Roman Catholic church only true churc...

Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

There are 682005 comments on the CBC News story from Jul 10, 2007, titled Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican. In it, CBC News reports that:

The VaticanA issued a document Tuesday restatingA its belief that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church of Jesus Christ.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at CBC News.

Dust Storm

Minneapolis, MN

#463635 Jul 19, 2013
Hermeneutics Smutics wrote:
<quoted text>==========
CORRECTION I POSTED TO ANTHONY NOT JOHN
Here is the Metropolitan Phillip that is the SOURCE of the quote disparaging the Ortho Church. Basically he is a rogue Orthodox Metropolitan who is an ecumenalist that favors the Papal Monarchal form of Church government.
Research on Metro Phillip indicated many of his own people have reported that he refuses to listen to his former chancellors, he refuses to listen to his Brother Bishops on the Local Synod.
He refuses to be accountable to the Holy Synod. They describe him as a a tyrant and a bully.( He will probably be getting the boot although the Orthodox Church always will take the time to try to work it through)
One quote: "Instead of an American church which must be conciliar we see a structure that rivals the medieval papacy of the Roman church." Instead of an eye towards all of America we see a Bishop playing to a small ethnic club. Instead of a gentle Shepherd we see a promoter of self, a propagandist, a businessman, and sometimes a thug"
Antiochian magazine some in 1982 (or so) contained picture of Metropolitan Philip dressed in a cowboy suit, complete with bandana and six- with a six-shooter pointed at the reader, with the inscription "Pay your diocesan assessment, or else," or something similar."
The knowledgeable Orthodox I spoke to re Metropolitan Phillip describe his view as not alligned with Orthodoxy and that is a polite way of putting it.
I posted this to Anthony, but I guess that was far enough back that he can post Metro Phillip's comments again and others may have missed my clarifying Metro Phillip's lack of any credibility.
Thats the Cath style here. Just be aware. And Anthony, who at first I thought was different, has the same stripes.
As I said before you didnt respond to anything this Orthodox Bishop said, but you rather decided to smear him with unsourced notes. He is a Bishop in your Church. So is your argument that nobody has to listen to him or who has the authority to say he is not Orthodox anymore as you seem to be implying. I believe you actually said he is not really Orthodox in one of your rants. Does he know? Did anyone let him know when he spoke? Did you check with his laity and they voted? Did a Patriarch excommunicate him or is his Autocepholous church no good because the Ultimate authority in Orthoooxy apparently you said so? lol

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#463636 Jul 19, 2013
( 2 of 4) To demonstrate the time and work it would take to correct Dust Storms deceptive posts, my following posts are corrections of statements Dust Storm made in one post.

I want you to have the correct info re Church History but I do not have the time or the health to continue to correct the unending flow of untruths in Dust Storms posts.

Again my following posts are corrections of untruths contained in 1 post of Dust Storm.
==========
DUST STORM
Dust No Herme you gave me your version of History. I'm just wondering since virtually EVERY HERESY DEVELOPED IN THE EAST if they checked with the laity.
TRUTH

The east virtually defined the core faith and tenets of the Church at the Councils with the Pope attended maybe 1 Council and sending 2 legates to most Councils.

In fact the Fathers/Theologians through the Councils defining the faith were Easterners.

In 325 Emperor Constantine convened the First Ecumenical Council of the entire church.

Around 220 bishops attended, mostly from the eastern churches. Only around eight officials came from western churches -

Rome sent only two presbyters.

The council drew up a creed, the original Nicene Creed, which received nearly unanimous support. The council's description of "god's only-begotten son", Jesus Christ, as of the same substance with God the Father became a touchstone of Christian Trinitarianism.
==========
The Second Ecumenical Council. was convened in the year 381, in the city of Constantinople, under the Emperor Theodosius I. This council was CALLED BY EMPERORS GRATIAN AND THEODOSIUS I. 150 Bishops were present.

