Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

Full story: CBC News 548,689
The VaticanA issued a document Tuesday restatingA its belief that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church of Jesus Christ. Full Story

“" THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH!"”

Since: Jun 10

"ISA 55:11--"MATT 10:27"

#460384 Jul 9, 2013
Oxbow wrote:
227
<quoted text>
Translation: 1. a rendering of something into another language or into one's own language from another. 2. a version in a different language: an English translation of Plato.3. the act or process of translating.4. the state of being translated.
5. motion in which all particles of a body move with the same velocity along parallel paths.6. Genetics. the process by which messenger RNA specifies the sequence of amino acids that line up on a ribosome for protein synthesis.
215 220
This is not a translation: Why do you not answer my question???
This is not a translation: Does the following verses teach that Christ is God??????
This is not a translation:
But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
Then, after speaking in many and varied ways through the prophets, "now at last in these days God has spoken to us in His Son":(Heb. 1:1-2).
For He sent His Son, the eternal Word, who enlightens all men, so that He might dwell among men and tell them of the innermost being of God (see John 1:1-18).
Jesus Christ, therefore, the Word made flesh, was sent as "a man to men." He "speaks the words of God" (John 3;34), and completes the work of salvation which His Father gave Him to do (see John 5:36; John 17:4)
And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

~~~

You wrote
Your first reason holds not water.....
Noah's ark did not hold water...It sat upon the water...

Isaiah is known as the Messianic Prophet He wrote

Isa_9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and

his name shall be called

Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Your theory just sank...

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#460385 Jul 9, 2013
227
Human Being wrote:
<quoted text>
Oxbow:

Secondly, I am not accustomed to answering a "shotgun fallacy".
Shotgun fallacy:
"Shotgun argumentation" is a metaphor from real life: It's much easier to hunt a rabbit with a shotgun than with a rifle. This is because a rifle only fires one bullet and there's a high probability of a miss. A shotgun, however, fires tens or even hundreds of small pellets, and the probability of at least one of them hitting the rabbit is quite high.

Shotgun argumentation has the same basic idea: The more small arguments or "evidence" you present in favor of some claim, the higher the probability that someone will believe you regarldess of how ridiculous those arguments are. There are two reasons for this:

Firstly, just the sheer amount of arguments or "evidence" may be enough to convince someone that something strange is going on. The idea is basically: "There is this much evidence against the official story, there must be something wrong with it." One or two pieces of "evidence" may not be enough to convince anyone, but collect a set of a couple of hundreds of pieces of "evidence" and it immediately starts being more believable.

Of course the fallacy here is that the amount of "evidence" is in no way proof of anything. The vast majority, and usually all of this "evidence" is easily explainable and just patently false. There may be a few points which may be more difficult to explain, but they alone wouldn't be so convincing.

Secondly, and more closely related to the shotgun methapor: The more arguments or individual pieces of "evidence" you have, the higher the probability that at least some of them will convince someone. Someone might not get convinced by most of the arguments, but among them there may be one or a few which sounds so plausible to him that he is then convinced. Thus one or a few of the "pellets" hit the "rabbit" and killed it: Mission accomplished.

I have a concrete example of this: I had a friend who is academically educated, a MSc, and doing research work (relating to computer science) at a university. He is rational, intelligent and well-educated.

Yet still this person, at least some years ago, completely believed the Moon hoax theory. Why? He said to me quite explicitly that there was one thing that convinced him: The flag moving after it had been planted on the ground.

One of the pellets had hit the rabbit and killed it. The shotgun argumentation had been successful.

If even highly-educated academic people can fall for such "evidence" (which is easily explained), how more easily are more "regular" people going to believe the sheer amount of them? Sadly, quite a lot more easily.

Most conspiracy theorists continue to present the same old tired arguments which are very easy to prove wrong. They need all those arguments, no matter how ridiculous, for their shotgun argumentation tactics to work.

This is not shot gun fallacy: Why do you not answer my question???

This is not a shotgun fallacy: Does the following verses teach that Christ is God??????

This is not a shot gun fallacy:
But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
Then, after speaking in many and varied ways through the prophets, "now at last in these days God has spoken to us in His Son":(Heb. 1:1-2).
For He sent His Son, the eternal Word, who enlightens all men, so that He might dwell among men and tell them of the innermost being of God (see John 1:1-18).
