Catholic accounting of its plunder...

[jimraboin]

The Catholic institution is no more reliable than the Nazi's are. Look. If the Nazis accurately give an account of what they stole, how does that make them less of a thief? Catholic's need to deal with Catholic credibility here.

Second, whether Catholicism adds its voice to echo Scriptures or not does not change the fact that it is a false teacher. Even the devil quotes Scriptures. Yet this activity cannot change the fact he is a liar and a cheat.
My logic is both sound and reasonable. Either refute my error by showing Catholicism's credibility or accept the fact that you have called evil "good".

Why must we accept everything Catholic institution says simply because it can read what it took by force? If a thief steals your wallet, are his motives honorable and true by virtue he can accurately read the driver's license he took?

Telling it like it is.

Jim

Keep pushing...Don't stop thinking.
May you be strengthened in your faith.
May your hope in Him be rock solid.
May your love for the brothers be unyielding.

 

[MikeS]

First day of the new year and already we have Catholics and Nazis in the same sentence. See how those Christians love one another!

BTW, anybody have a count of how much Catholic church property was stolen from the Church? Gee, maybe I should call somebody a Nazi. Nah, I was raised better than that.

Originally posted by jimraboin:
Telling it like it is.

Yeah, that's what they all say.

 

[GraceSaves]

You are convinced in your own mind that Catholocism is wrong, so much so that you compare it to both the Nazi party and the devil.

You don't encourage thinking; you encourage thinking like you do. No thanks, I don't participate in uncivil discourse. Good day.

 

[Carson Weber]

Jimraboin is no more reliable than the Nazi's were. Look. If jimraboin accurately gives an account of what he stole, how does that make him less of a thief? Jim need to deal with jimraboin's credibility here.

Second, whether jimraboin adds his voice to echo Scriptures or not does not change the fact that Jim is a false teacher. Even the devil quotes Scriptures. Yet this activity cannot change the fact he is a liar and a cheat.
My logic is both sound and reasonable. Either refute my error by showing jimraboin's credibility or accept the fact that you have called evil "good".

Why must we accept everything jimraboin says simply because he can read what he took by force? If a thief steals your wallet, are his motives honorable and true by virtue he can accurately read the driver's license he took?

Pointing out the absurdity of the first post of this thread,

Carson

 

[Lorelei]

Originally posted by MikeS:
First day of the new year and already we have Catholics and Nazis in the same sentence.

Not that I am agreeing with the method for which this thread was started, but it's a denial of history to think the two have nothing in common.

Since Hitler was catholic and many leaders in the catholic church supported and were members of the Nazi party it can't be said that using both terms in the same sentence is automatically un-christian.

Catholics have a strong history of anti-semitism and the first Jewish ghettos were started by them, not Hitler. Long before we heard of this man Hitler, the Catholic church required that Jews live in ghettos, wear identifying marks, were forbidden to intermarry etc.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM#9
COUNCIL OF BASEL
Furthermore, renewing the sacred canons, we command both diocesan bishops and secular powers to prohibit in every way Jews and other infidels from having Christians, male or female, in their households and service, or as nurses of their children; and Christians from joining with them in festivities, marriages, banquets or baths, or in much conversation, and from taking them as doctors or agents of marriages or officially appointed mediators of other contracts. They should not be given other public offices, or admitted to any academic degrees, or allowed to have on lease lands or other ecclesiastical rents. They are to be forbidden to buy ecclesiastical books, chalices, crosses and other ornaments of churches under pain of the loss of the object, or to accept them in pledge under pain of the loss of the money that they lent. They are to be compelled, under severe penalties, to wear some garment whereby they can be clearly distinguished from Christians. In order to prevent too much intercourse, they should be made to dwell in areas, in the cities and towns, which are apart from the dwellings of Christians and as far distant as possible from churches. On Sundays and other solemn festivals they should not dare to have their shops open or to work in public.

Let's not also forget those who were murdered in their own holy land by the catholic church who tried to claim it for their own. These are only a few instances of the many crimes that were commited against the Jewish race by the catholic church.

Don't be so convinced in your own mind that you are right that you excuse such behavior as "christian." Surely this was not Christ-like in any way shape or form.
.

~Lorelei

 

[LaRae]

Originally posted by Lorelei:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MikeS:
First day of the new year and already we have Catholics and Nazis in the same sentence.

Not that I am agreeing with the method for which this thread was started, but it's a denial of history to think the two have nothing in common.

Since Hitler was catholic and many leaders in the catholic church supported and were members of the Nazi party it can't be said that using both terms in the same sentence is automatically un-christian.

