Roman Catholic church only true churc...

Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

There are 703680 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.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#504611 Jan 6, 2014
Seentheotherside wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh please!
Nobody can possibly follow ALL the demented crap your "god" demands of his minion.
Do you go to a church that has you stone your disobedient children, kill witches, eat EXACTLY what "he" wants, make a raped women marry their rapist, not wear mixed fabrics, give away all your possessions, hate your entire family and leave them if they have other beliefs than you do, and all the hundreds of other insane demands your tyrannical "god" demands you follow?
NO!
NOBODY DOES.
NOBODY SHOULD.
IT'S ALL GARBAGE.
Are you serious? All he asks is that you go to church if you're able, which actually consists of going Sunday, Sunday evening and bible study on Wednesday evening. Four hours total a week. All you do is simply do what you can to save souls. No dress code. Only difference between someone saved and someone lost is 4 hours of their time to have a place in heaven, and you say that's to much to do. Most people are already 99% doing what God wants them to do and that's simply be nice like you're already doing, all you lack is accepting Jesus as your Savior and going to church if you're able and trying to save people from losing their soul, that's it.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#504612 Jan 6, 2014
Seentheotherside wrote:
<quoted text>
But >>>ALL<<< churches/religions are man made false churches/religions.
I disagree.

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#504613 Jan 6, 2014
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
I have studied, and that is why I believe that all religious preachers are full of hot air.
OH, OH! You have studied! But wait!...
Doesn't that infer that you have made the effort to research and understand "mysteries"(those things unexplainable)(Adj. 1. unexplainable - not to be accounted for or explained; "perceptible only as unaccountable influences that hinder progress"), and are now attempting to educate others to that newfound knowledge and perspective?
That could only mean that you have acquired some knowledge that was hithertofore a secret or "mystery", so now you are in possession of secret knowledge. Be very careful, or someone not having done that research, who doesn't have that knowledge you have discovered, and has not expanded their intellect to that end, will in their own willful ignorance, accuse you of being arrogant and haughty whether you try to relate it to them or not.
Here is an example you should be quite familiar with...
“How pathetic you are ... believing YOU have dibs on knowledge, simply because you read the words in a book written by hairy old men that had nothing better to do than write more words in order to in turn earn their keeps.”
Seems you "believe" you have "dibs on knowledge"-see above^^, in the readings of Axtell, Smith
Is this not what you have been doing to me for days, when here you are doing the very same thing you are persecuting, defaming, condemning me and everyone else here for.
You are such a hypocrite., and others?
From the quote above, you are offering their writings and ideas as superseding all others, as you have provided it as your "study", and in that light you are just as "religious" as those you point your finger at for accepting what they would believe as writings and ideas.

Is this not what you have been doing to me for days, when here you are doing the very same thing you are persecuting, defaming, condemning me and everyone else here for.
You are such a hypocrite.

“Life Force One”

Since: Jul 07

The Spiritual Universe/God

#504614 Jan 6, 2014
concerned in Brasil wrote:
<quoted text>
Ahh no I don't
The fact that you repeat yourself makes you more of a fool.
The fact you don't address the fact all words are made up shows you have no knowledge to that which you assert.
I know the Greek and Hebrew words translated Hell in he Bible.
I know the fact that we have now some 7000+ ancient texts that confirm nothing has been added to the bible which completely contradicts your dumb dumb assertions.
Unlike you I can give verifiable evidence to my assertions.
You repeating yourself is like a grade school child repeating them self saying
I know you are but what am I
I know you are but what am I
If that is the best you got you are between a rock and hard place.
Ha, blatant lies are NOT "evidence".

So let's see these imaginary 7,000+ ancient texts that "confirms" that nothing has been altered or added to the book of lies.

And you again lie by saying other words were "translated" to "HELL". That really means they were CHANGED, just like I stated.

Now I want to see these imaginary 7,000+ ancient texts.

It's a historical fact that ALL the original ancient texts used to create the book of lies/mythology were burned.

