GCM Home | Your Posts | Rules | DONATE | Bookstore | RSS | Facebook | Twitter | FAQs


Author Topic: Contradictions  (Read 16973 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Insight

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2379
  • Manna: 50
    • View Profile
Contradictions
« on: Tue Jan 24, 2012 - 17:03:14 »
My intentions up front is to demonstrate from History the many contradictions that have existed in the RCC compared against their claims of primacy, infallibility etc.

Please resolve the following contradiction:

After the death of Pope Honorious I he was denounced as a heretic by the Sixth Council in AD 680. Pope Leo confirmed his condemnation. If as Pope Leo decreed, that Pope Honorious I was in fact a heretic, why was he leading the Church in the first place?

Quote

He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact; and he is to be considered to have been condemned in the sense in which Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who died in Catholic communion, never having resisted the Church, have been condemned." (quotations from the Catholic Encyclopedia)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Honorius_I



How does an RCC member compare such a man to the Apostle Peter, if as you all say these men (Popes) are in part infallible? If this is so and history including your Catholic documents are correct then a period of time your Church was lead by an Apostate? How do you know all Popes in RCC have not been heretics?

Insight


Christian Forums and Message Board

Contradictions
« on: Tue Jan 24, 2012 - 17:03:14 »

Elvisman

  • Guest
Re: Contradictions
« Reply #1 on: Tue Jan 24, 2012 - 17:14:57 »
My intentions up front is to demonstrate from History the many contradictions that have existed in the RCC compared against their claims of primacy, infallibility etc.

Please resolve the following contradiction:

After the death of Pope Honorious I he was denounced as a heretic by the Sixth Council in AD 680. Pope Leo confirmed his condemnation. If as Pope Leo decreed, that Pope Honorious I was in fact a heretic, why was he leading the Church in the first place?

Quote

He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact; and he is to be considered to have been condemned in the sense in which Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who died in Catholic communion, never having resisted the Church, have been condemned." (quotations from the Catholic Encyclopedia)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Honorius_I



How does an RCC member compare such a man to the Apostle Peter, if as you all say these men (Popes) are in part infallible? If this is so and history including your Catholic documents are correct then a period of time your Church was lead by an Apostate? How do you know all Popes in RCC have not been heretics?

Insight


The fact that a Pope may be a heretic has no bearing on the fact that the Church cannot be led into error.  
Jesus guaranteed that his Church would be led to ALL truth (John 16:12-15).
Pope Honorious I never made an erroneous Ex Cathedra statement on faith and morals.

If Charles Manson were elected Pope -the Church STILL could not declare error in matters of faith and morals.

No contradictions here, my anti-Catholic friend . . .
« Last Edit: Tue Jan 24, 2012 - 17:45:32 by Elvisman »

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Contradictions
« Reply #1 on: Tue Jan 24, 2012 - 17:14:57 »

Offline asachild

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 170
  • Manna: 5
    • View Profile
Re: Contradictions
« Reply #2 on: Tue Jan 24, 2012 - 17:53:22 »
Quote
If this is so and history including your Catholic documents are correct then a period of time your Church was lead by an Apostate?

I've been pondering similar thoughts, but from a slightly different angle.  The Scriptures make it clear that there are certain actions that prohibit one from inheriting the kingdom of God.  Scripture provides several lists of those actions.

There were church leaders, who by their actions proved that they were not inheritors of the kingdom of God. 

How can one who is outside the kingdom of God be its representative on earth?  What mechanism is available to the sheep who happen to find themselves led by a hireling wolf?  As I said, I've been pondering.

Regards,
AsAChild


Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • Legendary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
    • View Profile
Re: Contradictions
« Reply #3 on: Tue Jan 24, 2012 - 18:14:24 »
If I may. I just wanted to clarify something.

The doctrines of infallibility and ex cathedra are not arbitrary. The virtue only implies in very specific manners and only in an intended official capacity. Every thought the Pope has and every word he speaks is not an official proclamation of the Church. The Pope is still subject to the mysteries of God as we all are. As a theologian he may speculate on things and may be wrong in his speculation.




Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Contradictions
« Reply #3 on: Tue Jan 24, 2012 - 18:14:24 »

Offline Insight

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2379
  • Manna: 50
    • View Profile
Re: Contradictions
« Reply #4 on: Tue Jan 24, 2012 - 18:51:35 »
I cannot help notice how convenient your answers are to these condictions while I must say Elvis "takes the cake".

Quote

Pope Honorious I never made an erroneous Ex Cathedra statement on faith and morals.



So while this apostate led your beloved Church from 27 October 625 to 12 October 638 he not once spoke ex cathedra? although branded a heretic?

An observation thus far but one could presume our Roman Catholics like to make things up as they go along.

Like I said all too convenient for my liking.

Here is another contradiction regarding your Pope Vigilius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Vigilius) who after condemning certain books, at first removed his condemnation! (one has the liberty to condemn certain works) however, he went on to re-instated it, only to retract it a second time, and you guessed it dear reader re-instated it once again?

I believe there is a term for this...."a reed blowing in the wind".

By the way Elvis have you worked out the Melc Priesthood and its order?  I note you still claim Jesus belongs to another order to those he represents?  ::smile::

Insight

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Contradictions
« Reply #4 on: Tue Jan 24, 2012 - 18:51:35 »



Elvisman

  • Guest
Re: Contradictions
« Reply #5 on: Tue Jan 24, 2012 - 21:39:05 »
I cannot help notice how convenient your answers are to these condictions while I must say Elvis "takes the cake".

Quote

Pope Honorious I never made an erroneous Ex Cathedra statement on faith and morals.



So while this apostate led your beloved Church from 27 October 625 to 12 October 638 he not once spoke ex cathedra? although branded a heretic?

An observation thus far but one could presume our Roman Catholics like to make things up as they go along.

Like I said all too convenient for my liking.

Here is another contradiction regarding your Pope Vigilius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Vigilius) who after condemning certain books, at first removed his condemnation! (one has the liberty to condemn certain works) however, he went on to re-instated it, only to retract it a second time, and you guessed it dear reader re-instated it once again?

I believe there is a term for this...."a reed blowing in the wind".

By the way Elvis have you worked out the Melc Priesthood and its order?  I note you still claim Jesus belongs to another order to those he represents?  ::smile::

Insight


there are many Popes who never made Ex Cathedra statements.  What makes you think that Honorious I was any different, hmmm?

As for your little dig about the Priesthood of Jesus - I have explained this to you ad nauseam.  As I indicated earlier, my 2nd grade daughter had an easier time grasping this than you . . .

Elvisman

  • Guest
Re: Contradictions
« Reply #6 on: Tue Jan 24, 2012 - 21:45:03 »
I've been pondering similar thoughts, but from a slightly different angle.  The Scriptures make it clear that there are certain actions that prohibit one from inheriting the kingdom of God.  Scripture provides several lists of those actions.

There were church leaders, who by their actions proved that they were not inheritors of the kingdom of God. 

How can one who is outside the kingdom of God be its representative on earth?  What mechanism is available to the sheep who happen to find themselves led by a hireling wolf?  As I said, I've been pondering.

Regards,
AsAChild

I don't know why you're so baffled.  This is not without Biblical precedent.
The Scriptures ALSO tell us that wolves in sheep's clothing would appear from within the Church (Matt. 7:15, Rom. 16:17-27).

ALSO - what did Jesus say to the Apostles in John 6:70??
He said: “Did I not choose you twelve? Yet is not one of you a devil?

Offline Insight

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2379
  • Manna: 50
    • View Profile
Re: Contradictions
« Reply #7 on: Tue Jan 24, 2012 - 22:51:04 »
I cannot help notice how convenient your answers are to these condictions while I must say Elvis "takes the cake".

