Jesus is King

Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

#966 Dec 26, 2013
Dave P wrote:
<quoted text>
*Men are not infallible. Even if they belong to a group "having the fullness of the truth", since they are fallen they could very well mess up that truth, misrepresent it, decide to go rogue and present their own ideas, give their own personal opinions, etc. We do know for a fact it has happened before.
I am a man. I can get things wrong, and have. Last I checked, everyone here is human as well, and can be wrong. Including catholic priests and leaders. As you have educated us about, your leaders are not infallible 24/7. The possibility of errors exists.
Its simple. Compare what the priests or nuns are teaching and compare it to the CCC. IF he or she is not, you bring it to the Church. Where is the Church? Wherever the Bishop is.

Whoever hears the Church hears Jesus.

Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

#967 Dec 26, 2013
Dave P wrote:
<quoted text>
You're making assumptions you may be wrong about. You have no idea what each individual is focused on when they attend a service. Your mass is not about the priest; our services in most places are not about the preacher.
"Worship is not a 45 minute one way Bible study". Who said it was?
In the COC the focal point of Sunday services, everywhere I have been, is the Lords Supper.
*You admit you are teaching errors yet you continue to do it jeopardizing the salvation hope of the people who are listening.
I admit all men who teach, including catholics, have some error they have presented before; been mistaken about something. May I ask, same as has been asked others, just what exact error or errors "jeopardizes someone's salvation hopes"? Imperfect man has to be 100% accurate in all of his beliefs to be saved? If so, write 100% of all humanity down as lost. After all, as you admit, most didn't know how to read for centuries. Did they understand all that was told to them? If they didn't, are they in hell?
*Most respectful preachers I know keep their remarks 30 minutes and under because of attention spans.
You may be taking your past experiences with the Baptists out on everyone else now. I don't believe your pope would react the same way.
What jeopardizes someone salvation hopes? Not having accessibility to the Sacraments. How can somebody be forgiven unless you confess you sins. Jesus specifically said that the Church can forgive or not forgive sins. How does the Church know what your sins are unless you confess them.

You have admitted what you preach is in error. How much 25, 50 , or 75%? You have no clue because you personally have made it up. You have no authority.
Annoyed Proxy

Mclean, VA

#968 Dec 26, 2013
Mike_Peterson wrote:
<quoted text>
Fact. The Bible is a Catholic book.. The Church decided on the canon in AD 390 and St Jerome made the translation of each of the scriptures and then the Bible was hand copied on sheepskin by Monks for 1100 years. It would take years for 1 Bible to hand copied and herd of sheep had to be killed for their skins. At today's prices, a Bible would cost $10,000.
You would not have a Bible without the Church. the original manuscripts have been lost for tens of centuries because they were written on parchment.
You worship a book and don't know a thing about it.
Sad.
The Latin Romans developed one Canon.

The Greek Churches developed another.

The Syriac Churches another, called the "Peshitto"

The Copts another.

The Ethiopians the largest.

The Catholic Eastern Churches recognize the same Bible as their Orthodox/Assyrian counterparts as Canonical. So there is variance within the Catholic Communion of Churches.
Just because the Catholics decided to close the canon doesn't mean everyone paid attention to them, obviously. There were churches prior to the Catholic attempt to determine scripture which told them to take a hike just as the Protestants did. The Catholics are idol worshipers. No other way of describing it (this was yesterday 12/25/13). Now this is sad. A grown man, a supposedly leader of the Christian church according to Catholics kissing a statue. I think this man has no idea whatsoever of whom the Christ is. That statue was not him and to kiss it in worship of the Lord is SAD indeed.