Catholics have a strong history of anti-semitism and the first Jewish ghettos were started by them, not Hitler. Long before we heard of this man Hitler, the Catholic church required that Jews live in ghettos, wear identifying marks, were forbidden to intermarry etc.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM#9
COUNCIL OF BASEL
Furthermore, renewing the sacred canons, we command both diocesan bishops and secular powers to prohibit in every way Jews and other infidels from having Christians, male or female, in their households and service, or as nurses of their children; and Christians from joining with them in festivities, marriages, banquets or baths, or in much conversation, and from taking them as doctors or agents of marriages or officially appointed mediators of other contracts. They should not be given other public offices, or admitted to any academic degrees, or allowed to have on lease lands or other ecclesiastical rents. They are to be forbidden to buy ecclesiastical books, chalices, crosses and other ornaments of churches under pain of the loss of the object, or to accept them in pledge under pain of the loss of the money that they lent. They are to be compelled, under severe penalties, to wear some garment whereby they can be clearly distinguished from Christians. In order to prevent too much intercourse, they should be made to dwell in areas, in the cities and towns, which are apart from the dwellings of Christians and as far distant as possible from churches. On Sundays and other solemn festivals they should not dare to have their shops open or to work in public.

Let's not also forget those who were murdered in their own holy land by the catholic church who tried to claim it for their own. These are only a few instances of the many crimes that were commited against the Jewish race by the catholic church.

Don't be so convinced in your own mind that you are right that you excuse such behavior as "christian." Surely this was not Christ-like in any way shape or form.
.

~Lorelei </font>[/QUOTE]Please study better history. Hitler wasn't any more Catholic than Ghandi was. He was baptized Catholic as a child and spent his early years as a Catholic but past that....he left the Church.

There weren't just Catholics supporting the Nazi party....you seem to overlook this.

Perhaps we should now condem all Baptists because the guy who started the KKK was Baptist and so were many of his followers. Considering the stance that many Baptist Churches have taken about people of color....then I'd say you need to be telling the Baptists they better convert to something else.


LaRae

 

[MikeS]

Originally posted by Lorelei:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MikeS:
First day of the new year and already we have Catholics and Nazis in the same sentence.

Not that I am agreeing with the method for which this thread was started, but it's a denial of history to think the two have nothing in common.
</font>[/QUOTE]What they have in common is the fallen nature of man. No more.

Ask the hundreds of thousands of Jews saved from the Nazis by Catholics and the Catholic Church how much the Catholic Church and the Nazis had in common.

 

[Carson Weber]

Ask the hundreds of thousands of Jews saved from the Nazis by Catholics and the Catholic Church how much the Catholic Church and the Nazis had in common.

Also ask the chief Rabbi of Rome (i.e., Rabbi Zolli) at the time who, after the War, converted to Catholicism and took - for his baptismal name - the baptismal name of Pope Pius XII: Eugenio:

http://www.secondexodus.com/html/more/zolli.htm

 

[jimraboin]

Why is Catholic institution legitimate? Surely not because you say so? Come on...throw me a bone. What makes Catholicism legitimate and why?

Jim

 

[jimraboin]

1. Catholic claim that she was founded by Christ?

Catholic support is:Mt. 16:18-19

This verse reads:

Matthew 16
18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

Without getting into the Petros/Petra discussion, Jesus doesn't say one thing about a succession via election to replace Peter having its headquaters at Rome. This cannot be your conclusive "proof"? It is far from that. In order for me to accept your position, you will need to show me where Jesus or Peter, in clear terms, ordered a succession built upon Peter especially where Peter himself transfers the capitol to Rome. Please supply this information and I will gladly concede.

Further support to above claim- It was Irenaeus that first used the "catholic" in reference to Christ's Church

Catholic Encyclopedia says:

Irenaeus wrote in Greek many works which have secured for him an exceptional place in Christian literature, because in controverted religious questions of capital importance they exhibit the testimony of a contemporary of the heroic age of the Church, of one who had heard St. Polycarp, the disciple of St. John, and who, in a manner, belonged to the Apostolic Age. None of these writings have come down to us in the original text, though a great many fragments of them are extant as citations in later writers (Hippolytus, Eusebius, etc.). Two of these works, however, have reached us in their entirety in a Latin version:

Problem. Eusebius is the "father" of all Catholic history. And he worked for Rome's Emeperor Constantine who can be shown very easily to have poor motives against the Way from Israel. We are forced to trust Constantine or his contemporaries. All roads for Catholicism lead to them. So if you choose to build upon Irenaeus, you need to then prove Eusebius and Constantine were above reproach and honorable men...instruments of God. When you do, I will concede.

Further support to above claim- for further Biblical evidence see Acts 14:23 and 20:28; Ephesians 5.

Acts 14
23Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, committed them to the Lord, in whom they had put their trust.

What is Catholicism advocating here? That any group who "appoints elders" is of God? Come now. Paul also said this:

1 Corinthians 14
26What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church. 27If anyone speaks in a tongue, two--or at the most three--should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. 28If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God.
29Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. 30And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. 31For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. 32The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. 33For God is not a God of disorder but of peace.