Quote

Pope Honorious I never made an erroneous Ex Cathedra statement on faith and morals.



So while this apostate led your beloved Church from 27 October 625 to 12 October 638 he not once spoke ex cathedra? although branded a heretic?

An observation thus far but one could presume our Roman Catholics like to make things up as they go along.

Like I said all too convenient for my liking.

Here is another contradiction regarding your Pope Vigilius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Vigilius) who after condemning certain books, at first removed his condemnation! (one has the liberty to condemn certain works) however, he went on to re-instated it, only to retract it a second time, and you guessed it dear reader re-instated it once again?

I believe there is a term for this...."a reed blowing in the wind".

By the way Elvis have you worked out the Melc Priesthood and its order?  I note you still claim Jesus belongs to another order to those he represents?  ::smile::

Insight


there are many Popes who never made Ex Cathedra statements.  What makes you think that Honorious I was any different, hmmm?

As for your little dig about the Priesthood of Jesus - I have explained this to you ad nauseam.  As I indicated earlier, my 2nd grade daughter had an easier time grasping this than you . . .


Hmmm you say...Another convenient sidesteep...well deflected Elvis!

Maybe your 2nd grade daughter can answer this puzzle which daddy has presented for us concerning the Priesthood???

Jesus has become the high Priest of another Order not based on the Old Test!

For it is witnessed of him, "You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek." (Hebrews 7:17)

Now being a total change in Law and Order we find the New Priesthood cannot be compared...

Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron? (Hebrews 7:11)

But as you say your Priests are establish after the type of the Old? How So? In terms of their practices etc? But that system was never to be replictated? Never to be followed as an ensample!

Can you not read Elvis? Verse 11 is telling you with great clarity your Priesthood is a fraud!

What is the answer?

Those who believe the simple Truth are able to take part in Christ' order which speaks to a better entirely New Covenant.

This makes Jesus the guarantor of a better covenant.  (Hebrews 7:22)

Of course the only way to access this covenant is to draw near through his Priesthood and become a part of its order.

Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost (even a hard core catholic like yourself who must  deny her sweet wine and many seductions) those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them. (Hebrews 7:25)

So the Royal Priesthood must be after the order of Melc or if you are able to provide another order (as you have suggested the Levitical Order) or another?

But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood , a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. (1 Peter 2:9)

Of course all of these Priests have been given a Royal Law to fulfill.

If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, "You shall love your neighbour as yourself," you are doing well. (James 2:8)

1. We have a High Priest after the Order of Melc

2. We have a Royal Priesthood with no segregation or hierarchy
 
3. We have a Royal Law to fulfil as Priests of the Most High (Yahweh) by whom we approach through our Mediator Jesus Christ who is our High Priest who offers to Him continually.

Maybe your daughter may provide a more coherent understanding of the Priesthood than you Levitical type scenario which has absolutely no scriptural support.  

If you persist with this ridiculous exegesis would you mind identifying what Tribe your Bishops and Cardinals belong too?

Insight

Offline Insight

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2379
  • Manna: 50
    • View Profile
Re: Contradictions
« Reply #8 on: Tue Jan 24, 2012 - 22:59:29 »
I cannot help notice how convenient your answers are to these condictions while I must say Elvis "takes the cake".

Quote

Pope Honorious I never made an erroneous Ex Cathedra statement on faith and morals.



So while this apostate led your beloved Church from 27 October 625 to 12 October 638 he not once spoke ex cathedra? although branded a heretic?

An observation thus far but one could presume our Roman Catholics like to make things up as they go along.

Like I said all too convenient for my liking.

Here is another contradiction regarding your Pope Vigilius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Vigilius) who after condemning certain books, at first removed his condemnation! (one has the liberty to condemn certain works) however, he went on to re-instated it, only to retract it a second time, and you guessed it dear reader re-instated it once again?

I believe there is a term for this...."a reed blowing in the wind".

By the way Elvis have you worked out the Melc Priesthood and its order?  I note you still claim Jesus belongs to another order to those he represents?  ::smile::

Insight


there are many Popes who never made Ex Cathedra statements.  What makes you think that Honorious I was any different, hmmm?

As for your little dig about the Priesthood of Jesus - I have explained this to you ad nauseam.  As I indicated earlier, my 2nd grade daughter had an easier time grasping this than you . . .


Hmmm you say...Another convenient sidesteep...well deflected Elvis!

Maybe your 2nd grade daughter can answer this puzzle which daddy has presented for us concerning the Priesthood???

Jesus has become the high Priest of another Order not based on the Old Test!

For it is witnessed of him, "You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek." (Hebrews 7:17)

Now being a total change in Law and Order we find the New Priesthood cannot be compared...

Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron? (Hebrews 7:11)

But as you say your Priests are establish after the type of the Old? How So? In terms of their practices etc? But that system was never to be replictated? Never to be followed as an ensample!

Can you not read Elvis? Verse 11 is telling you with great clarity your Priesthood is a fraud!

What is the answer?

Those who believe the simple Truth are able to take part in Christ' order which speaks to a better entirely New Covenant.

This makes Jesus the guarantor of a better covenant.  (Hebrews 7:22)

Of course the only way to access this covenant is to draw near through his Priesthood and become a part of its order.

Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost (even a hard core catholic like yourself who must  deny her sweet wine and many seductions) those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them. (Hebrews 7:25)

So the Royal Priesthood must be after the order of Melc or if you are able to provide another order (as you have suggested the Levitical Order) or another?

But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood , a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. (1 Peter 2:9)

Of course all of these Priests have been given a Royal Law to fulfill.

If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, "You shall love your neighbour as yourself," you are doing well. (James 2:8)

1. We have a High Priest after the Order of Melc

2. We have a Royal Priesthood with no segregation or hierarchy
 
3. We have a Royal Law to fulfil as Priests of the Most High (Yahweh) by whom we approach through our Mediator Jesus Christ who is our High Priest who offers to Him continually.

Maybe your daughter may provide a more coherent understanding of the Priesthood than you Levitical type scenario which has absolutely no scriptural support.  

If you persist with this ridiculous exegesis would you mind identifying what Tribe your Bishops and Cardinals belong too?

Insight


For Teresa...notice what the New Royal Law is attributed too?  

Here it is again in case you missed "royal law according to the Scripture"

What need does one have for a Pope if the Scripture contains the Royal Law for a Royal Priesthood?

So plain in its understanding that it confounds the wise but the simple hearted understand the matter.

Have you got it yet Elvis & Teresa?

..or not?




Elvisman

  • Guest
Re: Contradictions
« Reply #9 on: Wed Jan 25, 2012 - 09:27:01 »
Hmmm you say...Another convenient sidesteep...well deflected Elvis!