And I also know this:

Daniel Wallace is a noted Greek scholar and professor of New Testament at Dallas Theological Seminary. In his paper entitled “Why So Many Versions?” Wallace makes the following statement -“...we must remember that the King James Bible of today is not the King James of 1611. It has undergone three revisions, incorporating more than 100,000 changes!”

**********

A scholar considers how much of the hand of man is in the word of God


"I don't know any reputable scholar who would say that the changes bear significantly on doctrine," Akin said.
Others disagree. More liberal interpreters say the changes made by the scribes are nothing if not troubling. They say the centuries of edits lead to one conclusion -- that the Bible, rather than being a divine document is, in fact, a very human one.
"The mechanism by which the Holy Scriptures came into contemporary form is much more messy than most Christians like to admit," said the Rev. Jack McKinney, the pastor of Pullen Memorial Baptist Church in Raleigh.
Indeed, for Ehrman the changes were so messy they caused him to lose his faith entirely.
"Given the circumstance that [God] didn't preserve the words, the conclusion seemed inescapable to me that he hadn't gone to the trouble of inspiring them," Ehrman writes. In an interview last week, he described himself as a "happy agnostic."

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#504615 Jan 6, 2014
Oxbow wrote:
<quoted text>
Which says, among other things, you have no idea of the correct definition of the word "Christian"...
What makes a church the church spoken of in the bible to be the one and only true church is" HOW YOU WORSHIP GOD". If you worship him the wrong way then you fail to be the church spoken of in the bible, is that really hard to understand and believe? If God says you're to be baptized, immersed to be saved and you didn't do that, instead you pour some water on their head and call that baptizing, you would be wrong and thus not doing as the bible says, so you would not be the church of the bible.

“Life Force One”

Since: Jul 07

The Spiritual Universe/God

#504616 Jan 6, 2014
concerned in Brasil wrote:
<quoted text>
you might get a little further if you offer some verifiable evidence to your accusations.
Anybody can call something a lie.
The question that must be asked is have you ever questioned your LIES
Apparently not.
Which does not answer my post. So here, try again:

"NO!

The bible does NOT use other words for "hell". You are only lied to, that they mean "hell", but they really do not mean "hell".

Don't you ever question their lies?
hojo

Chaska, MN

#504617 Jan 6, 2014
Working for the Lord wrote:
The Bible Condemns Catholic Doctrine
by David J. Riggs

(
David J. Riggs is nothing more than a "modern day" 21st century bible only anti-catholic heretic who claims that the bible is the only source of truth for Christians, ignoring over 2000 years of TRUTH of TRUE Church History and the TRUE Interpretation of the bible from the Early Church Fathers in 382,393, and 397AD who wrote the Canon of Scripture!..... The fact is that the highest majority of documented Church Historian authors and writers including Apologistic Historians have authenticated, documentd and proven over and over and over again that Jesus Christs One True Apostolic Catholic Church --(came first) and that the bible was compiled over 350 years later.(in 397 AD).. Riggs is just a repeat story of the Prodigal Son in Luke 15:11, defiant, rebellious and condemning of the TRUTH of the One True Church that Jesus Christ HIMSELF initiated, formed and established in Matthew 16:13-21. May his soul rest in peace for the deception, lies and heresies that he preached during his bible only ministry!

“Life Force One”

Since: Jul 07

The Spiritual Universe/God

#504618 Jan 6, 2014
concerned in Brasil wrote:
<quoted text>

The NT uses the Jerusalem Garbage dump as a metaphor to Hell.
No it doesn't in only means what it states, garbage dump.

SEE!

THAT is how they have brainwashed you. They make you believe something means something entirely different. And you are too weak minded to ever question any of the lies they brainwash you with.
June VanDerMark

Since: Sep 09

Delta, Canada

#504619 Jan 6, 2014
Oxbow wrote:
<quoted text>
Pure stupidity!!!! Looking in a English dictionary for the meaning of a Greek word!!!!
The bible is all in English ... in case you hadn't noticed.

Those who read the word church in the bible, will not believe that it's a temple, or a mosque, or a place where ground-hogs live, et cetera.