THE COUNCIL DID NOT INCLUDE WESTERN BISHOPS OR ROMAN LEGATES, But it was accepted as ecumenical in the west.

the Consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son,

The Council also supplemented the Nicene Creed, or "Symbol of Faith,"
with five Articles in which is set forth its teaching
about the Holy Spirit,
about the Church,
about the Mysteries,
about the resurrection of the dead, and the life in the world to come.

Thus they composed the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed
==========
The Third Ecumenical Council. was convened in the year 431 A.D., in the city of Ephesus, under Emperor Theodosius II. 200 Bishops were present

THE POPE SENT TWO BISHOPS, ARCADIUS AND PROJECTUS, TO REPRESENT HIMSELF AND HIS ROMAN COUNCIL, AND THE ROMAN PRIEST, PHILIP, AS HIS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE. Philip, therefore, takes the first place, though, not being a bishop, he could not preside. It was probably a matter of course that the Patriarch of Alexandria should be president. THE LEGATES WERE DIRECTED NOT TO TAKE PART IN THE DISCUSSIONS, BUT TO GIVE JUDGMENT ON THEM.IT SEEMS THAT CHALCEDON, TWENTY YEARS LATER, SET THE PRECEDENT THAT THE PAPAL LEGATES SHOULD ALWAYS BE TECHNICALLY PRESIDENTS AT AN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, AND THIS WAS HENCEFORTH LOOKED UPON AS A MATTER OF COURSE,

ONE SHOULD CONFESS JESUS CHRIST AS TRUE GOD AND TRUE MAN-

(CONTINUED)
----------

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#463637 Jul 19, 2013
(POST 2 OF 4 CONTINUED)

The Fourth Ecumenical Council. was convened in 451 A.D., in the city of Chalcedon near Constantinople. THE EMPEROR GENERAL MARCIAN and a reluctant POPE LEO I THE GREAT assembled one hundred and fifty Bishops. More than 500 bishops attended — the largest church council gathering to that time. ALL DELEGATES WERE FROM THE EASTERN CHURCH, EXCEPT THE FEW PAPAL REPRESENTATIVES FROM ROME AND TWO FROM AFRICA
defined the true teaching of the Church:
our Lord Jesus Christ is perfect God, and as God
He is eternally born from God.
As man, He was born of the Holy Virgin and in every way is like us, except in sin.
Through the incarnation, birth from the Holy Virgin, divinity and humanity are united in Him as a single Person, infused and immutable, indivisible and inseparable, Christ has two complete natures: the divine and the human These two natures function without confusion, are not divided nor separate (against Nestorius), and at no time did they undergo any change
==========
THE FIFTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL. was convened in 553 A.D., in the city of Constantinople, under the famous Emperor, Justinian I. It was called to quell a controversy between Nestorians and Eutychians. The Council was attended by 165 bishops ALL BUT ELEVEN BISHOPS CAME FROM THE EAST..
confirmed Church's teaching regarding the two natures of Christ (human and divine)

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#463638 Jul 19, 2013
To demonstrate the time and work it would take to correct Dust Storms deceptive posts, my following posts are corrections of statements Dust Storm made in one post.
I want you to have the correct info re Church History but I do not have the time or the health to continue to correct the unending flow of untruths in Dust Storms posts.
Again my following posts are corrections of untruths contained in 1 post of Dust Storm.
(Post 3 of 4)
==========
DUST STORM

No, my friend Orthodox myth # 3 is a straw man, created to explain away why the Byzantines backed out of Lyon II and Ferrara-Florence -- both cases in which ALL the Eastern Patriarchs approved of Western orthodoxy

TRUTH
Shortly after recapturing Constantinople in 1261, Emperor Michael Palaeologus (1259–82) proposed the idea of a reunion council to Pope Urban IV (1261–4), although preparations did not begin in earnest until after the election of Pope Gregory X (1271–6).

