 931BC(Tor1:4),and have been deported 200 years later in 734BC(Tor1:10).Ecc3:3 states that giving money forgives sins. This contradicts Christs' work on the cross. Jesus and the apostles quote 260 times from the 35 out of 39 OT books, yet they NEVER quoted the apocrypha.
kiwichristian2009 11 months ago
@kiwichristian2009 300/350 references to the OT, found in the NT are based on the Greek Septuagint, which included all 7 of these books. You ignore the fact that Scripture was written after centuries of oral testimony, and thus focus on insignificant misstatements of dates and names... who cares? Its entirely feasible that Genesis includes some historical inaccuracies.... we'll never know because we don't have written history from the dawn of time to check it with.
bobert432 11 months ago
@bobert432 Now you are attacking the Word of God, saying there are errors and "inaccuracies" in them?! Can you please quote Jeromes footnote regarding the apocrypha?
kiwichristian2009 11 months ago
@kiwichristian2009 You really need to reevaluate the way you debate. There are too many fallacies and ad hominems for me to keep up with, so I'm going to stop here.
bobert432 11 months ago
@bobert432 Please show me any ad hominems attacks. Again, you have yet to provide me with anything that i have said that is unbiblical.
kiwichristian2009 11 months ago
@kiwichristian2009 haha, Catholics are obsessed with "child rapists" and the pope is a "nazi" and saying that I've "attack[ed]" the Word of God as being inaccurate when I did no such thing..... just for starters. I wont ask you to show me what ive said is unBiblical because we clearly have different views on what is Biblical. I think removing books from the canon is unBiblical. You think those books are self-evidently uninspired. I think the self-evident inspiration of books is extra-Biblical.
bobert432 11 months ago
@bobert432 Neither their authors nor the circumstances of their writings are known.The Jews nor the early Christians accepted them as inspired scripture.The books themselves dont claim inspiration.There's no"Thus saith the Lord"'s .Although the N.T has 263 direct quotes from and 370 allusions to the O.T,there's not a single reference to the books of the apocrypha.It was at Trent,Ap.8th1546,that the pope declared tradition+the apocrypha to be canonical and authoritative.
kiwichristian2009 11 months ago
@bobert432 "Scripture was written after centuries of oral testimony," The letters of the Apostles would prove you wrong, no?
kiwichristian2009 11 months ago
@kiwichristian2009 Excuse me, but switching back and forth between the OT and the NT, in order to 'prove me wrong' doesn't work when it is so obviously misleading. The OT was largely transmitted through oral testimony. And while the NT was to some extent as well, the NT is the same for all Christians: Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox. It is the OT we were discussing not the NT. You've already proved yourself a dishonest and slanderous debater, so this tactic doesn't shock me.
bobert432 11 months ago
@bobert432 Jesus said "it is WRITTEN", so the OT scriptures were around at the time of Jesus. I know where you are heading, my friend. Dishonest? Show me where i have been dishonest, my friend. I still challenge you to show me ANYTHING that i have said that is unbiblical.
kiwichristian2009 11 months ago
@kiwichristian2009 Uhuh, I've challenged you many times to show me the Biblical verse that includes "sola scriptura." But what is your point here? I realize that the OT existed at the time of Jesus. So...?
bobert432 11 months ago
@bobert432 Jerome rejected the Deuterocanonical books when he was translating the Bible into Latin circa 450 CE, (see the Vulgate). This was because no Hebrew version of these texts could be found, even though they were present in the Greek Old Testament (the Septuagint). However, they eventually were accepted by the Church, and most of them remained part of the Bible. Protestants rejected these books during the Reformation as lacking divine authority....
kiwichristian2009 11 months ago
@kiwichristian2009 You continue to avoid my question: From where does one get the dogma of "sola scriptura" (the Bible alone)? For if one really believed that the Bible (which was not complete at the time of Pentecost) alone is the single dogmatic authority, they would still have recognize at least one non-Biblical truth: That the Bible is the sole dogmatic authority for the church. That dogma is not in the Bible (I dare say it "contradicts" the Bible).
