RELIGION

[dacs]

But The clergymen of the RCC are also self-interpreters of the Bible!
No different than Jehovah's Witnesses or authors of THE REMNANT who have very carnal conceptions of the apocalypse.

You're funny, you know that? How could someone who have been sent be a 'self-interpreter' (as you put it)? They , the priests and bishops, have been sent (Romans 10:13-15) - and they can really trace the 'sending' back to the apostles? They are therefore the ones who have the authority to teach as well as to proclaim. Could you trace the 'sending' of your pastors (or whatever you may call them) back to the apostle? Please cite widely-accepted scholarship.

give me widely accepted scholarly sources

A requirement like that might be the case... but in some cases, 1 Cor. 3: 19, and Matt. 11: 25-26 should be given some consideration.

Escaping again?

Galatians 1: 8 Doesn't the RCC preach a different Gospel from the one already preached?

You are assuming too much, bro. In fact, your assumption can never be proven simply because it did not and does not exist nor will it ever come into existence. Sorry, bro.

Even God commends the Philadelphians who responded rather skeptically and rebelliously against what Ignatius thought that was extraBiblical (Rev. 3: 8 ) Ignatius was so heartbroken, he the whole RCC and yourself call it "schism".

Which part Revelation 3:7-13 are you referring to with regards to Ignatius? Since you are into 'extra-biblical' things, what book in the Bible actually list down what should be in it? Where in the Bible does it say that the Bible alone is the sole rule of faith? Prove that 'Bible-only as the rule of faith' is biblically based.

And prove your claims regarding St. Ignatius, bro. I assume that we are referring to the same Ignatius, the bishop of Antioch after Peter. Prove also that he was so heart-broken regarding the whatever affair you are referring to - or they just words of a man who has nothing?

It was nothing less than their obedience to Paul's admonitions not to go beyond what is written (1 Cor. 4: 6, 2 Jn. 9)

Your assertions have no consistency and clarity. Present your side the best you can and in an orderly manner. Or is this the best you can do and clearest you can go? Is this what you refer to as 'intelligent discussion'?

I see that you won't give Lasala a chance because he is just some obscure priest without any authority outside his bishop?

Have you ever, ever read any of my posts with the honesty of a seeker of truth? You have never given us the credentials of the person you refer to as Bro. Lasala, and you want us to listen to him? Who is the best source of information? The ones who experienced the event and lived the times or the people who are almost two thousand years removed from all those things? I have read the witness of the early Christians and it unanimously says that only in the Catholic Church will you find the fullness of truth. Tell me now : what is the greatest credential of Bro. Lasala? Who can verify that?

I'm sorry I might have misquoted you.... but anyway the apostles weren't teachers of the law either, they were what you would call "lay men" made up of fishermen, tax collectors et cetera. The Pharisees and other sects didn't give them a chance (at least most of them) because they have the biased notion against the rather "unlearned" and "unscholarly".

Are you serious? No Christian will ever have the guts to call the apostles laymen. The apostles (from the Greek word apostello - "to send forth") are the first bishops of the Church and are the only ones authorized to 'send forth' anyone to proclaim the good news (as with 2 Tim. 2:1-2 – "So you, my child, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And what you have heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well").

Every Christian is to consider where they learned the gospels from (refer to 2 Tim. 3:14 – "...remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it..."). Remember that the imposition of the hand is necessary before anyone is sent (2 Tim. 1:6 – "I remind you to stir into flame the gift of God that you have through the imposition of my hands"; Acts 6:6 – "They presented these men to the apostles who prayed and laid hands on them").

http://onemediator.4t.com/whats_new.html

I'll end up quoting that article unconsciously anyway I might even quote from Pezzota or Josephine Quiño but what if I considered the article "my argument"? Since it's there... I don't have a copy of Pezzota or Quiño online and other articles aren't that very profound... just give it a chance.

Why quote those people, bro? Have they been sent? By whom? Why not go to the early Christian witnesses?

By faith we are given the Spirit (Gal. 3: 14) that teaches the only one that can teach (1 Jn. 2: 27), the only way to attain that level of understanding in accuracy or virtual innerance is to understand the Holy One of Israel (Pro. 9: 10) and the entirety of His Word, that is TRUTH (Ps. 119: 160)

So you deny Ephesians 10:3, 1 Timothy 3:15, 1 John 4:6 and Matthew 18:15-18? They all said that it is the Church that we must listen to. In Luke 11:17, the reality of the division among Protestant denominations is a clear manifestation of the verse. If the Holy Spirit have guided the Catholic Church in finalizing the canon of the Bible, then the Holy Spirit is in the Catholic Church and forever will be in the Catholic Church - or else Christ lied in John 14:16-18, 25. The Catholic Church did not, cannot and will not teach any error in matters of faith and morals. Christ promised that the Holy Spirit will abide with His church and will guide her to all truth.