Michael's reasons were chiefly political, since union with the Latin Church had little support among the Byzantines.
Michael Palaeologus was in the unbearable situation of being attacked on the East by the Turks, and having no assurance that the Western Latins would not return again. For political reasons, therefore, he sent a delegation of bishops to the council of the Western Church in Lyons in 1274 hoping to gain sympathy, and military and economic aid for his crumbling empire.
Michael’s legates at the council of Lyons went further than was asked of them. They officially accepted the Roman formula of the papacy, and the Roman doctrine of the filioque - the first time in history it was required.
The peace and help from the West which Michael desired, lasted until his death in 1282.
When Michael died the acts of the union of Lyons were immediately rejected by the Eastern bishops. The emperor was buried without the funeral rites of the Church.
The council was seemingly a success, but did not provide a lasting solution to the schism; the Emperor was anxious to heal the schism, but the Eastern clergy opposed the decisions of the Council.
Among those who refused to participate in the council was Patriarch Joseph I (1267-75, 1282–3), who led the growing anti-unionist movement.
PATRIARCH JOSEPH OF CONSTANTINOPLE ABDICATED, AND WAS REPLACED BY JOHN BEKKOS, A CONVERT TO THE CAUSE OF UNION.
IN SPITE OF A SUSTAINED CAMPAIGN BY BEKKOS TO DEFEND THE UNION INTELLECTUALLY, AND VIGOROUS AND BRUTAL REPRESSION OF OPPONENTS BY MICHAEL, THE VAST MAJORITY OF BYZANTINE CHRISTIANS REMAINED IMPLACABLY OPPOSED TO UNION WITH THE LATIN "HERETICS".
Of that council
Timothy Ware writes:
"But the union proved no more than an agreement on paper, since it was fiercely rejected by the overwhelming majority of clergy and laity in the Byzantine Church, as well as by Bulgarian and the other Orthodox countries. THE GENERAL REACTION TO THE COUNCIL OF LYONS WAS SUMMED UP IN WORDS ATTRIBUTED TO THE EMPEROR'S SISTER: "BETTER THAT MY BROTHER'S EMPIRE SHOULD PERISH, THAN THE PURITY OF THE ORTHODOX FAITH."
Michael's death in December 1282 put an end to the union of Lyons. His son and successor Andronicus II repudiated the union, and Bekkos was forced to abdicate, being eventually exiled and imprisoned until his death in 1297.
The EMPEROR WAS BURIED WITHOUT THE FUNERAL RITES OF THE CHURCH.
HE IS TO THIS DAY REVILED BY MANY IN THE EASTERN CHURCH AS A TRAITOR TO ORTHODOXY.
It is very well that the Orthodox Church people wont accept "politics" by " obedience to the higher ups"
Absolute power corrupts, as absolute independence corrupts. In Orthodoxy there is a proper balance of power, specifically sobernost, under the headship of Christ (cf. Ernst Benz below).
In Orthodoxy bishops must call for the amen of the people. The people have a voice along with deacons and presbyters. This has worked out just fine for some 2000 years now
June VanDerMark

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#463639 Jul 19, 2013
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey now.....there will be no posting of Bible verses that are not valid, because that causes the Bible to be invalid.....in which so-called "Christians" will not have them being told that they have been incorrect in their theology.
:o)
Now THAT was a key-board full of wisdom.

KayMarie doesn't add-here to those supposed words from the same supposed god. The term is known as "by-passing."
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>

Any person who curseth his mother or father, must be killed.(Leviticus 20:9)

If a man cheats on his wife, or vise versa, both the man and the woman must die.(Leviticus 20:10).

If a man sleeps with his father's wife... both him and his father's wife is to be put to death.(Leviticus 20:11)

If a man sleeps with his wife and her mother they are all to be burnt to death.(Leviticus 20:14)

If a man or woman has sex with an animal, both human and animal must be killed.(Leviticus 20:15-16).