Maybe your 2nd grade daughter can answer this puzzle which daddy has presented for us concerning the Priesthood???
Jesus has become the high Priest of another Order not based on the Old Test!
For it is witnessed of him, "You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek." (Hebrews 7:17)
Now being a total change in Law and Order we find the New Priesthood cannot be compared...
Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron? (Hebrews 7:11)
But as you say your Priests are establish after the type of the Old? How So? In terms of their practices etc? But that system was never to be replictated? Never to be followed as an ensample!
Can you not read Elvis? Verse 11 is telling you with great clarity your Priesthood is a fraud!
What is the answer?
Those who believe the simple Truth are able to take part in Christ' order which speaks to a better entirely New Covenant.
This makes Jesus the guarantor of a better covenant.  (Hebrews 7:22)
Of course the only way to access this covenant is to draw near through his Priesthood and become a part of its order.
Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost (even a hard core catholic like yourself who must  deny her sweet wine and many seductions) those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them. (Hebrews 7:25)
So the Royal Priesthood must be after the order of Melc or if you are able to provide another order (as you have suggested the Levitical Order) or another?
But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood , a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. (1 Peter 2:9)
Of course all of these Priests have been given a Royal Law to fulfill.
If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, "You shall love your neighbour as yourself," you are doing well. (James 2:8)
1. We have a High Priest after the Order of Melc
2. We have a Royal Priesthood with no segregation or hierarchy
3. We have a Royal Law to fulfil as Priests of the Most High (Yahweh) by whom we approach through our Mediator Jesus Christ who is our High Priest who offers to Him continually.
Maybe your daughter may provide a more coherent understanding of the Priesthood than you Levitical type scenario which has absolutely no scriptural support.  
If you persist with this ridiculous exegesis would you mind identifying what Tribe your Bishops and Cardinals belong too?

Insight

WOW.  
All I can say is, "WOW."

How many times am I going to have to explain to you that the NT Ministerial Priesthood is NOT based pn the Levitical Priesthood?  You seemed bright enough to be able to grasp what I was saying, but maybe not.

READ  C*L*O*S*E*L*Y, so I don't have to repeat myself a SIXTH time:
The NT Ministerial Priesthood is the FULFILLMENT of the old Levitical Priesthood.

A, NT FULFILLMENT is not equal to it's OT TYPE - it's a THOUSAND times better.
It has been PERFECTED and is FAR more glorious than the OT TYPE.

Your failure to see that the 3 OT priestly TYPES that were fulfilled by the NT priestly fulfillments is your problem.  It is all spelled out in Scripture.

Finally, your allusion to Heb. 7:11 is a pathetic attempt to discredit the NT Ministerial Priesthood simply goes to show your inability to comprehend what I have explained to you FIVE times.  
One LAST time:
Nobody ever said that perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood.

Got it now?
Yeah - I didn't think so . . .  ::frown::

P.S. - how about getting BACK ON TPOIC?

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • Legendary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
    • View Profile
Re: Contradictions
« Reply #10 on: Wed Jan 25, 2012 - 11:06:49 »
I cannot help notice how convenient your answers are to these condictions while I must say Elvis "takes the cake".

Quote

Pope Honorious I never made an erroneous Ex Cathedra statement on faith and morals.



So while this apostate led your beloved Church from 27 October 625 to 12 October 638 he not once spoke ex cathedra? although branded a heretic?

An observation thus far but one could presume our Roman Catholics like to make things up as they go along.

Like I said all too convenient for my liking.

Here is another contradiction regarding your Pope Vigilius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Vigilius) who after condemning certain books, at first removed his condemnation! (one has the liberty to condemn certain works) however, he went on to re-instated it, only to retract it a second time, and you guessed it dear reader re-instated it once again?

I believe there is a term for this...."a reed blowing in the wind".

By the way Elvis have you worked out the Melc Priesthood and its order?  I note you still claim Jesus belongs to another order to those he represents?  ::smile::

Insight



Again for the sake of accurately sticking to history it should be noted that Pope Honorius didn't assume the Chair of St. Peter as such, so you can't call him an "apostate" reigning from start to finish.

Offline asachild

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 170
  • Manna: 5
    • View Profile
Re: Contradictions
« Reply #11 on: Wed Jan 25, 2012 - 21:37:24 »
Quote
I don't know why you're so baffled.  This is not without Biblical precedent.
The Scriptures ALSO tell us that wolves in sheep's clothing would appear from within the Church (Matt. 7:15, Rom. 16:17-27).

ALSO - what did Jesus say to the Apostles in John 6:70??
He said: “Did I not choose you twelve? Yet is not one of you a devil?

Elvisman

  • Guest
Re: Contradictions
« Reply #12 on: Thu Jan 26, 2012 - 10:24:21 »
I don't think this applies.  When Jesus chose the 12 (and even including the 70 that went out) - the 'leaders' were limited to: healing the sick, deliverance, declaring the nearness of the kingdom of God, etc.

A very limited authority. 

When it came the time when for the disciples to become the apostles, with responsibility for the actual message, etc - Judas was not a part of them. 

If the leadership of the body was limited to the earlier responsibilities of the disciples, then no harm no foul, personal sanctification and walk before the Lord not so mission critical if you're delivering people from demonic entities, healing them, calling them to repentance.

Once the leadership is in the position of guidance, then the sanctification and holiness of those leading is absolutely a criteria and is mission critical. 

In Revelations 2:2 God says, "I know your works, your labor, your patience, and that you cannot bear those who are evil. And you *tested* those who say they are apostles and are not, and have found them liars."

"Cannot bear those who are evil."  "Tested those who say they are apostles."

Leaders can and do go wrong.  Leaders can and do start wrong.  God told us to test all things, we were not told to check our spirit, mind and discernment at the feet of whomever might be currently in charge, just because they are in charge - no matter how great their credentials.  God makes it clear in His Word what He considers evil.   

God chose Saul - knowing very well how he would turn out.  David was subject to Saul, because Saul was the God-anointed king.  David did not raise his hand to strike Saul, BUT he also didn't stay sitting around while Saul used him for target practice.  Nor did David pretend that what Saul was doing was right, even though Saul had been anointed by God for the position. 

David was a man after God's own heart.  When the time came and he was tested by his own son in a contest for the kingdom of Israel - look at how he handled the situation compared to Saul's responses. 

Regards,
AsAChild

All that being said, I don't understand how you think that leaders will be perfect.

The Church is the Body of Christ, and therefore, unable to espouse error in matters pertaining to salvation.  I disagree with you that the Scripture verses I presented do not apply.  Matt. 24:11 and 2 Pet. 2:1-3 also speak of false teachers and prophets who will "deceive many".

As for the authority of the Apostles being as limited as you say - I ALSO disagree with you.
Let's read what Jesus told the 70 before sending them out:

Luke 10:10-16
"Whatever town you enter and they do not receive you, go out into the streets and say, ‘The dust of your town that clings to our feet, even that we shake off against you.’ Yet know this: the kingdom of God is at hand. I tell you, it will be more tolerable for Sodom on that day than for that town. Whatever town you enter and they do not receive you, go out into the streets and say, ‘The dust of your town that clings to our feet, even that we shake off against you.’ Yet know this: the kingdom of God is at hand.  I tell you, it will be more tolerable for Sodom on that day than for that town.

Reproaches to Unrepentant Towns.  “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida!m For if the mighty deeds done in your midst had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would long ago have repented, sitting in sackcloth and ashes.  But it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgment than for you.  And as for you, Capernaum, ‘Will you be exalted to heaven? You will go down to the netherworld.’

AVZ

  • Guest
Re: Contradictions
« Reply #13 on: Fri Jan 27, 2012 - 03:10:41 »
Elvisman,

Hope I can share my thoughts about your earlier statement:
"Jesus HIMSELF chose a devil to be one of the first leaders of the Church . . ."

I am not sure if Jesus, while selecting the disciples, purposely selected Judas because he was a devil.
Even if Judas was a devil at that time already, it was Judas' choice to remain in that state.
Judas could have embraced the redemption offered by Jesus, but he chose not to do so.

The Bible teaches us that the devil has been given great powers. That even Judas went out and healed the sick doesn't mean that this power was given by God. Clearly Judas missed the trust and faith in Jesus necessary to do devine miracles, but rememer that even the devil has been given the possibility to do miracles that appear to be of God. The only way to determine the difference is to look at the person who performs the miracles and determine if the persons' life reflects a true christian attitude.