They might believe it's a sacred way of worship ... but then who in religion doesn't believe that their OWN way is a sacred way of worship ... and of course the only truth in the whole universe???

“Life Force One”

Since: Jul 07

The Spiritual Universe/God

#504620 Jan 6, 2014
Working for the Lord wrote:
<quoted text> Are you serious? All he asks is that you go to church if you're able, which actually consists of going Sunday, Sunday evening and bible study on Wednesday evening. Four hours total a week. All you do is simply do what you can to save souls. No dress code. Only difference between someone saved and someone lost is 4 hours of their time to have a place in heaven, and you say that's to much to do. Most people are already 99% doing what God wants them to do and that's simply be nice like you're already doing, all you lack is accepting Jesus as your Savior and going to church if you're able and trying to save people from losing their soul, that's it.
Are all you Christians incapable of reading???

None of this has anything to do with what I posted. So here, try again:

"Oh please!

Nobody can possibly follow ALL the demented crap your "god" demands of his minion.

Do you go to a church that has you stone your disobedient children, kill witches, eat EXACTLY what "he" wants, make a raped women marry their rapist, not wear mixed fabrics, give away all your possessions, hate your entire family and leave them if they have other beliefs than you do, and all the hundreds of other insane demands your tyrannical "god" demands you follow?

NO!

NOBODY DOES.

NOBODY SHOULD.

IT'S ALL GARBAGE. "
June VanDerMark

Since: Sep 09

Delta, Canada

#504621 Jan 6, 2014
concerned in Brasil wrote:
<quoted text>
I am unable to go to your link at this time due to my connection speed.
However you say from what you have studied.
So again I ask you to cite the historical ancient texts that you have studied to come to your conclusions.
That should be easy if you actually have studied the source documents the ancient texts of early church fathers.
Or is it that all you are doing is regurgitating someone else's opinion that fits what you what to believe is true so you can do what you what to do and be a god unto yourself?
ALL opinions are regurgitated.
michael

Canada

#504622 Jan 6, 2014
hojo wrote:
<quoted text>
Go do your "own" homework Michael! I did mine throughout 4 years of University Church History research and bible study, inaddition to 2 years of pre-theological seminary. Try studying TRUE Apostolic Church History (1500 years prior to the Reformation) instead of "spouting off' your own anti-catholic opinions and editorializing everything by quoting a bunch of (modern day)"hack theologians and liberal emanipated nuns and priests who are in the minority --and-----"on their way OUT"!!!!
....4 years wasted while I was enjoying mine.

.........world history says nothing about a Jesus from 4bce to 30ad...... Very troubling.

...every belief has their own books of the truth. Pick one?(Lol)!
June VanDerMark

Since: Sep 09

Delta, Canada

#504623 Jan 6, 2014
concerned in Brasil wrote:
<quoted text>
Theology had nothing to do with it you clearly do not know the meaning of the word.
Theology means the study of God
Study does not mean to claim to know ... and that is where all religion falls short of credibility.

Preachers, such as you, all claim to KNOW that not only does a creator exists, but it sees life exactly in accordance with your own belief.

It should have the title of arrogance rather than religion ... and that would cut to the CHASE.

“Life Force One”

Since: Jul 07

The Spiritual Universe/God

#504624 Jan 6, 2014
Liam wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you have a link where the Orthodox first called us "Roman" Catholic? I would be very interested in learning about that. From everything I've read, it was the Anglicans who first used it. I'm open to learning new stuff and absolutely would not ignore a new truth if I learned it. I don't voluntarily subscribe to lies. Thanks.
Edited for space... Do you reject sola scripture, sola fide too?
I love how people like you say 'we Catholics broke from the Orthodox. And the Orthodox compiled the Bible'. Yet, if you really believed that, why wouldn't you join them?
If you want to learn more about your religion, here's something to start with:

If you can't believe the Bible ...

