Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

[atemcowboy]

BTW< I hope that no catholic on here is stupid enough to question that fact that Now the NT is in effect and John was now a Priest in the New Dispensation as recorded in the NT

[atemcowboy]

ReginaM wrote:

<quoted text>
What is written came from what was orally taught.
The bible is the written portion of Tradition.
Sorry, Marge.

shame on you for being that ignorant. how many times will a person read that other apostles are mentioning letters written and even given the name of scriptures?

[atemcowboy]

Clay wrote:

<quoted text>
I heard someone explain it well. I think it was Madrid or Hahn. If Jesus entrusted the care of His Mother to someone other than His siblings, it would have been basically illegal under Jewish law and totally outside of all cultural norm of that period.(Heck, its even rare today) His supposed siblings would not have their Mother go with anyone but them. And Christ would not offend his brothers and sisters like that.
These folks on here are Conspiracy Christians. They are so hell bent on separating themselves from Catholicism that they threw out all logic.
Lol, the duhVinci code is right.

keep reading and you will learn the truth and it didnt come from some catholic apologist like hahn.lol

[Clay]

atemcowboy wrote:

<quoted text>I guess that you catholics dont read very well, do you?
several years ago, this was brought up and I showed everyone why this was done and in the jewish community is still being done today.
so let me give it to you again and this time take notes so you will remember it.
the widow is given into the care of a rabbi or a priest for a time of bereavement, and that is what Jesus did, He gave his mom into the care of a Priest, John. since his siblings didnt believe in Him at that time.

Don't you guys believe the Apostle James was Jesus's biological brother?
So far, you've only showed me your unauthoritative opinion.

[atemcowboy]

Chuck wrote:

<quoted text>
Tony...we have a thing going here. Remember it's your turn. Please interpret for me if the Woman is Mary. thanks
Rev 12:6 and the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, in which she is to be nourished for 1,260 days.

we discussed this several weeks ago, THEY KNOW that this Wilderness was not egypt, but their pride in their church will not allow them to admit they are being deceived.

[Clay]

atemcowboy wrote:

<quoted text>keep reading and you will learn the truth and it didnt come from some catholic apologist like hahn.lol

What Apostles do you declare that Christ was biologically related to? James the less, James Tthe greater... Jude? Help me out. Maybe I'm missing your doctrine here. You can't blame me Preston, you guys are difficult to follow doctrinally.

[atemcowboy]

Clay wrote:

<quoted text>
Don't you guys believe the Apostle James was Jesus's biological brother?
So far, you've only showed me your unauthoritative opinion.

I beleive that the Apostles thought so and that included Paul. now her is why only Sola Scripture should be addressed as the ONLY truth.

read this snippet.

Today we believe a canon of inspired writings is a necessity, but this was not so in the early days of the church. There was a strong oral and apostolic tradition within the early church. As mentioned earlier, the apostles and their associates were the human source of the "word of God" (Acts 4:29-31; 6:2-7; 11:1; 12:24; 13:46; et al.). Many of the early Christians remembered the apostles and their associates' teachings, teachings that were deeply imbedded in their minds. At first unity and lack of controversy within the church meant brethren did not have to constantly turn to a written Word to settle issues. By the middle of the first century, some uninformed individuals caused confusion about the relation of the Mosaic Law and Old Covenant to the Gospel and New Covenant. This issue was addressed by the apostles (Acts, Romans, Galatians, Hebrews, et al.). The apostles' effort largely corrected this problem, and the church was generally unified in doctrine. Also, writing and books were nothing like they are now. Today we generally think that for any idea to be authoritative, it must have come from a book, but this was not so in the early church.

and we see that oral teachings by those other than the Apsotles caused trouble and we now see that on this forum with you catholics believing everything that the vatican tells u

[atemcowboy]

Clay wrote:

<quoted text>
Don't you guys believe the Apostle James was Jesus's biological brother?
So far, you've only showed me your unauthoritative opinion.

BTW, what does that have to do with the fact that hahn playing now the part of Jerome was lying to you people.?

at that time James was not a believer unless you didnt know that.and it is very possible that you probably think that he was one of the original 12.

and if hahn did even a little research, he would have known why Jesus gave mary into the care of John, especially since those children were mentioned as being with her one time or another.

guess that he aint no where as intelligent as my big brother. OF COURSE I ALREADY KNEW THAT.

AND IF HIS iq IS 148, HE IS SMARTER THAN ME 2.LOL

[atemcowboy]

Clay wrote:

<quoted text>
What Apostles do you declare that Christ was biologically related to? James the less, James the greater... Jude? Help me out. Maybe I'm missing your doctrine here. You can't blame me Preston, you guys are difficult to follow doctrinally.

AND THERE IN LIES YOUR PROBLEM, i DONT FOLLOW DOCTRINE AND i DOUBT IF CHUCK IS EITHER. WE ARE FOLLOWING THE bIBLE. SO IF YOU WISH TO KNOW IF ANY APOSTLES Were RELATED TO HIM READ YOUR BIBLE AND FIND OUT. I did.

