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


Author Topic: The Anti-Catholic Bible (and other myths)  (Read 29385 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Elvisman

  • Guest
The Anti-Catholic Bible (and other myths)
« on: Fri Mar 02, 2012 - 11:46:29 »
Loraine Boettner was an anti-Catholic Protestant Theologian who lived in the 20th century.
His book, “Roman Catholicism
« Last Edit: Fri Mar 02, 2012 - 12:00:27 by Elvisman »

Christian Forums and Message Board

The Anti-Catholic Bible (and other myths)
« on: Fri Mar 02, 2012 - 11:46:29 »

Offline AVZ

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4815
  • Manna: 105
    • View Profile
Re: The Anti-Catholic Bible (and other myths)
« Reply #1 on: Fri Mar 02, 2012 - 14:07:47 »
Loraine Boettner was an anti-Catholic Protestant Theologian who lived in the 20th century.
His book, “Roman Catholicism

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: The Anti-Catholic Bible (and other myths)
« Reply #1 on: Fri Mar 02, 2012 - 14:07:47 »

Elvisman

  • Guest
Re: The Anti-Catholic Bible (and other myths)
« Reply #2 on: Fri Mar 02, 2012 - 14:18:24 »

I have a few Bibles. "Roman Catholicism" isn't one of them. Your fantasies are getting the better of you.
But then again it doesn't make a difference. In your opinion anyone on this board who does not agree with what you say is an anti-Catholic anyway.

This thread clearly is a provocation with the only goal to engage in a similarly provocative exchange of unpleasantries.
Perhaps some day when you are done feeling sorry for yourself and have worked your way out of 'Protestant oppression' you can make an attempt to start a useful and educative thread?

Wisdom and peace to you

Actually - you're mistaken.  If somebody disagrees with the Catholic position - that's just fine with me.
It is only when thay invent or perpetuate existing falsehoods about the Church when I refer to them as "anti-Catholic".

If you don't want to become Catholic - don't.  However, don't invent lies about the Church to support your case.
I know many non-Catholic Christians who are NOT anti-Catholic.  Unfortunately, I also know many who ARE.

As for the purpose of this thread - it is merely an attempt to understand the mindset of the anti-Catholic.  If I can PROVE to the anti-Catholic that a certain falsehood is, well - false - then perhaps they will stop perpetuating it and we can come to a deeper mutual understanding.

I think the reason this thread offends you so is pretty obvious . . .

Offline mclees8

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5190
  • Manna: 135
    • View Profile
Re: The Anti-Catholic Bible (and other myths)
« Reply #3 on: Fri Mar 02, 2012 - 23:40:32 »
Loraine Boettner was an anti-Catholic Protestant Theologian who lived in the 20th century.
His book, “Roman Catholicism
« Last Edit: Sat Mar 03, 2012 - 09:03:57 by mclees8 »

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: The Anti-Catholic Bible (and other myths)
« Reply #3 on: Fri Mar 02, 2012 - 23:40:32 »

Elvisman

  • Guest
Re: The Anti-Catholic Bible (and other myths)
« Reply #4 on: Sat Mar 03, 2012 - 09:40:30 »
You reaaly concider your self an expert on truth and false hoods about the catholic Chruch

So you say the fourth century is wrong about the origion of the Catholic church. You are going to say that the papacy started with Peter. But there are certain differnce as to the posture of the church duing the time of Peter. So we need to clarify just what these differences were and when did the changes take place.

The difference are strikng. First the apostles were authority but common and not exalted above the church which is all who beleived Jesus was Lord. When we go throught the book of acts we will see several cases that back this up. We do not see them flaunting their authority or ambition for power and position. Not at all like what we see portrayed as the church today under papal rule. So what century did the the bishops put on royal robes and tall hats and take on a religious political posture flaunting their authority as vicars of Christ over the congregation and the empire. What century did popes first sit on thones surrounded with grandeur

Surely some one who calims to have all the right answers could answer this.

No, Mclees - you don't get off that easy.

YOU have made the statement that the Catholic Church didn't come about until AD 325.
This is a falsehood that YOU have perpetuated - so the onus is on YOU to prove it. 

This PRECISELY the kind of unsubstantiated rubbish that this thread is all about and PRECISELY why people like you and AVZ are so offended by it.  Because educated Catholics like myself won't let you get away with it any longer. 

PROVE your ridiculous statement that the Catholic Church didn't come about until the year 325 with REAL history - not your inane opnions.

To ALL my anti-Catholic friends on this forum who spread this sort of drivel - the party's over . . .

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: The Anti-Catholic Bible (and other myths)
« Reply #4 on: Sat Mar 03, 2012 - 09:40:30 »



Offline mclees8

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5190
  • Manna: 135
    • View Profile
Re: The Anti-Catholic Bible (and other myths)
« Reply #5 on: Sat Mar 03, 2012 - 12:29:47 »
You reaaly concider your self an expert on truth and false hoods about the catholic Chruch

So you say the fourth century is wrong about the origion of the Catholic church. You are going to say that the papacy started with Peter. But there are certain differnce as to the posture of the church duing the time of Peter. So we need to clarify just what these differences were and when did the changes take place.

The difference are strikng. First the apostles were authority but common and not exalted above the church which is all who beleived Jesus was Lord. When we go throught the book of acts we will see several cases that back this up. We do not see them flaunting their authority or ambition for power and position. Not at all like what we see portrayed as the church today under papal rule. So what century did the the bishops put on royal robes and tall hats and take on a religious political posture flaunting their authority as vicars of Christ over the congregation and the empire. What century did popes first sit on thones surrounded with grandeur

Surely some one who calims to have all the right answers could answer this.

No, Mclees - you don't get off that easy.

YOU have made the statement that the Catholic Church didn't come about until AD 325.
This is a falsehood that YOU have perpetuated - so the onus is on YOU to prove it.  

This PRECISELY the kind of unsubstantiated rubbish that this thread is all about and PRECISELY why people like you and AVZ are so offended by it.  Because educated Catholics like myself won't let you get away with it any longer.  

PROVE your ridiculous statement that the Catholic Church didn't come about until the year 325 with REAL history - not your inane opnions.

To ALL my anti-Catholic friends on this forum who spread this sort of drivel - the party's over . . .


No! the onus is on you. You are the smart guy here. There is a history, which you think of youself some expert. There is a time when the church took on a new posture that bolsted authority and put on fancy hats and robes which is show for ones office. This was done for a reason so it has a history. A place and time  of origion. Tell us now when where and why did they do it?  It shouldn,t be that hard for one as smart as you.

Offline AVZ

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4815
  • Manna: 105
    • View Profile
Re: The Anti-Catholic Bible (and other myths)
« Reply #6 on: Sat Mar 03, 2012 - 12:52:22 »
I know many non-Catholic Christians who are NOT anti-Catholic.  

What's your definition of a non-Catholic Christian?

Elvisman

  • Guest
Re: The Anti-Catholic Bible (and other myths)
« Reply #7 on: Sat Mar 03, 2012 - 13:19:57 »

No! the onus is on you. You are the smart guy here. There is a history, which you think of youself some expert. There is a time when the church took on a new posture that bolsted authority and put on fancy hats and robes which is show for ones office. This was done for a reason so it has a history. A place and time  of origion. Tell us now when where and why did they do it?  It shouldn,t be that hard for one as smart as you.

WRONG.
I've already given the quotes from the Early Church that it was called the CATHOLIC CHURCH by the end of the First Century.

Ignatius of Antioch
"Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church." (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 107]).


You're not going to derail this conversation.
YOUR claim was that the Church didn't begin untilo AD 325.
PROVE it.

Elvisman

  • Guest
Re: The Anti-Catholic Bible (and other myths)
« Reply #8 on: Sat Mar 03, 2012 - 13:23:18 »

What's your definition of a non-Catholic Christian?

Every Christian who is not in FULL Communion with Christ's Catholic Church.
A Christian, by definition is one who has been Baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Offline Josiah

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1896
  • Manna: 80
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: The Anti-Catholic Bible (and other myths)
« Reply #9 on: Sat Mar 03, 2012 - 15:47:01 »
Loraine Boettner was an anti-Catholic Protestant Theologian who lived in the 20th century.
His book, “Roman Catholicism

Offline Josiah

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1896
  • Manna: 80
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: The Anti-Catholic Bible (and other myths)
« Reply #10 on: Sat Mar 03, 2012 - 15:55:57 »

I've already given the quotes from the Early Church that it was called the CATHOLIC CHURCH by the end of the First Century.

Ignatius of Antioch
"Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the catholic church." (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 107]).





Yup.  The word "catholic" was/is a common, popular ADJECTIVE meaning "whole" "universal"  "entire."   Yes, this is the first reference we have to it being applied to the church (the assembly of PEOPLE), ergo to BELIEVERS.   But it is beyond silly and well into the laughably absurd to argue that ERGO, the RC Denomination existed at this time and he is referring to that specific intracongregational denomination.  Absurd.   Let's say I write that my Toyota is awesome.   Then, in 2311, Toyota introduces a new sports car with the official/legal moniker of The Toyota Awesome.   By your "logic" here, you'd post "Hey, Josiah owned an Awesome way back in 2012!"   Do you see how absurd your thinking is?   

By the way, in the first century, people were also using the ADJECTIVE "orthodox" to refer to the corpus of believers.  So, if the EOC was as illogical and silly as you, they'd quote those and say, "Ah, the Greek Orthodox Church existed then!"  (Ignoring the difference between adjectives and nouns).

BTW, Elvis, it's a grammatical mistake to capitalize adjectives.   And it's misleading to quote the father as capitalizing two words when he did not, he in no way indicated that a denomination existed then - much less YOURS by the legal moniker in which it is now incorporated around the word.   It's misleading.  It's grammatically wrong.  It's disrespectful to this church father.




.

Elvisman

  • Guest
Re: The Anti-Catholic Bible (and other myths)
« Reply #11 on: Sat Mar 03, 2012 - 18:39:00 »

I've never heard of this supposed person or this book....  But it is not uncommon to affirm that no denomination existed before the 4th century. Any.  Still existed or otherwise.  To suggest that all that affirm that there was no single denomination for the Roman Empire before that is not "proof" that someone is merely copy/pasting from some supposed book.   That's just silly.   And baseless.

I don't know if this man or book even exists, much less that what you say is in it is "bogus."  But when I post that the RC Denomination's DOGMA (1551) of Transubstantiation originated in the 10th century, was debated but eventually was affirm in the 13th and made dogma in the 16th, I'm not quoting from any book, I'm just repeating what every single one of my Catholic teachers taught us.   CATHOLIC.  TEACHERS.  Not this man or some book I've never heard of...   If you want to teach that what the RCC proclaimed at Trent was declared in those exact terms as Dogma in 31 AD, okay, but that doesn't make one a copy/paster of some book I've never heard  of.
We already had a thread about "anti"   You revealed yourself to be FAR more "anti" than anyone else here.   How ironic for YOU (of all people) to complain about being "anti!"   If you want to go over that again (and you'd be embarrassed to do so), I'll give my opinion of you and your church - and see if you will say more or less about me and my church, ergo which is more "anti."  Want to repeat that?   I'm sure you don't.   It just reveals, YOU are the "anti" one.   

I don't know where you copy/paste stuff from (I occasionally recognize a typical CatholicAnswers kind of absurdity, the usual CA anti-Protestantism).   It no more makes it right than posting from Jack Click does.  And your refusal to document anything you say only confirms you don't care if it's true or not - only if it seems to be pro-RCC.   

The fact that you have never heard of these anti-Catholic authors is even more pathetic.  These are the very sources you and others glean your falsehoods from and you don't even know where it's coming from.

This is PRECISELY why I always remind you that you left the Catholic Church out of ignorance - because you DID.

As for your finger-pointing about who is more "anti" - the only thing I have been "anti" about on this forum is lies and liars.  If you have to make up lies to buttress your phony positions about the Catholic Church - then you are a liar.
If you merely disagree with Catholic positions - then more power to you.  I hope you find what you're looking for. 

Unfortunately, FAR too many of you resort to falsehoods - even if you don't know WHERE they came from . . .

Offline AVZ

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4815
  • Manna: 105
    • View Profile
Re: The Anti-Catholic Bible (and other myths)
« Reply #12 on: Sat Mar 03, 2012 - 20:54:06 »

What's your definition of a non-Catholic Christian?

Every Christian who is not in FULL Communion with Christ's Catholic Church.
A Christian, by definition is one who has been Baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

How can someone who is not part of the body of Christ, and has no part in the salvation of this body be called a Christian?
Adolf Hitler was baptized, yet do we consider him a Christian?
« Last Edit: Sun Mar 04, 2012 - 00:02:36 by AVZ »

Amo

  • Guest
Re: The Anti-Catholic Bible (and other myths)
« Reply #13 on: Sun Mar 04, 2012 - 07:11:23 »
Quote
How can someone who is not part of the body of Christ, and has no part in the salvation of this body be called a Christian? Adolf Hitler was baptized, yet do we consider him a Christian?

Interesting question.  Hitler had a few things in common with Rome.

The Virtual Jewish History Tour
Rome
By Rebecca Weiner


During the Reformation, in 1555, Pope Paul IV decreed that all Jews must be segregated into their own quarters (ghettos), and they were forbidden to leave their home during the night, were banned from all but the most strenuous occupations and had to wear a distinctive badge — a yellow hat. More than 4,700 Jews lived in the seven-acre Roman Jewish ghetto that was built in the Travestere section of the city (which still remains a Jewish neighborhood to this day) If any Jews wanted to rent houses or businesses outside the ghetto boundaries, permission was needed from the Cardinal Vicar. Jews could not own any property outside the ghetto. They were not allowed to study in higher education institutions or become lawyers, pharmacists, painters, politicians, notaries or architects. Jewish doctors were only allowed to treat Jewish patients. Jews were forced to pay an annual stipend to pay the salaries of the Catholic officials who supervised the Ghetto Finance Administration and the Jewish Community Organization; a stipend to pay for Christian missionaries who proselytized to the Jews and a yearly sum to the Cloister of the Converted. In return, the state helped with welfare work, but gave no money toward education or caring for the sick. These anti-Jewish laws were similar to those imposed by Nazi Germany on the Jews during World War II.

During the Reformation, talmudic literature as a whole was banned in Rome. On Rosh Hashana 1553, the Talmud and other Hebrew books were burned. Raids of the ghetto were common, and were conducted to insure that Jews did not own any "forbidden" books (any other literature besides the Bible and liturgy). It was forbidden to sing psalms or dirges when escorting the dead to their burial place. Every Saturday, a number of Jews were forced to leave the ghetto and listen to sermons delivered in local churches. Also, whenever a new Pope was ordained, the Jews presented him with a Torah scroll. Jews continued to live in the ghetto for almost 300 years.

JewishEncyclopedia.com

Persecution under Pope Paul IV.
Under Paul IV. (1555-59) the Jews were subjected to further oppression. By his direction they were deprived of valuable franchises, enclosed within the ghetto, subjected to further taxation, limited in their commerce to old clothing, prohibited from practising any art other than medicine, and this not among the Christians, and forbidden the use of their calendar. As a means of satisfying his feeling of hatred against the Spaniards, Paul IV. practised cruelty toward the Portuguese Jews; he sent an inhuman commissioner, a certain Cesare Galuaba, to Ancona with orders to incarcerate all who did not accept baptism and to condemn them to the stake. Thus terrorized, sixty-three renounced their faith. Twenty-three men and one woman, whose names have been handed down in chronicles, preferred death to apostasy, and these were all hanged together and afterward burnt on the Piazza della Mostra ("Shalshelet ha-?abbalah" of Gedaliah ibn Ya?ya, and local records). (Compare D. Kaufmann, "Les Vingt-quatres Martyrs d'Ancona," in "Rev. Ét. Juives," xxxi. 222-230.) Thoroughly alarmed, many of the Jews fled. Prayers for the dead are still said, and the elegy composed by Jacob de Zano is still recited annually in the synagogues for these martyrs.

Offline Ladonia

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2483
  • Manna: 119
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: The Anti-Catholic Bible (and other myths)
« Reply #14 on: Sun Mar 04, 2012 - 11:27:32 »
Avz. No doubt about it, the ant-semitsm of the Catholic Church in times past was an abomination. I could never understand it, our founder being a Jew himself. But, this has all been addressed and apologies have been made. Lets us go forward in true harmony and mutual respect.

Elvisman

  • Guest
Re: The Anti-Catholic Bible (and other myths)
« Reply #15 on: Sun Mar 04, 2012 - 12:21:22 »

How can someone who is not part of the body of Christ, and has no part in the salvation of this body be called a Christian?
Adolf Hitler was baptized, yet do we consider him a Christian?

Properly Baptized Protestants ARE CHristians because - as I already pointed out - they are related to the Body of Christ, although self-separated from it.

As for Hitler - I don't have the power to tell you if he was saved or not.  ONLY God knows and ONLY God can judge the heart.  If I were a betting man, I'd say that he wasn't - but it's not my call. 
Although he was once a Christian - he certainly didn't live the life of a Christian - by his fruits.

Elvisman

  • Guest
Re: The Anti-Catholic Bible (and other myths)
« Reply #16 on: Sun Mar 04, 2012 - 12:26:14 »
Interesting question.  Hitler had a few things in common with Rome.

The Virtual Jewish History Tour
Rome
By Rebecca Weiner

During the Reformation, in 1555, Pope Paul IV decreed that all Jews must be segregated into their own quarters (ghettos), and they were forbidden to leave their home during the night, were banned from all but the most strenuous occupations and had to wear a distinctive badge — a yellow hat. More than 4,700 Jews lived in the seven-acre Roman Jewish ghetto that was built in the Travestere section of the city (which still remains a Jewish neighborhood to this day) If any Jews wanted to rent houses or businesses outside the ghetto boundaries, permission was needed from the Cardinal Vicar. Jews could not own any property outside the ghetto. They were not allowed to study in higher education institutions or become lawyers, pharmacists, painters, politicians, notaries or architects. Jewish doctors were only allowed to treat Jewish patients. Jews were forced to pay an annual stipend to pay the salaries of the Catholic officials who supervised the Ghetto Finance Administration and the Jewish Community Organization; a stipend to pay for Christian missionaries who proselytized to the Jews and a yearly sum to the Cloister of the Converted. In return, the state helped with welfare work, but gave no money toward education or caring for the sick. These anti-Jewish laws were similar to those imposed by Nazi Germany on the Jews during World War II.

During the Reformation, talmudic literature as a whole was banned in Rome. On Rosh Hashana 1553, the Talmud and other Hebrew books were burned. Raids of the ghetto were common, and were conducted to insure that Jews did not own any "forbidden" books (any other literature besides the Bible and liturgy). It was forbidden to sing psalms or dirges when escorting the dead to their burial place. Every Saturday, a number of Jews were forced to leave the ghetto and listen to sermons delivered in local churches. Also, whenever a new Pope was ordained, the Jews presented him with a Torah scroll. Jews continued to live in the ghetto for almost 300 years.

JewishEncyclopedia.com

Persecution under Pope Paul IV.
Under Paul IV. (1555-59) the Jews were subjected to further oppression. By his direction they were deprived of valuable franchises, enclosed within the ghetto, subjected to further taxation, limited in their commerce to old clothing, prohibited from practising any art other than medicine, and this not among the Christians, and forbidden the use of their calendar. As a means of satisfying his feeling of hatred against the Spaniards, Paul IV. practised cruelty toward the Portuguese Jews; he sent an inhuman commissioner, a certain Cesare Galuaba, to Ancona with orders to incarcerate all who did not accept baptism and to condemn them to the stake. Thus terrorized, sixty-three renounced their faith. Twenty-three men and one woman, whose names have been handed down in chronicles, preferred death to apostasy, and these were all hanged together and afterward burnt on the Piazza della Mostra ("Shalshelet ha-?abbalah" of Gedaliah ibn Ya?ya, and local records). (Compare D. Kaufmann, "Les Vingt-quatres Martyrs d'Ancona," in "Rev. Ét. Juives," xxxi. 222-230.) Thoroughly alarmed, many of the Jews fled. Prayers for the dead are still said, and the elegy composed by Jacob de Zano is still recited annually in the synagogues for these martyrs.

And your point is? 
How does it relate to this thread?

Offline mclees8

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5190
  • Manna: 135
    • View Profile
Re: The Anti-Catholic Bible (and other myths)
« Reply #17 on: Sun Mar 04, 2012 - 15:24:23 »

No! the onus is on you. You are the smart guy here. There is a history, which you think of youself some expert. There is a time when the church took on a new posture that bolsted authority and put on fancy hats and robes which is show for ones office. This was done for a reason so it has a history. A place and time  of origion. Tell us now when where and why did they do it?  It shouldn,t be that hard for one as smart as you.

WRONG.
I've already given the quotes from the Early Church that it was called the CATHOLIC CHURCH by the end of the First Century.

Ignatius of Antioch
"Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church." (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 107]).


You're not going to derail this conversation.
YOUR claim was that the Church didn't begin untilo AD 325.
PROVE it.

That was not the point in question. But by that same question when Ignatius first used the word in 110 AD there was no papacy and you can't prove  that all biships of that time looked to the Roman bishops as such. I have already seen and read those flimsy letters you guys stand on like Clement to the Corithians. Lets stick to the issue. When did the posture of the church assume all the costumne stuff and when did the pope first sit on a throne and people kiss his ring. Was all that back in 110 AD. What about the apostles You can't answer that can you? This is why all your fancy foot work.
 

Offline AVZ

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4815
  • Manna: 105
    • View Profile
Re: The Anti-Catholic Bible (and other myths)
« Reply #18 on: Sun Mar 04, 2012 - 21:16:42 »
Avz. No doubt about it, the ant-semitsm of the Catholic Church in times past was an abomination. I could never understand it, our founder being a Jew himself. But, this has all been addressed and apologies have been made. Lets us go forward in true harmony and mutual respect.

Hi Ladonia

It was not my intention to go the path of anti-semitism. (that post was from Amo, not from me)
I wanted to demonstrate a (in my opinion) inconsistency by incommunicating a very bad man who clearly is no Christian, and calling non-Catholics "Christians" even though they have been excluded from Christ by excommunication.

Wisdom and peace to you.
« Last Edit: Mon Mar 05, 2012 - 01:08:16 by AVZ »

Offline AVZ

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4815
  • Manna: 105
    • View Profile
Re: The Anti-Catholic Bible (and other myths)
« Reply #19 on: Sun Mar 04, 2012 - 22:03:52 »

How can someone who is not part of the body of Christ, and has no part in the salvation of this body be called a Christian?
Adolf Hitler was baptized, yet do we consider him a Christian?

Properly Baptized Protestants ARE CHristians because - as I already pointed out - they are related to the Body of Christ, although self-separated from it.

As for Hitler - I don't have the power to tell you if he was saved or not.  ONLY God knows and ONLY God can judge the heart.  If I were a betting man, I'd say that he wasn't - but it's not my call.  
Although he was once a Christian - he certainly didn't live the life of a Christian - by his fruits.

Elvis,

If being a non-Catholic equals not being saved because of self-separation, how about Catholics who engage in non-Christian acts?
In case of Hitler, he did such acts in public view.

So we have Protestants who are not in perfect communion with the Catholic Church (the body of Christ) and are excommunicated by that same Church.
Then we have Hitler who by baptism is in communion to the Catholic Church, but who clearly was not in communion with the body of Christ.
Yet you are sure that Protestants cannot be saved, but Hitler could possibly be?

How is it that a man who's idea's slightly differentiate from the Catholic Church (Luther), is being excommunicated....
and a man who's deeds strongly differentiate from the Catholic Church (Hitler) is NOT being excommunicated?

When you say that Protestants are not perfectly connected to the body of Christ, and are therefore excluded from salvation, than Protestants are not Christians.
Ergo, there is no such thing as "non-Catholic Christians".

What you are saying is this:
Hitler: A man who was a Catholic non-Christian, could perhaps be saved.
Protestants: People who are non-Catholic Christians, are totally excluded from salvation.

In your mind salvation therefore depends on what membership certificate you can wave around.
Yet you also say: "I don't have the power to tell you if he was saved or not.  ONLY God knows and ONLY God can judge the heart."
So here you say that Hitler's membership cartificate is of no or lesser importance, and God will judge him according to his heart.
Then why are Protestants not judged according to their hearts?

Surely baptism has something to do with being a Christian, but I think we can agree that there is much more to it.
Being part of the body of Christ requires far more than a piece of paper declaring in which church you "belong".

Stating that there are "anti-Catholics" on this board, by your reasoning is a self-destructive term.
If both baptized non-Catholics and baptized Catholics are Christians, then the term "anti-Catholic" is the same as saying that baptized non-Catholics are "anti-Christian".
Having opposing thoughts or deeds from the Catholic Church doesn't make one an "anti-Christian" does it?
If it was, Hitler definitely was an "anti-Catholic" and "anti-Christian", yet you profess not to know if Hitler is saved or not.
However, you now for sure that Protestant Christians are doomed.
That doesn't make sense at all.

Do you see anyone on this board accusing you from being "anti-Protestant"?
That's because nobody except you here excludes other denominations from salvation.
However, by your strict regulation of salvation and witholding this from people other than your own denomination, you are as much an "anti-Protestant" as any Protestant on this board being an "anti-Catholic".

Wisdom and peace to you
« Last Edit: Mon Mar 05, 2012 - 01:00:59 by AVZ »

Offline mclees8

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5190
  • Manna: 135
    • View Profile
Re: The Anti-Catholic Bible (and other myths)
« Reply #20 on: Mon Mar 05, 2012 - 07:16:40 »

How can someone who is not part of the body of Christ, and has no part in the salvation of this body be called a Christian?
Adolf Hitler was baptized, yet do we consider him a Christian?

Properly Baptized Protestants ARE CHristians because - as I already pointed out - they are related to the Body of Christ, although self-separated from it.

As for Hitler - I don't have the power to tell you if he was saved or not.  ONLY God knows and ONLY God can judge the heart.  If I were a betting man, I'd say that he wasn't - but it's not my call.  
Although he was once a Christian - he certainly didn't live the life of a Christian - by his fruits.

Elvis,

If being a non-Catholic equals not being saved because of self-separation, how about Catholics who engage in non-Christian acts?
In case of Hitler, he did such acts in public view.

So we have Protestants who are not in perfect communion with the Catholic Church (the body of Christ) and are excommunicated by that same Church.
Then we have Hitler who by baptism is in communion to the Catholic Church, but who clearly was not in communion with the body of Christ.
Yet you are sure that Protestants cannot be saved, but Hitler could possibly be?

How is it that a man who's idea's slightly differentiate from the Catholic Church (Luther), is being excommunicated....
and a man who's deeds strongly differentiate from the Catholic Church (Hitler) is NOT being excommunicated?

When you say that Protestants are not perfectly connected to the body of Christ, and are therefore excluded from salvation, than Protestants are not Christians.
Ergo, there is no such thing as "non-Catholic Christians".

What you are saying is this:
Hitler: A man who was a Catholic non-Christian, could perhaps be saved.
Protestants: People who are non-Catholic Christians, are totally excluded from salvation.

In your mind salvation therefore depends on what membership certificate you can wave around.
Yet you also say: "I don't have the power to tell you if he was saved or not.  ONLY God knows and ONLY God can judge the heart."
So here you say that Hitler's membership cartificate is of no or lesser importance, and God will judge him according to his heart.
Then why are Protestants not judged according to their hearts?

Surely baptism has something to do with being a Christian, but I think we can agree that there is much more to it.
Being part of the body of Christ requires far more than a piece of paper declaring in which church you "belong".

Stating that there are "anti-Catholics" on this board, by your reasoning is a self-destructive term.
If both baptized non-Catholics and baptized Catholics are Christians, then the term "anti-Catholic" is the same as saying that baptized non-Catholics are "anti-Christian".
Having opposing thoughts or deeds from the Catholic Church doesn't make one an "anti-Christian" does it?
If it was, Hitler definitely was an "anti-Catholic" and "anti-Christian", yet you profess not to know if Hitler is saved or not.
However, you now for sure that Protestant Christians are doomed.
That doesn't make sense at all.

Do you see anyone on this board accusing you from being "anti-Protestant"?
That's because nobody except you here excludes other denominations from salvation.
However, by your strict regulation of salvation and witholding this from people other than your own denomination, you are as much an "anti-Protestant" as any Protestant on this board being an "anti-Catholic".

Wisdom and peace to you


Well said AVZ. God bless

Elvisman

  • Guest
Re: The Anti-Catholic Bible (and other myths)
« Reply #21 on: Mon Mar 05, 2012 - 09:02:51 »
That was not the point in question. But by that same question when Ignatius first used the word in 110 AD there was no papacy and you can't prove  that all biships of that time looked to the Roman bishops as such. I have already seen and read those flimsy letters you guys stand on like Clement to the Corithians. Lets stick to the issue. When did the posture of the church assume all the costumne stuff and when did the pope first sit on a throne and people kiss his ring. Was all that back in 110 AD. What about the apostles You can't answer that can you? This is why all your fancy foot work.

I'll be more than happy to answer your question once you provide PROOF for yours.  We are going to go in order here.

Give me PROOF for your claim that the Catholic Church did not come about until AD 325.

Once you have addressed this issue - I will answer your question.

Elvisman

  • Guest
Re: The Anti-Catholic Bible (and other myths)
« Reply #22 on: Mon Mar 05, 2012 - 09:35:12 »
Elvis,

If being a non-Catholic equals not being saved because of self-separation, how about Catholics who engage in non-Christian acts?
In case of Hitler, he did such acts in public view.

So we have Protestants who are not in perfect communion with the Catholic Church (the body of Christ) and are excommunicated by that same Church.
Then we have Hitler who by baptism is in communion to the Catholic Church, but who clearly was not in communion with the body of Christ.
Yet you are sure that Protestants cannot be saved, but Hitler could possibly be?

When did I EVER say that Protestants could not be saved??  You need to R*E*A*D the posts before responding.  When you don’t – you embarrass yourself by blurting out these kinds of inaccuracies.

I don’t know if Hitler repented at the end and got saved – I don’t know if you will be saved.  As for myself, I say the same thing that St. Paul said on the matter:
1 Cor. 4:4
"I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am NOT thereby justified. It is the LORD who judges me."


How is it that a man who's idea's slightly differentiate from the Catholic Church (Luther), is being excommunicated....
and a man who's deeds strongly differentiate from the Catholic Church (Hitler) is NOT being excommunicated?

How do YOU know Hitler wasn’t excommunicated?  Do you have ANY idea what the Church teaches about such people?  Apparently, you DON’T.
Do you know that people can excommunicate themselves by committing the types of atrocities that Hitler did?

DO YOUR HOMEWORK before you make these absurd claims.

When you say that Protestants are not perfectly connected to the body of Christ, and are therefore excluded from salvation, than Protestants are not Christians.
Ergo, there is no such thing as "non-Catholic Christians".

What you are saying is this:
Hitler: A man who was a Catholic non-Christian, could perhaps be saved.
Protestants: People who are non-Catholic Christians, are totally excluded from salvation.

WRONG.
I said that I don’t know if he was saved, but if I was a betting man – I don’t think he could have been.  However – that is GOD’S call – not mine or yours to make.

As for Protestants – I never said you were “excluded from salvation
« Last Edit: Mon Mar 05, 2012 - 09:42:25 by Elvisman »

Offline mclees8

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5190
  • Manna: 135
    • View Profile
Re: The Anti-Catholic Bible (and other myths)
« Reply #23 on: Mon Mar 05, 2012 - 11:41:13 »
That was not the point in question. But by that same question when Ignatius first used the word in 110 AD there was no papacy and you can't prove  that all biships of that time looked to the Roman bishops as such. I have already seen and read those flimsy letters you guys stand on like Clement to the Corithians. Lets stick to the issue. When did the posture of the church assume all the costumne stuff and when did the pope first sit on a throne and people kiss his ring. Was all that back in 110 AD. What about the apostles You can't answer that can you? This is why all your fancy foot work.

I'll be more than happy to answer your question once you provide PROOF for yours.  We are going to go in order here.

Give me PROOF for your claim that the Catholic Church did not come about until AD 325.

Once you have addressed this issue - I will answer your question.


Lets get something straight here. If we are going to call the church catholic as Ignatius called it, Cathoic is nothing more than a term that caught on. So we can then say the church was always catholic. What is different is what the posture is or what we see including practices. Its all in how we identify the church. I say the church you identify as Catholic is the authority system that resides in a place called the vatican where they parade in gala religious  costumes and dunce caps, popes who sit on thrones and every one calls his eminence. This part that you identify as the church did not happen until after 325 AD unless you can prove otherwise They do not diffine the transition in  specfic time that I know of unless of course you know that. Now i suggest if you think otherwise about this then I suggest you prove it. I don't think you intend to answer at all and keep riding this train around in circles. How ever I intend to get off at he stop.

Offline AVZ

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4815
  • Manna: 105
    • View Profile
Re: The Anti-Catholic Bible (and other myths)
« Reply #24 on: Mon Mar 05, 2012 - 11:54:41 »
Elvis,

Let's have a quick look at your reply.

- First you say I embarass myself
- Then you say that I make absurd claims
- Then you say I am lying
- Then you say I post drivel
- Then you say I twist facts
- Then you insinuate I have a reading disability
- Then you say I am a cookie-cutter example of an anti-Catholic
- And I need to be exposed

You managed to squeeze 8 insults in to 6 paragraphs.
Well done! Very Christian attitude. Good example for others.
I guess you consider yourself inspired when you pen these words and phrases down, or are you just parrotting?

Didn't I tell you earlier in this thread that I think you are only here to engage in a provocative exchange of unpleasantries?
And didn't you tell me that that was not true, and that you "merely attempt to understand the mindset of the anti-Catholic"?
I let your response above talk for itself, it's rather provocative and definitely unpleasant.
And you say I should not lie......

You claim an anti-Catholic resorts to lying.
In the 3rd paragraph you say that I am lying... so I am an anti-Catholic.
In the last paragraph however you doubt yourself by giving me the benefit of the doubt of not lying.
Perhaps you are not lying, but you are definitely confusing.
And if it turns out that I am not worthy of the benefit...well, then I must have some kind of disability.

You know very well that when I mention Protestants in my post I refer to Protestants who do not convert to Catholicism.
So, stop beating the bush, you know very well what I am talking about.
Both you and the Catholic Church are very specific. Protestants cannot be saved, and you have said so many times.
Secondly, in itself it is a truth that Protestants cannot be saved, because once they convert to Catholicism they are no longer Protestant but Catholic.

So back to the question.
It was you who said that excommunication was a tool to make people see their mistake in the hope they would return back to the church.
But now you are saying that people can excommunicate themselves?
But how do people get the message to see their mistake if they unknowingly excommunicate themselves?
And also, why did the Catholic Church not let Luther excommunicate himself instead of declaring him to be excommunicated?
Where does the Catholic Church draw the line?

As of now I will be wishing you threefold the wishes you send to me in your replies.
Good or bad, it's up to you.

Wisdom and peace to you...seems to me you can use both.

Offline mclees8

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5190
  • Manna: 135
    • View Profile
Re: The Anti-Catholic Bible (and other myths)
« Reply #25 on: Mon Mar 05, 2012 - 11:59:34 »
When did I EVER say that Protestants could not be saved??  You need to R*E*A*D the posts before responding.  When you don’t – you embarrass yourself by blurting out these kinds of inaccuracies.

I don’t know if Hitler repented at the end and got saved – I don’t know if you will be saved.  As for myself, I say the same thing that St. Paul said on the matter:
1 Cor. 4:4
"I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am NOT thereby justified. It is the LORD who judges me."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike> You assume wrong about what Paul is saying. Paul was quite confident about his salvation and ours.
 For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. 7 I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: 8 Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.  2nd Ti 4:6-8

Elvisman

  • Guest
Re: The Anti-Catholic Bible (and other myths)
« Reply #26 on: Mon Mar 05, 2012 - 12:25:20 »
Lets get something straight here. If we are going to call the church catholic as Ignatius called it, Cathoic is nothing more than a term that caught on. So we can then say the church was always catholic. What is different is what the posture is or what we see including practices. Its all in how we identify the church. I say the church you identify as Catholic is the authority system that resides in a place called the vatican where they parade in gala religious  costumes and dunce caps, popes who sit on thrones and every one calls his eminence. This part that you identify as the church did not happen until after 325 AD unless you can prove otherwise They do not diffine the transition in  specfic time that I know of unless of course you know that. Now i suggest if you think otherwise about this then I suggest you prove it. I don't think you intend to answer at all and keep riding this train around in circles. How ever I intend to get off at he stop.


Ummm . . . first of all, there was no Vatican City in AD 325 so, again, you are espousing falsehoods.

Secondly, the SAME Catholic Church from the First Century is the SAME Catholic Church that existed in AD 325 and is the SAME Catholic Church that exists today.  Simple history shows us this fact.

Eminent Protestant theologian, Professor J.N.D. Kelly, author of the "Oxfoprd dictionary of Popes" states that Catholic Church goes ALL the way back to the Apostles.

Professor Ken Samples of the Christian Research Institute (Hank Hanegraaff’s group from the “Bible AnswerMan

Elvisman

  • Guest
Re: The Anti-Catholic Bible (and other myths)
« Reply #27 on: Mon Mar 05, 2012 - 12:41:15 »
Elvis,

Let's have a quick look at your reply.

- First you say I embarass myself
- Then you say that I make absurd claims
- Then you say I am lying
- Then you say I post drivel
- Then you say I twist facts
- Then you insinuate I have a reading disability
- Then you say I am a cookie-cutter example of an anti-Catholic
- And I need to be exposed

You managed to squeeze 8 insults in to 6 paragraphs.
Well done! Very Christian attitude. Good example for others.
I guess you consider yourself inspired when you pen these words and phrases down, or are you just parrotting?

Didn't I tell you earlier in this thread that I think you are only here to engage in a provocative exchange of unpleasantries?
And didn't you tell me that that was not true, and that you "merely attempt to understand the mindset of the anti-Catholic"?
I let your response above talk for itself, it's rather provocative and definitely unpleasant.
And you say I should not lie......

You claim an anti-Catholic resorts to lying.
In the 3rd paragraph you say that I am lying... so I am an anti-Catholic.
In the last paragraph however you doubt yourself by giving me the benefit of the doubt of not lying.
Perhaps you are not lying, but you are definitely confusing.
And if it turns out that I am not worthy of the benefit...well, then I must have some kind of disability.

Right.  I expose the LIE and the LIAR - lest anybody fall prey to their falsehoods.
Jesus was very clear about that in Scripture.  He told us to be wary of false teachers.

You know very well that when I mention Protestants in my post I refer to Protestants who do not convert to Catholicism.
So, stop beating the bush, you know very well what I am talking about.
Both you and the Catholic Church are very specific. Protestants cannot be saved, and you have said so many times.
Secondly, in itself it is a truth that Protestants cannot be saved, because once they convert to Catholicism they are no longer Protestant but Catholic.

So back to the question.
It was you who said that excommunication was a tool to make people see their mistake in the hope they would return back to the church.
But now you are saying that people can excommunicate themselves?
But how do people get the message to see their mistake if they unknowingly excommunicate themselves?
And also, why did the Catholic Church not let Luther excommunicate himself instead of declaring him to be excommunicated?
Where does the Catholic Church draw the line?

As of now I will be wishing you threefold the wishes you send to me in your replies.
Good or bad, it's up to you.

Wisdom and peace to you...seems to me you can use both.

There you go again with your preposterous litany of lies.

WHEN did I EVER state that Protestants who don’t convert cannot be saved??  The Church doesn’t teach this and neither do I parrot it, yet you say that both the Church and I are "very specific" about this. WHERE do you come up with this rubbish?

Secondly - Excommunication IS a disciplinary tool in which the hope of the Church is to bring the unruly back to the fold.  The fact that by their actions, a person can excommunicated themselves doesn’t conflict with this.
Don’t really know where you’re going with this.  ::shrug::

If you murder a person and get caught, you go to jail.
If you murder a person and don’t get caught – you’re STILL a murderer who should be in jail.
It’s the SAME principle with Excommunication.

What part of that do you NOT understand??

Elvisman

  • Guest
Re: The Anti-Catholic Bible (and other myths)
« Reply #28 on: Mon Mar 05, 2012 - 12:48:49 »
Mike> You assume wrong about what Paul is saying. Paul was quite confident about his salvation and ours.
 For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. 7 I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: 8 Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.  2nd Ti 4:6-8

WOW.
The fact that you can't see the difference between 1 Cor. 4:4 and 2 Tim. 4:6-8 is a testament to your Scriptural ignorance.

1 Cor. 4:4 was MUCH earlier in Paul's ministry than when he wrote 2 Timothy.  Early in his ministry, he KNEW that he could fall away from God's grace.
By the time he wrote 2nd Timothy, he was at the end, waiting to be martyred.  He had "endured to the end" and THAT is why he was more sure of his salvation (Matt. 10:22, Matt. 24:13, 25:31–46).

Offline mclees8

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5190
  • Manna: 135
    • View Profile
Re: The Anti-Catholic Bible (and other myths)
« Reply #29 on: Mon Mar 05, 2012 - 14:59:31 »
Lets get something straight here. If we are going to call the church catholic as Ignatius called it, Cathoic is nothing more than a term that caught on. So we can then say the church was always catholic. What is different is what the posture is or what we see including practices. Its all in how we identify the church. I say the church you identify as Catholic is the authority system that resides in a place called the vatican where they parade in gala religious  costumes and dunce caps, popes who sit on thrones and every one calls his eminence. This part that you identify as the church did not happen until after 325 AD unless you can prove otherwise They do not diffine the transition in  specfic time that I know of unless of course you know that. Now i suggest if you think otherwise about this then I suggest you prove it. I don't think you intend to answer at all and keep riding this train around in circles. How ever I intend to get off at he stop.


Ummm . . . first of all, there was no Vatican City in AD 325 so, again, you are espousing falsehoods.

Secondly, the SAME Catholic Church from the First Century is the SAME Catholic Church that existed in AD 325 and is the SAME Catholic Church that exists today.  Simple history shows us this fact.

Eminent Protestant theologian, Professor J.N.D. Kelly, author of the "Oxfoprd dictionary of Popes" states that Catholic Church goes ALL the way back to the Apostles.

Professor Ken Samples of the Christian Research Institute (Hank Hanegraaff’s group from the “Bible AnswerMan

Elvisman

  • Guest
Re: The Anti-Catholic Bible (and other myths)
« Reply #30 on: Mon Mar 05, 2012 - 15:20:12 »

Just as I thought. You don't have the answer and you are not going to admit it. The question was when did the Catholic church change its posture, Not to mention its religous political position.

I don't care how many modern protestant theoolgians you pull up. They are not addressing this what we are in question of. And that part about when they moved into the vatican. Was it not after 325 AD. and anyone with common sense can figure out that all the exalted papacy came about after 325 AD. This is when they became anything but What the Lord founded. And i tell you Peter never would sit as a pope.  So you can call me stupid, ignorant, uneducated. makes no difference to me. I see my stop ahead. I think I will get off now before i lower myself to your level. You are real good at testing ones patience.

As I stated before - we're going to go in order here.  I will be HAPPY to respond to YOUR questions - AFTER you respond to my initial challenge to YOU.
I already have it typed out and I'm waiting for your response.

I challenged YOU to defend your statement that the Catholic Church did not come into existence until AD 325.  The fact that you refuse to answer the challenge speaks VOLUMES about your lack of evidence.

If you want to retract your claim - just say so and we'll move on.

Offline mclees8

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5190
  • Manna: 135
    • View Profile
Re: The Anti-Catholic Bible (and other myths)
« Reply #31 on: Mon Mar 05, 2012 - 15:27:28 »

Just as I thought. You don't have the answer and you are not going to admit it. The question was when did the Catholic church change its posture, Not to mention its religous political position.

I don't care how many modern protestant theoolgians you pull up. They are not addressing this what we are in question of. And that part about when they moved into the vatican. Was it not after 325 AD. and anyone with common sense can figure out that all the exalted papacy came about after 325 AD. This is when they became anything but What the Lord founded. And i tell you Peter never would sit as a pope.  So you can call me stupid, ignorant, uneducated. makes no difference to me. I see my stop ahead. I think I will get off now before i lower myself to your level. You are real good at testing ones patience.

As I stated before - we're going to go in order here.  I will be HAPPY to respond to YOUR questions - AFTER you respond to my initial challenge to YOU.
I already have it typed out and I'm waiting for your response.

I challenged YOU to defend your statement that the Catholic Church did not come into existence until AD 325.  The fact that you refuse to answer the challenge speaks VOLUMES about your lack of evidence.

If you want to retract your claim - just say so and we'll move on.

We addressed that. Your turn. Cough up your answer now. Or I am out of here.


Elvisman

  • Guest
Re: The Anti-Catholic Bible (and other myths)
« Reply #32 on: Mon Mar 05, 2012 - 16:42:48 »

We addressed that. Your turn. Cough up your answer now. Or I am out of here.

You NEVER addressed it.  If you did - can you giove me the number of the post so I can read your defense of this date (AD 325)?

Offline AVZ

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4815
  • Manna: 105
    • View Profile
Re: The Anti-Catholic Bible (and other myths)
« Reply #33 on: Mon Mar 05, 2012 - 21:07:52 »
When did I EVER say that Protestants could not be saved??  You need to R*E*A*D the posts before responding.  When you don’t – you embarrass yourself by blurting out these kinds of inaccuracies.

February 19 - by Elvisman
"The Church teaches that there is no salvation outside the Church.  However, if a person is invincibly ignorant of the fact that the Church is the fullness of truth (Eph.1:22-23) and they seek God genuinely in their heart – they too may be saved. 
Those who reject the Church can't be saved."



Yes, I know you are going to try and wiggle out of this by pointing out the excluson for "invincibly ignorant".
Please spare me the symantics ad merry-go-rounds.

Most Protestants are not invincibly ignorant, neither are your siblings, neither am I, neither is Mclees, neither is Amo, neither is Insight and neither is Giver.

Assuming none of us will convert or submit to the Catholic Church, all of us will go to hell isn't it?

larry2

  • Guest
Re: The Anti-Catholic Bible (and other myths)
« Reply #34 on: Mon Mar 05, 2012 - 21:10:21 »

Properly Baptized Protestants ARE CHristians because - as I already pointed out - they are related to the Body of Christ, although self-separated from it.


The body of Christ is separated? You think? When did you separate from it.  ::pondering::

Actually the body of Christ remains intact world wide redeemed by Jesus' blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation regardless of your misconception of what the body of Christ is. What you are seeing Elvisman is the carnality of calling yourself Catholic ::onrant::, and another calls themselves Baptist, etc. Paul said it like this in 1 Corinthians 3:4  For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?

What say ye, and PROVE IT. ::whistle::

 

     
anything