A scholar considers how much of the hand of man is in the word of God

Yonat Shimron, Staff WriterFor more than 30 years, Bart Ehrman has been driven by a quest to explore the origins of the New Testament -- a quest that has made him one of the most distinguished scholars on the history of the biblical text and the early church.
Now he has written a new book outlining his research, which has led him to lose his faith and others to re-evaluate their relationship to the Scriptures.
"Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why," is Ehrman's attempt to explain to non-scholars some of the findings of New Testament historians and translators over the past 300 years. For those who believe the Bible emerged more or less intact, his research may be eye-opening. Ehrman, who is chairman of the department of religious studies at UNC-Chapel Hill, hopes the findings challenge readers to see the Bible in a new way.
"For most people, the Bible is a non-problematic book," Ehrman said. "What people don't realize is that they're reading translations of texts, and we don't have the originals."
The premise of "Misquoting Jesus" is that the New Testament has evolved over time. In the first few centuries after Jesus' crucifixion, scribes manually copied the books that would ultimately compose it. In the course of reproducing the manuscripts, they accidentally or intentionally made thousands of changes to the texts. Although most of those changes were insignificant, Ehrman argues some were theologically driven and intended to settle disputes that raged in the early church over doctrine and belief.
Among the many examples he cites is the story of the adulterous woman who is brought before Jesus. The story, which appears in the Gospel of John, includes one of the most familiar verses in the New Testament, in which Jesus tells the group who brought her, "Let the one who is without sin among you be the first to cast a stone at her," John 8:7.
This story, however, is not found in any of the oldest manuscripts of John's Gospel. Until the fourth century when the Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity, scribes were not professionals but simply educated people who knew how to write. They took liberties with the text in ways unimaginable in today's world of standard practices and copyright laws.
In the case of the passage in John, scholars think scribes added the story in the margins of the manuscript and eventually other scribes inserted it into the text itself.
Then there are the more theological changes made to the text with the intention of silencing alternative theologians who denied the full divinity of Christ.
When scribes translated the Greek manuscripts into Latin, for example, they embellished on a passage explaining the Trinity, which is the Christian belief that God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The oldest versions of the epistle of 1 John, read: "There are three that bear witness: the Spirit, the water and the blood and these three are one."
Scribes later added "the Father, the Word and the Spirit," and it remained in the epistle when it was translated into English for the King James Version.

“Life Force One”

Since: Jul 07

The Spiritual Universe/God

#504625 Jan 6, 2014
Oxbow wrote:
<quoted text>
Which says, among other things, you have no idea of the correct definition of the word "Christian"...
Which says that you also lack reading comprehension, as you cannot even reply to anything in my post. So here, try again:

"Now while I do not like ANY man made religions, I still detest the dishonesty of ANY "christian" who claims THEY and ONLY THEY, are the real true "christian". The same for any church who makes that false claim.

As it is a historic FACT that the Catholic church is THE Christian church.

So any church, denomination, or person who claims to be THE ONLY real "christian(s)", is a flat out liar. You cannot ignore the 2,000 years of the Catholic church being THE Christian church, and suddenly say, Ta Da, here we are, the REAL CHRISTIANS.
You make yourself a fool and a liar to make that false claim."
June VanDerMark

Since: Sep 09

Delta, Canada

#504626 Jan 6, 2014
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text>
Mysteries? Mysteries are nothing more than unknown/undiscovered facts about the workings of the environment.
I suggest that if what you go on about had credibility, you would at least be written up in a science magazine somewhere, But instead you have all the time in the world to visit forums and tell others that you are full of knowledge, while we are still dumb TO your knowledge.