Annoyed Proxy

Mclean, VA

#969 Dec 26, 2013
Mike_Peterson wrote:
<quoted text>
Its simple. Compare what the priests or nuns are teaching and compare it to the CCC. IF he or she is not, you bring it to the Church. Where is the Church? Wherever the Bishop is.
Whoever hears the Church hears Jesus.
Who cares what the CCC says? Jesus never mentioned it or gave it to the church did he? Lets see the priests and nuns compare what they teach to the bible. That is the real reason for the CCC, to do away with the difference between what the bible teaches and what the Catholic church teaches.
Dave P

Olive Hill, KY

#970 Dec 26, 2013
Mike_Peterson wrote:
<quoted text>
What jeopardizes someone salvation hopes? Not having accessibility to the Sacraments. How can somebody be forgiven unless you confess you sins. Jesus specifically said that the Church can forgive or not forgive sins. How does the Church know what your sins are unless you confess them.
You have admitted what you preach is in error. How much 25, 50 , or 75%? You have no clue because you personally have made it up. You have no authority.
As far as I can tell, baptism and the Lords' Supper are available to anyone who desires them anywhere.

*The church didn't exist when Jesus told the 12 that whatever they loosed on earth had already been loosed in heaven. He also never told the church "whoever hears YOU hears Me"- that was to the 70, and to 11 of the 12.

Who forgives sin- God or a priest?

I didn't admit what I preach is in error. I admitted I can be wrong. Yet you will not admit that it is possible a catholic priest can go off the reservation and be mistaken as well.
Dave P

Olive Hill, KY

#971 Dec 26, 2013
Mike_Peterson wrote:
<quoted text>
Its simple. Compare what the priests or nuns are teaching and compare it to the CCC. IF he or she is not, you bring it to the Church. Where is the Church? Wherever the Bishop is.
Whoever hears the Church hears Jesus.
So you admit the nun or priest can be wrong, go away from the catholic teaching?
Dave P

Olive Hill, KY

#972 Dec 26, 2013
Mike_Peterson wrote:
<quoted text>
Its simple. Compare what the priests or nuns are teaching and compare it to the CCC. IF he or she is not, you bring it to the Church. Where is the Church? Wherever the Bishop is.
Whoever hears the Church hears Jesus.
Wouldn't it be better if we compared what anyone taught to the Bible first? After all, shouldn't the CCC echo Bible teaching?
Barnsweb

Canton, OH

#973 Dec 27, 2013
Mike_Peterson wrote:
<quoted text>
Fact. The Bible is a Catholic book.. The Church decided on the canon in AD 390 and St Jerome made the translation of each of the scriptures and then the Bible was hand copied on sheepskin by Monks for 1100 years. It would take years for 1 Bible to hand copied and herd of sheep had to be killed for their skins. At today's prices, a Bible would cost $10,000.
You would not have a Bible without the Church. the original manuscripts have been lost for tens of centuries because they were written on parchment.
You worship a book and don't know a thing about it.
Sad.
Mike, surely you are capable of better understanding. What you say here defies common sense. How could the Church, which was established by the Christ, be devoid of Scripture until AD 390? What did the Church use as the textbook to study what Christ Jesus taught for the period between 33-390 AD? We know Luke was written in this period. We know it was sent to at least one reported person named in its text, as well as Acts. Then we have other gospel accounts from Matthew and John - there is also historical evidence to support both of these books being in the hands of the Church of Christ before 390 AD - in fact, Matthew was in much use prior to AD 67.

The Church had these books and used them extensively.

Granted, later on many spurious books were brought in by enemies of Christ, and it was the work about 350-390 AD that rid many of these books from accepted use, but that work was to take away the books believed spurious - not to introduce the true books that had been with the Church all along.

What do you make of the differences between the RCC version of the NT VS the ancient record of the Aramaic of the East? And how did your Church get the authority to change the name of the only name under heaven by which men might be saved?(Y'shua to Jesus)

Whose statue was altered to then say it is now Peter?;-)

It shouldn't be too hard to tell the actual truth, should it? Only those of Satan are incapable to tell the truth or hear the words of Yeshua.
Barnsweb