bobert432 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bobert432 I don't avoid it at all. You have failed to answer my questions, or you answer them with a question. Show me anything i have said that is unbiblical, since you say or imply i have been lieing, etc.
kiwichristian2009 11 months ago
@bobert432 They either excised them completely or placed them in a third section of the Bible. The Roman Catholic Council of Trent, on the other hand, declared in 1546 that the Deuterocanonical books were indeed divine.
kiwichristian2009 11 months ago
@bobert432 Jerome plainly rejects all the apocryphal books from the canon. In his Prologus Galeatus he says “As there are twenty and two letters, so there are counted twenty and two books. Therefore the Wisdom of Solomon, and Jesus, and Judith, and Tobit, are not in the canon.” (See the intro. to the Vulgate in his own hand.)Gregory the Great,in his commentaries on Job,(Lib.XIX.C16) expressly writes that the books of Mac, isnt canonical,as well as the rest.Josephus agrees.
kiwichristian2009 11 months ago
@bobert432 The Roman Catholic Church was not really in effect as an organization in the first couple hundred years of the Christian Church. The Christian church was under persecution and official church gatherings were risky business in the Roman Empire. Catholicism as an organization with a central figure located in Rome did not occur for quite some time, in spite of its false claim they can trace the papacy back to Peter.
kiwichristian2009 11 months ago
@bobert432 Are popes, nuns, purgatory, extreme unction, confession to a priest, the mass, mary worship, rosary, child rape, indulgences, etc in the Bible? Yet all these things catholics are obsessed with.
kiwichristian2009 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kiwichristian2009 Read Maccabees II... Its one of the 7 books removed by Protestants. Is there a place in the Bible where Martin Luther and John Calvin were given the right to personally remove the books they didn't like? Again, is "sola scriptura" in the Bible? Its actually a self-contradicting term. Because it is not in the Bible.... and yet if you believe it, you're not allowed to go outside the Bible.... and yet to arrive at sola sciptura you MUST go outside the Bible as Luther had to.
bobert432 11 months ago
@bobert432 Again, the apocrypha is NOT inspired. 2 macc. contains a catholic contradiction. Catholics defend purg. by quoting the uninspired 2Mac12:40-46 where a "sin offering" is offered for dead soldiers who had committed the sin of idolatry. This not only contradicts the Bible, but also catholic teaching, because idolatry is a "mortal sin" that would confine a person to hell. An ex-nun said the only purgatory that exists is the priests' pockets.
kiwichristian2009 11 months ago
@kiwichristian2009 You make claims like the 7 books removed during the Protestant Revolution were "NOT inspired" as if this is readily understood by all. Is it obvious to you which books are "inspired" just by a simple reading? And I assume you read an English translation, not the original languages. I was inspired by To Kill a Mocking Bird, is it scripture. Many ex-Protestants agree with me about the absurdity of this argument.
bobert432 11 months ago
@bobert432 You really are trying hard to twist my words around to facilitate a constant arguement, aren't you? You know what i mean by "inspired", so stop playing games. And yes, you can tell if a book is the Word of God by reading and studying it, just as God has commanded us to do. Again, you DIVERT attention away from the points and facts i have made rather than directly addressing them.
kiwichristian2009 11 months ago
@kiwichristian2009 No I have directly addressed your points. You fail to see that it is simply a bad argument to say that certain books are self-evidently inspired. Explain this. Does this inspiration transcend every language it was written in? Do you read Koine Greek & ancient Hebrew? If a Bible scholar says Maccabees is inspired, is he wrong? Why? You really take quite a bit for granted with arguments like this.
bobert432 11 months ago
@kiwichristian2009 Btw, lots of the OT can be said to "contradict" the NT if you want to put it that way. Its incredibly simplistic to look at isolated snippets of the Bible & say that it contradicts all the rest of the Bible.