Note that it was written in the old testament that Jesus was going to be betrayed by His inner circle.
This had to come to pass.
Psalm 109:6 - Appoint an evil man to testify against him! May an accuser stand at his right side!
Psalm 41:9 - ​​​​​​​Even my close friend whom I trusted,he who shared meals with me, has turned against me.

After his betrayal, you see what Judas did...he regretted his actions. Even at that point Judas could have turned around and be redeemed!
Quite similar to the betrayal by Peter and his redemption. Look what Jesus said about Peter in Matthew 16: 22-23
"Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men."


There are two main differences here:
1) Jesus did not say that Peter was Satan like he did with Judas.
2) Peter adjusted his attitude (even though he still betrayed Jesus afterwards) and found redemption. Judas on the other hand committed suicide.


I would like to argue that Jesus did not choose a devil to be his disciple, rather than coose to fulfill the scriptures.
Even so, redemption was at all times within his grasp.


I strictly and fervently disagree with the second part of your statement that "...to be one of the first leaders of the Church".

I cannot remotely imagine a possible scenario where Jesus would purposely choose a devil to be the leader of the church. Not now and not then.
If a devil would ever be a church leader, he (or she) will be the choice of man!
God has given us all the attributes to determine if such a church leader is true or false.

Two bible verses come to mind:

1) 1 Thessalonians 5:21 - "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.''
2) Matthew 7:15-23 -  "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits..."

Judas was never a leader of the church. He did not receive the Holy Spirit which happened only after the death of Christ.
Only the Holy Spirit can lead us to produce good fruit. True church leaders are guided by the Holy Spirit, devils are not!


The two stories teach us that even people who are so close to Jesus, are fallible.
We are talking about disciples who directly are in contact with Jesus on a daily basis, seeing miracles happening and performing miracles themselves, yet they were fallible.

You are absolutely correct when you say that leaders are not perfect.
You are also absolutely correct that leaders have received limited power.

This brings us however to a very difficult question.
If even the disciples themselves were not given the power to redeem people, or have knowledge who will be or is redeemed, how can the catholic church:

1) state that the pope is preserved from even the possibility of error when in his official capacity he solemnly declares or promulgates to the universal Church a dogmatic teaching on faith or morals, whilst in contrast you declare
1a) God can (purposely) select a church leader who in fact is a devil. (I am not saying the pope is a devil...but by your statement he could be)
1b) Any church leader is fallible.

2) declare Mary to be in heaven, even though
2a) no such powers have ever even been given to the disciples
2b) no evidence is found for this in the Scriptures
2c) this notion solely rest on a dogma as established in 1)

Offline asachild

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 170
  • Manna: 5
    • View Profile
Re: Contradictions
« Reply #14 on: Fri Jan 27, 2012 - 03:13:06 »
Quote

Quote Elvisman
All that being said, I don't understand how you think that leaders will be perfect.

I don't think leaders will be perfect.  It's because they aren't perfect, that they cannot be assigned infallibility.   There is a difference between occasional sin and ongoing, chronic sin.  Or the occasional trip and fall compared to a happy diving into flagrant, continuous sin.

OTOH, the Word makes it clear what leaders in the church should be.  

1 Tim. 3:2-
" A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous, one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God? not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil.  Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

Likewise deacons must be reverent, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy for money, holding the mystery of the faith with a pure conscience.  But let these also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons, being found blameless.  Likewise, their wives must be reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things. Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well."

If leaders were going to be protected by God to get it right in matters of  great importance, no matter what sins they might be mired in - then there's no need for requirements for leadership.

If God has spelled it out on what the requirement is of leaders, to ignore His clear directions and follow a leader who is in flagrant sin and can't even meet a majority of the requirements, is to march purposely blind behind a sheep-covered wolf to our own death and destruction.  To believe that the words/food that came from the sheep-covered wolf is a purposeful self-deception, IMO.

The warnings are throughout the Old and New Testament.  Beware.  There is no place in the Word that I recall where there is anything approaching a directive to believe that everything the church leaders proclaim will be true.  In fact, just the opposite.

2 Cor 11:13-
"For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light.  Therefore it is not great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works."

Quote
Quote Elvisman
The Church is the Body of Christ, and therefore, unable to espouse error in matters pertaining to salvation.  I disagree with you that the Scripture verses I presented do not apply.  Matt. 24:11 and 2 Pet. 2:1-3 also speak of false teachers and prophets who will "deceive many".

I'm sorry, I wasn't clear.  When I said "I don't think this applies" I was only addressing Judas as an example of an imperfect leader.  As far as we call tell, other than the occasional dips into the money bag, it wasn't until he had decided to betray Jesus and in doing so Satan entered into him - which occurred at the Last Supper - that he had gone fully rogue.

Quote
Quote Elvisman
As for the authority of the Apostles being as limited as you say - I ALSO disagree with you.
Let's read what Jesus told the 70 before sending them out:

Luke 10:10-16
"Whatever town you enter and they do not receive you, go out into the streets and say, ‘The dust of your town that clings to our feet, even that we shake off against you.’ Yet know this: the kingdom of God is at hand. I tell you, it will be more tolerable for Sodom on that day than for that town. Whatever town you enter and they do not receive you, go out into the streets and say, ‘The dust of your town that clings to our feet, even that we shake off against you.’ Yet know this: the kingdom of God is at hand.  I tell you, it will be more tolerable for Sodom on that day than for that town.

Reproaches to Unrepentant Towns.  “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida!m For if the mighty deeds done in your midst had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would long ago have repented, sitting in sackcloth and ashes.  But it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgment than for you.  And as for you, Capernaum, ‘Will you be exalted to heaven? You will go down to the netherworld.’

Offline Insight

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2379
  • Manna: 50
    • View Profile
Re: Contradictions
« Reply #15 on: Fri Jan 27, 2012 - 04:46:48 »
Elvisman,

Hope I can share my thoughts about your earlier statement:
"Jesus HIMSELF chose a devil to be one of the first leaders of the Church . . ."

I am not sure if Jesus, while selecting the disciples, purposely selected Judas because he was a devil.
Even if Judas was a devil at that time already, it was Judas' choice to remain in that state.
Judas could have embraced the redemption offered by Jesus, but he chose not to do so.


Devil simply means false accuser and not some supernatural being...best you get your Greek right and its context before running away with the supernatural.

Insight

AVZ

  • Guest
Re: Contradictions
« Reply #16 on: Fri Jan 27, 2012 - 05:45:48 »
The Greek word for devil used in John 6:70 is "diabolos".


This is the same word used in Revelations 2:10 "diabolos", where it clearly means "satan".
Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.

Revelations 12:9 makes it clear that there is no divide between the devil or satan.
"And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him."
Here both Greek the word "diabolos" as well as "satanas" is used, but it clearly points to one single physical being.

Matthew 4:1
"Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the Devil."
The Greek word "diabolos" is used.

Luke 4:2
"Being forty days tempted of the devil. And in those days he did eat nothing: and when they were ended, he afterward hungered."
The Greek word "diabolos" is used.

Mark 1:13
"And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him."
Here the Greek word "satanas" is used, pointing to the same being as "diabolos" in Matthew 4:1


Can we agree that Jesus was tempted by a physical supernatural being named Devil (Gr: "diabolos" & "satanas")?
How about the angels that ministered to Him, were they for real or is Mark here "running away with the supernatural"?
« Last Edit: Fri Jan 27, 2012 - 07:02:20 by AVZ »

Elvisman

  • Guest
Re: Contradictions
« Reply #17 on: Fri Jan 27, 2012 - 09:37:01 »
Elvisman,

Hope I can share my thoughts about your earlier statement:
"Jesus HIMSELF chose a devil to be one of the first leaders of the Church . . ."