[Anthony MN]

atemcowboy wrote:

<quoted text>iF jESUSS WAS WANTING TO SPEAK ABOUT THAT WOMAN BEING THE CHURCH, HE WOULD HAVE SAID SO.
sinc e he started out speaking to the letters to different churches.
so if the rcc believes it is mary, no wonder you people dont know anything about the bible, you allow them to tell you what you think, just like clay showed

Don't tell me, tell your sola scriptura protestant brethren who disagree with you.

Every city "church" is part of THE Church. There is only ONE Church, a concept protestants just can't seem to grasp.

[atemcowboy]

Clay wrote:

<quoted text>
What Apostles do you declare that Christ was biologically related to? James the less, James Tthe greater... Jude? Help me out. Maybe I'm missing your doctrine here. You can't blame me Preston, you guys are difficult to follow doctrinally.

OK, I feel sorry for you and to help you leanr some truth, the answer is none of them.

however you tossed in a name that wasnt an apostle but who indeed was the brother of Jesus and that is Jude.

here are the names.

Simon Peter; Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee; John his brother; Philip; Bartholomew; Thomas; Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus; Labbaeus, who was surnamed Thaddaeus; Simon the Cananite; Judas Iscariot, in whose stead came in Matthias.

and the names of the brothers are these.

brothers names were, James, Joses(also spelled joseph), Simon and Judas(also spelled jude and judah, and they are all pronouced the same)so you can see why they might be confused with being different people.

First, I thought it would be interesting to look up a little about Jude. Jude is the English form of the name Judas (loudas), the Greek form of Judah, which literally means “to give thanks, or praise”. The English version of the name is used in most versions of the Bible to disassociate Jude from Judas Iscariot. Most theologians agree that Jude was a half-brother to Jesus, as he was spoken of in Matt. 13:55:“Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mothers name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas?”

Verse 1:“Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James, to those who have been called, who are loved by God the Father and kept by Jesus Christ:”

The first verse starts out:“Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James”.... It is thought that Jude was probably being humble because he did not believe that his own half-brother, Jesus, was the Messiah during His earthly days (nor did his other brothers - John 7:5).

[atemcowboy]

Anthony MN wrote:

<quoted text>
Don't tell me, tell your sola scriptura protestant brethren who disagree with you.
Every city "church" is part of THE Church. There is only ONE Church, a concept protestants just can't seem to grasp.

nice try to deflect, I aint talking to them you are the person trying to tell us that it is mary.lol.

have you ever heard of the word [harmonize}? that is what you need to find out who this is relating to and the dream of Joseph is the key to your understanding, not the vatican nor hahn. the Bible.

[atemcowboy]

Anthony MN wrote:

<quoted text>
Don't tell me, tell your sola scriptura protestant brethren who disagree with you.
Every city "church" is part of THE Church. There is only ONE Church, a concept protestants just can't seem to grasp.

but that church is not the roman catholic church. the only church is made up of Born Again Chrsitians, no matter where they go to church.

but I do agree that YOUR church is mentioned in the Book of revelation, which is why your church has tried its best to discredit the Book written by john. to a businessman like yourself, the only thing that matters in the bottom line, so you need to figure it out who that church is, the answer is obvious

[Chuck]

Clay wrote:

<quoted text>
What Apostles do you declare that Christ was biologically related to? James the less, James Tthe greater... Jude? Help me out. Maybe I'm missing your doctrine here. You can't blame me Preston, you guys are difficult to follow doctrinally.

Clay

I'm wondering how many times does Preston have to post something to you before you get it? Post after post after post and you still don't get it.

**And he's right..we don't follow doctrines..

[RCC Superiority So BUSTED]

The net widens.

"LA Catholic Church Abuse Files: Archdiocese Gives Up On Fight To Redact Names."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/30/la-c...

Jesus did NOT appoint nor does Jesus guide anything related to the RCC.

Jesus has NOTHING to do with the largest child sex-abuse COVER-UP in world history.

Jesus is not behind the largest child sex-abuse COVER-UP in world history.

Jesus would never lend His name to the largest child sex-abuse COVER-UP in world history.

In the Bible, Jesus clearly states what should happen to those behind the largest child sex-abuse COVER-UP in world history.

This is no way to save souls.