If a man has sex with a woman on her period, they are both to be "cut off from their people" (Leviticus 20:18)

Psychics, wizards, and so on are to be stoned to death.(Leviticus 20:27)

If a priest's daughter is a whore, she is to be burnt at the stake.(Leviticus 21:9)

People who have flat noses, or is blind or lame, cannot go to an altar of God (Leviticus 21:17-18)

Anyone who curses or blasphemes God, should be stoned to death by the community.(Leviticus 24:14-16)
June VanDerMark

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#463640 Jul 19, 2013
atemcowboy wrote:
<quoted text>and I am sorry because it closes up a window that all of us could see through, only through dialogue with each other, opening up the Word of God, can the truth be revealed.
I think you have a good idea. We should "organize" all the theologians of all different religions into one big dining hall, and mentally feast on how they can't see eye to eye on any issue, yet they all claim to know truth.
Anthony MN

Minneapolis, MN

#463641 Jul 19, 2013
Hermeneutics Smutics wrote:
<quoted text>
Right. I guess none of this never happened. Believe what you want. I waste my time putting in work for your group.I posted this before. You ignored it then. ignore it again.
Orthodox Liturgy is closest to the Liturgy the Early Church.
While the Catholic Church has had many revisions which have continued through the modern age.
<snipped for space>
Hermi, I read and understood it the last time. I think you are confusing the ceremonial aspect of the liturgy with those parts of the liturgy which have reamined constant since day one and is remarkably similar to St. Justin's descriptions and even the Didache.

We have the opening blessing, the kyrie, the gloria, the liturgy of the Word, the sermon, the profession of faith, the liturgy of the Eucharist and the closing. These essential parts have remained constant for 1800+ years. The only changes are superficial ones like the music, some of the prayers, the priestly attire, etc.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#463642 Jul 19, 2013
Dust Storm wrote:
<quoted text>
As I said before you didnt respond to anything this Orthodox Bishop said, but you rather decided to smear him with unsourced notes. He is a Bishop in your Church. So is your argument that nobody has to listen to him or who has the authority to say he is not Orthodox anymore as you seem to be implying. I believe you actually said he is not really Orthodox in one of your rants. Does he know? Did anyone let him know when he spoke? Did you check with his laity and they voted? Did a Patriarch excommunicate him or is his Autocepholous church no good because the Ultimate authority in Orthooxy apparently you said so? lol
I dont know why you are LOLing all over the place.I read comments from his laity.I spoke to other Orthodox brothers about him. his comments,his credibility and his standing. Re "excommunicating him" again you display no understanding of Orthodoxy, its history, or its government. The Orthodox try to work through issues and heal wounds.They will take the time to try a Christian solution. You would know this if you were knowledgeable re Orthodoxy. Your comments are a dead give away. Go LOL sme more and honk the Popemobile horn.
Anthony MN

Minneapolis, MN

#463643 Jul 19, 2013
Hermeneutics Smutics wrote:
<quoted text>==========
10 The Latin Tridentine Mass remained the standard eucharistic liturgy in the Roman Catholic Church in the West until the Second Vatican Council. In 1963, the Council adopted, by an overwhelming majority, the Constitution On Sacred Liturgy "Sacrosantum Concilium Following Vatican II, Pope Paul VI instituted a new form of the Mass : THE “NEW MASS”,
11 MASS CATHOLIC 2011 UNDERGOING FIRST CHANGES IN 40 YEARS New translation will go into effect in Sep 17, 2011 In the Orthodox Church 1. Most changes have involved keeping the original hymns, prayers, antiphons, processions, and liturgical components but merely shifting their order 2. Justinian 525 added "Only begotten Son and Word of God..." JUSTINIANS HYMN
You're not even reading what you post. You're looking at the surface and not realizing the essentials aren't changed at all.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#463644 Jul 19, 2013
Pad wrote:
<quoted text>The Greeks and Italians have so much in common,you could easily pass for one of my relatives HS.How are you doing? If that photo of you is recent,you look really good. I know you went through a horrible physical bout,but now are back on your feet.GREAT!
I have to go under the knife again,it will be my fourth surgery,in the same area.I must have weak abdominal muscles,have a hernia.My first was a twisted bowel,than a hernia,the third was scar tissue choking the bowel,now again a second hernia,this one is bulging out quite a bit,very noticeable.Believe me I am tired of being a patient,but than again it does teach patience.Have so much to overcome mentally,but that is really the greatest asset I have in Christ,is to go to Him in prayer,He does answer,and l e a d by His most powerful Hand,and like a Shepherd!
When I ever get to that point of feeling sorry for myself,I think of the thousands of children in cancer units,and the many who suffer with no limbs.So many of our young beautiful soldiers are coming back with no legs,arms and or one leg and so on.It is so sad,but we are made confident by the way so many rise above their own circumstances and live with the malady incurred with HOPE and a positive VISION.Good seeing you look happy with a smile!
I am pleased to see you.I agree re Greeks and Italians. Through life most of my best friends were Italian. We stood each other exactly.Same page. I also can empathize with being a patient. I see a heart dr, a lung dr, a rheumetologist, and a General Practitioner regularly.I have beem out of the hospital recently Thank the Lord. Pad we have to do what we have to do and He will never abandon us.God Bless you, my friend.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#463645 Jul 19, 2013
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
Hermi, I read and understood it the last time. I think you are confusing the ceremonial aspect of the liturgy with those parts of the liturgy which have reamined constant since day one and is remarkably similar to St. Justin's descriptions and even the Didache.
We have the opening blessing, the kyrie, the gloria, the liturgy of the Word, the sermon, the profession of faith, the liturgy of the Eucharist and the closing. These essential parts have remained constant for 1800+ years. The only changes are superficial ones like the music, some of the prayers, the priestly attire, etc.
No rap. Tipote.
Anthony MN