I am not sure if Jesus, while selecting the disciples, purposely selected Judas because he was a devil.
Even if Judas was a devil at that time already, it was Judas' choice to remain in that state.
Judas could have embraced the redemption offered by Jesus, but he chose not to do so.

The Bible teaches us that the devil has been given great powers. That even Judas went out and healed the sick doesn't mean that this power was given by God. Clearly Judas missed the trust and faith in Jesus necessary to do devine miracles, but rememer that even the devil has been given the possibility to do miracles that appear to be of God. The only way to determine the difference is to look at the person who performs the miracles and determine if the persons' life reflects a true christian attitude.

Note that it was written in the old testament that Jesus was going to be betrayed by His inner circle.
This had to come to pass.
Psalm 109:6 - Appoint an evil man to testify against him! May an accuser stand at his right side!
Psalm 41:9 - ​​​​​​​Even my close friend whom I trusted,he who shared meals with me, has turned against me.

After his betrayal, you see what Judas did...he regretted his actions. Even at that point Judas could have turned around and be redeemed!
Quite similar to the betrayal by Peter and his redemption. Look what Jesus said about Peter in Matthew 16: 22-23
"Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men."


There are two main differences here:
1) Jesus did not say that Peter was Satan like he did with Judas.
2) Peter adjusted his attitude (even though he still betrayed Jesus afterwards) and found redemption. Judas on the other hand committed suicide.


I would like to argue that Jesus did not choose a devil to be his disciple, rather than coose to fulfill the scriptures.
Even so, redemption was at all times within his grasp.


I strictly and fervently disagree with the second part of your statement that "...to be one of the first leaders of the Church".

I cannot remotely imagine a possible scenario where Jesus would purposely choose a devil to be the leader of the church. Not now and not then.
If a devil would ever be a church leader, he (or she) will be the choice of man!
God has given us all the attributes to determine if such a church leader is true or false.

Two bible verses come to mind:

1) 1 Thessalonians 5:21 - "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.''
2) Matthew 7:15-23 -  "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits..."

Judas was never a leader of the church. He did not receive the Holy Spirit which happened only after the death of Christ.
Only the Holy Spirit can lead us to produce good fruit. True church leaders are guided by the Holy Spirit, devils are not!


The two stories teach us that even people who are so close to Jesus, are fallible.
We are talking about disciples who directly are in contact with Jesus on a daily basis, seeing miracles happening and performing miracles themselves, yet they were fallible.

You are absolutely correct when you say that leaders are not perfect.
You are also absolutely correct that leaders have received limited power.

This brings us however to a very difficult question.
If even the disciples themselves were not given the power to redeem people, or have knowledge who will be or is redeemed, how can the catholic church:

1) state that the pope is preserved from even the possibility of error when in his official capacity he solemnly declares or promulgates to the universal Church a dogmatic teaching on faith or morals, whilst in contrast you declare
1a) God can (purposely) select a church leader who in fact is a devil. (I am not saying the pope is a devil...but by your statement he could be)
1b) Any church leader is fallible.

2) declare Mary to be in heaven, even though
2a) no such powers have ever even been given to the disciples
2b) no evidence is found for this in the Scriptures
2c) this notion solely rest on a dogma as established in 1)

Hi, AVZ.
Welcome to the forum.

First of all, I wasn't making the case for Judas actually being a Demon or Satan because Luke 22:3 and John 13:27 both tell us that Satan "entered" into Judas at some later point.
I understand what Jesus was saying, so let's clear up that point.

I was stating the fact that God can work his will through ANYBODY.  He can spread his Word through ANYBODY - even Judas.  In Matt. 10 and Luke 9 Jesus sent out the Twelve to spread the Word, heal the sick and cast out demons in his name.
Judas was one of those men who did all of these things.

The fact that there may be a bad Pope does NOT hinder God from working his will.  God is sovreign - HE is in charge.

As for your final points - they can all be summed up in John 16:12-15:
“I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.  But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into ALL truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.  He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to YOU.  All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to YOU."


Here, at the Last Supper, Jesus was addressing and instructing the LEADERS of His Church.
Earlier, in Matt. 16:16-19, Jeusus gives Peter the Keys to the Kingdom - a DIRECT allusion to Isaiah 22:20-22 when God made Eliakim his Chief Steward gave the same promise about the Keys.  ANYBODY who listened to Jesus give this power to Peter KNEW his Jewish culture and realized that this office was a successive one.  In other words, it was passed on to the successor of the Steward.

AVZ

  • Guest
Re: Contradictions
« Reply #18 on: Fri Jan 27, 2012 - 11:18:35 »
Thanks Elvisman for your reply.
Too bad you can't elaborate more on my questions.
As for your closing, I suppose thats an issue all by itself and good for a new topic altogether. :)

Offline Josiah

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1896
  • Manna: 80
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Contradictions
« Reply #19 on: Fri Jan 27, 2012 - 15:21:26 »

Jesus guaranteed that his Church would be led to ALL truth (John 16:12-15).


Wrong.


1.  Jesus never promised The Catholic Church anything.


2.  To inerrantly lead has no bearing whatsoever on infallibly following.   EVEN IF such a promise was given to your denomination (and such a claim is not only BASELESS but silly), it's irrelevant to your conclusion.  Did God's inerrant leading make it impossible for Adam and Eve to err?  Friend, if you have read just the first 3 chapters of the Bible, you'd know how unbiblical your conclusion is.  A teacher may teach correctly, but does that mean every student LEARNS infallibly?  Come on....  You don't even need to read one word of the Bible to realize how silly your point is.  EVEN IF it had ANY relevance whatsoever to your denomination, and its surely does not.






.

Elvisman

  • Guest
Re: Contradictions
« Reply #20 on: Fri Jan 27, 2012 - 15:45:28 »
Wrong.
1.  Jesus never promised The Catholic Church anything.
2.  To inerrantly lead has no bearing whatsoever on infallibly following.   EVEN IF such a promise was given to your denomination (and such a claim is not only BASELESS but silly), it's irrelevant to your conclusion.  Did God's inerrant leading make it impossible for Adam and Eve to err?  Friend, if you have read just the first 3 chapters of the Bible, you'd know how unbiblical your conclusion is.  A teacher may teach correctly, but does that mean every student LEARNS infallibly?  Come on....  You don't even need to read one word of the Bible to realize how silly your point is.  EVEN IF it had ANY relevance whatsoever to your denomination, and its surely does not.

Is Jesus a liar?
NO.

Is the Bible the inerrant Word of God?
YES.

Is Jesus the Word Incarnate?
YES (John 1:1).

Is the Church the FULLNESS of Jesus, the WORD?
YES (Eph. 1:22-23).

Is the Church the Pillar and Foundation of TRUTH (Jesus)?
YES (1 Tim. 3:15).

Did Jesus compare his very SELF with His Body, the Church?
YES (Acts 9:4-5).

Ergo, the Church, which is the FULLNES of Jesus, the Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Body of Christ cannot err in matters of faith and morals.

It's that simple, my angry friend . . .

Offline Josiah

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1896
  • Manna: 80
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Contradictions
« Reply #21 on: Fri Jan 27, 2012 - 17:03:21 »



Wrong.