Canton, OH

#974 Dec 27, 2013
Annoyed Proxy wrote:
<quoted text>
The Latin Romans developed one Canon.
The Greek Churches developed another.
The Syriac Churches another, called the "Peshitto"
The Copts another.
The Ethiopians the largest.
The Catholic Eastern Churches recognize the same Bible as their Orthodox/Assyrian counterparts as Canonical. So there is variance within the Catholic Communion of Churches.
Just because the Catholics decided to close the canon doesn't mean everyone paid attention to them, obviously. There were churches prior to the Catholic attempt to determine scripture which told them to take a hike just as the Protestants did. The Catholics are idol worshipers. No other way of describing it (this was yesterday 12/25/13). Now this is sad. A grown man, a supposedly leader of the Christian church according to Catholics kissing a statue. I think this man has no idea whatsoever of whom the Christ is. That statue was not him and to kiss it in worship of the Lord is SAD indeed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =MIz6J_46hg0XX
Absolutely. Funny that we are told by God to make no image and bow down to it, yet they make little figure of the same thing they eat off of, paint it with the same paint they use to paint the walls of their homes, and then bow down to kiss the work of their own hands and worship the image as their God! Sort of a perverted way to "kiss the Son"?, while they refuse the true word and submission to His Testimony from God... really sad. Then they demand everyone who does not worship their idols as they do that they aren't really the "true Church"? Truth is not the Church, truth is the words of God - not the words and doctrine of men.

Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

#975 Dec 27, 2013
Annoyed Proxy wrote:
<quoted text>
The Latin Romans developed one Canon.
The Greek Churches developed another.
The Syriac Churches another, called the "Peshitto"
The Copts another.
The Ethiopians the largest.
The Catholic Eastern Churches recognize the same Bible as their Orthodox/Assyrian counterparts as Canonical. So there is variance within the Catholic Communion of Churches.
Just because the Catholics decided to close the canon doesn't mean everyone paid attention to them, obviously. There were churches prior to the Catholic attempt to determine scripture which told them to take a hike just as the Protestants did. The Catholics are idol worshipers. No other way of describing it (this was yesterday 12/25/13). Now this is sad. A grown man, a supposedly leader of the Christian church according to Catholics kissing a statue. I think this man has no idea whatsoever of whom the Christ is. That statue was not him and to kiss it in worship of the Lord is SAD indeed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =MIz6J_46hg0XX
You have just proved the point how asinine SS is. You claim all these Bibles are different yet you say the Bible is the sole authority. How can that be if they are all different.

What Canon is the right one?

You worship a book. A book. Jesus did not even mention a book and you worship one. That is why there are 40,000 of you low end prots believing all sorts of things.

Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

#976 Dec 27, 2013
We have a bible because of the Catholic Church. Case closed. Even all high end Prots believe that .

Because of SS, you profane God's Words.

Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

#977 Dec 27, 2013
Barnsweb wrote:
<quoted text>
Mike, surely you are capable of better understanding. What you say here defies common sense. How could the Church, which was established by the Christ, be devoid of Scripture until AD 390? What did the Church use as the textbook to study what Christ Jesus taught for the period between 33-390 AD? We know Luke was written in this period. We know it was sent to at least one reported person named in its text, as well as Acts. Then we have other gospel accounts from Matthew and John - there is also historical evidence to support both of these books being in the hands of the Church of Christ before 390 AD - in fact, Matthew was in much use prior to AD 67.
The Church had these books and used them extensively.
Granted, later on many spurious books were brought in by enemies of Christ, and it was the work about 350-390 AD that rid many of these books from accepted use, but that work was to take away the books believed spurious - not to introduce the true books that had been with the Church all along.
What do you make of the differences between the RCC version of the NT VS the ancient record of the Aramaic of the East? And how did your Church get the authority to change the name of the only name under heaven by which men might be saved?(Y'shua to Jesus)
Whose statue was altered to then say it is now Peter?;-)
It shouldn't be too hard to tell the actual truth, should it? Only those of Satan are incapable to tell the truth or hear the words of Yeshua.
There were hundreds of 'scriptures' being circuclated in Churches for 300 years. Not every Church had every scripture.

