Roman Catholic church only true churc...

Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

There are 590428 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.

Chess

Columbus, OH

#551334 Jul 24, 2014
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
So who's arguing?
You haven't got a clue who wrote biblical scriptures, yet all users of the words plagiarize without so much as giving "credits" to anyone but a supposed mythical god.
Ridiculous blather.
You are arguing, dummy.

And now you're talking nonsense.

We know who wrote the genuine letters of Paul.

Paul did.

For most of the other texts we do not know who the author was.

But for some we know who it wasn't.

Second Peter is a forgery.

It wasn't written by Peter though it claims to be.

And since it copies wholesale from Jude without credit, it represents plagiarism, too -- plagiarism from yet another forgery.

And yes, even in antiquity, despite frequent Christian claims to the contrary, plagiarism was considered inappropriate. It even was sometime punished beyond social stigma if it offended someone in power.

But not everything in the New Testament is forgery and plagiarism. Luke and Matthew plagiarize from Mark -- they might as well be considered later editions of Mark. But all three were written anonymously and so don't qualify as forgeries, just falsely attributed texts.

But not everything therein represents plagiarism. If the author of Matthew says scripture tells us something, that is not plagiarism. That is a reference to the Hebrew Bible, or more precisely, the Septuagint, the Greek version in antiquity of the Hebrew Bible. And everyone understood that. That would not be plagiarism in an otherwise largely plagiarized work.
Chess

Columbus, OH

#551335 Jul 24, 2014
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
If I told you I thought that I am more honest than Billy Graham, would you be convinced???
NAHHHH ... you wouldn't ... and neither should you, as I bullshit a lot ... as does Billy.
The only difference between Billy's behavior and mine is that I don't pretend to preach on behalf of a god as does Billy.
I just cut right to the chase and admit that I'm full of bullshit.
I know you are.

I've seen plenty evidence of that.

But I'm betting Billy believed his nonsense.

That makes him wrong.

Since you know better, that makes you a bullsh!ter.

On the whole, I'd rather hang with the guy's who's simply wrong.

His nonsense usually isn't as smelly.
Truth

Leesburg, VA

#551336 Jul 24, 2014
Liam wrote:
<quoted text>
Peter must have misunderstood Jesus. Because he went to Antioch and Rome and ordained Bishops and Priests. He set up a hierarchy. Glad you could examine the Scriptures 2,000 yrs later and clarify this embarrassing mistake of Peter. Lol. Seriously....hope all is well, Truth.
Clay,

The first temple was built by Solomon in about 1000 B.C., what was it made of???

Stone..........

The second temple was built in about 535 B.C., by who???

It was beautified by King Herod, when???

In the first century B.C., and, was made out of what???

Stone..........

The third temple was built in 33 A.D., in what age???

Christian age.......was it made out of stone???

NO.......

It was made of LIVING stones, LIVING human beings..........

These LIVING stones were redeemed to God by the Blood of Christ.

So, what was God's third temple???

It was a spiritual temple.

It was the church which Jesus said he would build in the Word of God.
Just Sayin

United States

#551337 Jul 24, 2014
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
"Some" would be WRONG.
I'm trying to encourage people to leave all religion ... including yours.
All you ever do is brag that Catholicism is aligned to the mindset of Jesus and God ... and the Protestants and Gnostic Christians contradict your thesis with the same story on their preferential sides of the religious COINs.
Heads versus TALES ... with no winners.
Jooney, honey, the only thing you are managing to accomplish is to help Protestants and Catholics understand how much they have in common.
....oh, and also to help atheists see just how far around the bend that atheism can take them.

Thanks for all your posts.

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#551338 Jul 24, 2014
Chess wrote:
<quoted text>
We know who wrote the genuine letters of Paul.
No we don't!

Much was written about the supposed Jesus, yet not one word was found on earth that we know of in his own hand-writing. For such a learned man to not write anything is suspect to men writing nothing but mythology.

"Jesus said this and Jesus did that" ... means nothing to me, albeit that it means eternal bliss in a hereafter to millions of IDOL worshippers.

