Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

Full story: CBC News

The VaticanA issued a document Tuesday restatingA its belief that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church of Jesus Christ.
Comments
405,381 - 405,400 of 538,353 Comments Last updated 1 hr ago

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#420672
Feb 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

628
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
Marital relations.
The verse is saying they didn't have marital relations before she bore a son, it doesn't mean he "knew" her afterwards.
What logic!!!!

A. You know that the Bible teaches they had marital relations...
B. You say he did not know her before she bore a Son.
C. You say that doesn't mean he "knew" her afterwards.

So...Anthony...when, exactly did they have marital relations!!!!!?????

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#420673
Feb 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Pad wrote:
<quoted text>In response to AnthonyMN.UNTIL means what it says,Joseph did not touch the Virgin Mary while she was pregnant and most likely not shortly after knowing her condition as being sacred in having delivered to the world the Holy Child Jesus.We forget that Joseph must have been in awe of the reality that Mary was carrying in her precous body,the Lord.Joseph did not have N O R M A L relations with his W I F E until she was able to lie next to him as his wife having no baby within her womb,and being by his side as his loving wife.Who knows maybe they waited a year before they could enjoy the beauty of intercourse between each other.
But the complication and madness for centuries has been that Joseph is some old man,perhaps one who selected a virgin to protect her for life.Mary is a temple virgin(another complicated)THEORY either from the Orthodox or Catholic teaching who knows? Let's complicate the issue,why should Mary be just a wife,one who along with her husband bring children into this world?
The Catholics accuse us of assuming and speculating,when they in fact are the masters of it from the get go.Mary and Joseph in the light of Roman Catholicism are a nun and a priest living together,raising Jesus alone,for what? Well seeing the outcome of such a theory in regards to RC and Orthodox teaching,we see Mary now married in essence to the Holy Spirit.As she is called the Spouse of the Holy Spirit.We see that Mary is called the Mother of God,and the many titles given to her,IF in fact she was truly just the woman with Joseph a wife and mother of Jesus,and Joseph's children,Mary could not be Queen of Heaven,or now the Spouse of the Holy Spirit.
It is not possible for Catholics to see Mary outside of an encrypted grotto or case.She must be almost Divine in order to have Jesus,that is why they so strongly believe in the ever-Virginity.It is worship true and true,not just praying to her for requests,but a long history of worship of the Mother of God.It is much more that what could ever be assumed from those simple Scriptures we read earlier from Luke and Mark.Mary is too base if she in fact had other children.No she must be exalted on a level which is not far from her Son Jesus.That is the reality of what is believed,it is not a matter of cousins or some other woman's sons and daughters,it is who and what Mary is.That focus alone takes away from the only ONE to be the main focus in Scripture JESUS the Christ,Son of the Living God.
More made-up, speculation Pad?

"We forget that Joseph must have been in awe of the reality that Mary was carrying in her precous body,the Lord.Joseph did not have N O R M A L relations with his W I F E until she was able to lie next to him as his wife having no baby within her womb,and being by his side as his loving wife."
- considering Joseph is not mentioned much after these "early" passages, how do you know these things? Did they just come to you? Maybe in a dream? Maybe from "God" directly?

I'm thinking this is more opinions and speculation to keep your comfort zone from being intruded with facts.

Stop reading what you want into the passages than what is necessary.

Then again, you could be like Anthony.....*shrugs*.....as he is into "reading into the article" more than what it truly states.
Chuck

Dublin, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#420674
Feb 7, 2013
 
Dust Storm wrote:
<quoted text>
Umm..No you did not respond to the fact your argument was shown to be completely stupid. The only thing that can be concluded is you are an idiot. Why are you shocked by what everyone knows and you prove so well?
Ok..my argument was blown up
So can you respond to these...things

Gen 44 Now Adam KNEW Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain

Gen 4:17 Cain KNEW his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch

**KNEW mean sexual relations...yes or no is fine.
Anthony MN

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#420675
Feb 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Pad wrote:
<quoted text>I do not base any belief I have in Christ on what any protestant reformer thought in the time of that Reformation.If former priests such as Luther still held to the doctrines of ever-virginity or whatever else he learned in that time,that is for him to believe.I am not a Lutheran,nor a Calvinist,nor do I follow the teachings of the Reformers to date.But we have the Scriptures,and as long as we do not complicate their meaning we have simple and undeniable truth as to WHO and WHAT JESUS is,along with His mother and step-father Joseph.
If you want to argue speculation,than you must put aside UNTIL,and those Scriptures in Luke and Mark,believing what your church has taught you.I will not argue speculation:whether Jesus was the Firstborn which He was,but your Catholic theology has some other response to.Or that Joseph speculatively married some other woman first before Mary.Or that Mary was a temple virgin,which is highly legendary rather than solid truth.Mary is the mother who also is mentioned with the brothers and sisters.the WORD cousin is never mentioned. Your speculation is not enough to carry on faith for me.
I believe that Mary is truly blessed,and that she was a wonderful human being,and that she no doubt suffered horribly when her son suffered and died.I do not diminish her in any way,but it is not for me to speculate her ever-virginity,or her being a Queen in heaven,or being the Spouse of the Holy Spirit.ALL Speculation! NO proof whatsoever especially from the very Apostles who shared with us in the New Testament.The Apostles did not give to us your Marian doctrines,so those doctrines are mere speculatory suggestions.
I'm not putting anything aside. The founders of your religion and the generations after them had the same scripture you do and they say she didn't have any other children. And the Catholic Church has held this same belief for 2000 years, as well as all the Eastern Churches.

I suggest that it's you who is following a tradition that developed only a few centuries ago.

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#420676
Feb 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Dust Storm wrote:
<quoted text>
And they called to Lot,“Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may KNOW them
Your argument is astoundingly brilliant here. Knew you say means marital relations. So the men in Sodom and Gomorrah didnt know they had to be married to know them or did the bible sanction homosexual marriage and they were secretly married. Your conclusions are sola confusing. lol
Reading Comprehension problem confirmed.

Anthony wrote that they were "marital relations", not "Chuck"...

http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TV910R5...

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#420677
Feb 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Robert F wrote:
<quoted text>
NASL
I believe what Jesus taught in the Bible.
I believe Jesus is the Truth.
You believe everything Jesus taught in extra-Biblical sources.
You don't believe Jesus is the Truth.
It is your subtle way of snaring someone into an argument, that is so obvious. You laid your trap to many times in the same place and the same way to get any results from the old timers on here.(smile)
So who is really mis-directing, and being up front?(smile)
Always thinking that every non-Catholic is a deviant, huh?

Another tactic you Catholics enjoy, huh?

You are incorrect, yet again.

I do believe that what Jesus taught is true, but you don't.

You accept the teachings of men to be those truths.

Why do you continue to lie about me?

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#420678
Feb 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Robert F wrote:
<quoted text>
NASL
Exactly!
You believe God can do anything, including evil....
Christians believe God only does Good, because God is Good.
Debunked.

"God" - as the OT describes, killed many people.

Looks like "He" broke "His" own commandment.

Your "God" lies. But what do you expect from an "abomination"?
http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/apocjn-long.htm...

Why don't you believe Jesus?
Chuck

Dublin, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#420679
Feb 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
<quoted text>
Reading Comprehension problem confirmed.
Anthony wrote that they were "marital relations", not "Chuck"...
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TV910R5...
He knows that's why you don't hear a peep out of him.lol

and have you noticed he doesn't say anything to Anthony . lol
Anthony MN

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#420680
Feb 7, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Chuck wrote:
<quoted text>
After Jesus was born, Joseph and Mary had sexual relations. That's what husbands and wives do Tony. You're arguing the wrong point. She was not a virgin her whole life.
Calvin, Luther, Zwingli and all your sola scriptura protestant ancestors who had the same bible you do says she didn't. They called people fools who would suggest she did based on the word "until" because they understood the usage of the term and the average uneducated peasant didn't (modern day protestant who picks up a KJV and decides they can interpret on their own, lol).

I guess you just know the bible better than they did and have better guidance by the Holy Spirit.
LTM

Sudbury, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#420681
Feb 7, 2013
 
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
So you and your friends here would like to beat up the pope.
Isn't that kind of behaviour something you say you left behind after you got saved?
Anthony, I am not interested in beating anyone up period.
Violence begets violence.
But don't you think it would be interesting if the Pope came on here.
There are a lot of people how ever who would like to punch him.
I am not one of them.
Dust Storm

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#420682
Feb 7, 2013
 
Pad wrote:
<quoted text>Aren't you the smart one here.KNEW is sexual relations,Joseph knew her not UNTIL-------Simple fact of Joseph not having sexual relations with Mary UNTIL she was ready,after Jesus was born,and a time of waiting for her to resume her obligation of being a wife to a righteous son of Israel.You are JEWISH?
So whether KNEW is a distorted sexual encounter between the male rapists of Sodom,or that which describes the relationship familiar to a husband and wife,we k n o w the difference smart guy!You cheapen the word by such an attempt to define words to a Catholic mentality.
You say, "Knew is sexual relations." Thank you! The men of Sodom did not seek marital relations. The End.