Minneapolis, MN

#463646 Jul 19, 2013
confrinting with the word wrote:
<quoted text>
~~~~
YOU WROTE
I say Jesus got it right when He gave the keys to St. Peter. You say NO!, so it's YOU who thinks Jesus got it wrong.
~~~
HELL WOULD FREEZE OVER ....BEFORE ANY ONE CAN SAY THAT JESUS SAID
HE GAVE THE KEYS TO THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH...
PETER was exclusively sent to the circumcision...THE JEWS.
the keys belong to THE JEWS...
NOT TO THE GENTILE CHURCH....
FOR
IT IS WRITTEN BY THE APOSTLE PAUL... TO THE GENTILES ABOUT THEIR ENTRANCE
INTO GOD'S PLAN OF REDEMPTION,,,
Rom 11:18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
Rom 11:19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.
Rom 11:20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
Rom 11:21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
Rom 11:22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
Rom 11:23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.
Rom 11:24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?
Rom 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
Rom 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
NOTE
Rom 11:27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
Rom 11:28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.
The apostle Paul was sent to the gentiles..
PETER WAS SENT TO THE JEWS
..
EVIDENTLY YOU WOULD LIKE TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT....NOW WOULD YOU NOT?
"HELL WOULD FREEZE OVER..."

You'll know soon enough.
June VanDerMark

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#463647 Jul 19, 2013
"It says right here in this scripture that what 'I' believe is RIGHT according to GOD, and what you believe is wrong according to God ... and so YOU don't know what you are talking about!!!"

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#463648 Jul 19, 2013
(4 of 4) To demonstrate the time and work it would take to correct Dust Storms deceptive posts, my following posts are corrections of statements Dust Storm made in one post. I apologize. I want you to have the correct info re Church History but I do not have the time or the health to continue to correct the unending flow of untruths in Dust Storms posts.
Again my following posts are corrections of untruths contained in 1 post of Dust Storm.
==========
DUST STORM

Myth number 3 is that an Ecumenical Council, even if agreed upon by all the bishops, cannot be ratified without the approval of the laity.

Same goes for all the other Ecumenical Councils including and especially Chalcedon, which was rejected by the majority of Christians in Egypt, Ethiopia, Armenia, Syria, and Palestine. So, where was the mandate from the laity here?:-)

What about all the Westerners, and the Non-Chalcedonians? Why didn't "the people" of the West or the Orient refuse to agree with the non-Conciliar heresy? Aren't they anointed by the Spirit thru Baptism too? Or are only the "civilized Byzantines" given this charism?