I believe you are simply full of theories that have gone to your head. Pun intended.
Dust Storm

Minneapolis, MN

#504627 Jan 6, 2014
Liam wrote:
<quoted text>
There was no point about scripture being the final authority. Sola scripture was never taught. Period Besides, scripture couldn't be the final authority by default. The people interpreting it would have to be the final authority. Make sense?
I don't know much about the Bereans, but the Book of Matthew in the first century was 32 feet long. I can't imagine anyone rolling it out everyday to go over the verses. Especially since it had no verses or chapters.
Do you at least agree that the Catholic Church dissected the Bible into chapters and verses or ya going to pretend that's not true too?
Fomer Protestant Steve Ray puts is nicely here...http://socrates58.blogs pot.com/2010/04/thoughts-on-be reans-and-searching.html

“Life Force One”

Since: Jul 07

The Spiritual Universe/God

#504628 Jan 6, 2014
Robert F wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you not unlike June, and simply desire to shut down religion by not allowing free expression of religious ideas on a forum?(Hmmmm. I wonder) Think about it. Be honest.
That statement would fit the vast majority of Christians here, than to non-Christians.
concerned in Brasil

Europe

#504629 Jan 6, 2014
Seentheotherside wrote:
<quoted text>
Ha, blatant lies are NOT "evidence".
So let's see these imaginary 7,000+ ancient texts that "confirms" that nothing has been altered or added to the book of lies.
And you again lie by saying other words were "translated" to "HELL". That really means they were CHANGED, just like I stated.
Now I want to see these imaginary 7,000+ ancient texts.
It's a historical fact that ALL the original ancient texts used to create the book of lies/mythology were burned.
And I also know this:
Daniel Wallace is a noted Greek scholar and professor of New Testament at Dallas Theological Seminary. In his paper entitled “Why So Many Versions?” Wallace makes the following statement -“...we must remember that the King James Bible of today is not the King James of 1611. It has undergone three revisions, incorporating more than 100,000 changes!”
**********
A scholar considers how much of the hand of man is in the word of God
"I don't know any reputable scholar who would say that the changes bear significantly on doctrine," Akin said.
Others disagree. More liberal interpreters say the changes made by the scribes are nothing if not troubling. They say the centuries of edits lead to one conclusion -- that the Bible, rather than being a divine document is, in fact, a very human one.
"The mechanism by which the Holy Scriptures came into contemporary form is much more messy than most Christians like to admit," said the Rev. Jack McKinney, the pastor of Pullen Memorial Baptist Church in Raleigh.
Indeed, for Ehrman the changes were so messy they caused him to lose his faith entirely.
"Given the circumstance that [God] didn't preserve the words, the conclusion seemed inescapable to me that he hadn't gone to the trouble of inspiring them," Ehrman writes. In an interview last week, he described himself as a "happy agnostic."
So lets start with something basic as it appears I am dealing with a child and if so I won't waste anymore time on you.

Do you deny that the dead sea scrolls exist today of which a complete copy of Issiah was found that is dated some 2000+ years old ???? I mean you said they were all burned.
June VanDerMark

Since: Sep 09

Delta, Canada

#504630 Jan 6, 2014
Robert F wrote:
<quoted text>
June
Ah. I see what you mean.
The transition from John the Baptist to Jesus, was more or less the flow of the two sets of brothers John told James, and Andrew told Simon(Peter)....They(John and Andrew) were originally followers of the John the Baptist. But when John the Baptist said to the "Behold the Lamb of God!" They followed Jesus....
John 1:35 The next day John(the Baptist) was there again with two of his disciples. 36 When he saw Jesus passing by, he said,“Look, the Lamb of God!”
So in short the two followed, and let their two brothers to Jesus....
By the way, there are some "wayward" followers of John the Baptist....see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandaeism
For someone who isn't here to proselytize your Catholic religion, you are certainly doing a remarkable job of hiding the proselytism. Sarcasm intended.

You can swing it any way that accommodates your arrogance ... but I believe that it's common sense that within the theology, had Jesus lived, he would have stayed faithful to Judaism ... period!!!

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
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 7 min Big Al 996,476
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 7 min waaasssuuup 88,026
Last post wins (May '13) 20 min Hatti_Hollerand 543
There is Everything Wrong with Abortion (Nov '07) 1 hr Grunt56 223,076
God is REAL - Miracles Happen! (Jun '11) 1 hr Wisdom of Ages 6,918
Why the Trump Presidency is the usual Republica... 5 hr Doctor REALITY 8
Are you paying for public service? 6 hr annebonney 1