As for your conclusions that she was not ready yet and had other children that is not proven in the bible period. Until is not an argument based on what it means when used in the bible. I presented enough texts to prove that. Where does the bible say Mary knew Joseph before or after or any man?
Chuck

Dublin, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#420683
Feb 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
Calvin, Luther, Zwingli and all your sola scriptura protestant ancestors who had the same bible you do says she didn't. They called people fools who would suggest she did based on the word "until" because they understood the usage of the term and the average uneducated peasant didn't (modern day protestant who picks up a KJV and decides they can interpret on their own, lol).
I guess you just know the bible better than they did and have better guidance by the Holy Spirit.
What do you say we leave the ancesters out of it. I want your opinion Tony. Does the word KNEW in the passages below mean that Adam and Cain had sexual relations wife their wives..YES or No is fine..thanks

Gen 44 Now Adam KNEW Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain

Gen 4:17 Cain KNEW his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch
ReginaM

Lakewood, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#420684
Feb 7, 2013
 
LTM wrote:
<quoted text>
Anthony, I am not interested in beating anyone up period.
Violence begets violence.
But don't you think it would be interesting if the Pope came on here.
There are a lot of people how ever who would like to punch him.
I am not one of them.
Sure you are, you're the one who brought it up.

The only ones who would like to punch him want to marry each other (and they're both men). The other one is also an effete snob, but he can't even find a man who'll put up with him.
The rest are simply deniers of the truth.
Anthony MN

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#420685
Feb 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Oxbow wrote:
628
<quoted text>
What logic!!!!
A. You know that the Bible teaches they had marital relations...
B. You say he did not know her before she bore a Son.
C. You say that doesn't mean he "knew" her afterwards.
So...Anthony...when, exactly did they have marital relations!!!!!?????
A. No, the bible doean't teach they had marital relations.
B. Yes, the bible says they did not have marital relations before she bore a son. This is another way we know of the virgin birth.
C. Yes, the usage of the word "until" in that time meant "not up to the point that" she bore a son. It does not mean it occured aterwards.

They never did have marital relations. They were not an average Jewish couple. They were raising the Son of God.
Chuck

Dublin, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#420686
Feb 7, 2013
 
Dust Storm wrote:
<quoted text>
You say, "Knew is sexual relations." Thank you! The men of Sodom did not seek marital relations. The End.
Anthony said knew means martial relations. Are you going to set your fellow catholic straight?
Anthony MN

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#420687
Feb 7, 2013
 
LTM wrote:
<quoted text>
Anthony, I am not interested in beating anyone up period.
Violence begets violence.
But don't you think it would be interesting if the Pope came on here.
There are a lot of people how ever who would like to punch him.
I am not one of them.
I feel so sorry for you.
MICHAEL

Hamilton, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#420688
Feb 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

hojo wrote:
<quoted text>
YOU and your other bible only believers are the ones that "keep saying" that every word, phrase and sentence "must be in the bible" in order for it to be true.... We as Catholics ALL know that (you keep spinning your wheels) and that your distorted, unbiblical (self-opinionated)_ belief is false, UNTRUE and is a lie!!....! There is NOTHING in the bible that supports "any of your bible only" doctrine!!...Furthermore--- Why do you keep referring to Church History (regarding Constantine and Church Tradition when you don't support and don't believe "either one" As far as your concerned Constantine (never existed) and that there is "no such thing as church history) because Constantines name is not in the bible!!---yet you keep referring to him. You continue to speak out of "both sides of your mouth" or better called "forked tongue"!! Confrinting--you keep "digging" deeper and deeper hole for yourself with your (bogus) "half-truth, half-heresy" Christianity. You are not fooling "anyone" but yourself!!
You forgot to say 1.168 billion catholics, which equals just 16.5432%.........out of 7,292,568,799 in our world.

http://www.ibiblio.org/lunarbin/worldpop

2,000 years and only 16.5% and today most don't even adhere to their belief which makes it about 8%. OMG!

I bring stories of truth. Catholics don't like truth unless its their truth.



CONFIRMED!
Anthony MN

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#420689
Feb 7, 2013
 
Chuck wrote:
<quoted text>
What do you say we leave the ancesters out of it. I want your opinion Tony. Does the word KNEW in the passages below mean that Adam and Cain had sexual relations wife their wives..YES or No is fine..thanks
Gen 44 Now Adam KNEW Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain
Gen 4:17 Cain KNEW his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch
No we're not going to leave your protestant ancestors out of it because they read the exact same passage from scripture and said the word "until" means something entirely different than what you and your friends here think it means. How is that possible if your both being led in all truth by the Holy Spirit and scripture is your only authority?

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#420690
Feb 7, 2013
 
636
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
The firstborn were always called firstborn regardless of whether there was a second or third or fourth...
Christ was God's only begotten Son...the Bible says so. Christ is never referred to as Mary's only begotten Son....

If there is only one child born to a couple, that child is not the firstborn....he is the only born!!!!!
Anthony MN

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#420691
Feb 7, 2013
 
Chuck wrote:
<quoted text>
Anthony said knew means martial relations. Are you going to set your fellow catholic straight?
Your claim that she had marital relations AFTER giving birth to Jesus is based on the word "until" in this passage.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••