TRUTH

Dust statement is that I lied when I said the East listened to the laity because the heretics were laity and the East did not listen and follow (the heretics) at the Council of Chalcedon

The mandate at Chalcedon was 2 schools of thought battling- Alexandria and Antioch Mr History. Antioch: Nestorius (3rd Council) Eutychus (accused of being a follower of Nestorius) And a heresy was proposed. Monophysitism. Christ is not fully human and fully divine.

Yes the Monos were laity- the people. They were heretics.

There were other laity as well. The other laity knew that this was not the faith as practiced down through the Centuries. The laity would not accept deviations from the Faith as handed down.

The Council and this laity that knew were in agreement. The Orthodox knew this meant the "NonChalcedonians" would leave the Church. Just a little compromise? No No No

By the way, when the Catholics "converted the barbarians" for years the Barbarians were allowed to keep their old Gods in addition to Catholicism. Charlemagme tinkered with the faith as well.The Catholics wanted the numbers and the protection.

They got this and when the Pope was subject of an assassination attempt he ran to Charlemagne. King of Barbarian Franks. The Pope declared Charlemagne Emperor.

Tit for Tat. The Catholic Church got protection and power. Charlemagne got the Church's blessing which helped with the people.The faith was compromised for numbers.

Where the Catholics would have absorbed the Monophysites cause they are so proud of their numbers the Orthos would not compromise the faith.The faith that was always believed.

Catholics would have absorbed them through some sort of invention or doublespeak. Apparently you are ok believing that was not fully an divine/ fully human.

Bring them into your church. More numbers
Dust Storm

Minneapolis, MN

#463649 Jul 19, 2013
Hermeneutics Smutics wrote:
<quoted text>I dont know why you are LOLing all over the place.I read comments from his laity.I spoke to other Orthodox brothers about him. his comments,his credibility and his standing. Re "excommunicating him" again you display no understanding of Orthodoxy, its history, or its government. The Orthodox try to work through issues and heal wounds.They will take the time to try a Christian solution. You would know this if you were knowledgeable re Orthodoxy. Your comments are a dead give away. Go LOL sme more and honk the Popemobile horn.
The Arians checked with the laity, the Monophytes, Nestorians,iconoclasts and and on. While you are at it the Patriarch of Moscow does not recognize an autocepholous church approved by Bartholemew. So nothing they say has any value whatsoever, but they can be like you and really dont have to listen to the Patriarch or Bishop if you disagree based on your own decisions of your research. Phillip is in a recongized church and no you didnt answer his statement. COuncils refuted heresy and all the councils were approved by the Successor of Peter. Most of the Eastern Bishops went to Arianism. With your method true Orthodoxy is Arianism. The Church is not a bunch of Ethinic groups or territories or Nationalism. It is the truth of the word of God with the full deposit of faith. It isnt now nor was it ever a laity vote on what the truth is.
June VanDerMark

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#463650 Jul 19, 2013
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
"HELL WOULD FREEZE OVER..."
You'll know soon enough.
Allah be praised!

:)
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>

The state of the Hell of Zamhareer is a suffering of extreme coldness, of blizzards and freeze ... These winds, these extremes of temperatures, this ice and snow are signs amongst the signs of Allaah.

http://www.crescentyouth.com/board/showthread ...

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#463651 Jul 19, 2013
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
"HELL WOULD FREEZE OVER..."
You'll know soon enough.
"Hell Froze Over" when the Eagles toured in 1994.

:o)
June VanDerMark

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#463652 Jul 19, 2013
Theologians must have been laughing at the thought of idiots fighting over their words and all the while bragging that the words were giving them truth.

But what the heck ... writing theological nonsensical gibberish into books and proclaiming that words came from gods was a living, and often a handsome living at that.

For instance, being a right-handed man with a pen that played word-games with a pope resulted in huge rewards.

“" THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH!"”