Jesus Christ, therefore, the Word made flesh, was sent as "a man to men." He "speaks the words of God" (John 3;34), and completes the work of salvation which His Father gave Him to do (see John 5:36; John 17:4)
And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Your second reason holds not water.....

Since: Sep 09

Smithers, Canada

#460386 Jul 9, 2013
They either lied then when they insinuated that he WAS canonized as a saint, or they are lying now when they state he was simply a martyr.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>

"Whatever happened to St. Christopher? Is he still a saint?"

Before the 1969 reform of the Roman calendar, Christopher was listed as a martyr who died under Decius. Nothing else is known about him.

http://www.catholic.org/saints/faq.php#whatev...

Since: Sep 09

Smithers, Canada

#460387 Jul 9, 2013
confrinting with the word wrote:
<quoted text>
Noah's ark did not hold water...It sat upon the water...
I suggest you take your nose out of the bible and study some history for a change. Your call from a supposed god has gone to your head.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>

From the book “Weather Lore,” Reader’s Digest, Published 2007, comes the following…

Floods

Almost 5000 years ago, some scientists believe, a large asteroid or comet crashed into the Indian Ocean, producing a tsunami about 13 times as big as the one that inundated Southeast Asia in December 2004. That almost every culture throughout history has had a flood myth, of which Noah and the Ark is the most famous in the Western world, demonstrates the fear and awe that floods inspire in human consciousness.

Since: Sep 09

Smithers, Canada

#460388 Jul 9, 2013
From the book “Weather Lore,” Reader’s Digest, Published 2007, comes the following…

It would be no exaggeration to say that almost every culture has a flood myth. While the biblical flood epic of Noah and the Ark is perhaps the best known to the Western world, ancient civilizations as diverse as Babylonia and Wales, or Russian and Sumatra, have their own versions of a giant flood. Many of these myths are surprisingly similar.

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#460389 Jul 9, 2013
227
Human Being wrote:
<quoted text>
Oxbow:

Thirdly, the scriptures you quote, are like a subtle "strawman".
You are asking me to prove something which is not directly stated, and ask me to interpret something into the true meaning of these scriptures.
Straw man argumentation

A "straw man argument" is the process of taking an argument of the opponent, distorting it or taking it out of context so that it basically changes meaning, and then ridiculing it in order to make the opponent look bad.

For example, a conspiracy theorist may say something like: "Sceptics argue that stars are too faint to see in space (which is why there are no stars in photographs), yet astronauts said that they could see stars."

This is a perfect example of a straw man argument. That's taking an argument completely out of context and changing its meaning.

It's actually a bit unfortunate that many debunking sites use the sentence "the stars are too faint to be seen" when explaining the lack of stars in photographs. That sentence, while in its context not false, is confusing and misleading. It's trying to put in simple words a more technical explanation (which usually follows). Unfortunately, it's too simplistic and good material for straw man arguments. I wish debunkers stopped using simplistic sentences like that one.

(The real explanation for the lacking stars is, of course, related to the exposure time and shutter aperture of the cameras, which were set to photograph the Moon surface illuminated by direct sunlight. The stars are not bright enough for such short exposure times. If the cameras had been set up to photograph the stars, the lunar surface would have been completely overexposed. This is basic photography.)

This is not a subtle strawman:Why do you not answer my question???

This is not a subtle strawman: Does the following verses teach that Christ is God??????

This is not a subtle strawman:
But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
Then, after speaking in many and varied ways through the prophets, "now at last in these days God has spoken to us in His Son":(Heb. 1:1-2).
For He sent His Son, the eternal Word, who enlightens all men, so that He might dwell among men and tell them of the innermost being of God (see John 1:1-18).
Jesus Christ, therefore, the Word made flesh, was sent as "a man to men." He "speaks the words of God" (John 3;34), and completes the work of salvation which His Father gave Him to do (see John 5:36; John 17:4)
And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Your third reason holds not water.....
Human Being

Sunset, LA

#460390 Jul 9, 2013
confrinting with the word wrote:
<quoted text>
~~~
YOU WROTE
Religionists must have faith and reason in order to function.
IN MY OPINION ....THE BEST DEFINITION OF FAITH IN THE BIBLE
Is about Abraham the father of faith...
The Apostle Paul put it this way...
Rom 4:20 ---> He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;
Rom 4:21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.<---
Rom 4:22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.
NOTE====>
Rom 4:23 ====> Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;
Rom 4:24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
Rom 4:25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification. <====
confronting:

Paul was perhaps more deeply involved in describing the virtue of faith, especially in the N.T., than others.

The spiritual virtues; faith, hope, and especially love.

As he describes them, faith and hope are very much linked, and link us, and are gifts of God, between our created nature and His Spiritual Nature.

So faith is objective, with God being the Object of our faith, but also subjective since it is part of oneself. I both lose and find myself in need of greater faith and hope, and am only satisfied in God. But these will pass as one sees God, and then only love remains....
ReginaM

Toms River, NJ

#460391 Jul 9, 2013
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
You stated that the saints WERE removed from the Catholic Universal calendar. Did the devil remove them, or were they removed with the approval of popes. And if they were removed, that is a show of horrible disrespect if the popes didn't actually believe they were nonexistent to begin with.
I suggest you are being very silly ... just to try to prove you are right.
Just as I thought, you can't produce any documented evidence that any Pope removed a saint from the Universal Calendar because they thought they were nonexistent.

All you can do is promulgate silly theories in lieu thereof and call me names...just to try to prove you are right.

Thanks!! Glad to have had the opportunity to set the record straight about the Saints! St. Christopher, pray for us!

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#460392 Jul 9, 2013
confrinting with the word wrote:
<quoted text>
~~~
May be she feels that enough has been said by others...
and it would be a waste of her time...
The Bible says..
Tit 3:10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;
Tit 3:11 Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.
Yep. If someone doesn't buy your bullshit after two attempts then they are far to wise to join your cult.
ReginaM

Toms River, NJ

#460393 Jul 9, 2013
June VanDerMark wrote:
They either lied then when they insinuated that he WAS canonized as a saint, or they are lying now when they state he was simply a martyr.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>
"Whatever happened to St. Christopher? Is he still a saint?"
Before the 1969 reform of the Roman calendar, Christopher was listed as a martyr who died under Decius. Nothing else is known about him.
http://www.catholic.org/saints/faq.php#whatev...
Was St. Christopher Real?

I’m glad you asked this question, because EVEN MANY PRIESTS AND RELIGIOUS EDUCATORS DON'T KNOW THE CORRECT ANSWER.****
St. Christopher is STILL a saint!!!
What happened in the 1960s was that the Church revised its universal calendar, the schedule of celebrations that are observed by the worldwide Church. Some saints’ days were removed, others added. This did not mean that those removed were no longer saints—only that the Church no longer celebrated their feast days everywhere. Individual communities and Catholics are still free to honor these saints and choose them as patrons. In fact, only a tiny percentage of canonized or recognized saints appear in the universal calendar. Many saints of religious orders are honored only within that order, for example.

You can be proud to have a powerful patron, intercessor, and namesake in St. Christopher. We know little about him historically—only that he died about A.D. 251—but that is also true of many early martyrs. We know they are in heaven, nonetheless.
http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/was-st...

****and the person who contributed the article to catholic dot org, apparently!

Once again, thanks for the opportunity to correct you, June. It's always a pleasure!
Human Being

Sunset, LA

#460394 Jul 9, 2013
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course they created their own god, as did all myth-makers create their own gods and goddesses through the eons of time concerning religion.
Some certain Jews thought they were special and so they needed one god all their own. Previously Jews were polytheistic and believed in multiple gods.
You really need to be more objective concerning religion and as long as you stay PUT in Catholicism, you will subject your self only to what suits your Catholic lusts.
June:

My answer is in the form of a question:

If being a Christian is absolutely satisfying in all aspects, then why try to be objectively against it?

You are trying to make a false dilemma, but it seems more like a casual simplification....I am not quite sure. Good try.

So, if you only look objectively, the subjective is ignored. And vice versa. Ignoring the subjective is not being truthful or honest....

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#460395 Jul 9, 2013
225 228
Human Being wrote:
<quoted text>
Oxbow:

Fourth, "cherry-picking" you chop-up the scriptures, and leave off the context within which they are written. Thus, anyone, can interpret them, any way they desire.
Quoting Scripture from Ge to Rev that supports the same message is not cherry picking...it is the most basic of Bible Study practices..

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#460397 Jul 9, 2013
Human Being wrote:
<quoted text>
Oxbow:

Fifth, the way you ask the question, we return to the "ducks quack" issue. You conclude ducks don't quack because it is not written in scripture. Likewise, when you demand a yes or not answer from me, I can say the scriptures you use do not tell me ducks do or don't quack.
There is no ducks quake issue in: Why do you not answer my question???

There is no ducks issue in: Does the following verses teach that Christ is God??????

Your fifth reason also holds not water..

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#460399 Jul 9, 2013
Human Being wrote:
<quoted text>
Oxbow:

Sixth, its just a trick question, a false delemma, in which if I commit one way or the other, you can "prove" otherwise.
This is not a trick question nor a false dilemma:Why do you not answer my question???

This is not a trick question nor a false dilemma: Does the following verses teach that Christ is God??????

So...your sixth reason hold not also water...

The reason you will not answer my questions is that you can see it will reveal the truth...and that you cannot accept...
Human Being

Sunset, LA

#460400 Jul 9, 2013
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
You ARE of the world!!!
Your imagination can take you wherever you want it to take you, but when you come out of your state of hypnosis, you are still on earth as are all the rest of us animals.
June:

The flesh came first, and then the spirit. That is the nature of being a created "animal".

One cannot deny that they are born into the world, unless they are hypnotized.

If you are halfway between home and a destination, you can decide to go either way.

If you are both a creature in time and space, and have an eternal destination, then you can decide to go either way also. So choose to be a creature of time and space, and remain carnal, or a creature of eternal destination and become spiritual.

Do you think others animals ponder their own mortality?

“" THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH!"”

Since: Jun 10

"ISA 55:11--"MATT 10:27"

#460401 Jul 9, 2013
G_O_D wrote:
<quoted text>
Your God is a tree now?
ROFLMAO
Yggdrasil
~~~
Roll all you wish....

