Roman Catholic church only true churc...

Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

There are 653992 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: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#553812 Aug 9, 2014
Dust Storm wrote:
<quoted text>
Early Christians were persecuted for their faith at the hands of both Jews from whose religion Christianity arose and the Roman Empire
Of course the first Christians were persecuted by the Jews that stayed faithful to Judaism.

The Christians were claiming that the religion of the Jews was evil and vile and offensive to "god."

What would those ex-Jew Christians expect of the Jews that stayed faithful to Judaism BUT TO BE persecuted???

Observe how defensive YOU are to anyone DARING to insult your Catholic religion, and then maybe you will WANT to understand why the Jews persecuted those Christians.
Anthony MN

Minneapolis, MN

#553813 Aug 9, 2014
Dust Storm wrote:
<quoted text>
May we ask for numerous sources from Credible Historians. I love the line in that show where they ask Sheldon what he was doing. Oh, the usual posting false information on wiki. lol
Lol. I think his problem is he doesn't even read the stuff he's posting.

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#553814 Aug 9, 2014
Christians and Muslims were persecuted by the Jews that stayed faithful to Judaism, as the Jews referred to both sects as Atheists.

I believe I understand WHY that occurred. The Jews were taught that the god in the sky loved ONLY them as his chosen few, and they were not going to share THAT limelight with Catholics, any other Gnostic group of Christian devotes ... OR Muslims.

But because Constantine supported the Catholics over the Jews, eventually the Jews lost the battle ... first to the Catholic-Christians, and in later centuries to the Muslims.

Until the Jews attained their first ownership of land as in a state in 1948, they had to keep a very low profile, as they were hated and hunted by both Catholics and Muslims, and later by Martin Luther's ex-Catholic Protestants.
Chess

Columbus, OH

#553815 Aug 9, 2014
Oxbow wrote:
<quoted text>
Responsibility cannot be met when the info required to meet such is not known..hopefully you will see the stupidity in your false accusations...someday...
Have no idea who originated these wise words: Fall seven times and stand up eight.
Of course it can be met, thief.

If you are confused about it, consult a reliable source for ways to provide proper attribution to texts with multiple or anonymous authors:

https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/5...

You're dumber than a bag of beans, boy.
Michael

Hamilton, Canada

#553816 Aug 9, 2014
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
Lol. I think his problem is he doesn't even read the stuff he's posting.
...didn't you tell all the posters just the other day that you will not be posting again for weeks?

...Do you not practice what you preach?
Dust Storm

Minneapolis, MN

#553817 Aug 9, 2014
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
Lol. I think his problem is he doesn't even read the stuff he's posting.
Then again It could be dementia, a severe lack of comprehension or perhaps he went to Harvard in Bug Tussel clear up the 3rd grade as Jethro from the Beverly Hilllbillies is the only one to make to the 4th. Mr Drysdale.
USA Born

Rancho Cucamonga, CA

#553818 Aug 9, 2014
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you going to cite your many sources with "facts" showing the Catholic Church was killing Christians in the first century, or will you retract your accusation?
Didn't I already say the word "catholic" didn't exist in the first centurty? Christian in rome were killing christians. No mention of catholics. What more do you want?

Doesn't take away from the fact that the RCC persecuted Christians.
USA Born

Rancho Cucamonga, CA

#553819 Aug 9, 2014
Dust Storm wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually no the mass was there from fhe beginning and terms such as remembrance and figure meant to make present. In the passover in Egypt if you did not eat the sacrificial lamb your first born would die. You had to eat the lamb. The unleavened bread is the bread of haste. Be prepared for he may come at any moment. In eating they came in communion with the Lord. You are just like those who stopped following Jesus. It is a hard thing to hear, but with faith you accept what the Lord commanded you to do. Eating the sacrificial lamb on passover was not symbolic geusture it was a requirement. The Lord said you must eat my flesh and yes its spiritual food to nourish you. Paul was not telling them they were getting sick and dying because they were consuming poision bread and bad wine. They were partaking unworthily and and disbelief and therefore bringing judgement upon themselves. Revelation has the sacrificial lamb the perfect siacrtifice. Jesus once and for the many. It is within the Cath9olic church that all through the world the prophecy of Malachi is fulfilled.and prefect sacrifice in an unbloody manner is continually presented to the Father. You may paint a cracker with a lamb and mock the Lord, in the Eucahrist but early Christians believed what the church does today. You think Carnally. The manna fell and was a miracle but Jesus said clearly you must eat my flesh and drink my blood so that you may have eternal life. Jesus was born in the house of bread. He is the lviing bread. His word is true and you do not believe him. The loaves and fishes fed many a precursor and a miracle but you cannot believe that Chrrist will provide spiritual food you must make it carnal .
I know what God said to the Israelites and the significance of the lamb's blood. Show in scripture where Jesus explains the eucharist as God explained the Passover.
USA Born

Rancho Cucamonga, CA

#553820 Aug 9, 2014
Dust Storm wrote:
<quoted text>
Then again It could be dementia, a severe lack of comprehension or perhaps he went to Harvard in Bug Tussel clear up the 3rd grade as Jethro from the Beverly Hilllbillies is the only one to make to the 4th. Mr Drysdale.
Then please tell me, where does it say Peter, your pope, condoned killing and torturing Christians. That is something no one can comprehend.
Michael

Hamilton, Canada

#553821 Aug 9, 2014
June VanDerMark wrote:
It’s plain that men wrote all the religious data. I doubt that if women wrote it that any of the saviors would be male. Women would know better, as they would want women to hold all power over the human race.&#61514;
Anyway here is another mystery.
Why did the god that placed Adam's and Eve’s spirits through direct express in physical bodies find it necessary to impregnate a woman of the Jewish faith in order to have the spirit of Jesus land in a material human body? Couldn't he have just created a material body for Jesus as he did for Adam and Eve.
Adam and Eve didn't have any religion, as they were sinners ... yet Jesus was born to a woman of the Jewish faith.
Quite a mystery HUH???
OH YEAH ... you people know the mind of god alright!
BWAGGGHH!!!
...and not one eyewitness to any of this.
Dust Storm

Minneapolis, MN

#553822 Aug 9, 2014
USA Born wrote:
<quoted text>
I know what God said to the Israelites and the significance of the lamb's blood. Show in scripture where Jesus explains the eucharist as God explained the Passover.
Paul says, "Is this not the body of Christ?" You say NO! People are getting sick and dying because the bread is moldy and the wine is bad. You don't know what you are talking about Paul. Jesus said you must eaty my flesh not have a symbolic geusture and a swig of grapejuice if you feel like it. Malachi is fulfilled in the Catholic Church. In Egypt you probably would say well I dont like lamb Im not going to eat its not necessary its a symbol..
Anthony MN

Minneapolis, MN

#553823 Aug 9, 2014
USA Born wrote:
<quoted text>
Didn't I already say the word "catholic" didn't exist in the first centurty? Christian in rome were killing christians. No mention of catholics. What more do you want?
Doesn't take away from the fact that the RCC persecuted Christians.
I think you're either very confused or just another internet troll who hates the Catholic Church and thinks whatever you claim has to be proven wrong even though you can't back up any of your claims by a respected source.

You keep repeating Christians killing Christians in the first century. What is your source for this?
Anthony MN

Minneapolis, MN

#553824 Aug 9, 2014
Dust Storm wrote:
<quoted text>
Then again It could be dementia, a severe lack of comprehension or perhaps he went to Harvard in Bug Tussel clear up the 3rd grade as Jethro from the Beverly Hilllbillies is the only one to make to the 4th. Mr Drysdale.
He's probably just slightly brighter than our average Catholic hating fundie, at least he can cite wiki...gets it wrong...but links it anyway.
Chess

Columbus, OH

#553825 Aug 9, 2014
Michael wrote:
<quoted text>
.......just because a number of people believe something, doesn't prove its true.
.....not one writing from 4bce to 30ad about a man named Jesus. Nothing by anyone about miraculous virgin birth, nothing about king herod slaughtering male infants, nothing about Mary/Joseph, 12 apostles,,miracles, or crucifixion, or resurrection.
......during this era were several Jewish/roman writers, scribes, philosophers, statesmen, and government officials, no one thought this man important enough to write about, yet the scriptures claim he had follower status in judea like the Beatles had in america in the 1960s.
.....something is wrong!
When in doubt rely on scholarship.

I have never found a non-believing scholar in the field who does not accept that the historical Jesus existed. I hear there are some, but I've never run across one. And I certainly would have run across a prominent one.

I'm not talking about relying on competent apologists such as F.F. Bruce and Craig Evans, I am referring to real scholars who do no accept Christianity and look for what was rather than what some religion wants them to believe was.

I understand you don't want an historical Jesus to exist. The problem is, he probably did. I refer you to Ehrnam's "Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth".

Ehrman teaches at UNC, took his doctorate from Yale, and is not a Christian. I don't believe he has any faith, having lost it to an Ivy League education.

As to your references to silliness such as the infancy narratives and the Twelve, I refer you to actual critical scholars who believe but discount such stories as nonsense, such as Raymond Brown and John Spong.

See Brown's 'Birth of the Messiah", a tomb that dismisses the infancy narratives for the nonsense they are and is "the" source on the subject.

And as for Spong on the Twelve, I've posted this before:



Critical scholars can believe or not, but they look for the best evidence for what was and let that lead them to their conclusion.

So it is not a matter about what some group of folks believe, it is about what the best and brightest in the field have found.

If I have to choose between wanting to believe something and unapologetic scholarship, I'll go with the scholarship.