That is exactly why the Church had to come up with a Canon. They 'voted' on which scriptures were the word of God. Voted on it. About 8 of those who made the canon almost didn't and 8 that didnt almost did.

You low end prots accept the decision they made at that council. God did not send an angel down to give them a table of contents. They might have even horse traded over wine.

I will support 1st Peter if you vote for the Didache. Men decided, after prayer, what was going to be the NT.

The Catholic Church owns the Bible. They wrote it, put it together and protected it for 1100 years.

You should read a good history of the Bible up until the printing press was invented. BTW, the first book printed was the Bible. Gutenberg was a Catholic of course.

How We Got the Bible is a good one written by a former Protester pastor.
Annoyed Proxy

Torrance, CA

#978 Dec 27, 2013
Mike_Peterson wrote:
We have a bible because of the Catholic Church. Case closed. Even all high end Prots believe that .
Because of SS, you profane God's Words.
Not so. They did play an important part in helping the scriptures survive as have those churches I listed. The scriptures were before the Roman Catholic church and would have survived even if there was no church at Rome. Read the post of Barnsweb, he hits the nail right on the head about the canon development.
Annoyed Proxy

Torrance, CA

#979 Dec 27, 2013
Mike_Peterson wrote:
<quoted text>
There were hundreds of 'scriptures' being circuclated in Churches for 300 years. Not every Church had every scripture.
That is exactly why the Church had to come up with a Canon. They 'voted' on which scriptures were the word of God. Voted on it. About 8 of those who made the canon almost didn't and 8 that didnt almost did.
You low end prots accept the decision they made at that council. God did not send an angel down to give them a table of contents. They might have even horse traded over wine.
I will support 1st Peter if you vote for the Didache. Men decided, after prayer, what was going to be the NT.
The Catholic Church owns the Bible. They wrote it, put it together and protected it for 1100 years.
You should read a good history of the Bible up until the printing press was invented. BTW, the first book printed was the Bible. Gutenberg was a Catholic of course.
How We Got the Bible is a good one written by a former Protester pastor.
Here is a second century new testament canon a few years prior to the Catholic claims you make. You never pulled it out of thin air as yo claim and the other churches never paid any attention to Rome anyway. The only reason Prots are influenced by the Catholics as much as they are is because when we left we took some of the garbage with us. At least we left, the blind sheep remain.
Barnsweb

Canton, OH

#980 Dec 27, 2013
Mike_Peterson wrote:
<quoted text>
There were hundreds of 'scriptures' being circuclated in Churches for 300 years. Not every Church had every scripture.
That is exactly why the Church had to come up with a Canon. They 'voted' on which scriptures were the word of God. Voted on it. About 8 of those who made the canon almost didn't and 8 that didnt almost did.
You low end prots accept the decision they made at that council. God did not send an angel down to give them a table of contents. They might have even horse traded over wine.
I will support 1st Peter if you vote for the Didache. Men decided, after prayer, what was going to be the NT.
The Catholic Church owns the Bible. They wrote it, put it together and protected it for 1100 years.
You should read a good history of the Bible up until the printing press was invented. BTW, the first book printed was the Bible. Gutenberg was a Catholic of course.
How We Got the Bible is a good one written by a former Protester pastor.
"History of the Book" is a good read with much info. Is that the one you referred to? You are side-stepping my point. We all know there was no printing press for a long time. Of my study of RCC doctrines, what is there today is a process of historical and cultural evolution since about 150 AD. As the RCC sees itself today, it didn't exist until centuries after the Church began on Pentecost, about 33 AD.

That the 'texts' of the NT books went out from Jerusalem and the early Church original disciples (Apostles) is not under question. We agree about that, don't we? So if they wrote the books, which went out to the Church wherever it grew - to the entire known world - many of the oldest manuscripts were in Aramaic, the language spoken by Yeshua and the disciples. The Roman Church translated the Hebrew and Aramaic to Greek. Along with the translation, the Roman Church removed the "name" of Yeshua, as well as the key identifier in Acts 2:38,39 from the original "Master YHWH Y'shua".