If the Holy Spirit is abiding in a Protestant church, which one? Surely, not all because you will be making the Holy Spirit as fickle-minded. He guides one Protestant church to say that baptism is necessary for salvation while telling another Protestant church that this is not the case. Voila! You have an assortment of churches who call themselves Christians. Luther actually 'saw' what the future holds for this belief of Bible-alone.

Yes, your comparison of those who reject hierarchy in the Old Testament is valid, and history does have it's pattern but sometimes there are things that cannot be defined by what we see hear, taste and smell and those who are ignorant to it can never understand (1 Cor. 2: 14)

And who has the authority to judge that, you or the Church? Who will make the ignorant know and understand, you or the Church? Who was commissioned by Christ to judgement regarding matters of faith and morals, you or the Church?

Suppose I told you, Dacs that the Catholic Church is just like any other denomination only filled with excess baggage..... and suppose there was an explanation a clear-cut explanation of the proliferating miracles involving "Mary" or the Eucharist, supported by the Divine Mercy and archangel visions?

Suppose I tell you that the 'excess baggage' you keep referring to is never an excess baggage but have always been part of Christianity (and I can prove that, both biblically and historically - remembering though that not all things Christian are in the Bible but always remembering that any thing considered Christian should never contradict what is in the Bible).

http://onemediator.4t.com/whats_new.html

My hierarchy? The line I come from? I'm just one of the living stones (1 Pet. 2: 4) that make up the Holy temple that rises with other believers with Christ as the chief foundation and cornerstone (Eph. 2: 20, 21) and Rock (1 Cor. 10: 4, Deut. 32: 4, 15, NAB) the Holy Temple that God pours His Holy Spirit. (1 Cor. 6: 19, Eph. 2: 18-22)

Are you being funny or being rude? That view would allow anyone who can read the Bible - even if his beliefs are contrary to Christianity - make the claim that he or she is indeed Christian. Hear these words from someone who lived during the 3rd century :

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ He says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven.’ And again He says to him after His resurrection: ‘Feed my sheep.’ On him He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?�

St. Cyprian, AD 251
The Unity of the Catholic Church

Like I said there are some things that cannot be defined by what is visible and tangible exempli gratia history that could be 50% authentic or 50% fictitious. (1 Cor. 2: 14) But we can use Scripture as the weighing scale of discerning spiritual truths. (2 Tim. 3: 16, 1 Thes. 5: 21)

Did St. Paul use Scripture to arrive at a decision? No. Read Acts 15:30-31 and 16:4. What did St. Paul (and St. Barnabas) do? He followed and delivered the decision arrived at the Council of Jerusalem described in Acts 15:1-29. The apostles and elders (now, the bishops of the Catholic Church) are to meet to decide what the Church is to believe in matters of faith and morals.

Shalom.

[Obese Bo Ricardo]

Are you serious?Â* No Christian will ever have the guts to call the apostles laymen.Â* The apostles (from the Greek word apostello - "to send forth") are the first bishops of the Church and are the only authorized to 'send forth' anyone to proclaim the good news (as with 2 Tim. 2:1-2 – "So you, my child, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus.Â* And what you have heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well").

So you deny Ephesians 10:3, 1 Timothy 3:15, 1 John 4:6 and Matthew 18:15-18?Â* They all said that it is the Church that we must listen to.Â* In Luke 11:17,

We are the branches, all believers are no longer foreigners but are members of the household that is Israel of God - Eph. 2: 19 Paul assures us this.

Nope but they used to be... and Christ didn't appoint those who were supposedly more "learned" and holding more "authority" in his time. Peter and the other's apostleship were securely fastened like a peg. No one else can claim it or succession from it.

Have you ever, ever read any of my posts with the honesty of a seeker of truth?Â* You have never given us the credentials of the person you refer to as Bro. Lasala, and you want us to listen to him?Â* Who is the best source of information?Â* The ones who experienced the event and live the times or the people who are almost two thousand years removed from all those things?Â* I have read the witness of the early Christians and it unanimously says that only in the Catholic Church will you find the fullness of truth.Â* Tell me now : what is the greatest credential of Bro. Lasala?Â* Who can verify that?

You have a point but just because it has the testimony of many doesn't necessarily make something Truth. Matt. 7: 13 And test all things. Hold fast what is good. 1 Thes. 5: 21

Have you ever, ever read any of my posts with the honesty of a seeker of truth?Â* You have never given us the credentials of the person you refer to as Bro. Lasala, and you want us to listen to him?Â* Who is the best source of information?Â* The ones who experienced the event and live the times or the people who are almost two thousand years removed from all those things?Â* I have read the witness of the early Christians and it unanimously says that only in the Catholic Church will you find the fullness of truth.Â* Tell me now : what is the greatest credential of Bro. Lasala?Â* Who can verify that?

You have a point but just because it has the testimony of many doesn't necessarily make something Truth. Matt. 7: 13 And test all things. Hold fast what is good. 1 Thes. 5: 21

So you deny Ephesians 10:3, 1 Timothy 3:15, 1 John 4:6 and Matthew 18:15-18?Â* They all said that it is the Church that we must listen to.Â* In Luke 11:17,

We are the branches, all believers are no longer foreigners but are members of the household that is Israel of God - Eph. 2: 19 Paul assures us this. With Christ as the Chief Cornerstone (2: 20 ) we rise up to create the a Holy Temple in which God dwells through His Holy Spirit (2: 21-22 ) Therefore there is no room for any Christian denomination to claim to be the one true mystical body of Christ

Christ is the vine, all of us we are the branches (Jn 15: 5)

This is the truth of religious allegiances as believers, as Israel of God (Eph. 2: 19 ) All of us are the catholic church of God since we worship from where we live and we no longer go to the Temple in Jerusalem. Sadly the Apostles Creed has been corrupted so the powers in the faction of Rome can twist it to fill their whims... a creed that yes, wasn't in Scripture but was formulated not as a prayer but as a reminder of the faith they uphold... That is until Rome, the fourth beast after Babylon, Medo Persia, Athens under Alexander crushed the whole earth and devoured it - Dan. 7: 23 ... you see even Daniel predicted the system that would uphold the faith that in many ways will alienate those from the true message of salvation in it's original form and the way it was meant to be understood.

I maintain, a lot in the RCC is still excess baggage

I'm NOT assuming too much, since God isn't a God of confusion or disorder (1 Cor. 11: 36 )- on that premise I know how irreconcilable the differences in the Gospel being preached by the RCC are from the ones already preached by the apostles. With Rev. 17, and Isaiah 28 or even Hosea 9 I am certain following The Tradititions of the Roman Catholic Church isn't exactly The Way.

Sacrifices to them will be like the bread of mourners, all who eat it will be defiled - Hos. 9: 4 (The Eucharist, the ultimate sacrilege)

Perhaps Luther, Calvin and Zwingli were asking so much when they stated that for centuries, all Christians were wrong. But with those 3 vivid prophetic verses above, especially Rev. 17 God certainly couldn't be wrong when he predicted that Israel will walk hand in hand back to Egypt to sin and slavery. In bondage of the Eucharist and the impostor "Mary". (We are the spiritual Israel)
(Much like Zion is tantamount to us God's temple 1 Cor. 3: 16 or how Babylon alludes to Rome)

[Obese Bo Ricardo]

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ He says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven.’ And again He says to him after His resurrection: ‘Feed my sheep.’ On him He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?�

Scripture as John wrote at the end of Rev. 22 is finished. Other sources can't be just as innerant as the Bible. Cephas means rock and stone in aramaic. Much like "bato" is the same in our dialect
. Since Peter was the first to testify that Jesus is the Son of God he is the first living stone (1 Pet. 2: 4 ) among us hence the changing of his name. "and on this Cepha I will build my church", in the septuagint "this rock" is this petra as "petros" means pebble. And it has always been made clear that The Rock is Christ. (Deut. 32: 4, 15 NAB) the spiritual Rock (1 Cor. 10: 4 ) and the solid ground on which all believers must stand.

Matt. 16: 18, the favorite of RCC defenders is of that ^ context. It is clear whom The Rock really is.... and if Scripture or the Acts of the Apostles is silent on the primacy of Rome and it's vicarious authority then it takes no genius to ascertain the unreliability of the claims of those who rule the RCC.

Again, go back to my post above where I will NOT be convinced by you otherwise because of the prophetic evidence of Zion, the once faithful city turning into a harlot (Is. 1: 21 NIV/CCB Catholic Pastoral Edition ) and only a remnant will return - as written in the Book of Revelation.

You're funny, you know that? How could someone who have been sent be a 'self-interpreter' (as you put it)? They , the priests and bishops, have been sent (Romans 10:13-15) - and they can really trace the 'sending' back to the apostles? They are therefore the ones who have the authority to teach as well as to proclaim. Could you trace the 'sending' of your pastors (or whatever you may call them) back to the apostle? Please cite widely-accepted scholarship.

Each one of us, believers are called to be living stones for a holy priesthood to build up the holy temple of God (1 Pet. 2: 4 in the context of 1 Cor. 3: 16, and 6: 19 ) and in the figurativeness of Eph. 2: 18: 22 Not necessarily people who wear dusters and get their authority from their head in Rome.

Any objection irreconcilable difference to the Gospel or extraBiblicality you throw off by saying it's "old news Catholic bashing" and go back to the authority of Rome that supposedly receives the same divine intervention from The Holy Spirit that wrote the Scriptures. Which is what I have been trying to disprove in this post and my post above it.

Among believers there will be those in the different banners being waved by the Christian religion who are possessed by the strong power of error (2 Thes. 2: 11 ) but it is only the Holy Spirit who chooses to Seal those who are being made perfect with the Seal of distinction on that last day - that is the Holy Spirit (Eph. 4: 30 ) 12 tribes. 12 apostles. Both multiplied create the figurative number of 144, 000 a symbol of completion that those who are to be saved on the last day will rejoin God in his kingdom (1 Thes. 4: 13-17) Only those who have the Spirit (Jn 6: 63 ) are free from error in Christianity. And as I've been trying to argue in this post and the post above mine, certainly the RCC isn't one of those with the Spirit.

If I get into discussions on Mariology, the Eucharist or how "Judaised" a religion Roman Catholicism can be you will only tell me that it's tired and cliched "catholic bashing" so it's only been fit that we argue on authority and whether the RCC is the "one true" religious alliance to rule all... but I've made my stand so far in this post and in the post above.

And by the way, Galatians 1: 8 and the end of Revelation 22 is what makes me ascertain that "excess baggage" indeed exists in the teachings of the RCC. Whether they claim apostolic succession or Canon coming from the same Spirit that inspired the prophets and apostles who wrote Scripture God isn't a God of confusion and disorder, he is a God of peace. Therefore His Words in the New Testament, rendering some teachings in the Old Testament as obsolete will never changed because it has been written. No one can add or take away from it. (Rev. 22: 18-20 )

This will be all for now.

[dacs]

We are the branches, all believers are no longer foreigners but are members of the household that is Israel of God - Eph. 2: 19 Paul assures us this.

That would be true if we remain with the tree that nourish the braches. You took yourself out of the tree and grafted yourself somewhere else.

Nope but they used to be... and Christ didn't appoint those who were supposedly more "learned" and holding more "authority" in his time. Peter and the other's apostleship were securely fastened like a peg. No one else can claim it or succession from it.

You are right, bro. Christ did not appoint the more 'learned' one at the time He was choosing the twelve apostles. Do you think Philip was just an ordinary man? Do you think Paul was 'unlearned'? God chooses whom He chooses. Whether you are educated or ignorant, it is God who choose - not men. In Acts 1:20-26, read the statement 'May another take his office'? Is that not succession? Where in the Bible will you find the statement that no one should succeed in the office left by the apostles or by the presbyters they had previously appointed?

2 Timothy 2:1-2 – "So you, my child, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And what you have heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well." Remember that no can proclaim unless he is sent - and to be sent is to take part of the commission of the apostles (Greek : apostello).

You have a point but just because it has the testimony of many doesn't necessarily make something Truth. Matt. 7: 13 And test all things. Hold fast what is good. 1 Thes. 5: 21

It doesn't have to be many, bro. I can limit myself to the pronouncement of the Church, the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Timothy 3:15). Nevertheless, the pronouncement of the early Christians unequivocally support the claims of the Catholic Church. We have tested all things, and is holding fast to what is good. You may have a problem with that, but your problem is with your assumptions and not with the realities of things.

We are the branches, all believers are no longer foreigners but are members of the household that is Israel of God - Eph. 2: 19 Paul assures us this. With Christ as the Chief Cornerstone (2: 20 ) we rise up to create the a Holy Temple in which God dwells through His Holy Spirit (2: 21-22 ) Therefore there is no room for any Christian denomination to claim to be the one true mystical body of Christ

Again, who says? You? Have you been sent?

The Catholic Church is not a denomination. It is the Church of the Bible and in the Bible.

Christ is the vine, all of us we are the branches (Jn 15: 5)

Provided you remain with the Church that Christ founded and prayed for to never falter.

I'm NOT assuming too much, since God isn't a God of confusion or disorder (1 Cor. 11: 36 )- on that premise I know how irreconcilable the differences in the Gospel being preached by the RCC are from the ones already preached by the apostles. With Rev. 17, and Isaiah 28 or even Hosea 9 I am certain following The Tradititions of the Roman Catholic Church isn't exactly The Way.

Assumptions again. You have never disproven any of the claims of the Catholic Church I have presented to you. In fact, you agreed to some of my presentations. You have assumptions that you hold on to no matter how strong is my argument against your prejudice. You clearly have decided to stay on your course no matter what guidance is given to you. I just pray and hope that such barrier will be toppled long before it is too late.

Sacrifices to them will be like the bread of mourners, all who eat it will be defiled - Hos. 9: 4 (The Eucharist, the ultimate sacrilege)

You are so into the Old Testament, so I grant that you are familiar with it. Ever read Hosea 4:6?

My people perish for want of knowledge!
Since you have rejected knowledge,
I will reject you from my priesthood;
Since you have ignored the law of your God,
I will also ignore your sons.

You may say that it truly applies to Catholics. Really? Look who is not trying to learn from history and the witness of early Christians!

How about the priesthood in the order of Melchizedek? Who is offering bread and wine in the order of Melchizedek from the rising to the setting of the sun which is supposed to last forever? In 1 Corinthians 11:26-30 – "...whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord" - and join this with 1 Corinthians 10:14-17 – "The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because the loaf of bread is one, we, though many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf." - what kind of event did these early Christians together with St. Paul celebrate. They were celebrating the Holy Mass - the Eucharist. Are you condemning St. Paul then?