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#553826 Aug 9, 2014
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, I have a right to know if that came from you in a sober frame of mind.
For instance, have you been smoking pot, or imbibing in alcohol, or sniffing glue, et cetera???
If you have, I will be expecting you to curse me out when the high wears off and the low sets in ... and therefore I'll be prepared.
:)
Yes June, I was sober when I said you are my favorite atheist.
I do not drink at all or any of the other, I do smoke a little pot but haven't In the last couple days.
I have had a lot on my mind lately and a clear head is the best way to deal with it.
you are one of my most favorite people on all of topix June, even tho I don't agree with you on most of what you post, it is your right and I enjoy reading them..
Liam

Garden City, MI

#553827 Aug 9, 2014
USA Born wrote:
<quoted text>
Didn't I already say the word "catholic" didn't exist in the first centurty? Christian in rome were killing christians. No mention of catholics. What more do you want?
Doesn't take away from the fact that the RCC persecuted Christians.
Thats just ridiculous. Look, you and Yon are younger than the rest of the anti Catholics. This means you should be less stubborn. The others won't change because 'Bible only protestanism' is all they've really known. What I'm saying is no one can question your zeal for Christ, we need people like that over here. Just lose your ignorance.. Pray for guidance and please please throw away those stupid propaganda articles.
Michael

Hamilton, Canada

#553828 Aug 9, 2014
Chess wrote:
<quoted text>
When in doubt rely on scholarship.
I have never found a non-believing scholar in the field who does not accept that the historical Jesus existed. I hear there are some, but I've never run across one. And I certainly would have run across a prominent one.
I'm not talking about relying on competent apologists such as F.F. Bruce and Craig Evans, I am referring to real scholars who do no accept Christianity and look for what was rather than what some religion wants them to believe was.
I understand you don't want an historical Jesus to exist. The problem is, he probably did. I refer you to Ehrnam's "Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth".
Ehrman teaches at UNC, took his doctorate from Yale, and is not a Christian. I don't believe he has any faith, having lost it to an Ivy League education.
As to your references to silliness such as the infancy narratives and the Twelve, I refer you to actual critical scholars who believe but discount such stories as nonsense, such as Raymond Brown and John Spong.
See Brown's 'Birth of the Messiah", a tomb that dismisses the infancy narratives for the nonsense they are and is "the" source on the subject.
And as for Spong on the Twelve, I've posted this before:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =UdDUkkX6PNAXX
Critical scholars can believe or not, but they look for the best evidence for what was and let that lead them to their conclusion.
So it is not a matter about what some group of folks believe, it is about what the best and brightest in the field have found.
If I have to choose between wanting to believe something and unapologetic scholarship, I'll go with the scholarship.
....I never said an historical Jesus never lived. I say that there is no contemporary evidence that he did. All writings about him came decades after he supposedly died. And every writing about him are ONLY recorded in the christian scriptures.

...Was there a good deed doer that tripped around Judea 2000 years ago? Quite possibly. Was he the son of God? 3 out of every 4 people on planet earth say no.

.....It doesn't matter who, or how many people claim something is true or not. ONLY factual evidence determines the truth of who is right, and who is not.

.....
Michael

Hamilton, Canada

#553829 Aug 9, 2014
pusherman_ wrote:
<quoted text> Yes June, I was sober when I said you are my favorite atheist.
I do not drink at all or any of the other, I do smoke a little pot but haven't In the last couple days.
I have had a lot on my mind lately and a clear head is the best way to deal with it.
you are one of my most favorite people on all of topix June, even tho I don't agree with you on most of what you post, it is your right and I enjoy reading them..
.....maybe its time you started drinking. It will help wash away all those evils on your mind that you need to deal with.
Chess

Columbus, OH

#553830 Aug 9, 2014
Oxbow wrote:
<quoted text>
Neither I, nor you, know the source (the author...originator) of:
Children, from the moment of conception, are a blessing and heritage from the Lord. Parents are to demonstrate to their children God's pattern for marriage. Parents are to teach their children spiritual and moral values and to lead them, through consistent lifestyle example and loving discipline, to make choices based on biblical truth. Children are to honor and obey their parents..
Neither you, nor I, can cite a source we do not know....pure logic....which shows the stupidity in your ridiculous false accusations...
Incorrect, thief:

http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TV910R5...

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#553831 Aug 9, 2014
Michael wrote:
<quoted text>
...and not one eyewitness to any of this.
Those in their personalized religions seem to believe that their were eye-witnesses to their accounts, but that all other religious stories were fairy tales.

It's amazing how the ego can generate what pleases it and in turn make whatever pleases it seem REAL.

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 United House of Prayer for All People: Bishop's... (Apr '08) 1 hr I recently left 10,207
News Pope Francis wades into transgender debate, lam... Wed South Knox Hombre 2
News Pope Francis' Remarks Disappoint Gay and Transg... Aug 4 Leon 2
News The Pope s War Aug 2 The Proclaimer 1
News Franklin Graham rebuts pope on Islam: - This is... Aug 1 Bob 1
News Pope Francis: 'Trump is not Christian' (Feb '16) Jul '16 make Donald Drump... 47
News Holding the left responsible (Sep '15) Jul '16 Crusader 4
More from around the web