"You must add nothing to what I command you, and take nothing from it, but keep the commandments of Yahweh your God just as I lay them down for you." Deut. 4:2. Moses said that way before most of the OT & before any of the NT was written. Does this contradict the Bible?
bobert432 11 months ago
Comment removed
bobert432 11 months ago
@kiwichristian2009 where was arrogance / slander found in the teachings of Jesus? And yet Kiwichristian2009, the Pope of Protestants, thinks it is an acceptable approach to call all his opponents child rapists. Where was the genocidal conduct of Henry VIII and Elizabeth I? How about Protestant pastors who molest children and the opulence of your Televangelists? Teach me oh Christ-like sage. The compassion of Jesus just emanates from your Godly Youtube posts. Its clear that youre a true believer!
bobert432 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bobert432 Who are the many? Who are few?
Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Matthew 7:13-15
BereanBeacon1 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BereanBeacon1 I can quote Bible passages as well. What is your point?
bobert432 11 months ago
@bobert432 Hello friend. Christ called Peter petros, not petra. Peter says the 'Rock' is Christ.....1 Peter 2:6-8 “Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture, Behold, I lay in Zion a chief cornerstone, elect, precious, and he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame. Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient, The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone, and a stone of stumbling and a rock petra of offense."
johnthreesixteen316 11 months ago
Hello @johnthreesixteen316 Petros and petra were synonymous in the Koine Greek. The distinction between petros (small pebble) and petra (large rock) is only found in the Attic Greek, which was spoken centuries before Christ. When Matthew's Gospel was rendered into Greek, this distinction had been lost. Matthew was written in Koine not Attic. Jesus would've called Peter "lithos" if wanted to call him a "small rock," though I don't know why he would've wanted to call him a small rock.
bobert432 11 months ago
@bobert432 Hello friend. Peter himself says the 'Rock' is Christ.....1 Peter 2:6-8 “Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture, Behold, I lay in Zion a chief cornerstone, elect, precious, and he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame. Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient, The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone, and a stone of stumbling and a rock [petra] of offense."
johnthreesixteen316 11 months ago
@johnthreesixteen316 How does this undermines the point I just made? First, Peter is not directly calling Christ the rock here & even if he were, this doesnt moot the fact that Christ called Peter, rock. Its an extremely inflexible way of reading Scripture to say that "rock" can only have 1 context; conveniently, you pick the context of Peter rather than the context of Matthew.
bobert432 11 months ago
@bobert432 .....and here......1 Corinthians 10:4 "And all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock [petra] that followed them, and that Rock [petra] was Christ."
johnthreesixteen316 11 months ago
Comment removed
bobert432 11 months ago
@johnthreesixteen316 Paul was talking about the Israelites in the dessert. Again, you isolate portions of scripture & pretend that other portions dont exist. The spiritual rock Paul is talking about typified Christ. Christ is given the attribute of a rock here for many reasons. Just as he given the attributes of a lamb in John & Revelations. Are these mutually exclusive? Do I need to accept that Christ can only be lamb & not rock?
bobert432 11 months ago
@johnthreesixteen316 Again, Christ called Peter his rock. You havent disproved this. Pointing out other places in scripture where the term rock is used doesnt moot the Gospel of Matthew. In Corinthians, Paul is using a literally type to show that the spirit of Christ followed the Israelites through the dessert. In Matthew, Jesus is expressly and directly call Peter his rock. Why would he do that? What might his point have been?
bobert432 11 months ago
@bobert432 "literary" not "literally"
bobert432 11 months ago
Who cares what the antichrist pope says or believes? 1 Timothy 2:5. "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus"
kiwichristian2009 1 year ago
@kiwichristian2009 About a billion people care.
BereanBeacon1 1 year ago
@BereanBeacon1 True. I should of said "What Bible-believing person cares what the..."
kiwichristian2009 1 year ago
@umhalil Can a finite mind understand an infinite being? One God manifesting Himself in 3 personages w/ 3 separate purposes. The Godhead.
filoIII 1 year ago
Hate reigns in these misguided gentlemen.
Lives7 1 year ago
All born-again Christians are The True church.
JesusOurSalvation 1 year ago
@JesusOurSalvation - Not so, unless you do the will of the Father who is in heaven. Remember, the tares among the wheat are Christian who are disobedient to Christ - in another word, they are not disciple of Christ because they do not denounce themselves. Only those who walk by the spirit are sons of God, not those who are in the flesh.
hamcard79s 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hamcard79s Romans 10:9 "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."
kiwichristian2009 11 months ago
Thank you brother. Gods blessings.
astral400 1 year ago
@luy993 Nice propaganda. Sadly, a knowledge of History and the plethora of Roman lies (admitted to even by Rome) shows your twaddle for what it is.