[atemcowboy]

atemcowboy wrote:

<quoted text>I beleive that the Apostles thought so and that included Paul. now her is why only Sola Scripture should be addressed as the ONLY truth.
read this snippet.
Today we believe a canon of inspired writings is a necessity, but this was not so in the early days of the church. There was a strong oral and apostolic tradition within the early church. As mentioned earlier, the apostles and their associates were the human source of the "word of God" (Acts 4:29-31; 6:2-7; 11:1; 12:24; 13:46; et al.). Many of the early Christians remembered the apostles and their associates' teachings, teachings that were deeply imbedded in their minds. At first unity and lack of controversy within the church meant brethren did not have to constantly turn to a written Word to settle issues. By the middle of the first century, some uninformed individuals caused confusion about the relation of the Mosaic Law and Old Covenant to the Gospel and New Covenant. This issue was addressed by the apostles (Acts, Romans, Galatians, Hebrews, et al.). The apostles' effort largely corrected this problem, and the church was generally unified in doctrine. Also, writing and books were nothing like they are now. Today we generally think that for any idea to be authoritative, it must have come from a book, but this was not so in the early church.
and we see that oral teachings by those other than the Apsotles caused trouble and we now see that on this forum with you catholics believing everything that the vatican tells u

John wrote that "as ye have heard that antichrist shall come.... They went out from us" (I John 2:18, 19). After the apostolic times,[God knew these antichrists would question the authority of certain of the writings that did not agree with their ideas, leading to the need to clarify which books were inspired.[AND WE SEE THAT NOW]

The preceding factors no doubt contributed to the apostles' writing the Gospels and Epistles, and the early Christians and church's bringing them together in a canon. But there is another factor. The work of the Holy Spirit was the chief cause of bringing God's Word into a written record. It was His activity working in the ordinary circumstances of the apostles' lives that resulted in the written Word being preserved for all subsequent generations.

The written Word quickly received a place of high significance; those who received it gave it special status because they knew it was the message they heard from the apostles. We have evidence that the written Word was very early placed on the same level as the Old Testament Scriptures. Paul's letters were read in church gatherings with the same authority as Old Testament Scriptures (Col. 4:16. I Thess. 5:27). Peter was aware of Paul's letters to the churches and classed his letter with the Scriptures (II Peter 3:15). John presupposed that his Book of the Revelation would be read as other Scriptures (Rev. 1:3).

[atemcowboy]

Anthony MN wrote:

<quoted text>
Mary is our mother. Those who follow her Son are her offspring.
Don't debate the meaning of this Chuck, you don't have the authority.

and you aint got the brains, it seems. Jesus was never married and so He never had any children,

you people got to tell one lie after another to try and catch up.lol

[Clay]

atemcowboy wrote:

<quoted text>OK, I feel sorry for you and to help you leanr some truth, the answer is none of them.
however you tossed in a name that wasnt an apostle but who indeed was the brother of Jesus and that is Jude.
here are the names.
Simon Peter; Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee; John his brother; Philip; Bartholomew; Thomas; Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus; Labbaeus, who was surnamed Thaddaeus; Simon the Cananite; Judas Iscariot, in whose stead came in Matthias.
and the names of the brothers are these.
brothers names were, James, Joses(also spelled joseph), Simon and Judas(also spelled jude and judah, and they are all pronouced the same)so you can see why they might be confused with being different people.
First, I thought it would be interesting to look up a little about Jude. Jude is the English form of the name Judas (loudas), the Greek form of Judah, which literally means “to give thanks, or praise”. The English version of the name is used in most versions of the Bible to disassociate Jude from Judas Iscariot. Most theologians agree that Jude was a half-brother to Jesus, as he was spoken of in Matt. 13:55:“Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mothers name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas?”
Verse 1:“Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James, to those who have been called, who are loved by God the Father and kept by Jesus Christ:”
The first verse starts out:“Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James”.... It is thought that Jude was probably being humble because he did not believe that his own half-brother, Jesus, was the Messiah during His earthly days (nor did his other brothers - John 7:5).

So why wouldn't Jesus entrust Mary with her other son, Jude?
Your assumption that his 'brothers and sisters' didn't believe He was the Messiah is not quite right. They believed He was the Jewish version of the Messiah. And frankly, many of His closest Apostles didn't understand what kinda Messiah He was either, until He rose.
By the way, why are you the authority on these Sacred Writings?

[atemcowboy]

Clay wrote:

<quoted text>
So why wouldn't Jesus entrust Mary with her other son, Jude?
Your assumption that his 'brothers and sisters' didn't believe He was the Messiah is not quite right. They believed He was the Jewish version of the Messiah. And frankly, many of His closest Apostles didn't understand what kinda Messiah He was either, until He rose.
By the way, why are you the authority on these Sacred Writings?

I gave you the verse that shows that his brotehrs didnt believe in him and you still are trying to argue with me.

For neither did his brethren believe in him.

Jude was the youngest and the estate would fall to the eldest and that would include actually providing a stipend for mary.

as far as me being an authority, all i can tell you is this. I seem to know more than all of you catholics on here combined. and that saddens me, it really does, to think that people are not able to reason for themselves but must adhere to what their church tells them and they are not allowed to think for themselves, as you just stated the other day

[LTM]

Chuck wrote:

<quoted text>
Really Tony???
You're better than that

No he isn't