Posted on 08/16/2023 6:39:10 AM PDT by zucchini bob
(2 Peter 1:20) Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. (Isaiah 28:10) For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little: (Isaiah 28:13) But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.
Do you RCCers PRACTICE that (your ‘popes” do not), or just hypocritically preach it to Christians with your double standard??
https://www.christs-disciples.org/judgment-by-christians.html
STOP JUDGING ME for posting the Word of God you hate in favor of “poops”!
My sword cuts you also, both ways. Yours? Dull as a hoe.
(Hebrews 4:12 [KJV])
For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
His,
Bobby Z. (Former RCCer)
—> And notice that no one has been able to explain how anybody went to heaven for 1000 years if Catholics aren’t Christians. 😉
I answered your question already.
Agreed- they are truly Demon Driven whether they know so or not-
Are babies sinless?
Original sin?
I John 3:4 Whosoever commits sin transgresses also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
This defines sin.
Name a baby who has lied, coveted, worshiped idols, committed adultery, etc. Babies are sinless
James 1:13-15 …But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.
Are babies able to be lured, enticed > desire >sin? No!
Romans 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)
Children in the womb have not sinned. When they come to know good and evil and they old enough to be responsible for their choices, then they will become sinners.
Deuteronomy 24:16 “The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.”
This “word of God” teaches that there is no such thing as “original sin.”
These scriptures are rather straightforward.
Why don’t we just accept what the word of God teaches?
(Okay. I know. We prefer to deceive ourselves.
Rightly dividing the word of God is hard work.
After all, we all worship the same God. No problem.
Hmm! Cain and Abel worshiped the same God, didn’t they?) /sarc
A lot of former RCC parishioners came to my Independent Baptist church when I was a kid. I gathered that they liked the firm stands on things.
Oddly enough, Marjorie Dannenfelser (of the Susan B. Anthony group that is now inexplicably all about abortion bans), was a Protestant convert to the RCC, who now seems to be trying to be more Catholic than the Pope.
It’s all a bit like ex-smokers I think.
So you see, it is possible to believe in rules of your faith, outside of explicit scriptural writing.
An assumption is a conclusion not based on evidence or facts and is presumptive.
A feast is well . . a big meal. A banquet.
Now when Catholics combine these two events together . . well that means Marys body and soul went to heaven. How did they get that? I don't know. Why would anybody worry if Mary is in heaven rather than Adam, Noah, Job or even the Apostle Paul? Well . . . that's why they call it a cult. We're really supposed to worry about our own soul and not anybody elses. John 21:20,21, 22.
I do think the RCC seems to exclude a lot of people, one way or another, and that excluding peopledoesnt make those people vanish, it just makes them annoyed. They are going to go elsewhere, and those other churches will be all the stronger for the participation of people like you
Best to you :)
No, the baptism of Jesus, or of anyone at that time, was a type, not an actual baptism. It is like the difference between a model car and a car a person can drive.
Jesus told John the Baptist that He should be baptized to fulfill all righteousness. This fulfilled previous prophecy and served as one among many proofs that Jesus was the Messiah.
Jesus did not do this to look more like men, as I gather you are saying.
No, just that it is true. It is not. They are totally non-Apostolic when they teach this.
Nor is the Trinitarian Nature of God, to be found in scripture.
The Trinitarian Nature of God is found in Scripture. What isn't there is the word trinity.
Children don't pick up the disease of sin in kindergarden or elementary school. It is in their genes...in every cell of their body. Born that way, so to speak.
Blurring the 2 to make your point (which point is still unclear except that you seem to be bragging about your own understanding of Scripture and insulting that of others), makes your point, well, blurry.
Which Church Did Jesus Start, According to the Bible?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3h5gWvrOO8&t=4571s&ab_channel=DTBM
In this video, John Barnett draws a timeline that lays out when each denomination was founded.
A denomination is man-made; the Lord’s church is not.
The apostolic church persisted for a while after Augustine legalized Christianity in 313AD.
John shows that the event that ended the persecution of Christians was…the persecution of Christians.
He also reveals why the early churches came to have altars, priests, clerical garments, etc.
What do you think of this logic?
Okay! Logic. You shall know the truth and the truth will make you free of deception.
Logic is truth.
Even so, they see but do not perceive; they hear but do not understand.
2 is a number
5 is a number
Obviously, number = number.
Therefore, 2 = 5.
If you buy that, then you will buy…
Peter is a rock.
The Lord’s church is built on a rock.
Rock = rock.
Therefore, the Lord’s church is built on Peter.
And remember, 2 = 5 is rock-solid logic.
So, lets get down to serious stuff.
It is the case that Peter is the rock upon which the Lord’s church is built.
It is not the case that Peter is the rock upon which the Lord’s church is built.
A logical proposition and its negation cannot both be true at the same time.
On the Day of Judgment...
It could be that one group will be saved, the other condemned.
It could be that both groups will be condemned.
It cannot be the case that both groups will be saved.
This type of condescension makes me laugh or cry. For Pete's sake. Mary is Jesus' mother. Not His surrogate mother - she is His mother.
If A Christian doesn't recognize how special Mary is to Jesus and to heaven - then you are an ignoramus!
The eternal church of all true believers who are sealed in Christ for salvation for eternity.
Those departed members in heaven now.
Those on earth, called as saints, meeting in local fellowships.
The rest of your post is silly, frankly.
So, you are saying that the phrase “all have sinned” means something other than every human being has sinned?
Word of God versus Man Made Tradition.
I will stick with the word of God.
Well it is silly.
My intended post was nothing like that.
Technical difficulties, as they always say.
And whose translation of the Word of God will you stick with?
The gist of my post was to tell you about a video on the timeline for the founding of church denominations, found at this link below.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3h5gWvrOO8&t=393s&ab_channel=DTBM
Thank you, but I read the book of denominations in detail. Many arose...
But that is irrelevant to your more important question you asked. What did Christ begin? I answered that question.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.