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#551339 Jul 24, 2014
Just Sayin wrote:
<quoted text>
Jooney, honey, the only thing you are managing to accomplish is to help Protestants and Catholics understand how much they have in common.
Yes ... you both believe that Jesus and God will reject the other to hell, albeit that neither Protestants or Catholics can decide if the hell is a Protestant hell or a Catholic hell.

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#551340 Jul 24, 2014
Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
Clay,
The first temple was built by Solomon in about 1000 B.C., what was it made of???
Stone..........
The second temple was built in about 535 B.C., by who???
It was beautified by King Herod, when???
In the first century B.C., and, was made out of what???
Stone..........
The third temple was built in 33 A.D., in what age???
Christian age.......was it made out of stone???
NO.......
It was made of LIVING stones, LIVING human beings..........
These LIVING stones were redeemed to God by the Blood of Christ.
So, what was God's third temple???
It was a spiritual temple.
It was the church which Jesus said he would build in the Word of God.
So does that mean that all churches built from wood or bricks or stones should be destroyed as VAIN places of IDOL worship???

:)

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#551341 Jul 24, 2014
That takes me back to a story told to me by a very elderly Native Indian who spent years in a mission school run by Catholic nuns.

He said when he tried to light the mission on fire, he was too young to realize that bricks wouldn't burn.

Imagine being held captive by strangers that forced their religion on you and beat you for daring to speak in your own native language ... and all the while being taught that the god you were supposed to worship LOVED you.

Since: May 14

Location hidden

#551342 Jul 24, 2014
Michael wrote:
<quoted text>
......catholic church history is more about hand me down family tradition than the actual belief itself.
.....Most catholics are so because they were born into the faith. If catholicism depended on people not being rushed to baptism by their parents at three months old but waited until they were adults to determine which belief that to follow, the catholic church would be much, much smaller than it is today.
I can see you have never been Catholic. Catholicism is a very rich wonderful religion. You cannot receive Christ through the Eucharist anywhere else.
Chess

Columbus, OH

#551343 Jul 24, 2014
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
No we don't!
Much was written about the supposed Jesus, yet not one word was found on earth that we know of in his own hand-writing. For such a learned man to not write anything is suspect to men writing nothing but mythology.
"Jesus said this and Jesus did that" ... means nothing to me, albeit that it means eternal bliss in a hereafter to millions of IDOL worshippers.
Yes, we do know.

And I notice you quickly switch from the issue of knowing about Paul to what you think about Jesus. It simply is not relevant to whether Paul actually wrote some of the letters the New Testament compilers accept as being his.

Whether Paul was duped about the historical Jesus -- and since he accepts the Christ myth about Jesus, he was -- has nothing to do with whether some of the letters claiming to be his were genuine any more than it has to do with whether some of the letter of Ignatius were genuine simply because he also believed in Jesus as the Christ.
Liam

Chicago, IL

#551344 Jul 24, 2014
Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
Clay,
The first temple was built by Solomon in about 1000 B.C., what was it made of???
Stone..........
The second temple was built in about 535 B.C., by who???
It was beautified by King Herod, when???
In the first century B.C., and, was made out of what???
Stone..........
The third temple was built in 33 A.D., in what age???
Christian age.......was it made out of stone???
NO.......
It was made of LIVING stones, LIVING human beings..........
These LIVING stones were redeemed to God by the Blood of Christ.
So, what was God's third temple???
It was a spiritual temple.
It was the church which Jesus said he would build in the Word of God.
There is truth to what you said. But nothing can negate the fact Jesus renamed Simon "Rock". That's a significant event. The Bible is filled with reference to Simon's new name as a noun, not an adjective. Since nothing can strip Simon of the keys and name the Lord gave him.....then your analogy above has to coexist with it. I believe it does, provided we dont attempt to use other scripture verses to undo Mathew 16:18. I think too many times, protestanism is guilty of using one verse to unravel another til they arrive at a theology that suits them.
Also, your last line is interesting because Catholicism and Orthodoxy have a different meaning of what's "the word of God" than the rest of Christianity. And ours is supported by Scripture and historical documents.
Blessings
USA Born

Upland, CA

#551345 Jul 24, 2014
Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
"For ~~~~~no other foundation can anyone lay~~~~~ than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ."
Doesn't say anything about Peter......
"I Will Build <<<My>>> Church!"
Jesus indicates present intention to do something in the future!
One church (singular).....one body......
Jesus speaks of the "Churches" in Revelation. Nothing about a universal church and nothing about Peter's church.
Just Sayin

United States

#551347 Jul 24, 2014
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes ... you both believe that Jesus and God will reject the other to hell, albeit that neither Protestants or Catholics can decide if the hell is a Protestant hell or a Catholic hell.
Oh and also that you are a pathological liar.
And that you are addicted to your blind rage.
That's all you have.

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#551348 Jul 24, 2014
Chess Jurist wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Repetitive nonsense from a 'tard.
"Their fathers abandoned them."
What a hoot.
Do you have the slightest clue what you're posting about?
If ever you get your foot out of your mouth....answer my post:

Their fathers abandoned them.
Give me the names of "their"...
Liam

United States

#551349 Jul 24, 2014
Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
Hello Clay,
Jesus' church wasn't built on Peter..........
Jesus' church was built on the truth about the divine "Person," "Jesus Christ."
"Jesus Church was built on the truth about the divine "person ", Jesus Christ".

I mean come on, That's true too. But it does not remove the new name of Simon nor the keys Jesus clearly gave him. Every description Protestantism gives the Christian Church is true. But its ALSO a Davidic Kingdom.... a hierarchy of Bishops who were charged with the task of bringing the Gospel to every decade. You couldn't be in this Church if you were some guy reading the scriptures by yourself preaching your interpretations. Peter and the fellas would have rebuked you. And so would their immediate successors.
USA Born

Upland, CA

#551350 Jul 24, 2014
Mychihuahuawillbite wrote:
<quoted text> I can see you have never been Catholic. Catholicism is a very rich wonderful religion. You cannot receive Christ through the Eucharist anywhere else.
Are you saying a person cannot be saved unless they are Catholic?

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#551351 Jul 24, 2014
Chess Jurist wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Redundant rants and incorrect.
Plagiarism is "an act or instance of using or closely imitating the language and thoughts of another author without authorization and the representation of that author's work as one's own, as by not crediting the original author...."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/plagia...
Pay special attention to that last clause, "as by not crediting the original author".
Thief.
I got this info from you!!!! It clearly spells out a particular requirement for there to be something plagiarized...."pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own".

Never did...not guilty..
Chess

Columbus, OH

#551352 Jul 24, 2014
Oxbow wrote:
<quoted text>
If ever you get your foot out of your mouth....answer my post:
Their fathers abandoned them.
Give me the names of "their"...
More nonsense.

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#551353 Jul 24, 2014
Chess Jurist wrote:
<quoted text>
Incorrect ignorance.
A determination can only be made when the proposed or actual use is know. As the Senate Judiciary Committee report on the Copyright Act noted, "... each case raising the question must be decided on its own facts."
Section 107 of the copyright law provides, "[T]he fair use of a copyrighted work ... is not an infringement of copyright."
And, under that section, the US Supreme Court has applied the fair use test even after a copyright holder denied a specific request for permission. Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 US 569 (1994).
That is why I call you lying snake...

Truth..
No advance determination...their stand was/is based on them applying the law to their situation...logic says this came about from lawyers they hired to advise them...

Merriam-Webster have determined that by applying the law to their situation, their material is not fair use....that is why they say " All rights reserved. No part of the work embodied in Merriam-Webster's pages on the World Wide Web and covered by the copyrights hereon may be reproduced or copied in any form or by any meansógraphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, taping, or information storage and retrieval systemsówithout the written permission of the publisher.

Requests for permission to use or reproduce should be mailed to: Permissions Editor, Merriam-Webster Inc., P.O. Box 281, Springfield, MA
You ain't got permission...
Just Sayin

United States

#551354 Jul 24, 2014
Chess wrote:
<quoted text>
More nonsense.
Plagiarizing has been explained to Ox for many years. He just doesn't get it.

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) 4 min It aint necessari... 839,394
Made as He!! ????? 4 min Protester 1
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 10 min who 271,360
Air Force & HAARP, Read Their Stories & Self Co... 13 min Me again 1
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 15 min Just Think 100,025
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 1 hr waaasssuuup 4,487
gay bottom in gurgaon (May '14) 1 hr David play boy 110
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 2 hr Just Wondering 612,201
More from around the web