The Old Testament...

ISAIAH THE MESSIANIC PROPHET WROTE AN ALLEGORY ABOUT A TREE

Isa 53:1 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?

Isa 53:2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.

The New Testament THE APOSTLE PAUL... ALLUDES TO ISSIAH'S WRITINGS..

Rom 10:16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel.

--->For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?

Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Rom 10:18 But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.

Rom 10:19 But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you.

Rom 10:20 But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me.

Rom 10:21 But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.

____

The Psalmist David wrote about a TREE

Psa 1:1 Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.


Psa 1:2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.

NOTE

===>Psa 1:3 And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.

Psa 1:4 The ungodly are not so: but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away.

Psa 1:5 Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous.

Psa 1:6 For the LORD knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly shall perish.

IN ROMANS THE ALLEGORY CONTINUES

Rom 11:16 For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.

Rom 11:17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;

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.

Since: Sep 09

Smithers, Canada

#460402 Jul 9, 2013
ReginaM wrote:
<quoted text>
Just as I thought, you can't produce any documented evidence that any Pope removed a saint from the Universal Calendar because they thought they were nonexistent.
All you can do is promulgate silly theories in lieu thereof and call me names...just to try to prove you are right.
Thanks!! Glad to have had the opportunity to set the record straight about the Saints! St. Christopher, pray for us!
So you think popes removed the saints from the calendar because they respected that the saints existed???

That would the same as removing the stories of Jesus from the bible ... because they respected that Jesus existed.

Be a fool if it so pleases you.

Since: Sep 09

Smithers, Canada

#460403 Jul 9, 2013
Human Being wrote:
<quoted text>
June:
My answer is in the form of a question:
If being a Christian is absolutely satisfying in all aspects, then why try to be objectively against it?
You are trying to make a false dilemma, but it seems more like a casual simplification....I am not quite sure. Good try.
So, if you only look objectively, the subjective is ignored. And vice versa. Ignoring the subjective is not being truthful or honest....
Because to be a died in the wool Christian is to believe that most of the "souls" in the world will go to hell ... while precious, special YOU will be rewarded with salvation and eternal bliss.

How many times do you need that explanation to understand that is WHY I never became a member of a Christian church of ANY flavor whatsoever?

The belief itself is horrible. If you don't see that, it's because you don't want to see it.

“" THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH!"”

Since: Jun 10

"ISA 55:11--"MATT 10:27"

#460404 Jul 9, 2013
G_O_D wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep. If someone doesn't buy your bullshit after two attempts then they are far to wise to join your cult.
~~~
YOU LANGUAGE IS INAPPROPRIATE..

THE BIBLE SAYS

Luk_6:45 A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.

YOUR LANGUAGE

REVEALS WHAT YOU HEART CONSIST OF...

“let's do this thang!”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#460405 Jul 9, 2013
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
I suggest you take your nose out of the bible and study some history for a change. Your call from a supposed god has gone to your head.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>
From the book “Weather Lore,” Reader’s Digest, Published 2007, comes the following…
Floods
Almost 5000 years ago, some scientists believe, a large asteroid or comet crashed into the Indian Ocean, producing a tsunami about 13 times as big as the one that inundated Southeast Asia in December 2004. That almost every culture throughout history has had a flood myth, of which Noah and the Ark is the most famous in the Western world, demonstrates the fear and awe that floods inspire in human consciousness.
"Almost 5000 years ago, some scientists believe..."

LOL - these proud-hearts will believe anything BUT the truth of the Bible, but they tweek it so that they can get their name on some 'new theory'!

hey June, if these "scientists" and drs and such told you to jump in a lake of fire, would you do 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.

Pope Benedict XVI Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Pope to visit Blue Mosque, Hagia Sophia in Turkey 4 hr Serkan Turkbayram 6
United House of Prayer for All People: Bishop's... (Apr '08) 6 hr Mr Sir 8,518
Pope Francis leaves the beatification ceremony ... Mon Belle Sexton 11
Selfies with Pope Francis cardboard cutouts pop... Oct 18 ELIAS IBARRA 6
Catholic bishops take first step toward accepta... Oct 16 Mychihuahuawillbite 2
Pope Francis shows strong, unique leadership fo... Oct 15 Gremlin 2
Gradualism and Holiness Oct 15 RevKen 1

Pope Benedict XVI People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE