Roman Catholic church only true churc...

Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

There are 683885 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.

atemcowboy

Van Wert, OH

#543514 Jun 11, 2014
as you undoubtly know(if not google it like you have to do constantly), it takes three to five days for an egg to pass through her Fallopian tube on its way to the uterus . yet we believe that this transfer of the embryo was undertaken immediately, God not needing to wait several days.

and there are no verses that would indicate that it did take days, and even you oxbore believe that the word "conceive" meant an immediate pregnancy

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

#543515 Jun 11, 2014
atemcowboy wrote:
<quoted text>your words would have been more believable. the catholics don't seem to trust links.
anyhoo, the fact remains that Jesus would have had to have DNA from Mary if her egg was used in the Birth, which then makes Him half human. this is just plain common sense, and to take it further, He would have DNA from God if this happened and we Know that God I Spirit and would have had no DNA.
so I have tried to tell them how the embryo attaches itself to a womans' womb and since you do work in OB/GYN, maybe they might believe you(even tho I know more about this than you do,lol)
Preston

You keep talking like you know what God did, because of biology, regarding the conception of Jesus in Mary.

It is apparent to all believers on here, that you do not. It remains inexplicable in a scientific way.

Your resistance to the issue of the miracle of God through Mary's virginity conceived a child is what stops most non-believers. And it has stopped you as well.

You are not a believer in the miracle birth of Jesus by Mary. You have at best some deviation of the truth, which means you are a heretic.(I don't mean the word in a harsh negative sense, rather as a truth, for we all come short of the glory of God.) And this is where you come up short. The question for the rest of us, and for you, does this imperil your soul? But this we leave up to God and perhaps in the future, your correction.

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

#543516 Jun 11, 2014
atemcowboy wrote:
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
Not one Christian on the board has voiced support for this nonsense. I doubt you could any more than a few internet whackos either. Time to stop with your goofy stories, let go of this stupidity and become a Christian.
disciple just did, of course, he is highly educated, much more than a loose goose like oxbore.
**********
and if you were college educated, then you would fully understand the concept of mary nor producing an egg, which would make Jesus half human, and as I said earlier, God forbid Heavenly beings having sex with human women, so why would he go against what he forbid before as it is written in the OT.
why would God be angry when they did it but it was no problem if he did it.
the Bible says that God changes not, if it was sin for them, He wouldn't have done it Himself.
COMMON SENSE 101.
Jesus DID NOT become Human before His Father placed Him into her womb, only after the fact.
it certainly is a Mystery as to how he is able to do this, but he is God, he has the Power to do as he wishes and needs to do.
Preston

I had Bio 101, Zoo 101, and Comparative Zoo 101 with all the labs....

You have an issue with God loving Mary. Its just that simple. Your reasoning on the subject is like that of Islam. You might have been a happier Muslim, because you resolve in your mind the issue biologically, rather than by faith, and what is written in the Bible.(Is 11:1 among others).

But then again you wouldn't have been happy being a Muslim, because they at least know Mary is blessed, which you seem to want to forget which is also in Luke 1:48)

You have a problem with me, being a flake. I think you have a problem as well, and it is good for you to find it out now, and face it, rather than have it go unresolved.

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

#543517 Jun 11, 2014
confrinting with the word wrote:
<quoted text>
~~~
You best take you own advice to heart.....and practice what you preach.
Eph_5:5 For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
Luk_9:25 For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away?
The apostle Paul wrote
1Co_9:27 But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.
confronting

Peace

Its time for you to set Preston straight on the conception of Jesus as a human through Mary. Get off the sidelines. It is his soul you need to preach to.

He doesn't listen to me, nor are other "anti-Catholics" on here willing to challenge him on this....

Peace
atemcowboy

Van Wert, OH

#543518 Jun 11, 2014
Robert, 99.9% of the time, I scroll right past any and all of your posts.

I am not in the least inclined to read anything that a flake like you writes.
atemcowboy

Van Wert, OH

#543519 Jun 11, 2014
Robert F wrote:
<quoted text>
confronting
Peace
Its time for you to set Preston straight on the conception of Jesus as a human through Mary. Get off the sidelines. It is his soul you need to preach to.
He doesn't listen to me, nor are other "anti-Catholics" on here willing to challenge him on this....
Peace
NO ONE NEEDS TO SET ME STRAIGHT. I KNOW AND BELEIVE THAT WHAT I POST IS THE TRUTH.

God never had sex with mary and did not fertilize her egg, which would make Jesus half human.

common sense, a trait that you as an atheist lacks. along with some intelligence that you also need
mike

Piedmont, OK

#543520 Jun 11, 2014
From The first post on his thread there was lies and they continue here everyday .the roman catholic church is lead by Satan did you know the church was gave another color it was blue it represented the law and just like the law they hid it done away with it. even in the new testament he says I have not come to destroy the law but to fulfill it. because the law is not kept is the reason for sin with the law there would not be any sin and I have heard it over and over his word his word his word is his laws that because you are weak minded and have been brainwashed you follow satan satan is running this country and all religious organization's.

Show me one holiday in the scriptures you can not do it he does tell y to keep his feast days you don't do it but you dam sure keep them pagan holidays .most can not even keep the sabbath. yes it is a sad world.

I don't blame you because you all have been brainwashed and its is hard to be deprogrammed. just like his name Yahweh But man come along and turned him into a god the very thing he warns you not to worship and now because of satan even the government supports being a homosexual.

All im really trying to say is who are you to get on here and spread a false religion.may Yahweh bless you all and give you understanding. because you sure are lacking.
disciple

San Diego, CA

#543521 Jun 11, 2014
atemcowboy wrote:
<quoted text>NO ONE NEEDS TO SET ME STRAIGHT. I KNOW AND BELEIVE THAT WHAT I POST IS THE TRUTH.
God never had sex with mary and did not fertilize her egg, which would make Jesus half human.
common sense, a trait that you as an atheist lacks. along with some intelligence that you also need
I've seen crazy propositions from "Christians" before but this one is the winer! it is funny to see you take on them all unchallenged....lots of screaming tho but no substance.
I'll sit back and watch them go off on a tangent.
atemcowboy

Van Wert, OH

#543522 Jun 11, 2014
disciple wrote:
<quoted text>
I've seen crazy propositions from "Christians" before but this one is the winer! it is funny to see you take on them all unchallenged....lots of screaming tho but no substance.
I'll sit back and watch them go off on a tangent.
I saw where Robert claimed to have taken courses in Bio, and zoology. so he had to have just taken then because he never claimed to know very much about them before.

there is no doubt that God placed Jesus in her womb, that has not ever been denied by me, quite the contrary, in fact.

now where do we go from there? to insist that God fertilized her egg, is clear to anyone that that [fact] would make Jesus half man, therefore there must be an alternative and more realistic to the Actual event.

Anthony just go bonkers and never brings anything to the table, while a few months ago, reggie produced works of some priest who also didn't believe that an egg was used from mary.

Now I might concede that Robert might have taken biology in high school but I sincerely doubt it. like always his expertise comes ex post facto (after google in English)

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#543523 Jun 11, 2014
atemcowboy wrote:
The Bible says that it rains on the unjust as well as the just.
in this instance we see that God plays no favorites and He has laid down the laws of nature which man can not break.
God can and does intercede with mankind concerning those laws that He has given us, but by and by, they remain in force constantly.
therefore when he forbid the angels to have sex with human women in the past,
why would any intelligent person think that God would do what he has forbidden?
I am an intelligent person....I do not think God had sex with Mary...I know He did not....nor did He lie when He said: And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.

However, you say He lied...He did not do that...you say He planted an embryo in her womb!!!!!

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#543524 Jun 11, 2014
atemcowboy wrote:
<quoted text>I knew that and so does God which is why He wished for this challenge to go out.
so if He has given no instruction on an egg being used By Him, then why would you or anyone else insist that He did what he forbade to the angels.
If it was sin for them, then God surely wouldn't commit sin since He cant.
Jesus has only one Parent and that is God the Father, and that has always been His Parent, and from His very beginning as a youth, he stated to mary that He must be about His Fathers business, and he didn't care one bit about what she thought or did. His fathers business was ALL that He cared about.
as he said, Not my will, but thine be done.
little to no emphasis on what mary thought, but he did care for her since His brothers and sisters were not of the persuasion to take care of her after His death
I, nor no one else on this forum of which I am aware, ever even suggested, much less insisted that God had sex with Mary.

Mary was the human mother of Christ...she conceived, that is, she became pregnant of the Holy Ghost, and gave birth to Christ..so says Scripture: quote: Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
atemcowboy

Van Wert, OH

#543525 Jun 11, 2014
Oxbow wrote:
<quoted text>
I am an intelligent person....I do not think God had sex with Mary...I know He did not....nor did He lie when He said: And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
However, you say He lied...He did not do that...you say He planted an embryo in her womb!!!!!
I have NEVER SAID HE LIED, THIS IS THE SECOND TIME THAT YOU HAVE LIED ABOUT me, SO STOP IT.

and you are NOT an intelligent person, you claim to know the bible, yet the other day, I kept some of the verse from you and you were clueless. and then your quote of what a actual Bible verse said, wasn't even close.

and person who knows very much about the bible would have known about those sons of God who impregnated human women, and God forbid this to happen again. You do now know this right?

time and time again, I have showed you that the word[conceive] means a beginning, so the next question that you should ask yourself, beginning of what or in this instance who?

if God did not use her egg in the [beginning], then how did he bring this to past, that is the next question that you should address.

as I just told you, it takes several days for this egg to traverse this canal, yet the Bible says that the Holy Spirit overshadowed her. so then that means that she was to all extent and purposes, unconscious. that is along time to be asleep.

Now on the other hand, with the embryo that God had prepared, it could be implanted immediately, without having to wait 3 to 5 days for that egg to drop from her ovary.

NOW oxbore, TRY AND PROVE ME WRONG.
Anthony MN

United States

#543526 Jun 11, 2014
atemcowboy wrote:
<quoted text>I saw where Robert claimed to have taken courses in Bio, and zoology. so he had to have just taken then because he never claimed to know very much about them before.
there is no doubt that God placed Jesus in her womb, that has not ever been denied by me, quite the contrary, in fact.
now where do we go from there? to insist that God fertilized her egg, is clear to anyone that that [fact] would make Jesus half man, therefore there must be an alternative and more realistic to the Actual event.
Anthony just go bonkers and never brings anything to the table, while a few months ago, reggie produced works of some priest who also didn't believe that an egg was used from mary.
Now I might concede that Robert might have taken biology in high school but I sincerely doubt it. like always his expertise comes ex post facto (after google in English)
Well, I bring scripture "And behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb,.....", which eliminates the possibility that God placed an embryo in her womb. Also, 2000 years of Christian testimony supports this. Your cockamamie idea has never been supported by any Christian community. You may lean on the support of a virulent anti-Catholic like disciple, but don't realize that you'd be laughed out of most, if not all, evangelical fundamentalist groups with your nonsense.
atemcowboy

Van Wert, OH

#543527 Jun 11, 2014
Oxbow wrote:
<quoted text>
I, nor no one else on this forum of which I am aware, ever even suggested, much less insisted that God had sex with Mary.
Mary was the human mother of Christ...she conceived, that is, she became pregnant of the Holy Ghost, and gave birth to Christ..so says Scripture: quote: Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
I have never denied the Holy Scriptures, however I do deny anything that you might try and teach about the Pregnancy. you have shown that you know nothing about the Bible and with you being married three times, You know NOTHING about having a relationship with a woman, so why should you now be believable in this instance with a woman named Mary?

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#543528 Jun 11, 2014
atemcowboy wrote:
as you undoubtly know(if not google it like you have to do constantly), it takes three to five days for an egg to pass through her Fallopian tube on its way to the uterus . yet we believe that this transfer of the embryo was undertaken immediately, God not needing to wait several days.
and there are no verses that would indicate that it did take days, and even you oxbore believe that the word "conceive" meant an immediate pregnancy
I showed you that conceive means to become pregnant....I never provided a timetable to become so....

You are continuing to make a fool of yourself...trashing the Word of God, ignoring Scripture, and telling lies that can be easily so proven..

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#543529 Jun 11, 2014
Robert F wrote:
<quoted text>
Preston
You keep talking like you know what God did, because of biology, regarding the conception of Jesus in Mary.
It is apparent to all believers on here, that you do not. It remains inexplicable in a scientific way.
Your resistance to the issue of the miracle of God through Mary's virginity conceived a child is what stops most non-believers. And it has stopped you as well.
You are not a believer in the miracle birth of Jesus by Mary. You have at best some deviation of the truth, which means you are a heretic.(I don't mean the word in a harsh negative sense, rather as a truth, for we all come short of the glory of God.) And this is where you come up short. The question for the rest of us, and for you, does this imperil your soul? But this we leave up to God and perhaps in the future, your correction.
Amen Robert....100% truth...based on Scripture and his endless rantings railing against the Truth regarding this miracle....I could not have said it better....

Thank you...

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#543530 Jun 11, 2014
Robert F wrote:
<quoted text>
Preston
I had Bio 101, Zoo 101, and Comparative Zoo 101 with all the labs....
You have an issue with God loving Mary. Its just that simple. Your reasoning on the subject is like that of Islam. You might have been a happier Muslim, because you resolve in your mind the issue biologically, rather than by faith, and what is written in the Bible.(Is 11:1 among others).
But then again you wouldn't have been happy being a Muslim, because they at least know Mary is blessed, which you seem to want to forget which is also in Luke 1:48)
You have a problem with me, being a flake. I think you have a problem as well, and it is good for you to find it out now, and face it, rather than have it go unresolved.
Right on Robert!!! You hit on the nail the head!!!!

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

#543531 Jun 11, 2014
atemcowboy wrote:
Robert, 99.9% of the time, I scroll right past any and all of your posts.
I am not in the least inclined to read anything that a flake like you writes.
Preston

Ok

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#543532 Jun 11, 2014
atemcowboy wrote:
<quoted text>I have NEVER SAID HE LIED, THIS IS THE SECOND TIME THAT YOU HAVE LIED ABOUT me, SO STOP IT.
and you are NOT an intelligent person, you claim to know the bible, yet the other day, I kept some of the verse from you and you were clueless. and then your quote of what a actual Bible verse said, wasn't even close.
and person who knows very much about the bible would have known about those sons of God who impregnated human women, and God forbid this to happen again. You do now know this right?
time and time again, I have showed you that the word[conceive] means a beginning, so the next question that you should ask yourself, beginning of what or in this instance who?
if God did not use her egg in the [beginning], then how did he bring this to past, that is the next question that you should address.
as I just told you, it takes several days for this egg to traverse this canal, yet the Bible says that the Holy Spirit overshadowed her. so then that means that she was to all extent and purposes, unconscious. that is along time to be asleep.
Now on the other hand, with the embryo that God had prepared, it could be implanted immediately, without having to wait 3 to 5 days for that egg to drop from her ovary.
NOW oxbore, TRY AND PROVE ME WRONG.
God said: And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.

You say: That never happened...God planted an embryo in Mary's womb...

That, sir, is calling God a liar...

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#543533 Jun 11, 2014
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, I bring scripture "And behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb,.....", which eliminates the possibility that God placed an embryo in her womb. Also, 2000 years of Christian testimony supports this. Your cockamamie idea has never been supported by any Christian community. You may lean on the support of a virulent anti-Catholic like disciple, but don't realize that you'd be laughed out of most, if not all, evangelical fundamentalist groups with your nonsense.
Gospel truth!!!!

Thank you Anthony....

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
News 'That's all he wanted': Spicer, a devout Cathol... Jul 22 seemoregood 1
News The pope praised him for providing for his pare... Jul 19 Laredo 3
News Boston cardinal, Jewish leaders have Holocaust ... (Feb '09) Jul 19 Dhimmi Democrat 33
News United House of Prayer for All People: Bishop's... (Apr '08) Jul 18 Married in 10,571
News Paul Is No Inventor of Christianity, Says Pope (Sep '08) Jul 16 True Christian wi... 77
News Editorial: The Vatican's Failure in the Abuse S... Jul 13 seemoregood 1
News In Defense of Free Speech in the United States (May '15) Jul 11 Muslim lives don_... 6
More from around the web