Posted on 07/14/2013 3:02:43 PM PDT by NYer
.
They base their belief in the use of the title “Christ,” which is derived from Christos, which has always meant a man that becomes a god, while Yeshua is God who became man, and dwelt with us.
This is satan’s way of deconstruction Yeshua’s Godhood.
As to the nicolaitan hierarchy of the RCC, I agree on those points.
I do not ascribe them to any particular individual believer.
So show me from scripture where those who passed from this life after Christ’s resurrection have an active role in what goes on here on earth. Surely you can do that if you claim something changed from Old Testament times. Book, chapter and verse please.
Hislop was debunked by other protestants about 160 years ago. Hislop has bad archaeology, bad sociology and bad theology worthy of Dan Brown himself!
“He claimed Nimrod was a big, ugly, deformed black man. His wife, Semiramis, was a beautiful white woman with blond hair and blue eyes. But she was a backslider known for her immoral lifestyle, the inventor of soprano singing and the originator of priestly celibacy.”
Hislop’s gonna need a [[citation needed]] on this.
Given the Catholic believes that their salvation is tied to the RCC is it any wonder they get their mind around the real concept of the body of Christ, the assembly of believers?
No, Hislop has not been “debunked,” just hated by the pagan nicolaitans.
Not good company for you!
I can recall only one person in scripture (Saul) ever praying to a saint (Samuel) for help. It didn’t go very well for him.
“The subtitle for Hislop’s book is “The Papal Worship Proved to Be the Worship of Nimrod and His Wife.” Yet when I went to reference works such as the Encyclopædia Britannica, The Americana, The Jewish Encyclopædia, The Catholic Encyclopædia, The Worldbook Encyclopædia - carefully reading their articles on “Nimrod” and “Semiramis” - not one said anything about Nimrod and Semiramis being husband and wife. They did not even live in the same century. Nor is there any basis for Semiramis being the mother of Tammuz.”
In short Hislop is a fabricator.
You deserve better than to fall to a liar.
“Catholic believes that their salvation is tied to the RCC”
That’s gonna get a [[citation needed]].
Well, let’s just say that your contention that it started with Peter and Christ couldn’t possibly be true. Here’s a hint for you. It’s called the Roman Catholic Church. AKA the church started by Romans. Incorporating many of the pagan beliefs, practices, and vestments of the Roman pagan religions.
Just an hour ago, I was rushing to the station when I heard two women talking in front of a store downtown. One, looking like a homeless person, but well maintained, said to the other “The Bible is the most edited book in history!”. That, if true, and I believe it is, should put an end to these fruitless debates that have persuaded no one, and only satisfied the evil agenda of the self-loving haters of Catholicism.
You are correct...but solutions for the amount of ignorance you are dealing with cannot be found in just a day or two...let alone on a forum thread.
Sigh...
“Well, let’s just say that your contention that it started with Peter and Christ couldn’t possibly be true. Here’s a hint for you. It’s called the Roman Catholic Church. AKA the church started by Romans. Incorporating many of the pagan beliefs, practices, and vestments of the Roman pagan religions.”
I notice you failed to answer the question.
When do you believe the Roman Catholic church formed?
Don’t make this thread about me.
it is certain that it is necessary for all mankind to belong to this Church for salvation. [http://www.mycatholicsource.com/mcs/nc/must_i_be_catholic_to_be_saved.htm] Here’s another.
"Now, therefore, we declare, say, define, and pronounce that for every human creature it is altogether necessary for salvation to be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff." Unam Sanctam, issued in 1302 by Pope Boniface VIII
That one is pretty definitive for Catholics it seems to me. I do believe that was an infallible pronouncement as well was it not?
Need more or is that enough [[citation]] for ya?
I guess the answer to the question, “does the church of presently no screen name” have an address - is no. Thank you.
Question, do Catholics regard that site as the definitive source for Catholic teachings, or do they regard this one as the definitive source?
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM
As for what the Catholic church teaches on this particular teaching, I suggest consulting:
Hey there’s that whole ‘vatican.va’ site. Maybe that’s where you can find Catholic stuff. Who knew.
“The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter”
“Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience”
And there you go. Question Asked. Question Answered.
“Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power.”
Well, it was in 384 A.D. when Siricius (384-399) became the first Roman Bishop to call himself “Pontifex Maximus” and the first time “POPE” was a title. Constantine “legalized” Christianity with the Edict of Milan in A.D. 313 but one could resonably say it really started as the RCC in A.D. 325 when Constantice called the Council of Nicea in an attempt to unify all the Roman religions. The formal combining of paganism and Christianity was fully embraced at that time and has continued to this day in the RCC.
So the infallible bull by Pope Boniface VIII wasn’t so infallible after all? Bwahahahaha! Catholics are a funny lot.
It appears nowhere in Holy Scripture as a command
It appears nowhere in Holy Scripture as an example
It appears nowhere in Holy Scripture as a suggestion
It appears nowhere in Holy Scripture as a Christian practice
It appears nowhere in Holy Scripture as a prophecy
It appears nowhere in Christian practice from the inception of the Church through 100AD
It appears nowhere in secular writings to confirm a Christian ever did it in the early Church
It appears nowhere in art through 100AD
Christ never commanded it
The Apostles never commanded it
The Apostles never practiced it to our knowledge
Mary never practiced it to our knowledge
No Christian ever did it through 100AD to our knowledge
Against this total vacuum is your one and only argument that it was never condemned.
No where in more than 600 posts on this thread has anyone provided any support for the truth claim that it is Christian.
Zero.
If that is your standard for Christianity, your call.
By that standard, everything can be Christian.
Using your standard of "nothing-but-air-can-define-Christianity"You could put pizza in your shoe, walk on it all day, claim you are feeding the Saints in Heaven and tell us the Church Fathers never condemned it.
Using your standard, you could also begin praying to leprechauns, fairies, dwarves and elves. The Church Fathers never condemned that.
Well OK then. Carry on. Better buy some bigger shoes.
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.