Christian Forums

Does it really matter, we worship Jesus not idols.

In HisLove

Quote from: mjrhealth on Sat Nov 21, 2009 - 14:32:15
Does it really matter, we worship Jesus not idols.

In HisLove

   

Jesus and I weep...you don't understand.

What is it I dont understand, there are people who spend a fortune running all over the world visiting so called sacred sites, kissing so called relics, thinking that they are pleasing God, yet they wont take 5 min of their own time to just sit at His feet and love Him. I would love for God to prove Himself to me, but if He does not it wont make my walk with Him any different. " Happy are those who have not seeing and yet believe for theres is the Kingdom of heaven".

In His LOve

Quote from: mjrhealth on Sat Nov 21, 2009 - 18:58:56
What is it I dont understand, there are people who spend a fortune running all over the world visiting so called sacred sites, kissing so called relics, thinking that they are pleasing God, yet they wont take 5 min of their own time to just sit at His feet and love Him. I would love for God to prove Himself to me, but if He does not it wont make my walk with Him any different. " Happy are those who have not seeing and yet believe for theres is the Kingdom of heaven".

In His LOve

And, pray tell, who is that?  Anyone that we know on these forums? 

I don't really think you understand these relics at all. And of course if you feel it puts a wedge into your faith, than by all means, leave them alone.

But to many people, these are actually aids to their faith. For a Protestant to claim that people are worshipping or praying to them is the same as me saying Protestants worship and pray to beds. I know this because everytime I watch one of those old American Family shows they always show the kids kneeling down in front of their beds calling it Father and praying to it.

Now of course, this is ridiculous, but it explains someone from another Christian faith commenting only on what they see, and not what is really the truth.

If your faith is strong, then Praise be to Our Lord Jesus Christ. But for many whose faith wavers at times, this is where the Shroud, The Painting of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Mexico, the Eucharistic Miracles in Churches around the world etc help.

They cannot be explained by modern science. And that aspect alone, helps people. We believe GOD sends them for exactly that purpose. To help your faith.

If you don't need them than well and good. But please think of Paul's words regarding food offered to idols before attacking them. You may well be destroying the faith of soomeone not as strong as you

Pax Tecum
( Peace be with you )

Pax Tecum

I don't believe I misunderstand the nature of relics, or the importance of relics to some.  The danger of relics becoming an idol is not any different from other things one may be inclined to put before God, and I do not mean to imply that Catholics or any other group worships idols.

I believe it was St. Jerome who stated that Catholics do not worship or adore relics, but that they venerate them to recognize and adore God.  

When I go to the cemetery where my father is buried, and I look at the tomb stone, I do not think of the stone.  I am remembering my father.  (Illustration, I am not comparing my earthly father to God).

While I doubt the validity of the Shroud, I am not by any means claiming that it is something beyond the use of God.  I am also not saying it cannot be genuine.

Anyway, if anyone feels that I  was claiming all who venerate relics worship them, I apologize, that was not my intent.

Quote from: ConqueredbyLove on Fri Nov 20, 2009 - 13:23:01
New information on...

Wow, even I might believe now it is the burial cloth of our Saviour...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_italy_shroud_of_turin

It is absolutely astounding how people today have lost the ability to discern truth from error, fact from fiction, fantasy from reality!  2Timothy 3:7, Romans 1:22, 2Timothy 4:4.

Ms a187:

It doesn't prove anything.

We should base our beliefs on what the Bible says, centered as it is on faith in the Person and Work at the Cross of the Lord Jesus.

Quote from: antheia187 on Wed Nov 25, 2009 - 13:05:38
Last Sunday as I attend a mass, our priest have discussed to us about it.

Quote from: mjrhealth on Sat Nov 21, 2009 - 14:32:15
we worship Jesus not idols.

In HisLove

    Years ago before Faroup was born the shroud of turin was peoven to be a fraud.

Quote from: walker starr on Wed Nov 25, 2009 - 13:23:25



    Years ago before Faroup was born the shroud of turin was peoven to be a fraud.

It was Jesus that said, "An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign" - Matthew 12:39. 

Could it be that there are those who still seek SIGNS to confirm a "faith" they LACK? 

Quote from: ConqueredbyLove on Wed Nov 25, 2009 - 13:59:02

Quote from: antheia187 on Wed Nov 25, 2009 - 13:05:38
Last Sunday as I attend a mass, our priest have discussed to us about it.

Precious soul...

Please feel free to PM me if you need to.  There are some very cruel, judgmental, unknowing about our hearts,  remarks on here.

(((Hugs)))  

So, you are referring to Jesus Christ in Matthew 12:39?

Quote from: Doc on Wed Nov 25, 2009 - 14:11:40

Quote from: ConqueredbyLove on Wed Nov 25, 2009 - 13:59:02

Quote from: antheia187 on Wed Nov 25, 2009 - 13:05:38
Last Sunday as I attend a mass, our priest have discussed to us about it.

Precious soul...

Please feel free to PM me if you need to.  There are some very cruel, judgmental, unknowing about our hearts,  remarks on here.

(((Hugs))) 

So, you are referring to Jesus Christ in Matthew 12:39?

Well, I am not referring to farouk or Walker

Quote from: Fallen Knight on Tue Nov 24, 2009 - 23:17:58
I don't really think you understand these relics at all. And of course if you feel it puts a wedge into your faith, than by all means, leave them alone.

But to many people, these are actually aids to their faith. For a Protestant to claim that people are worshipping or praying to them is the same as me saying Protestants worship and pray to beds. I know this because everytime I watch one of those old American Family shows they always show the kids kneeling down in front of their beds calling it Father and praying to it.

Now of course, this is ridiculous, but it explains someone from another Christian faith commenting only on what they see, and not what is really the truth.

If your faith is strong, then Praise be to Our Lord Jesus Christ. But for many whose faith wavers at times, this is where the Shroud, The Painting of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Mexico, the Eucharistic Miracles in Churches around the world etc help.

They cannot be explained by modern science. And that aspect alone, helps people. We believe GOD sends them for exactly that purpose. To help your faith.

If you don't need them than well and good. But please think of Paul's words regarding food offered to idols before attacking them. You may well be destroying the faith of soomeone not as strong as you

Pax Tecum
( Peace be with you )

Pax Tecum

Aids to their faith? I think it's rather sad if you need a piece of material to strengthen your faith in Christ Jesus. I'm not sure about others.. but I also find it's a waste of time, and simply a distraction.

Quote from: ConqueredbyLove on Wed Nov 25, 2009 - 14:23:39

Quote from: Doc on Wed Nov 25, 2009 - 14:11:40

Quote from: ConqueredbyLove on Wed Nov 25, 2009 - 13:59:02

Quote from: antheia187 on Wed Nov 25, 2009 - 13:05:38
Last Sunday as I attend a mass, our priest have discussed to us about it.

Precious soul...

Please feel free to PM me if you need to.  There are some very cruel, judgmental, unknowing about our hearts,  remarks on here.

(((Hugs))) 

So, you are referring to Jesus Christ in Matthew 12:39?

Well, I am not referring to farouk or Walker

May God have mercy!  Apparently you have no clue what you just said with this response.  Oh, well.......... PROVERBS 26:4! 

*["Does it really matter, we worship Jesus not idols."]

***PERFECT!!!!!

Marcello

*["...God knows that man's faith is very very weak just like the Israelites faith in Him was weak.  That was why God told Moses to build a bronze serpent (Numbers 21:6-9).  The bronze serpent was an icon pointing toward God and leading them toward God, and it was God Himself who healed them.  It was only when the Israelites started to worship the bronze serpent that God had it destroyed (2 Kings 18:4).   An icon or an image can strengthen a person's faith by leading them toward God, but an icon should  NEVER be worshiped as God.  That was the lesson the Israelites learned regardng the bronze serpent. 

In the New Testament, Jesus said "The Son of Man must be lifted up as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him." (John 3:13-14).  In here, the serpent that Jesus was referring to was the bronze serpent that God told Moses to build.  If the image on the Shroud of Turin is indeed the image of Jesus Christ, then Christ has left behind His image to strengthen our faith even more so that we may believe in God.  Afterall, which one of us has the kind of faith that Abraham has?"]

***My apologies...but you are in error

The Isrealites were provided with the bread of life in the desert for many years...but revolted against God who provided for their provision and were not grateful. The Lord provided the "bronze serpent" to bring them to REPENTANCE and to forgive them their trespasses against Him. This bronze serpent was a veiled prediction of Jesus' death on the cross. Just as those who looked at the snake which was "lifted up" were healed and lived PHYSICALLY...those of us today who look to CHRIST---who was "lifted up" on the cross---will live SPIRITUALLY and ETERNALLY.

This life for believers in the Lord Jesus Christ is experienced BEFORE  heaven is reached. This "eternal life" is in essence nothing less than participation in the eternal life of the LIVING WORD, Jesus Christ. It is the life of God in EVERY BELIEVER...yet not fully manifest until the RESURRECTION [Romans 8:19-23;Philippians 3:20, 21].

BOTTOM LINE: Christians have NO NEED of a "Shroud of Turin" to bring us to God---for Christ did that at Calvary. The "Shroud" contributes nothing to the faith of the believer...who needs only the INSPIRED Word of God  [2 Timothy 3:16].


Marcello

Quote from: Marcello9 on Sat Dec 12, 2009 - 02:25:29

BOTTOM LINE: Christians have NO NEED of a "Shroud of Turin" to bring us to God---for Christ did that at Calvary. The "Shroud" contributes nothing to the faith of the believer...who needs only the INSPIRED Word of God  [2 Timothy 3:16].

Marcello

2 Timothy 3:16 doesn't say we need only the inspired word of God. I can't understand why sola scriptura advocates keep trotting out this as though it were some sort of proof text for that man made doctrine.

Quote from: winsome on Sat Dec 12, 2009 - 08:03:39

Quote from: Marcello9 on Sat Dec 12, 2009 - 02:25:29

BOTTOM LINE: Christians have NO NEED of a "Shroud of Turin" to bring us to God---for Christ did that at Calvary. The "Shroud" contributes nothing to the faith of the believer...who needs only the INSPIRED Word of God  [2 Timothy 3:16].

Marcello

2 Timothy 3:16 doesn't say we need only the inspired word of God. I can't understand why sola scriptura advocates keep trotting out this as though it were some sort of proof text for that man made doctrine.

***My apologies...but it is not a man-made doctrine for believers. Only those (such as yourself) who believe not the Scriptures claim it is a man-made doctrine...and I can't change that. Too...the citation [2 Timothy 3:16] does, indeed, say that it is all we need...albeit, I forgot to cite the next verse (v. 17): "That the man of God may be PERFECT, throughly furnished unto allo good works" [2 Timothy 3:17]. If we may be PERFECT then what more do we need? PERFECTION is the totality of it all.

Marcello 

Quote from: Marcello9 on Sat Dec 12, 2009 - 09:08:19

Quote from: winsome on Sat Dec 12, 2009 - 08:03:39

Quote from: Marcello9 on Sat Dec 12, 2009 - 02:25:29

BOTTOM LINE: Christians have NO NEED of a "Shroud of Turin" to bring us to God---for Christ did that at Calvary. The "Shroud" contributes nothing to the faith of the believer...who needs only the INSPIRED Word of God  [2 Timothy 3:16].

Marcello

2 Timothy 3:16 doesn't say we need only the inspired word of God. I can't understand why sola scriptura advocates keep trotting out this as though it were some sort of proof text for that man made doctrine.

***My apologies...but it is not a man-made doctrine for believers. Only those (such as yourself) who believe not the Scriptures claim it is a man-made doctrine...and I can't change that. Too...the citation [2 Timothy 3:16] does, indeed, say that it is all we need...albeit, I forgot to cite the next verse (v. 17): "That the man of God may be PERFECT, throughly furnished unto allo good works" [2 Timothy 3:17]. If we may be PERFECT then what more do we need? PERFECTION is the totality of it all.

Marcello  

Useful is not the same as sufficient. It says useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness. If it is only useful it is not sufficient, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work (vs 17) expands the purpose for which scripture is useful.

Please don't insult me by saying I don't believe the scriptures. What I don't believe are false interpretations.

*["Please don't insult me by saying I don't believe the scriptures. What I don't believe are false interpretations."]

***I don't post anyone with the intention of insulting them. However, I will NOT recant of what I said to you: "Only those (such as yourself) who believe not the Scriptures claim it is a man-made doctrine..."

Your argument that: "[2 Timothy 3:16-17] doesn't say the Bible is all sufficient" is NOT your argument---it is only an argument that you "borrowed" from someone else  [i.e., THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About The Orthodox Church, Clark Carlton, 1997, p.122] because you do NOT believe that the dictates of the Inspired Scriptures are sufficient enough for your salvation...and you require other "supplementary" methods in conjunction with the Scriptures. In other words...you do NOT believe that the Scriptures are INSPIRED of God!!! Let me REPEAT my accusation: You do NOT believe that the Scriptures are INSPIRED of God!!!

Your agenda in coming to this board is to DESTROY the Christian's TOTAL reliance upon the Word of God for his salvation, life, and daily walk in Christ Jesus to the glory of God the Father.

[2 Timothy 3:16-17] says that the man of God will be "thoroughly furnished unto ALL good works". It does NOT say that the man of God will be "thoroughly furnished unto MOST good works"...and it does NOT say that the man of God will be "PARTIALLY furnished unto good works." In other words there are NO good works that the Bible does not discuss. If we abide with Scripture...and Scripture alone---we need NOT look to oral traditions to learn about good works.

ONLY the Scriptures have God's SEAL of AUTHORITY...ALL other sources do NOT. Since that AUTHORITY is attributed to the Scriptures ALONE...only they are to be relied upon in ALL things pertaining to God...and that is the name of that tune!!!

Marcello

Quote from: Marcello9 on Sun Dec 13, 2009 - 06:08:03
*["Please don't insult me by saying I don't believe the scriptures. What I don't believe are false interpretations."]

***I don't post anyone with the intention of insulting them. However, I will NOT recant of what I said to you: "Only those (such as yourself) who believe not the Scriptures claim it is a man-made doctrine..."

Your argument that: "[2 Timothy 3:16-17] doesn't say the Bible is all sufficient" is NOT your argument---it is only an argument that you "borrowed" from someone else  [i.e., THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About The Orthodox Church, Clark Carlton, 1997, p.122] because you do NOT believe that the dictates of the Inspired Scriptures are sufficient enough for your salvation...and you require other "supplementary" methods in conjunction with the Scriptures. In other words...you do NOT believe that the Scriptures are INSPIRED of God!!! Let me REPEAT my accusation: You do NOT believe that the Scriptures are INSPIRED of God!!!

Your agenda in coming to this board is to DESTROY the Christian's TOTAL reliance upon the Word of God for his salvation, life, and daily walk in Christ Jesus to the glory of God the Father.

[2 Timothy 3:16-17] says that the man of God will be "thoroughly furnished unto ALL good works". It does NOT say that the man of God will be "thoroughly furnished unto MOST good works"...and it does NOT say that the man of God will be "PARTIALLY furnished unto good works." In other words there are NO good works that the Bible does not discuss. If we abide with Scripture...and Scripture alone---we need NOT look to oral traditions to learn about good works.

ONLY the Scriptures have God's SEAL of AUTHORITY...ALL other sources do NOT. Since that AUTHORITY is attributed to the Scriptures ALONE...only they are to be relied upon in ALL things pertaining to God...and that is the name of that tune!!!

Marcello

You do insult me but then Catholics have to get use to insult by Protestants because they have no love for Christ's Church and in rebellion against it. I have not borrowed my comments from THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About The Orthodox Church, Clark Carlton, 1997, p.122 as I have never read it and I am not an Orthodox. Scripture Alone is a man made doctrine first promulgated by Martin Luther in the 16th century. For 1500 years no Christian believed that.

Quote from: ONLY the Scriptures have God's SEAL of AUTHORITY...ALL other sources do NOT. Since that AUTHORITY is attributed to the Scriptures ALONE...only they are to be relied upon in ALL things pertaining to God...and that is the name of that tune!!!

Jesus did not say read my book, he said listen to my words. Those words were passed on by word of mouth as Jesus left no written word. You take the scriptures, produced by and canonised by the Catholic Church and then reject the Church that produced them as you reject those that Jesus left to teach. But then you are unteachable because you are in rebellion.

Quote from: mjrhealth on Sat Nov 21, 2009 - 18:58:56
What is it I dont understand, there are people who spend a fortune running all over the world visiting so called sacred sites, kissing so called relics, thinking that they are pleasing God, yet they wont take 5 min of their own time to just sit at His feet and love Him. I would love for God to prove Himself to me, but if He does not it wont make my walk with Him any different. " Happy are those who have not seeing and yet believe for theres is the Kingdom of heaven".

In His LOve

spot on.  thanks for the living word.

sufficient IS NOT the same as completeness or totality.  evwn paul stated that there was meat, there was much more to be said, but the carnal believers couldn't receive it, so he didn't give it.  do we actually believe that there is nothing more to God than what was given in the word to a lost world and struggling believers?

*["...You do insult me but then Catholics have to get use to insult by Protestants because they have no love for Christ's Church and in rebellion against it..."]

***The Roman Catholic Church is NOT Christ's Church. The Bible tells us plainly that Christ's Church is "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets...Christ Jesus Himself being the CHIEF CORNERSTONE" [Ephesians 2:20]...and again, "For other foundation can NO MAN lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ" [1 Corinthians 3:11]...and again, "And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual ROCK that followed them: and that ROCK was CHRIST" [1 Corinthians 10:4]. Without that FOUNDATION (Jesus Christ) the TRUE Christian church could not exist. 

I cannot speak for Protestants because there are also Protestant sects that are also APOSTATE in their beliefs. However, I can speak for Biblical Christianity (being a Biblical Christian) when I say that Roman Catholicism is NOT a Biblically based religion...and, as such, is in OPPOSITION to it's dictates!!! THAT is precisely why you do NOT believe in "Sola Scriptura" and come to this board to rail against it.   

*["...Scripture Alone is a man made doctrine first promulgated by Martin Luther in the 16th century. For 1500 years no Christian believed that..."]

***Again you are in error not knowing the Scriptures...nor believing them. The doctrine of "Sola Scriptura" is an old one having it's roots in the Old Testament looooooooong BEFORE Martin Luther thought about it...to wit: "And that from a child thou hast known the HOLY SCRIPTURES, which are ABLE to make thee WISE unto SALVATION through FAITH which is in Christ Jesus" [2 Timothy 3:15]. 

*["Jesus did not say read my book, he said listen to my words. Those words were passed on by word of mouth as Jesus left no written word..."]

***Bellarmine was in error and so are you for mouthing the same nonsense. It would have been impossible for those traditions to have been handed down with accuracy generation after generation by word of mouth and in an atmosphere dark with superstition and immorality such as characterized the entire Church, laity and priesthood alike, through long periods of its history. And there is NO PROOF whatsoever that they were so transmitted. It is clear that the bulk of these traditions originated with the monks during the Middle Ages.

When the leaders of the Reformation appealed to Scripture against the errors of the Catholic Church, your church had to defend herself...and since she could not do so from the Bible alone, she resorted to other writings. The result is that the most prominent doctrines and practices of your church...such as purgatory, the priesthood, the Mass, transubstantiation, prayers for the dead, indulgences, penance, worship of the Virgin Mary, the use of images in worship, holy water, rosary beads, celibacy, etc., are founded solely on tradition.

It is on such a basis as this that your church seeks to establish herself as "the only true church." The Bible has nothing to say about the pope or the papacy as an institution; and it is emphatic and uncompromising in its commands against the use of images or idols in worship. It is natural that your church does not want to give up tradition...for it CANNOT. If it were to give up tradition the whole system would FALL like a deck of cards...for so much of its doctrine and practice has NO OTHER FOUNDATION!!!

*["You take the scriptures, produced by and canonised by the Catholic Church and then reject the Church that produced them..."]

***AGAIN you do error.  The Scriptures were NOT produced NOR canonized by the Catholic Church...to wit:
(1)There was NO pope as such in 397 A.D. It was not until the Council of Chalcedon, in 451, that the bishop of Rome was designated pope, and the authority of the bishop of Rome never has been acknowledged by the Eastern Churches. Previous to that time ALL priests and bishops were called popes (i.e., papa), and in the Eastern Churches that title is applied to ordinary priests even to this present day. The Council of Chalcedon attempted to restrict the title exclusively to the bishop of Rome, who at that time was Leo I...and conferred it posthumously on all previous bishops of Rome in order to make it appear that an unbroken succession of popes had proceeded from Rome.
(2)The New Testament was produced during the first century and had assumed its present form centuries BEFORE the Catholic Church developed its distinctive characteristics. At that time the Eastern Churches were dominant in Christian affairs, and the Church of Rome was relatively insignificant. Gregory I who was consecrated pope in 590 and died in 604, was in effect the founder of the papal system. He reorganized the church, revised the ritual, restored the monastic discipline, attempted to enforce celibacy among the clergy, and extended the authority of the Roman Church into many countries adjacent to Italy.


Marcello

Quote from: Marcello9 on Sat Dec 12, 2009 - 02:25:29



***My apologies...but you are in error

The Isrealites were provided with the bread of life in the desert for many years...but revolted against God who provided for their provision and were not grateful. The Lord provided the "bronze serpent" to bring them to REPENTANCE and to forgive them their trespasses against Him. This bronze serpent was a veiled prediction of Jesus' death on the cross. Just as those who looked at the snake which was "lifted up" were healed and lived PHYSICALLY...those of us today who look to CHRIST---who was "lifted up" on the cross---will live SPIRITUALLY and ETERNALLY.

For your information, that bronze serpent was DESTROYED when the Israelites started to worship it (See 2 KIngs 18:4).  And are we not supposed to worship Jesus who is God?  The fact is...God allowed a statue to be built so that whoever looked at the statue would be healed, but it was also clear that the statue was NOT to be worshiped.  Jesus, however, is a dfferent story.   Jesus, however, is God and He is to be worshiped.  The image that Christ left behind as He resurrect from the dead, however, is NOT to be worship.  Why?  Because God is not an image on a cloth.  But like the bronze serpent, the shroud is pointing toward God.

QuoteBOTTOM LINE: Christians have NO NEED of a "Shroud of Turin" to bring us to God---for Christ did that at Calvary. The "Shroud" contributes nothing to the faith of the believer...who needs only the INSPIRED Word of God  [2 Timothy 3:16].

My friend, the Word of God is not a book.  The Word of God actually has a name.  His name is Jesus Christ and He existed before the Bible was put together.  You say that Christians have no need for a Shroud of Turin to bring them to God.  Well, the Apostles didn't have the Bible at all.  They didn't need the Bible because they had the Holy Spirit with them and guiding them all that time.  During the time of the Apostles, the Scriptures that existed was the Jewish Torah, but the Apostles preached through the Holy Spirit.  The Bible did not exist until the 4th century long after the Apostles were dead.  As a matter of fact, the LIVING Word of God existed even BEFORE the Jewish Torah was written!  So, what is the difference between us who look to an image of Christ and you who look to a book that existed until the 4th Century long after the Apostles were dead? 

You say that you ONLY need the INSPIRED Word of God.  My friend, don't you think that you should look to the LIVING Word of God instead?  The LIVING Word of God has a name, and His name is Jesus Christ whom the Apostles had in them.  His name is not "Holy Bible."  His name is Jesus Christ, and He is "living."  Christ was never a book.  Since when did Christianity become a religion of the book?  Is not Christianity a religon of the LIVING Word....a Word that is living and incarnated?

Quote from: Marcello9 on Mon Dec 14, 2009 - 06:03:45

***The Roman Catholic Church is NOT Christ's Church. The Bible tells us plainly that Christ's Church is "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets...Christ Jesus Himself being the CHIEF CORNERSTONE" [Ephesians 2:20]...and again, "For other foundation can NO MAN lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ" [1 Corinthians 3:11]...and again, "And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual ROCK that followed them: and that ROCK was CHRIST" [1 Corinthians 10:4]. Without that FOUNDATION (Jesus Christ) the TRUE Christian church could not exist. 

The Catholic Church is the church that Christ founded. Its bishops are the successors of the Apostles (upon which, as you quote, the Church is built on) and the Pope is the successor of St. Peter. This is both scriptural and historical.

Quote from: Marcello9 on Mon Dec 14, 2009 - 06:03:45
I cannot speak for Protestants because there are also Protestant sects that are also APOSTATE in their beliefs. However, I can speak for Biblical Christianity (being a Biblical Christian) when I say that Roman Catholicism is NOT a Biblically based religion...and, as such, is in OPPOSITION to it's dictates!!! THAT is precisely why you do NOT believe in "Sola Scriptura" and come to this board to rail against it. 

Catholic teaching is based on the word of God handed down by the Apostles in Scripture and Tradition. It is the fullness of the truth, not just that part written down during he apostolic era. I'm sorry you just exist on a partial truth, and that falsely interrelated in many instances. But that is your choice.

Quote from: Marcello9 on Mon Dec 14, 2009 - 06:03:45
***Again you are in error not knowing the Scriptures...nor believing them. The doctrine of "Sola Scriptura" is an old one having it's roots in the Old Testament looooooooong BEFORE Martin Luther thought about it...to wit: "And that from a child thou hast known the HOLY SCRIPTURES, which are ABLE to make thee WISE unto SALVATION through FAITH which is in Christ Jesus" [2 Timothy 3:15]. 

The word  alone or only does not appear in that statement. Moreover Paul was speaking about the Old Testament. At the very time he wrote that he was expounding the gospel orally.  Those Paul converted he taught orally, not by reading from books.

In that same letter that you quoted Paul says to Timothy

Hold to the standard of sound teaching that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. (2Tim 1:13) Paul has given Timothy sound teaching. Timothy heard it, not read it.

"Guard the good treasure entrusted  to you, with the help of the Holy Spirit living in us.

Quote from: winsome on Mon Dec 14, 2009 - 09:53:27

The Catholic Church is the church that Christ founded. Its bishops are the successors of the Apostles (upon which, as you quote, the Church is built on) and the Pope is the successor of St. Peter. This is both scriptural and historical.

Actually you cannot prove either.

The Church Peter started was in Jerusalem and then he spent most of his time ministering to the Jews that fled the Roman occupation to the ruins of Babylon (Peter even says so.. Babylon is not a code name for Rome like the Catholics would like to tell you).  When he was in Babylon it was James who led the Jerusalem Church.

It wasn't until it was politically necessary by the Roman Empire that the Church was 'moved' to Rome.. then they bent history to try and cover their tracks.

Quote from: Marcello9 on Mon Dec 14, 2009 - 06:03:45
*["...You do insult me but then Catholics have to get use to insult by Protestants because they have no love for Christ's Church and in rebellion against it..."]

***The Roman Catholic Church is NOT Christ's Church. The Bible tells us plainly that Christ's Church is "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets...Christ Jesus Himself being the CHIEF CORNERSTONE" [Ephesians 2:20]...and again, "For other foundation can NO MAN lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ" [1 Corinthians 3:11]...and again, "And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual ROCK that followed them: and that ROCK was CHRIST" [1 Corinthians 10:4]. Without that FOUNDATION (Jesus Christ) the TRUE Christian church could not exist. 

I cannot speak for Protestants because there are also Protestant sects that are also APOSTATE in their beliefs. However, I can speak for Biblical Christianity (being a Biblical Christian) when I say that Roman Catholicism is NOT a Biblically based religion...and, as such, is in OPPOSITION to it's dictates!!! THAT is precisely why you do NOT believe in "Sola Scriptura" and come to this board to rail against it.   

*["...Scripture Alone is a man made doctrine first promulgated by Martin Luther in the 16th century. For 1500 years no Christian believed that..."]

***Again you are in error not knowing the Scriptures...nor believing them. The doctrine of "Sola Scriptura" is an old one having it's roots in the Old Testament looooooooong BEFORE Martin Luther thought about it...to wit: "And that from a child thou hast known the HOLY SCRIPTURES, which are ABLE to make thee WISE unto SALVATION through FAITH which is in Christ Jesus" [2 Timothy 3:15]. 

*["Jesus did not say read my book, he said listen to my words. Those words were passed on by word of mouth as Jesus left no written word..."]

***Bellarmine was in error and so are you for mouthing the same nonsense. It would have been impossible for those traditions to have been handed down with accuracy generation after generation by word of mouth and in an atmosphere dark with superstition and immorality such as characterized the entire Church, laity and priesthood alike, through long periods of its history. And there is NO PROOF whatsoever that they were so transmitted. It is clear that the bulk of these traditions originated with the monks during the Middle Ages.

When the leaders of the Reformation appealed to Scripture against the errors of the Catholic Church, your church had to defend herself...and since she could not do so from the Bible alone, she resorted to other writings. The result is that the most prominent doctrines and practices of your church...such as purgatory, the priesthood, the Mass, transubstantiation, prayers for the dead, indulgences, penance, worship of the Virgin Mary, the use of images in worship, holy water, rosary beads, celibacy, etc., are founded solely on tradition.

It is on such a basis as this that your church seeks to establish herself as "the only true church." The Bible has nothing to say about the pope or the papacy as an institution; and it is emphatic and uncompromising in its commands against the use of images or idols in worship. It is natural that your church does not want to give up tradition...for it CANNOT. If it were to give up tradition the whole system would FALL like a deck of cards...for so much of its doctrine and practice has NO OTHER FOUNDATION!!!

*["You take the scriptures, produced by and canonised by the Catholic Church and then reject the Church that produced them..."]

***AGAIN you do error.  The Scriptures were NOT produced NOR canonized by the Catholic Church...to wit:
(1)There was NO pope as such in 397 A.D. It was not until the Council of Chalcedon, in 451, that the bishop of Rome was designated pope, and the authority of the bishop of Rome never has been acknowledged by the Eastern Churches. Previous to that time ALL priests and bishops were called popes (i.e., papa), and in the Eastern Churches that title is applied to ordinary priests even to this present day. The Council of Chalcedon attempted to restrict the title exclusively to the bishop of Rome, who at that time was Leo I...and conferred it posthumously on all previous bishops of Rome in order to make it appear that an unbroken succession of popes had proceeded from Rome.
(2)The New Testament was produced during the first century and had assumed its present form centuries BEFORE the Catholic Church developed its distinctive characteristics. At that time the Eastern Churches were dominant in Christian affairs, and the Church of Rome was relatively insignificant. Gregory I who was consecrated pope in 590 and died in 604, was in effect the founder of the papal system. He reorganized the church, revised the ritual, restored the monastic discipline, attempted to enforce celibacy among the clergy, and extended the authority of the Roman Church into many countries adjacent to Italy.


Marcello

Marcdello

Here are a list of the topics that you have thrown out like confetti in this post. Rather than clog up this thread any further why don't you bring them up, one at a time, in the Catholic Forum (in whatever order you like). There you can get to understand them all.

You won't of course because you would rather hang on to your prejudices than know the truth about these things.

Apostolic Succession
Tradition
Origin of the Catholic Church
Role of the Pope
Canonisation of Scripture
Purgatory
Priesthood
The Mass
Transubstantiation
Prayers for the dead
Indulgences
Penance
"Worship

Quote from: winsome on Mon Dec 14, 2009 - 12:24:20

Quote from: Marcello9 on Mon Dec 14, 2009 - 06:03:45
*["...You do insult me but then Catholics have to get use to insult by Protestants because they have no love for Christ's Church and in rebellion against it..."]

***The Roman Catholic Church is NOT Christ's Church. The Bible tells us plainly that Christ's Church is "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets...Christ Jesus Himself being the CHIEF CORNERSTONE" [Ephesians 2:20]...and again, "For other foundation can NO MAN lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ" [1 Corinthians 3:11]...and again, "And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual ROCK that followed them: and that ROCK was CHRIST" [1 Corinthians 10:4]. Without that FOUNDATION (Jesus Christ) the TRUE Christian church could not exist. 

I cannot speak for Protestants because there are also Protestant sects that are also APOSTATE in their beliefs. However, I can speak for Biblical Christianity (being a Biblical Christian) when I say that Roman Catholicism is NOT a Biblically based religion...and, as such, is in OPPOSITION to it's dictates!!! THAT is precisely why you do NOT believe in "Sola Scriptura" and come to this board to rail against it.   

*["...Scripture Alone is a man made doctrine first promulgated by Martin Luther in the 16th century. For 1500 years no Christian believed that..."]

***Again you are in error not knowing the Scriptures...nor believing them. The doctrine of "Sola Scriptura" is an old one having it's roots in the Old Testament looooooooong BEFORE Martin Luther thought about it...to wit: "And that from a child thou hast known the HOLY SCRIPTURES, which are ABLE to make thee WISE unto SALVATION through FAITH which is in Christ Jesus" [2 Timothy 3:15]. 

*["Jesus did not say read my book, he said listen to my words. Those words were passed on by word of mouth as Jesus left no written word..."]

***Bellarmine was in error and so are you for mouthing the same nonsense. It would have been impossible for those traditions to have been handed down with accuracy generation after generation by word of mouth and in an atmosphere dark with superstition and immorality such as characterized the entire Church, laity and priesthood alike, through long periods of its history. And there is NO PROOF whatsoever that they were so transmitted. It is clear that the bulk of these traditions originated with the monks during the Middle Ages.

When the leaders of the Reformation appealed to Scripture against the errors of the Catholic Church, your church had to defend herself...and since she could not do so from the Bible alone, she resorted to other writings. The result is that the most prominent doctrines and practices of your church...such as purgatory, the priesthood, the Mass, transubstantiation, prayers for the dead, indulgences, penance, worship of the Virgin Mary, the use of images in worship, holy water, rosary beads, celibacy, etc., are founded solely on tradition.

It is on such a basis as this that your church seeks to establish herself as "the only true church." The Bible has nothing to say about the pope or the papacy as an institution; and it is emphatic and uncompromising in its commands against the use of images or idols in worship. It is natural that your church does not want to give up tradition...for it CANNOT. If it were to give up tradition the whole system would FALL like a deck of cards...for so much of its doctrine and practice has NO OTHER FOUNDATION!!!

*["You take the scriptures, produced by and canonised by the Catholic Church and then reject the Church that produced them..."]

***AGAIN you do error.  The Scriptures were NOT produced NOR canonized by the Catholic Church...to wit:
(1)There was NO pope as such in 397 A.D. It was not until the Council of Chalcedon, in 451, that the bishop of Rome was designated pope, and the authority of the bishop of Rome never has been acknowledged by the Eastern Churches. Previous to that time ALL priests and bishops were called popes (i.e., papa), and in the Eastern Churches that title is applied to ordinary priests even to this present day. The Council of Chalcedon attempted to restrict the title exclusively to the bishop of Rome, who at that time was Leo I...and conferred it posthumously on all previous bishops of Rome in order to make it appear that an unbroken succession of popes had proceeded from Rome.
(2)The New Testament was produced during the first century and had assumed its present form centuries BEFORE the Catholic Church developed its distinctive characteristics. At that time the Eastern Churches were dominant in Christian affairs, and the Church of Rome was relatively insignificant. Gregory I who was consecrated pope in 590 and died in 604, was in effect the founder of the papal system. He reorganized the church, revised the ritual, restored the monastic discipline, attempted to enforce celibacy among the clergy, and extended the authority of the Roman Church into many countries adjacent to Italy.


Marcello

Marcdello

Here are a list of the topics that you have thrown out like confetti in this post. Rather than clog up this thread any further why don't you bring them up, one at a time, in the Catholic Forum (in whatever order you like). There you can get to understand them all.

You won't of course because you would rather hang on to your prejudices than know the truth about these things.

Apostolic Succession
Tradition
Origin of the Catholic Church
Role of the Pope
Canonisation of Scripture
Purgatory
Priesthood
The Mass
Transubstantiation
Prayers for the dead
Indulgences
Penance
"Worship

Quote from: Marcello9 on Mon Dec 14, 2009 - 13:04:45

***No. Lets bring up the topic of the "mass" right here on this thread...without any support from your Catholic "brethren" on the Catholic Forum.

Marcello

I can give you three reasons why that is not a good idea.

1. Whilst we aften digress in threads, to deliberately sidetrack someones topic into a new one is not polite or within the spirit of the forum.

2. I'm off for Christmas in just over a week. The Mass is a huge topic and in that time we will barely scratch the surface. I suggest it would be better left until the New Year.

3. The point of the Catholic Forum, as I understand the purpose of such specialised forums, is keep topics specific to one group from clogging up the main boards.

*["The Catholic Church is the church that Christ founded. Its bishops are the successors of the Apostles (upon which, as you quote, the Church is built on) and the Pope is the successor of St. Peter. This is both scriptural and historical."]

***The Catholic Church is NOT the Church that Christ founded [Ephesians 2:20]...and its bishops are NOT the sucessors of the Apostles [Ephesians 2:20]..and the pope is NOT the successor of St. Peter [1 Corinthians 3:11;10:4]--->and that IS scriptural and historical!!! You are truly BLIND to REALITY and DENY the EVIDENCE that is provided and displayed before your very eyes!!! This gives credence to the Scripture that says: "And with all deceivableness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong DELUSION, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness" [2 Thessalonians  2:10-12].

BOTTOM LINE: According to the Scriptures...the Catholic Church is NOT nor can BE the Church that the Lord Jesus Christ built. That is the REAL REASON that the Catholic Church REJECTS "Sola Scriptura"...and is the SOURCE of Scriptural REJECTION...because they FEAR the LIGHT of the Scriptures that EXPOSE their ERRORS!!

*["Catholic teaching is based on the word of God handed down by the Apostles in Scripture and Tradition. It is the fullness of the truth, not just that part written down during he apostolic era. I'm sorry you just exist on a partial truth, and that falsely interrelated in many instances. But that is your choice."]

***We have already discussed this and you are just regurgitating what you have been programmed to believe by the Magisterium. You are just reading from a script that has NO "thus saith the Lord" attached to it...and, as such, is NOT Inspired of God. Your church is built on the doctrines of fallible and depraved men...but NOT on the sure Word of God [2 Timothy 3:16].

Yes it is my choice...and I thank God Almighty for His mercy toward me.

*["The word alone or only does not appear in that statement. Moreover Paul was speaking about the Old Testament. At the very time he wrote that he was expounding the gospel orally.  Those Paul converted he taught orally, not by reading from books."]

***AGAIN you do err. Your assertion that the words "alone" and "only" do not appear in the statement is only a STRAWMAN that you present because you well know that adding them would only be a redundancy. It is only a diversion on your part because you have no biblical support for your arguments.

Timothy was taught the truths of the OT Scriptures from childhood...so that he was ready to receive the gospel from Paul who (no doubt, had a copy of the OT) preached it. The OT scriptures pointed to Christ [John 5:37-39] and revealed the need for FAITH in God's promises [Genesis 15:6;Romans 4:1-3]. Thus, they were able to lead people to acknowledge their sin and need for justification in Christ [Galatians 3:24]. Salvation is brought by the Holy Spirit using the Word of God [Romans 10:14-17;Ephesians 5:26,27;1 Peter 1:23-25]. Though not understanding all the details involved [1 Peter 1:10-12], OT believers including Abraham [John 8:56] and Moses [Hebrews 11:26] looked forward to the coming of the Messiah [Isaiah 7:14;9:6] and His atonement for sin [Isaiah 53:5,6]...so did Timothy, who responded when he heard the gospel.

*["You really don't have a clue do you. You know virtually nothing of the Catholic Church, just distortions you have garnered from anti-Catholic web sites. And you seem to have very little grasp of history either."]

***Are you kidding me? I was born of Italian immigrants and attended Catholic schools through college...so I know from whence I speak....that is why I can speak to you from knowledge and not from hearsay. I know the mindset of the Catholic...he is ignorant of the things of God and conditioned from youth to swallow everything put before him...under the threat of eternal damnation for doubting the teaching and dictates of the "only trur church"...so go peddle that nonsense to somebody as ignorant as you are to the reality of the Scriptures...that you apparently don't understand and REJECT. Your Church is a FALSE Church and so are ALL of its doctrines for they are predicated on  the Traditions of MEN and NOT of God.

Please do not post me again...I do not wish to have verbal discussions (Deleted as unacceptable personal attack - Please do not repeat such baiting tactics)

Marcello

Quote from: Tantor on Mon Dec 14, 2009 - 10:40:48

Actually you cannot prove either.

The Church Peter started was in Jerusalem and then he spent most of his time ministering to the Jews that fled the Roman occupation to the ruins of Babylon (Peter even says so.. Babylon is not a code name for Rome like the Catholics would like to tell you).  When he was in Babylon it was James who led the Jerusalem Church.

It wasn't until it was politically necessary by the Roman Empire that the Church was 'moved' to Rome.. then they bent history to try and cover their tracks.

This doesn't make any sense.  Babylon was known as Rome during biblical times.  How can the Roman Empire move the Church to Rome when the Roman Empire didn't believe in Christ.  They were pagans who persecuted the Christians.   

Quote from: Marcello9 on Mon Dec 14, 2009 - 16:37:36

Please do not post me again...I do not wish to have verbal discussions with PUPPETS or with IDOLATERS.

Marcello

Whatever happened to the teachings of the Bible and to the teachings of Christ?  Didn't Jesus say to love your neighbors?  Jesus loved all sinners and even died for them.  Didn't he also say not to judge others? 

Quote from: Selene on Mon Dec 14, 2009 - 19:29:59

Quote from: Marcello9 on Mon Dec 14, 2009 - 16:37:36

Please do not post me again...I do not wish to have verbal discussions with PUPPETS or with IDOLATERS.

Marcello

Whatever happened to the teachings of the Bible and to the teachings of Christ?  Didn't Jesus say to love your neighbors?  Jesus loved all sinners and even died for them.  Didn't he also say not to judge others? 

***I was raised as a Catholic...so I know of a certainty what they believe. What they believe is IDOLATROUS. Winsome's responses are right out of the Catholic handbook (a copy of which I have in my formerly nicotine-stained hands). Too, all of Catholic doctrine is in direct OPPOSITION to the dictates of Scripture.

BOTTOM LINE: He does not have to worry about what I say for I am just a man...his problem will be what he will have to account for when he comes face-to-face with the Lord Jesus Christ--->the REAL judge.

I believe you are also Catholic. Am I correct on this?

Marcello

QuoteWhat they believe is IDOLATROUS.

Well, you may have been raised with the label of Catholic, but if you think what I quoted from you above, then you don't know the most basic of Catholic beliefs or you would realise what complete rubbish your statement is.  I was raised Protestant and I learned that Catholics did not worship idols as a matter of Dogma of the Church in my first Catechism classes.