1.  Jesus never promised The Catholic Church anything.


2.  To inerrantly lead has no bearing whatsoever on infallibly following.   EVEN IF such a promise was given to your denomination (and such a claim is not only BASELESS but silly), it's irrelevant to your conclusion.  Did God's inerrant leading make it impossible for Adam and Eve to err?  Friend, if you have read just the first 3 chapters of the Bible, you'd know how unbiblical your conclusion is.  A teacher may teach correctly, but does that mean every student LEARNS infallibly?  Come on....  You don't even need to read one word of the Bible to realize how silly your point is.  EVEN IF it had ANY relevance whatsoever to your denomination, and its surely does not.





Is the Church the FULLNESS of Jesus, the WORD?
YES (Eph. 1:22-23).

Is the Church the Pillar and Foundation of TRUTH (Jesus)?
YES (1 Tim. 3:15).

Did Jesus compare his very SELF with His Body, the Church?
YES (Acts 9:4-5).

Ergo, the Church, which is the FULLNES of Jesus, the Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Body of Christ cannot err in matters of faith and morals.




Thank you for so POWERFULLY proving my point....



Jesus never so much as even MENTIONED your denomination.
For anything.
About anything.
Concerning anything.
Ever.  Nope. Not even once.



He never gave it anything.
He never promised it anything.
He never authorized it for anything.
He never exempted it from anything.



Instead of REFERENCING Scripture and hoping - really hoping - no one actually looks them up; in stead of imposing/forcing a lot of baseless claims INTO Scripture, try reading the words.  I did.  It's one of the reasons I left your denomination.





.
« Last Edit: Fri Jan 27, 2012 - 17:10:23 by Josiah »

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • Legendary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
    • View Profile
Re: Contradictions
« Reply #22 on: Fri Jan 27, 2012 - 17:06:45 »



Wrong.


1.  Jesus never promised The Catholic Church anything.


2.  To inerrantly lead has no bearing whatsoever on infallibly following.   EVEN IF such a promise was given to your denomination (and such a claim is not only BASELESS but silly), it's irrelevant to your conclusion.  Did God's inerrant leading make it impossible for Adam and Eve to err?  Friend, if you have read just the first 3 chapters of the Bible, you'd know how unbiblical your conclusion is.  A teacher may teach correctly, but does that mean every student LEARNS infallibly?  Come on....  You don't even need to read one word of the Bible to realize how silly your point is.  EVEN IF it had ANY relevance whatsoever to your denomination, and its surely does not.



Is Jesus a liar?
NO.

Is the Bible the inerrant Word of God?
YES.

Is Jesus the Word Incarnate?
YES (John 1:1).

Is the Church the FULLNESS of Jesus, the WORD?
YES (Eph. 1:22-23).

Is the Church the Pillar and Foundation of TRUTH (Jesus)?
YES (1 Tim. 3:15).

Did Jesus compare his very SELF with His Body, the Church?
YES (Acts 9:4-5).

Ergo, the Church, which is the FULLNES of Jesus, the Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Body of Christ cannot err in matters of faith and morals.



Thank you for so POWERFULLY proving my point....


IF you actually READ those references you copy/pasted, the obvious would be known to you too.

Jesus never so much as even MENTIONED your denomination.
For anything.
About anything.
Concerning anything.
Ever.  Not even once.


He never promised it anything.
He never gave it anything.
He never exempted it from anything.
He never authorized it for anything.


Instead of REFERENCING Scripture and hoping - really hoping - no one actually looks them up; in stead of imposing/forcing a lot of baseless claims INTO Scripture, try reading the words.  I did.  I left your denomination as a result.





.

Christ mentioned the Church several times? I'm kind of confused.

Are you trying to be funny?

Offline Josiah

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1896
  • Manna: 80
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Contradictions
« Reply #23 on: Fri Jan 27, 2012 - 17:20:50 »




Wrong.


1.  Jesus never promised The Catholic Church anything.


2.  To inerrantly lead has no bearing whatsoever on infallibly following.   EVEN IF such a promise was given to your denomination (and such a claim is not only BASELESS but silly), it's irrelevant to your conclusion.  Did God's inerrant leading make it impossible for Adam and Eve to err?  Friend, if you have read just the first 3 chapters of the Bible, you'd know how unbiblical your conclusion is.  A teacher may teach correctly, but does that mean every student LEARNS infallibly?  Come on....  You don't even need to read one word of the Bible to realize how silly your point is.  EVEN IF it had ANY relevance whatsoever to your denomination, and its surely does not.









Thank you for so POWERFULLY proving my point....



Jesus never so much as even MENTIONED your denomination.
For anything.
About anything.
Concerning anything.
Ever.  Nope. Not even once.



He never gave it anything.
He never promised it anything.
He never authorized it for anything.
He never exempted it from anything.



Instead of REFERENCING Scripture and hoping - really hoping - no one actually looks them up; in stead of imposing/forcing a lot of baseless claims INTO Scripture, try reading the words.  I did.  It's one of the reasons I left your denomination.


.

Christ mentioned the Church several times? I'm kind of confused.


Read what I posted.  
#1, #2, and the section that follows.

IF you are still confused, let's talk.  I don't think you will be.





Quote
Are you trying to be funny?


No, trying to be truthful.






.

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • Legendary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
    • View Profile
Re: Contradictions
« Reply #24 on: Fri Jan 27, 2012 - 17:23:37 »




Wrong.


1.  Jesus never promised The Catholic Church anything.


2.  To inerrantly lead has no bearing whatsoever on infallibly following.   EVEN IF such a promise was given to your denomination (and such a claim is not only BASELESS but silly), it's irrelevant to your conclusion.  Did God's inerrant leading make it impossible for Adam and Eve to err?  Friend, if you have read just the first 3 chapters of the Bible, you'd know how unbiblical your conclusion is.  A teacher may teach correctly, but does that mean every student LEARNS infallibly?  Come on....  You don't even need to read one word of the Bible to realize how silly your point is.  EVEN IF it had ANY relevance whatsoever to your denomination, and its surely does not.









Thank you for so POWERFULLY proving my point....



Jesus never so much as even MENTIONED your denomination.
For anything.
About anything.
Concerning anything.
Ever.  Nope. Not even once.



He never gave it anything.
He never promised it anything.
He never authorized it for anything.
He never exempted it from anything.



Instead of REFERENCING Scripture and hoping - really hoping - no one actually looks them up; in stead of imposing/forcing a lot of baseless claims INTO Scripture, try reading the words.  I did.  It's one of the reasons I left your denomination.


.

Christ mentioned the Church several times? I'm kind of confused.


Read what I posted.  
#1, #2, and the section that follows.

IF you are still confused, let's talk.  I don't think you will be.





Quote
Are you trying to be funny?


No, trying to be truthful.






.

I read went over it again twice actually still confused. Throw me a bone.

Offline Insight

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2379
  • Manna: 50
    • View Profile
Re: Contradictions
« Reply #25 on: Fri Jan 27, 2012 - 18:07:06 »



Wrong.


1.  Jesus never promised The Catholic Church anything.


2.  To inerrantly lead has no bearing whatsoever on infallibly following.   EVEN IF such a promise was given to your denomination (and such a claim is not only BASELESS but silly), it's irrelevant to your conclusion.  Did God's inerrant leading make it impossible for Adam and Eve to err?  Friend, if you have read just the first 3 chapters of the Bible, you'd know how unbiblical your conclusion is.  A teacher may teach correctly, but does that mean every student LEARNS infallibly?  Come on....  You don't even need to read one word of the Bible to realize how silly your point is.  EVEN IF it had ANY relevance whatsoever to your denomination, and its surely does not.





Is the Church the FULLNESS of Jesus, the WORD?
YES (Eph. 1:22-23).

Is the Church the Pillar and Foundation of TRUTH (Jesus)?
YES (1 Tim. 3:15).

Did Jesus compare his very SELF with His Body, the Church?
YES (Acts 9:4-5).

Ergo, the Church, which is the FULLNES of Jesus, the Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Body of Christ cannot err in matters of faith and morals.




Thank you for so POWERFULLY proving my point....



Jesus never so much as even MENTIONED your denomination.
For anything.
About anything.
Concerning anything.
Ever.  Nope. Not even once.



He never gave it anything.
He never promised it anything.
He never authorized it for anything.
He never exempted it from anything.



Instead of REFERENCING Scripture and hoping - really hoping - no one actually looks them up; in stead of imposing/forcing a lot of baseless claims INTO Scripture, try reading the words.  I did.  It's one of the reasons I left your denomination.





.

Sound response!

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • Legendary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
    • View Profile
Re: Contradictions
« Reply #26 on: Fri Jan 27, 2012 - 18:09:18 »



Wrong.


1.  Jesus never promised The Catholic Church anything.


2.  To inerrantly lead has no bearing whatsoever on infallibly following.   EVEN IF such a promise was given to your denomination (and such a claim is not only BASELESS but silly), it's irrelevant to your conclusion.  Did God's inerrant leading make it impossible for Adam and Eve to err?  Friend, if you have read just the first 3 chapters of the Bible, you'd know how unbiblical your conclusion is.  A teacher may teach correctly, but does that mean every student LEARNS infallibly?  Come on....  You don't even need to read one word of the Bible to realize how silly your point is.  EVEN IF it had ANY relevance whatsoever to your denomination, and its surely does not.





Is the Church the FULLNESS of Jesus, the WORD?
YES (Eph. 1:22-23).

Is the Church the Pillar and Foundation of TRUTH (Jesus)?
YES (1 Tim. 3:15).

Did Jesus compare his very SELF with His Body, the Church?
YES (Acts 9:4-5).

Ergo, the Church, which is the FULLNES of Jesus, the Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Body of Christ cannot err in matters of faith and morals.




Thank you for so POWERFULLY proving my point....



Jesus never so much as even MENTIONED your denomination.
For anything.
About anything.
Concerning anything.
Ever.  Nope. Not even once.



He never gave it anything.
He never promised it anything.
He never authorized it for anything.
He never exempted it from anything.



Instead of REFERENCING Scripture and hoping - really hoping - no one actually looks them up; in stead of imposing/forcing a lot of baseless claims INTO Scripture, try reading the words.  I did.  It's one of the reasons I left your denomination.





.

Sound response!

Maybe you could help me then. In the Bible I read Christ promises the Church several things but here you guys claims (well Josiah claims and you cheerlead) that Christ never even mentioned her?

Curious.

Offline Insight

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2379
  • Manna: 50
    • View Profile
Re: Contradictions
« Reply #27 on: Fri Jan 27, 2012 - 20:39:12 »



Wrong.


1.  Jesus never promised The Catholic Church anything.


2.  To inerrantly lead has no bearing whatsoever on infallibly following.   EVEN IF such a promise was given to your denomination (and such a claim is not only BASELESS but silly), it's irrelevant to your conclusion.  Did God's inerrant leading make it impossible for Adam and Eve to err?  Friend, if you have read just the first 3 chapters of the Bible, you'd know how unbiblical your conclusion is.  A teacher may teach correctly, but does that mean every student LEARNS infallibly?  Come on....  You don't even need to read one word of the Bible to realize how silly your point is.  EVEN IF it had ANY relevance whatsoever to your denomination, and its surely does not.





Is the Church the FULLNESS of Jesus, the WORD?
YES (Eph. 1:22-23).

Is the Church the Pillar and Foundation of TRUTH (Jesus)?
YES (1 Tim. 3:15).

Did Jesus compare his very SELF with His Body, the Church?
YES (Acts 9:4-5).

Ergo, the Church, which is the FULLNES of Jesus, the Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Body of Christ cannot err in matters of faith and morals.




Thank you for so POWERFULLY proving my point....



Jesus never so much as even MENTIONED your denomination.
For anything.
About anything.
Concerning anything.
Ever.  Nope. Not even once.



He never gave it anything.
He never promised it anything.
He never authorized it for anything.
He never exempted it from anything.



Instead of REFERENCING Scripture and hoping - really hoping - no one actually looks them up; in stead of imposing/forcing a lot of baseless claims INTO Scripture, try reading the words.  I did.  It's one of the reasons I left your denomination.





.

Sound response!

Maybe you could help me then. In the Bible I read Christ promises the Church several things but here you guys claims (well Josiah claims and you cheerlead) that Christ never even mentioned her?

Curious.

Christ spoke to his ekklesia as a called out community who quietly and humbly practice their true discipleship; this ekklesia has no resemblance at all in any way, shape or form to the RCC.

Insight

Offline highrigger

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1112
  • Manna: 26
    • View Profile
Re: Contradictions
« Reply #28 on: Sat Jan 28, 2012 - 21:29:32 »
Quote
Ergo, the Church, which is the FULLNES of Jesus, the Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Body of Christ cannot err in matters of faith and morals.

It's that simple, my angry friend .

elvisman,

Why should we disagree with that? We are also part of the body of Christ, the church. But we sensibly dont claim to be infallible.
We also dont sarcastically call others friends and demean them at the same time.
Funny how you keep getting warned all the time. Why cant you improve your behavior? You are the one who behaves angrily on this forum. Peace, JohnR

Elvisman

  • Guest
Re: Contradictions
« Reply #29 on: Mon Jan 30, 2012 - 10:03:56 »
Thank you for so POWERFULLY proving my point....

Jesus never so much as even MENTIONED your denomination.
For anything.
About anything.
Concerning anything.
Ever.  Nope. Not even once.
He never gave it anything.
He never promised it anything.
He never authorized it for anything.
He never exempted it from anything.

FINALLY.You are ABSOLUTELY right, my angry friend.
Jesus never mentioned my "denomination".  

Ummm . . . that's because I don't belong to a mere "denomination" like you ane every other Protestant.
I belong to the ONE Church established by Jesus Christ (Matt. 16:18-19).
YOU belong to a sect that was established by mere sinful men . . .  ::nodding::

"Catholicism, on the other hand, is the largest body within Christendom, having almost a two-thousand-year history (it has historical continuity with apostolic, first century Christianity), and is the ecclesiastical tree from which Protestantism originally splintered."

- Ken Samples, PROTESTANT Historian, Christian Research Institute

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • Legendary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
    • View Profile
Re: Contradictions
« Reply #30 on: Mon Jan 30, 2012 - 10:28:11 »



Wrong.


1.  Jesus never promised The Catholic Church anything.


2.  To inerrantly lead has no bearing whatsoever on infallibly following.   EVEN IF such a promise was given to your denomination (and such a claim is not only BASELESS but silly), it's irrelevant to your conclusion.  Did God's inerrant leading make it impossible for Adam and Eve to err?  Friend, if you have read just the first 3 chapters of the Bible, you'd know how unbiblical your conclusion is.  A teacher may teach correctly, but does that mean every student LEARNS infallibly?  Come on....  You don't even need to read one word of the Bible to realize how silly your point is.  EVEN IF it had ANY relevance whatsoever to your denomination, and its surely does not.





Is the Church the FULLNESS of Jesus, the WORD?
YES (Eph. 1:22-23).

Is the Church the Pillar and Foundation of TRUTH (Jesus)?
YES (1 Tim. 3:15).

Did Jesus compare his very SELF with His Body, the Church?
YES (Acts 9:4-5).

Ergo, the Church, which is the FULLNES of Jesus, the Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Body of Christ cannot err in matters of faith and morals.




Thank you for so POWERFULLY proving my point....



Jesus never so much as even MENTIONED your denomination.
For anything.
About anything.
Concerning anything.
Ever.  Nope. Not even once.



He never gave it anything.
He never promised it anything.
He never authorized it for anything.
He never exempted it from anything.



Instead of REFERENCING Scripture and hoping - really hoping - no one actually looks them up; in stead of imposing/forcing a lot of baseless claims INTO Scripture, try reading the words.  I did.  It's one of the reasons I left your denomination.





.

Sound response!

Maybe you could help me then. In the Bible I read Christ promises the Church several things but here you guys claims (well Josiah claims and you cheerlead) that Christ never even mentioned her?

Curious.

Christ spoke to his ekklesia as a called out community who quietly and humbly practice their true discipleship; this ekklesia has no resemblance at all in any way, shape or form to the RCC.

Insight


So Christ did refer to promise His Church things in the Bible yes?

I thought you guys were saying that Christ never promised the Church anything concerning anything ever? Or something like that?

Elvisman

  • Guest
Re: Contradictions
« Reply #31 on: Mon Feb 06, 2012 - 15:40:15 »
elvisman,

Why should we disagree with that? We are also part of the body of Christ, the church. But we sensibly dont claim to be infallible.
We also dont sarcastically call others friends and demean them at the same time.
Funny how you keep getting warned all the time. Why cant you improve your behavior? You are the one who behaves angrily on this forum. Peace, JohnR

Not at all, my angry friend.  Unfortunately you are outside the Body of Christ - the Church.
Man - just crack open a history book my ignorant friend.  The Church is Catholic - and it was from the beginning.  The rest are simply splinters of that One Unified Body.

"Catholicism, on the other hand, is the largest body within Christendom, having almost a two-thousand-year history (it has historical continuity with apostolic, first century Christianity), and is the ecclesiastical tree from which Protestantism originally splintered."

["What Think Ye of Rome?" by Ken Samples, PROTESTANT Historian, Christian Research Institute]

Elvisman

  • Guest
Re: Contradictions
« Reply #32 on: Mon Feb 06, 2012 - 15:42:58 »

Wrong.

1.  Jesus never promised The Catholic Church anything.
2.  To inerrantly lead has no bearing whatsoever on infallibly following.   EVEN IF such a promise was given to your denomination (and such a claim is not only BASELESS but silly), it's irrelevant to your conclusion.  Did God's inerrant leading make it impossible for Adam and Eve to err?  Friend, if you have read just the first 3 chapters of the Bible, you'd know how unbiblical your conclusion is.  A teacher may teach correctly, but does that mean every student LEARNS infallibly?  Come on....  You don't even need to read one word of the Bible to realize how silly your point is.  EVEN IF it had ANY relevance whatsoever to your denomination, and its surely does not.
Is the Church the FULLNESS of Jesus, the WORD?
YES (Eph. 1:22-23).

Is the Church the Pillar and Foundation of TRUTH (Jesus)?
YES (1 Tim. 3:15).

Did Jesus compare his very SELF with His Body, the Church?
YES (Acts 9:4-5).

Ergo, the Church, which is the FULLNES of Jesus, the Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Body of Christ cannot err in matters of faith and morals.

Thank you for so POWERFULLY proving my point....
Jesus never so much as even MENTIONED your denomination.
For anything.
About anything.
Concerning anything.
Ever.  Nope. Not even once.
He never gave it anything.
He never promised it anything.
He never authorized it for anything.
He never exempted it from anything.
Instead of REFERENCING Scripture and hoping - really hoping - no one actually looks them up; in stead of imposing/forcing a lot of baseless claims INTO Scripture, try reading the words.  I did.  It's one of the reasons I left your denomination.

Sound response!

Maybe you could help me then. In the Bible I read Christ promises the Church several things but here you guys claims (well Josiah claims and you cheerlead) that Christ never even mentioned her?

Curious.

Christ spoke to his ekklesia as a called out community who quietly and humbly practice their true discipleship; this ekklesia has no resemblance at all in any way, shape or form to the RCC.

Insight


So Christ did refer to promise His Church things in the Bible yes?

I thought you guys were saying that Christ never promised the Church anything concerning anything ever? Or something like that?

SOUND Response!! ::tippinghat::

Offline Insight

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2379
  • Manna: 50
    • View Profile
Re: Contradictions
« Reply #33 on: Thu Feb 16, 2012 - 00:16:27 »



Wrong.


1.  Jesus never promised The Catholic Church anything.


2.  To inerrantly lead has no bearing whatsoever on infallibly following.   EVEN IF such a promise was given to your denomination (and such a claim is not only BASELESS but silly), it's irrelevant to your conclusion.  Did God's inerrant leading make it impossible for Adam and Eve to err?  Friend, if you have read just the first 3 chapters of the Bible, you'd know how unbiblical your conclusion is.  A teacher may teach correctly, but does that mean every student LEARNS infallibly?  Come on....  You don't even need to read one word of the Bible to realize how silly your point is.  EVEN IF it had ANY relevance whatsoever to your denomination, and its surely does not.





Is the Church the FULLNESS of Jesus, the WORD?
YES (Eph. 1:22-23).

Is the Church the Pillar and Foundation of TRUTH (Jesus)?
YES (1 Tim. 3:15).

Did Jesus compare his very SELF with His Body, the Church?
YES (Acts 9:4-5).

Ergo, the Church, which is the FULLNES of Jesus, the Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Body of Christ cannot err in matters of faith and morals.




Thank you for so POWERFULLY proving my point....



Jesus never so much as even MENTIONED your denomination.
For anything.
About anything.
Concerning anything.
Ever.  Nope. Not even once.



He never gave it anything.
He never promised it anything.
He never authorized it for anything.
He never exempted it from anything.



Instead of REFERENCING Scripture and hoping - really hoping - no one actually looks them up; in stead of imposing/forcing a lot of baseless claims INTO Scripture, try reading the words.  I did.  It's one of the reasons I left your denomination.





.

Sound response!

Maybe you could help me then. In the Bible I read Christ promises the Church several things but here you guys claims (well Josiah claims and you cheerlead) that Christ never even mentioned her?

Curious.

Christ spoke to his ekklesia as a called out community who quietly and humbly practice their true discipleship; this ekklesia has no resemblance at all in any way, shape or form to the RCC.

Insight


So Christ did refer to promise His Church things in the Bible yes?

I thought you guys were saying that Christ never promised the Church anything concerning anything ever? Or something like that?

LH - Of course Christ made promises to his bride.  Read the prayer of Jesus in John 17 and you will see the Father has answered this prayer throughout the ages.

Of course this prayer did not apply to the RCC as it did not apply to Israel when God was wrath with their many idols.

Insight







Elvisman

  • Guest
Re: Contradictions
« Reply #34 on: Thu Feb 16, 2012 - 15:57:22 »
LH - Of course Christ made promises to his bride.  Read the prayer of Jesus in John 17 and you will see the Father has answered this prayer throughout the ages.

Of course this prayer did not apply to the RCC as it did not apply to Israel when God was wrath with their many idols.

Insight

The Church is the Bride of Christ - the Catholic Church.  This is so because Jesus only established ONE Church - not tens of thousands of different Churches - all with different beliefs.

For Protestant ecclesial communities to claim unity with one another - they would all have to believe the same ways - which they don't:

Some Protestant denominations believe in baptismal regeneration, while others do not.
Some believe in soul-sleep, while others do not.
Some believe in the total depravity of man, while others do not.
Some believe in the Holy Trinity, while others do not.
Some believe in doctrine of “once saved, always saved

 

     
anything