Perhaps Luther, Calvin and Zwingli were asking so much when they stated that for centuries, all Christians were wrong. But with those 3 vivid prophetic verses above, especially Rev. 17 God certainly couldn't be wrong when he predicted that Israel will walk hand in hand back to Egypt to sin and slavery. In bondage of the Eucharist and the impostor "Mary". (We are the spiritual Israel)
(Much like Zion is tantamount to us God's temple 1 Cor. 3: 16 or how Babylon alludes to Rome)

All Christians were wrong? Were was the Holy Spirit? Did Revelation really say in bondage of the Eucharist and the impostor "Mary"? What does this impostor "Mary" do? You have also referred to 'Mary of the Apparitions'? What did 'that Mary' purportedly say?

[dacs]

@dacs - it seems that the tone of your posts is a debate between a CFD and an INK, now full of rhetorics, protecting religion, while destroying the unaware listeners. However, interested posters here read the links, study the scripture and even re-read church history vis-a-vis world history.

Though, I read the verses and catholic church dogmas you quoted, it still does not prove that sola fide and sola scriptura are erroneous doctrines. We all know that the early church (after all apostles have died) found themselves attacked by doctrinal errors, as already prophesied in the book of revelation. But they did not massacre those who strayed.

Rhetorics? Are they really just rhetorics?

Tell me, please, which early Christian writer support the claim that sola fide and sola scriptura are part of the deposits of faith? Even the Bible does not support sola scriptura.

I do not know the exact reason why the "excess baggage" were institutionalized by the RCC when such cannot be traced in the NT. But we all know the cost of disobedience: excommunication and even death. If you say that faith and good works can bring you to heaven, would you say that those inquisitors and those popes who approved the inquisition would go to heaven?

Your pastor must have done a good job with you. You are now blind with the actual history of the affair. The Bible itself came from the Catholic Church. Excommunication? Do you know what an excommunication is? Death? Have you really read history? Ever heard of Edmund Campion and Thomas More? You probably have not. Your posts show how selective you are with history. Did I deny that some heretics have been put to death by the Church? No. How many were 'killed' by the Church? Please give the very good approximate number as currently scholarship allows. Then we will talk again.

@richard - keep on reading the scriptures and learn the truth. The faith that saves is not the "faith on ourselves nor the faith on the church". That saving faith is putting your trust in Jesus and what he did on the cross for you. He is the ultimate sacrifice, and that in itself is complete.

You probably never had read Colossians 1:24 – "Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ..." Lacking in the afflictions of Christ?

1 Corinthians 4:4-5 – "...I do not thereby stand acquitted; the one who judges me is the Lord. Therefore, do not make any judgment before the appointed time..." Salvation is not assured, even for St. Paul.

1 Corinthians 9:27 – "...for fear that, after having preached to others, I myself should be disqualified." St. Paul is not absolutely assured of his own salvation. How could we possibly presume to be assured of ours?

[tingkagol]

Religion is never meant to be argued. Understand faith --- and you will understand all religions on the face of this earth.

This topic is full of questions, counter-queries... oh, the carousel, it spins. It is actually really funny, come to think of it.

OT: Sir dacs! musta? hehe. Your fellow stud from the now defunct www.usc-ece.com!

[dacs]

Von!-x is correct.

And case dismissed. I won't argue further with Dacs since he won't even give Lasala a chance and he disregards Pezzota's corrections on "New Testament Priesthood" or how Scripture and history is silent about the primacy of Rome or the Bishop.

Do you read history? Hear are some quotes from the first four centuries of Christianity:

"The church of God which sojourns at Rome to the church of God which sojourns at Corinth ... But if any disobey the words spoken by him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger."

Clement of Rome, Pope, 1st Epistle to the Corinthians,1,59:1 (c. 96 A.D.)

"Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Mast High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who farmed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour; the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love..."

Ignatius of Antioch,Epistle to the Romans, Prologue (110 A.D.)

"There is extant also another epistle written by Dionysius to the Romans, and addressed to Soter, who was bishop at that time. We cannot do better than to subjoin some passages from this epistle, in which he commends the practice of the Romans which has been retained down to the persecution in our own days. His words are as follows: For from the beginning it has been your practice to do good to all the brethren in various ways, and to send contributions to many churches in every city. Thus relieving the want of the needy, and making provision for the brethren in the mines by the gifts which you have sent from the beginning, you Romans keep up the hereditary customs of the Romans, which your blessed bishop Soter has not only maintained, but also added to, furnishing an abundance of supplies to the saints, and encouraging the brethren from abroad with blessed words, as a loving father his children.' In this same epistle he makes mention also of Clement's epistle to the Corinthians, showing that it had been the custom from the beginning to read it in the church. His words are as follows: To-day we have passed the Lord's holy day, in which we have read your epistle. From it, whenever we read it, we shall always be able to draw advice, as also from the former epistle, which was written to us through Clement.' The same writer also speaks as follows concerning his own epistles, alleging that they had been mutilated: As the brethren desired me to write epistles, I wrote. And these epistles the apostles of the devil have filled with tares, cutting out some things and adding others. For them a woe is reserved. It is, therefore, not to be wondered at if some have attempted to adulterate the Lord's writings also, since they have formed designs even against writings which are of less accounts.' "

Dionysius of Corinth, To Pope Soter (171 A.D.), Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History,4:23

"Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere."

Irenaeus, Against Heresies,3:3:2 (180 A.D.)

"A question of no small importance arose at that time. For the parishes of all Asia, as from an older tradition, held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which day the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Saviour's passover. It was therefore necessary to end their fast on that day, whatever day of the week it should happen to be. But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world to end it at this time, as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast on no other day than on that of the resurrection of our Saviour...Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate.But this did not please all the bishops. And they besought him to consider the things of peace, and of neighborly unity and love. Words of theirs are extant, sharply rebuking Victor. Among them was Irenaeus, who, sending letters in the name of the brethren in Gaul over whom he presided, maintained that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be observed only on the Lord's day. He fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom ..."

Pope Victor on Easter (c. 195 A.D.), Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History 5:23,24

"And he says to him again after the resurrection, 'Feed my sheep.' It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church's) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided."

Cyprian, The Unity of the Church,4-5 (Primacy Text, 251/256 A.D.)

"After such things as these, moreover, they still dare--a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics--to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access."

Cyprian, To Cornelius, Epistle 54/59:14 (252 A.D.)

I could give you more if you want.

World history is history. Not one-sided predjudiced documents written by pro-Catholic theologians who strain to reconcile the irreconcilable excess baggage in the RCC. I agree with Von-! X here. I apologize for the debate as it won't bring about conversion, only "bad news".

Who is being prejudiced, bro? I who also show support materials of my claims or you who most of the time cite only personal assumptions and biases?

It can't be traced in the NT, the excess baggage but the abominations of what Gipadayag Diyese Siete calls "The Harlot" sitting on 7 hills (What is the city of 7 hills?) is prophesied in the said book.

Have you really read how that part of the Bible is explained by the Catholic Church? Or do you just assume that whatever that explaination may be is wrong?

Jesus of the Bible isn't Jesus of the wafer of Jesus of the sacred hearts or Jesus of the Divine Mercy (Matt 24: 24-29, 1 Cor. 15: 8 ) but as I've said I will argue no more.

Really? Any early Christian witness to that claim?

As for Sola Fide, yes we are saved by faith (Eph. 2: 8 ) and not by works so that no one can boast (2:9) So that we can do the good works that God has prepared for us in advance to do (2: 10)

That would be works of the Law (Mosaic Law), right? Catholic never subscribe to that. We subscribe to good works - but you would insist that we subscribe to the 'works of the law'. Is that fair? Is that Christian?

Faith without deeds is a dead faith, but you can show everyone your faith by what you do (James 2: 1

Faith without overcoming attachment to worldly things is still in the category of unbelief (1 Jn. 5: 3-5) There are pillars of faith without one of which it is lopsided and still faithlessness nonetheless we are saved by faith and not by works ... and are saved to do good works. (Eph. 2: 8-10)

Yet, faith, hope and love is held separate in the Bible - and the greatest is what?

[Meganda]

ok..religion cant save us..for me its the personal relationship wid God..If u know the answer the BIBLE is the best sourde coz its the word of God..and as HE said everything will fade but His word will still remain..

sometimes ma luoy sad ko sa mga people na grbe ang faith and devotion por wrong God ilang gi ampo an..like sa mga hindi..buddist and muslim..daghan ga ingon na bahala ug bisan unsa ang religion Ginoo preha ra man ang Ginoo..well i dont think so....

bout sa tradition..naa ubang religion sector na ga base sa old testament...

for some thoughts lng...
Â* Ur father own Microsoft Company so kinda big Â*establishement...so u want to tak 2 ur father..u still need to book for appointment or hapit sa secretary just to tak to ur father?


to words..response or react...asa man ka ana..

hope we cud share some tuts lng gud..wla argumentation...

my point is..if u consider urself as a son of God nganong mo liko pa man ka direct na lng..dba?

[Von!-x]

1 Corinthians 4:4-5 – "...I do not thereby stand acquitted; the one who judges me is the Lord. Therefore, do not make any judgment before the appointed time..." Salvation is not assured, even for St. Paul.

If you read the whole chapter, it speaks of the Apostles and certain christians' standing in the church, and about stewardship. It spoke of judging the motives and the rewards each one will get when the appointed time comes. Nowhere does it speaks about salvation. The previous chapter, in verse 13-15 , "Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire. " He's talking about believers here, coz unbelievers are already condemned (John 3:17). Loss of reward, not salvation lost.

1 Corinthians 9:27 – "...for fear that, after having preached to others, I myself should be disqualified." St. Paul is not absolutely assured of his own salvation. How could we possibly presume to be assured of ours?

Now again, that whole chapter spoke about the rights of the apostle. The preceding verses spoke about the race to get a reward, a crown that will last forever. Nowhere is salvation mentioned here. Believers have to fight the good fight, never giving up, for there is a reward waiting in heaven. Did Paul had any doubts of his salvation when he said in Romans 10: 9-10 "That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved."


In the end, with all the posts here of the well-informed defender of the Catholic Faith, Mr. Dacs is not sure of his salvation himself. He uses verses to support supposedly claims that the apostles themselves are not sure of their own salvation. Take note of these promises:

John 14: 1"Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God[a]; trust also in me. 2. In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. 3. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. 4.You know the way to the place where I am going. 5Thomas said to him, "Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?" 6Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

In John 5:24 ""I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life. "

In 1 john 5:13 The apostle John says "I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life."
He is writing to the believers who are still alive, assuring them that they already have eternal life. This is not a presumption, this is faith.

Eternity matters! What is religion when such is not even an assurance of salvation? What is knowledge when after all the things you know, you know not where you are going for eternity? Are you good enough to enter heaven?

May your study in the scripture lead you to the saving faith in Jesus Christ. God bless!

[dacs]

Scripture as John wrote at the end of Rev. 22 is finished. Other sources can't be just as innerant as the Bible.

You mean Revelations 22:18-19? It says that no one should add or take away anything from that book. It did not close the canon of the Bible. I hope you did not arrive to the conclusion that it did.

Cephas means rock and stone in aramaic. Much like "bato" is the same in our dialect
. Since Peter was the first to testify that Jesus is the Son of God he is the first living stone (1 Pet. 2: 4 ) among us hence the changing of his name. "and on this Cepha I will build my church", in the septuagint "this rock" is this petra as "petros" means pebble. And it has always been made clear that The Rock is Christ. (Deut. 32: 4, 15 NAB) the spiritual Rock (1 Cor. 10: 4 ) and the solid ground on which all believers must stand.

Remember that this was Christ speaking to Simon. Biblical scholars will tell you that Christ is quite probably speaking in Aramaic. How do we know that? Some actual words of the Lord was preserved in its original language like Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? (Matthew 27:46). The word used in Matthew 16:18 is the Aramaic Kepha. How do we know that? St. Paul used that name to address St. Peter in is epistles.

As Greek scholars—even non-Catholic ones—admit, the words petros and petra were synonyms in first century Greek. They meant "small stone" and "large rock" in some ancient Greek poetry, centuries before the time of Christ, but that distinction had disappeared from the language by the time Matthew’s Gospel was rendered in Greek. The difference in meaning can only be found in Attic Greek, but the New Testament was written in Koine Greek—an entirely different dialect. In Koine Greek, both petros and petra simply meant "rock." If Jesus had wanted to call Simon a small stone, the Greek lithos would have been used ... (For an Evangelical Protestant Greek scholar’s admission of this, see D. A. Carson, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984], Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., 8:36. (taken from Catholic Answers)

Matt. 16: 18, the favorite of RCC defenders is of that ^ context. It is clear whom The Rock really is.... and if Scripture or the Acts of the Apostles is silent on the primacy of Rome and it's vicarious authority then it takes no genius to ascertain the unreliability of the claims of those who rule the RCC.

In the NT, the names Simon, Peter, or Cephas occur almost 200 times. The names of all the other disciples combined occur only about 130 times. In the NT lists of apostles, Peter is listed first. Matthew uses the word first (Mt 10:2) to “to single him out as the most prominent one of the twelve�. He was the spokesman and authoritative voice of the apostles, as seen in the early chapters of Acts. Paul spent fifteen days in private with Peter before beginning his own apostolate (Gal 1:1.

Jesus bestowed special prerogatives on Peter, recounted in Matthew 16:13-20. Peter is given a new name, which in Scripture denotes a change in status or position (e.g., Gen 17:45). Jesus spoke Aramaic and gave Simon the Aramaic name Kepha (Rock) which is is “Petraâ€� in Greek and “Peterâ€� in English. The Greek “petraâ€� is feminine so the masculine “Petrosâ€� was adopted. There is no distinction between Kepha the man and Kepha the Rock upon which Jesus would build his Church-Peter is the rock (cf. CCC no. 552). Protestants often claim that Christ is the only foundation (1 Cor 3:11) attempting thereby to unseat Peter. However, they mistakenly mix the metaphors. In 1 Corinthians, Paul is the builder and Jesus is the foundation; in Matthew, Jesus is the builder and Peter is the rock foundation. Another NT metaphor pictures the Church “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstoneâ€� (Eph 2:20).

Jesus chose Caesarea Philippi as the backdrop for the Petrine appointment. Here Herod had built a temple to Caesar Augustus atop the massive rock, a center of pagan worship and a source of the Jordan River. At the rock base was a gaping cavern referred to by the pagans as the “gates of hell�. Standing before the “temple� built to the “divine Caesar�, Jesus revealed God’s plan to build his new “temple�, the Church, to the true God with Peter as the solid rock.

After establishing Peter as the “Rock�, Jesus promises to give Peter the “keys of the kingdom of heaven�-a reference to the steward’s keys in Isaiah 22. The Davidic throne had been vacant since the Babylonian captivity (586 BC). The archangel Gabriel announced to Mary her Son Jesus would be given “the throne of his father David� (Lk 1:42). As Jesus, the new King of Israel, re-established the Davidic throne he appointed Peter to the office of royal steward-to rule “over the house� of the king (cf. CCC 553). Keys represent exclusive dominion and this authority was granted to Peter alone. The office of royal steward was successive in Israel. Familiar with their history, the Jews certainly understand that the office of Peter would be filled by successors as was the royal steward’s office in Judah. The steward may die, but the office continues.

As the steward of Christ’s kingdom, Peter is given the authority to bind and loose. This entails more than “opening heaven’s door to those who believe the Gospel�. Protestant scholar M. Vincent explains, “No other terms were in more constant use in Rabbinic canon-law than those of binding and loosing. They represented the legislative and judicial powers of the Rabbinic office. These powers Christ now transferred . . . in their reality, to his apostles; the first, here to Peter.� Aramaic scholar George Lamsa writes, “ ‘He has the key,’ means he can declare certain things to be lawful and others unlawful; that is to bind or to loose, or to prohibit or to permit, or to forgive�.

Other passages express Peter’s primacy. Jesus tells Peter that, “Satan demanded to have you [plural], that he might sift you [plural] like wheat, but I have prayed for you [singular] that your faith may not fail; and when you [singular] have turned again, strengthen your brethrenâ€� (Lk 22:3132). Peter represents the apostles before God, and Jesus prays for him exclusively that he in turn can support his fellow apostles. This perfectly exemplifies the primacy of the Pope and his collegiality with the other bishops. Jesus also appoints Peter the shepherd of his sheep with the universal Church in view (Jn 21:1517). The Jews would understand, according to contemporary usage, that the words “feedâ€� and “tendâ€� meant to teach, govern, and rule. St. Augustine comments, “The succession of priests keeps me [in the Catholic Church], beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate.â€� St. John, writing long after Peter’s death, reminds Christians of Peter’s singular status. (taken from the Defenders of the Catholic Faith)

If you argue that it is not Peter who is the rock but his confession of faith, here is a webpage you can try.

Each one of us, believers are called to be living stones for a holy priesthood to build up the holy temple of God (1 Pet. 2: 4 in the context of 1 Cor. 3: 16, and 6: 19 ) and in the figurativeness of Eph. 2: 18: 22 Not necessarily people who wear dusters and get their authority from their head in Rome.

Can an early Christian witness corroborate your statement?

Any objection irreconcilable difference to the Gospel or extraBiblicality you throw off by saying it's "old news Catholic bashing" and go back to the authority of Rome that supposedly receives the same divine intervention from The Holy Spirit that wrote the Scriptures. Which is what I have been trying to disprove in this post and my post above it.

Have been dismissed so far, bro? You have answered almost always on the entirety of your posts. You got to do better than that, though.

Among believers there will be those in the different banners being waved by the Christian religion who are possessed by the strong power of error (2 Thes. 2: 11 ) but it is only the Holy Spirit who chooses to Seal those who are being made perfect with the Seal of distinction on that last day - that is the Holy Spirit (Eph. 4: 30 ) 12 tribes. 12 apostles. Both multiplied create the figurative number of 144, 000 a symbol of completion that those who are to be saved on the last day will rejoin God in his kingdom (1 Thes. 4: 13-17) Only those who have the Spirit (Jn 6: 63 ) are free from error in Christianity. And as I've been trying to argue in this post and the post above mine, certainly the RCC isn't one of those with the Spirit.

Your last statement simply doesn't fit. You mean you are absolutely right on this? You cannot even disprove the biblical proofs I have presented which are corroborated by the witness of the early Christians. What have you got, bro? Your own interpretation of things?

If I get into discussions on Mariology, the Eucharist or how "Judaised" a religion Roman Catholicism can be you will only tell me that it's tired and cliched "catholic bashing" so it's only been fit that we argue on authority and whether the RCC is the "one true" religious alliance to rule all... but I've made my stand so far in this post and in the post above.

That is not the only argument here. Your position of Bible-alone as the rule of faith is still to be defended. I claim that it is not biblical nor historically supported by the witness of the early Christians. Defend your stand.

And by the way, Galatians 1: 8 and the end of Revelation 22 is what makes me ascertain that "excess baggage" indeed exists in the teachings of the RCC. Whether they claim apostolic succession or Canon coming from the same Spirit that inspired the prophets and apostles who wrote Scripture God isn't a God of confusion and disorder, he is a God of peace. Therefore His Words in the New Testament, rendering some teachings in the Old Testament as obsolete will never changed because it has been written. No one can add or take away from it. (Rev. 22: 18-20 )

This will be all for now.

Your private interpretation of Galatians 1:8 and Revelation 22? I rather remain biblical, bro. And, bro, please put some order in your paragraph. You could plainly see that you are jumping from one subject to another in contiguous statements. You will confuse your readers. I hope that is not your intent. Sorry, bro.