Posted on 08/27/2010 11:45:13 AM PDT by Hank Kerchief
I have not misquoted Scripture or the Catechism. Prove your claim or add one more falsehood to your ever growing list.
I made a statement based on your claim. That cannot be called a quote by any standard.
I did not witness the baptism of John Wayne, but did know a man who did.
I don't believe you.
Why are you arguing with that? Was Jesus wrong? Did He lie about it?
Perhaps you should read Matthew 25:31-46.
When He was Incarnate two thousand years ago He was here to save, but He will come again to judge.
Not just Catholics, but nearly all Protestants accept the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed and both Creeds speak of His Return to judge the living and the dead.
"But when the Son of Man shall come in his majesty, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory; and before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats;"
I’m all for debate, but read the posting history of the troll who posted this thread (and wrote it). He is an anti-Christian (hates ALL of us) who denies the sanctity of life and believes that, while people have rights, government shouldn’t protect rights.
LOL! That's part of my point -- I'm not psychic and never claimed to be. All I go by is what's written; if people feel their point of view is misrepresented, well, they'll just have to try to express it better.
What does this have to do with the RCC’s cult teaching?
The RCC does NOT follow God’s Word as has been shown here over and over.
So for you to discuss the marks of the true church of Jesus Christ is not only laughable but desperate.
God’s Word is the FINAL AUTHORITY. JESUS is the HEAD OF HIS CHURCH. The Holy Spirit is THE TEACHER. Get that TRUTH grounded within you FIRST before you point fingers at anyone else. Give up the DESPERATE need to follow man.
MY sheep hear MY VOICE and will not follow another.
Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father’s name speak for me,
but you do not believe because you are not my sheep.
My sheep listen to MY voice; I KNOW them, and they follow ME.
Do you see anything about following a church’s teachings, a pope? Do you see ANYTHING about Mary in those Scriptures?
IT IS ALL about JESUS! NEVER EVER MAN!
Typical tactics, but I'll respond.
I will accept as my Brother any one who believes The Gospel. If their theology denies the deity of Jesus Christ I will seek to convert them. If their theology holds that there are several paths to salvation I will try to convert them. In the course of conversations on these threads if a Jewish poster offered insights I agreed with, or a Noahicide, I may align with them during that conversation that doesn't mean we are in lock step on all things.
At first blush one would think RC's would be my brethren, but when you discover the RCC rejects The Gospel by adding "maybe", "and",or "but" to it a huge gulf opens between us. So the question I throw back is what's worse the person who aligns with a group of Evangelicals but makes it clear they have some different beliefs, or the one who claims to be the same but isn't?
I shall think about this and get back with all of you.
There are several factors. For instance, banned expressions must apply across the board and must be enforceable - not just by me but by other mods.
I must factor in that each Religion Forum poster may have his own idea of what is or is not truth. For example, a poster may be absolutely certain that what another poster relentlessly claims is false whereas that other poster is equally absolutely certain that what he claims is the truth and for that reason, he claims it relentlessly despite the other poster's (self) righteous protestations.
Both must be able to claim the truth (and expose the lie) as they understand it.
Her "seed"? Her other children?
Just a thought, but would there be so much controversy about this if it hadn't been changed by a pagan emperor who tried to place himself as the authority over Christianity?
Then look at this reprobate's scripture references...And then check them out...
The guys takes a chapter of proverbs which states:
Pro 8:12 I wisdom dwell with prudence, and find out knowledge of witty inventions.
This character takes a chapter of wisdom and attributes it to Mary as the speaker, with references...I'll have to check his other Catholic references...
Have any of the Catholics here denied any of 'truths' found in this book???
THANKS TONS.
Not per se.
They mostly use weasel words to claim it’s all hyperbole and doesn’t matter.
**********************
Agreed. He really seemed to despise us.
I take it, then, the Spirit taught you to read and write and type and use a computer? I admit I learned by more mundane methods.
Nice pictures of a beautiful building. I know Evangelicals have been known to build some as well, so this is just a "shot across the bow" for everyone. When I see these pictures it occurs to me that it is a vain attempt to rebuild the Temple.
Why does grandiose, beautiful, architecture have anything to do with real worship?
Try to stay focused, this thread is about the misguided notion that the Catholic Church wants to bring back the Holy Roman Empire. Which is an incredibly absurd premise for anyone who knows anything about history because the TRUTH is that the Catholic Church and the Holy Roman Empire had an incredibly antagonistic relationship with each other for centuries.
The Syllabus of errors claims the abolition of the Papal States is an ERROR!! Pope Pius IX, acting as a mouthpiece for his general, said that the abolition of the Papal States was an error: 76. The abolition of the temporal power of which the Apostolic See is possessed would contribute in the greatest degree to the liberty and prosperity of the Church. —Allocutions "Quibus quantisque," April 20, 1849, "Si semper antea," May 20, 1850. (Condemned as error).
Separation of church and State condemned!!
One of the deadliest doctrines of Rome is that church and state should be UNITED with the Pope ruling over the state:
"55. The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church. —Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852." (Condemned as error).
St. Paul, when instructing the Christians at Rome about their relationship to the state, said this:
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same. (Romans 13:1-3).
The Vatican gets around this admonition to obey the government by claiming that the Pope is actually Christ or God on earth....Since God is Supreme over all the universe, they reason that mere earthly rulers or governments must obey this Papal "god" on earth and be subject to Him in everything!!
The body of Christ is not held together by church affiliation...it is held together by the Holy Spirit with Christ as the ruling Head over the body of believers.
As for Romes affiliation with the church...it's also written in history they joined together politically...monies and power were exchanged in order to sustain the status quo.
I have no problem that not only the catholic church..but the world council of churches, and even the large organizations which claim Christianity will become strangely united with the rise of the Roman Empire...(One world governance and religion come to mind which we are taught clearly will be in the future.).
. I think what is meant by the Coming Roman Empire is a conglomerate of power over the world...we have seen these being positioned on the international stage over the years.... There has to be a religious element in order to garner the masses....politicians love to garner the religious for the monies they can generate if it becomes necessary...I suspect those powers will rake off the top of a united church a substanial amount of money and will no longer be a tax free entity then. Additionally we see there is religious unrest, demonstrations, outbreaks, etc. throughout the world and now showing evidences in our country. This will not be allowed to get out of hand...so it would not be surprising, as these religious skirmishes escalate..that the powers that be would unite them under a single banner...and yes because of the wealth and power the catholic church welds it will surely be included...
I understand what you're saying. Mind you, I'm not suggesting that you should ban the phrase “bearing false witness” when applied to posters. I'm all in favor of calling liars liars.
It's just that “bearing false witness” so clearly means at least “lying” that if the rules are to be consistent, it seems to me that you will need to ban the phrase.
sitetest
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.