As such, is the RCC the sole author of it's 'version' of it's own Bible devoid of the true name and the inclusion of the NT Balaam? Yes. And this perversion of truth by Paul is what lead to most of the false RCC doctrines, as well as the false doctrines of what you call 'low end prots'. The RCC can only blame herself for belief of lies he spoke in the name of God. She alone, by perversion of the truth, has created all the doctrines of man that reject the Doctrine of God in the pure holiness given by Master YHWH Yeshua.

Do you believe these things?:

John 15:9-15; "As the Father loved Me, I also have loved you; abide in My love. If you keep My commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept My Father's commandments and abide in His love. These things I have spoken to you, that My joy may remain in you, and that your joy may be full. This is My commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one's life for his friends. You are My friends if you do whatever I command you. No longer do I call you servants, for a servant does not know what his master is doing, but I have called you friends, for all things that I heard from My Father I have made known to you."

Revelation 22:14; "Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city."

John 14:23,24; "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. He who does not love Me does not keep My words, and the word which you hear is not Mine, but the Father's who sent Me."
Barnsweb

Canton, OH

#981 Dec 27, 2013
He wants to abide with us, but which of us wants to abide with Him by the terms He gave?

"If you abide in My word, ye are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free." Speaking of God, He also said, "Thy word is truth." and "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God."

And in the opening sermon He said not one pen-stroke of the Law could pass away till all things be fulfilled and heaven and earth pass away. Satan is not yet in the Lake of Fire and the earth was still here when I checked out my window a moment ago.....

"Abiding" is to remain in a state of what was given - not pretending to add to or take away from any of it.(Acts 3:22,23 and the parting verses of Revelation)
Annoyed Proxy

Torrance, CA

#982 Dec 27, 2013
This is the different translations of the The Muratorian Fragment regarding the Shepherd of Hermas and Pius. Note in these translations he is considered only a bishop of Rome not the "church". The Catholics went back and filed in the blanks to their liking when they traced a line of Popes back to Peter. Also it is implied that the Shepherd had the blessings of Pius. Infallible? Somebody isn't because the Catholic church dropped the Shepherd later on.

Pius, the bishop, occupied the [episcopal] seat of the city of Rome.

Plus sat in the chair of the Church of Rome.

while bishop Pius, his brother, was occupying the [episcopal] chair (76) of the church of the city of Rome.

But Hermas wrote the Shepherd quite lately in our time in the city of Rome, when on the throne of the church of the city of Rome the bishop Pius, his brother, was seated.

But Hermas wrote "the Shepherd" in the city of Rome most recently in our times, when his brother bishop Pious was occupying the chair in the church at Rome

But the Shepherd was written very recently in our time by Hermas in the city of Rome, when his brother overseer Pius was seated in the chair of the Roman assembly

Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

#983 Dec 27, 2013
Annoyed Proxy wrote:
This is the different translations of the The Muratorian Fragment regarding the Shepherd of Hermas and Pius. Note in these translations he is considered only a bishop of Rome not the "church". The Catholics went back and filed in the blanks to their liking when they traced a line of Popes back to Peter. Also it is implied that the Shepherd had the blessings of Pius. Infallible? Somebody isn't because the Catholic church dropped the Shepherd later on.
Pius, the bishop, occupied the [episcopal] seat of the city of Rome.
Plus sat in the chair of the Church of Rome.
while bishop Pius, his brother, was occupying the [episcopal] chair (76) of the church of the city of Rome.
But Hermas wrote the Shepherd quite lately in our time in the city of Rome, when on the throne of the church of the city of Rome the bishop Pius, his brother, was seated.
But Hermas wrote "the Shepherd" in the city of Rome most recently in our times, when his brother bishop Pious was occupying the chair in the church at Rome
But the Shepherd was written very recently in our time by Hermas in the city of Rome, when his brother overseer Pius was seated in the chair of the Roman assembly
The Sheperd of Hermas was written in the 1st or 2nd Century and almost made the Canon of the Bible.