Since: Jun 10

"ISA 53:1.--6 "MATT 10:27"

#463653 Jul 19, 2013
who="Anthony MN"
Jesus appointed St. Peter. St. Peter appointed a successor, he appointed successors. It contiunues to this very day.
You picked up a KJV and appointed yourself.
Not even close.

**********

God appoints His own successors by the Holy Spirit.

Heb 3:1 Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, CHRIST JESUS;

Heb 4:14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that IS passed into the heavens, JESUS THE SON OF GOD, let us hold fast our profession.
Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
Heb 4:16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the (HIS) throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

Heb 7:6 But he (Melchizedek) whose descent is not counted from them (Levitical priests) received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises.
Heb 7:7 And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better.
Heb 7:8 And HERE men that die receive tithes; but THERE (heaven) He receives them, of whom it is witnessed that he LIVES.
Heb 7:9 And as I may so say, Levi also, who received tithes, paid tithes in Abraham.
Heb 7:10 For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchizedek met him.
Heb 7:11 IF THEREFORE PERFECTION WERE BY THE Levitical priesthood (OF SUCCESSION),(for under it the people received the law,) WHAT FURTHER NEED WAS THERE THAT ANOTHER PRIEST SHOULD RISE AFTER THE ORDER OF Melchizedek, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
Heb 7:13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertains to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.
Heb 7:14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.
Heb 7:15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchizedek there arose another priest (Jesus, our High Priest),
Heb 7:16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life (only Jesus).
Heb 7:17 For He testifies, Thou are a priest FOREVER after the order of Melchizedek.
Heb 7:18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.
Heb 7:19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.
Heb 7:20 And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest:
Heb 7:21 (For those priests...men...were made without an oath; but this...Jesus...with an oath by him that said unto him, "THE LORD SWORE AND WILL NOT REPENT, YOU ARE A PRIEST FOREVER AFTER THE ORDER OF MELCHIDEZEK:)
Heb 7:22 By so much was Jesus made a surety (guarantee) of a better testament.
Heb 7:23 And they truly were many priests, because THEY WERE NOT SUFFERED TO CONTINUE BY REASON OF DEATH:
Heb 7:24 But this man (JESUS), BECAUSE HE CONTINUES FOREVER, HAS AN UNCHANGEABLE PRIESTHOOD.
Heb 7:25 Wherefore HE is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God BY HIM, seeing HE EVER LIVES TO MAKE INTERCESSION FOR THEM.
Heb 7:26 For SUCH AN HIGH PRIEST, who IS HOLY, HARMLESS, UNDEFILED, SEPARATE FROM SINNERS, and MADE HIGHER THAN THE HEAVENS;
Heb 7:27 Who NEEDS NOT DAILY, AS THOSE high priests (mortal men), to offer up sacrifice, FIRST FOR HIS OWN SINS, AND THEN FOR THE PEOPLE'S: FOR THIS HE DID ONCE, WHEN HE OFFERED UP HIMSELF. Heb. 7:28 For the law makes men high priests WHICH HAVE INFIRMITY; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, makes THE SON Son (high priest), WHO IS CONSECRATED FOR EVERMORE.

HE IS OUR HIGH PRIEST, IMMORTAL. HE HASN'T GIVEN THAT POSITION TO ANY MORTAL MAN...AND GOD HAS NOT SWORN SUCH AN OATH TO ANY MORTAL MAN.

KayMarie
June VanDerMark

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#463654 Jul 19, 2013
Followers are certain this idiot is a theologian ... and because of the idiot-followers, he's a very wealthy man indeed.

His "helpers" don't seem very impressed.

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.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 4 min nanoanomaly 123,981
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 20 min nanoanomaly 982,422
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 29 min UnstoppableTrump 8,006
News Teacher back in class after Bush-Hitler comparison (Mar '06) 1 hr Johnny 171
Interracial experience-Mexican men and Black women (Jul '12) 1 hr Ese678-9 153
Check Ppl Out 4Free B4 U Rent 2 Them!! 2 hr Plain truth 1
News Blaming Israel for carnage (Jul '06) 2 hr DENG 121,929
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 6 hr onemales son 286,500
More from around the web