New Rome (RCC), in having Erasmus hand Tyndale and the Reformers a slightly less error riddled form of lie, plied the same gambit that Old Rome used on the Goths.
Scripture was never born of Rome...it is a product of the East, which is why the so-called 'Princes of Rome' allude to Eastern Rite in their 'Apostolic Succession'.
abbesieyes 1 year ago
@umhalil The Son of God, not God the Son.
zionic144nz 1 year ago
YOU MAY ASK YOURSELF - WHO GAVE YOU THE BIBLE IN THE FIRST PLACE? THE CATHOLIC CHURCH OF COURSE. WHO PUT THE PAGES, THE BOOKS OF SCRIPTURE TOGETHER FOR USE TO ALL TRUE CHRISTIANS? THE CATHOLIC CHURCH DID. HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT THERE IS MORE TO SCRIPTURE THEN WHAT YOU ALREADY HOLD IN YOUR HAND? YOU DONT! THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS THE PILLAR AND FOUNDATION OF ALL TRUTHS! WITHOUT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN THE FIRST PLACE, YOU WOULDNT BE REFERRING TO SCRIPTURE.. THINK!
luy993 1 year ago
@luy993 Hello friend. You might want to ask yourself this.....what came first, scripture or the Roman Catholic church? Scripture obviously is the authority by which the Roman Catholic church should be judged.
johnthreesixteen316 1 year ago
@johnthreesixteen316 First, friend defined: "a person who is on good terms with another; a person who is not hostile: Who goes there? Friend or foe?" Although I'm not necessarily a foe of yours I wouldn't classify us as friends at this point! Second, Scripture was written by MAN, not some god as much as you would like to think so! You will say, "it's inspired by god" my response, SIMPLY PROVE IT! Third, SOME OF THE SCRIPTURE was clearly added and is STILL ADDED by men AFTER (CONTINUED)
mythicalhell 1 year ago
Continued here: The formation of the Roman catholic church(you've heard of interpolation?) Finally, scripture as you well know is as previously stated written by men, AND was written 2,000 years ago in the greco roman times thus is just a wee bit out dated hence cannot and should not be used as the authority by which to judge anyone! If you're going to try to do that then you need to stone all gays.
mythicalhell 1 year ago
@mythicalhell Hello again friend. Biblical prophecy proves that it is inspired by God, and not by any human.
johnthreesixteen316 1 year ago 2
@johnthreesixteen316 If I(or a group)wanted prophecy to come true especially back in that time frame there's a number of ways to do it. Example: The prophecy for Jerusalem to be destroyed! A group of mine sets fire to Jerusalem, it burns down hence prophecy comes true! You don't think Zionists are working their @sses off to fulfill end time prophecy? some religious authorities talk about it frequently!! I'm sorry but to claim that proves the bible is inspired fails (CONTINUED:)
mythicalhell 1 year ago
Continued here: Not to mention that it isn't proof of anything!! Christians have tried to make your claim for decades/centuries yet they're constantly being debunked via the scientific method! You seriously can't make claims and not be able to prove them and expect reasonable people to embrace your claims! I guess you will get many uneducated, ignorant, emotion, and superstitious people to jump on your band wagon but it still doesn't make it true!
mythicalhell 1 year ago
Oh, and by the way, I'm not your friend, would you agree?
mythicalhell 1 year ago
@mythicalhell @johnthreesixteen316 is a loving person and sees you as friend. Even if you don't. That doesn't matter, he still loves you.
That's what Christ taught, like it or not.
theyanna 1 year ago
@theyanna Bull crap! He doesn't love me like I don't love him! Those statements are a part of your delusion! Once I have gotten to know someone well THEN AND ONLY THEN do I decide to hate, dislike, like, or love someone! To say you love someone you don't know anything about is shallow to say the least!
mythicalhell 1 year ago