We have the early Church Fathers writing about it. How could they write about something written centuries later.

" St. Irenæus and Tertullian (in his Catholic days) cite the "Shepherd" as Scripture. Clement of Alexandria constantly quotes it with reverence, and so does Origen, who held that the author was the Hermas mentioned by St. Paul, Romans 16:14. He says the work seems to him to be very useful, and Divinely inspired; yet he repeatedly apologizes, when he has occasion to quote it, on the ground that "many people despise it". Tertullian, when a Montanist, implies that Pope St. Callistus had quoted it as an authority (though evidently not as Scripture), for he replies: "I would admit your argument, if the writing of the Shepherd had deserved to be included in the Divine Instrument, and if it were not judged by every council of the Churches, even of your own Churches, among the apocryphal and false." And again, he says that the Epistle of Barnabas is "more received among the Churches than that apocryphal Shepherd" (On Pudicity 10 and 20). Tertullian was no doubt right, that the book had been excluded at Rome from the Bible Instrumentum, but he is exaggerating in referring to "every council" and to a total rejection, for the teaching of the "Pastor" was in direct contradiction with his own rigid views as to penance. His earlier use of it is paralleled by the Acts of Sts. Perpetua and Felicitas, before the end of the second century, but there is no trace of it in St. Cyprian, so that it would seem to have gone out of use in Africa during the early decades of the third century. Somewhat later it is quoted by the author of the pseudo-Cyprianic tract "Adv. aleatores" as "Scriptura divina", but in St. Jerome's day it was "almost unknown to the Latins". Curiously, it went out of fashion in the East, so that the Greek manuscripts of it are but two in number, whereas in the West it became better known and was frequently copied in the Middle Ages."
Annoying Proxy

Torrance, CA

#984 Dec 27, 2013
Mike_Peterson wrote:
<quoted text>
The Sheperd of Hermas was written in the 1st or 2nd Century and almost made the Canon of the Bible.
We have the early Church Fathers writing about it. How could they write about something written centuries later.
I am saying it was written in the second century. I don't know what you are talking about.
Barnsweb

Canton, OH

#985 Dec 27, 2013
Mike_Peterson wrote:
<quoted text>
There were hundreds of 'scriptures' being circuclated in Churches for 300 years. Not every Church had every scripture.
That is exactly why the Church had to come up with a Canon. They 'voted' on which scriptures were the word of God. Voted on it. About 8 of those who made the canon almost didn't and 8 that didnt almost did.
You low end prots accept the decision they made at that council. God did not send an angel down to give them a table of contents. They might have even horse traded over wine.
I will support 1st Peter if you vote for the Didache. Men decided, after prayer, what was going to be the NT.
The Catholic Church owns the Bible. They wrote it, put it together and protected it for 1100 years.
You should read a good history of the Bible up until the printing press was invented. BTW, the first book printed was the Bible. Gutenberg was a Catholic of course.
How We Got the Bible is a good one written by a former Protester pastor.
I think you're absolutely funny buddy. The Eastern Church and Aramaic African Church received the same texts the CC voted on 300 years later and you say the CC is the source of the text because your Church approved of it by voting for it? For almost 300 years others had a Bible before you, but you deny theirs because yours didn't vote on theirs?:-)

Don't blame 'low end prots', blame your high-minded profs for telling you an abject lie.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Bassett Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Catholics (Feb '14) Aug 22 mpetershat 3,369
Victory Baptist Church: The BIG cross (Apr '12) Aug 20 Mel 21
i gotta doo doo!!! Jul '16 Captain peckerlips 1
I like to get on some buttseckz.. I aint gay.. ... Jun '16 Captain peckerlips 1
Who got da biggest pecker in all uh Furrum? Jun '16 Captain peckerlips 1
Christians Murder American Indians (Jan '12) Jun '16 Kevo8263 32
Sarah Smith nude ! (Jul '12) Jun '16 sarasmith 2

Bassett Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Bassett Mortgages