Is this the "order" Catholic institution follows? If not, then merely picking and choosing Scriptures is no viable support for you. But if you can show me how each Catholic gathering follows this order, then I will concede to Catholic view.

Jim

 

[jimraboin]

Catholic claim 2...Christ is the head of the Body

Catholic Scriptural support:

Colossians 1
18And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.

Stating Christ is the head of the Body in no way proves Catholic claims of itself. Catholicism is simply reading the driver's license that was stolen. In fact, Christ was head of Jerusalem's Council which allowed Jews to observe Jewish Sabbaths, feasts and festivals. Now Catholicism wants me to believe Christ changed his mind by correcting what that Council allowed by instituting Rome's Catholicism.

Catholic position now grows harder to defend. It must now prove why Jesus would institute his Jewish Body only to reject it later? And do all this without compromising his unchanging nature. If you can do all this, I will concede.

Jim

 

[gb93433]

I am not supporting Catholicism or any other church, but everyone has egg on their face. Enough to go around for everyone.

If one wants to see what a church looks like just read the book of James and the letters to the Corinthians. There are those who are a snake in the grass and those who are very godly people trying to live for all that God wants them to. Some of course are misguided and are doing what they believe is right even though it is wrong. George Barna reported just a few years ago that the divorce rate was higher among those who attend church than those in the world. If someone read that they would conclude that the chruch is counter productive.

As a child I grew up in the Catholic Church and saw plenty wrong. But having been an SBC pastor I have I am still appalled at what I saw at times. I have seen men and women more controlled by the world than God.

If you look up the stats of the Baptist and Catholic Churches. I know these are older stats but I have not looked up any new ones lately. But from 1980-88 the RCC and SBC grew exactly the same nine percent. While the population growth was eight per cent. (A History of Christianity in the US and Canada by Mark. Noll page 465). That's pretty close to paganism if you ask me. An increase of one percent. Who's doing evangelism to make only a one percent gain over the population growth? Sounds like just a handful. When I was in an SBC seminary they told us that only ten percent of the people in SBC churches even witness on a regular basis and only eleven percent. But most of the people never lead anyone to Christ. How's that for evangelicalism. How many of those who lead someone to Christ are troublemakers in our churches? I don't know of any. They are too busy and are concerned about the welfare of the non-believer to be concerned with the color of the social order or the color of the carpet at the church. They leave that up to the committee. A committee is a race horse led by a camel.

 

[jimraboin]

Originally posted by gb93433:
I am not supporting Catholicism or any other church, but everyone has egg on their face. Enough to go around for everyone.

If one wants to see what a church looks like just read the book of James and the letters to the Corinthians. There are those who are a snake in the grass and those who are very godly people trying to live for all that God wants them to. Some of course are misguided and are doing what they believe is right even though it is wrong. George Barna reported just a few years ago that the divorce rate was higher among those who attend church than those in the world. If someone read that they would conclude that the chruch is counter productive.

As a child I grew up in the Catholic Church and saw plenty wrong. But having been an SBC pastor I have I am still appalled at what I saw at times. I have seen men and women more controlled by the world than God.

If you look up the stats of the Baptist and Catholic Churches. I know these are older stats but I have not looked up any new ones lately. But from 1980-88 the RCC and SBC grew exactly the same nine percent. While the population growth was eight per cent. (A History of Christianity in the US and Canada by Mark. Noll page 465). That's pretty close to paganism if you ask me. An increase of one percent. Who's doing evangelism to make only a one percent gain over the population growth? Sounds like just a handful. When I was in an SBC seminary they told us that only ten percent of the people in SBC churches even witness on a regular basis and only eleven percent. But most of the people never lead anyone to Christ. How's that for evangelicalism. How many of those who lead someone to Christ are troublemakers in our churches? I don't know of any. They are too busy and are concerned about the welfare of the non-believer to be concerned with the color of the social order or the color of the carpet at the church. They leave that up to the committee. A committee is a race horse led by a camel.

Exactly my point! All denominations have as their foundation Catholicism. And all therefore do what it does...stray from the truth.

Division comes from our loyalties to our religious groups. We were never commanded to have this. No. Rather, we were commanded to love one another no matter where we come from.

Jim

 

[jimraboin]

Catholic claim 3... that she is the pillar and foundation of truth?

Catholic support to this claim is:

2nd claim - 1 Tim 3:15

Now this verse says:

1 Timothy 3
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Again, what Catholicism has yet to establish is that Catholicism is God's household. At the time Paul wrote these words, God's household was primarily Jewish outwardly and inwardly. Catholicism rejects what they did and who they were. If Catholicism is identical to the Way Jesus founded in Israel, it would be doing what Jerusalem's Council did. Again, this fact is troublesome for Catholic case.

Jim

 

[jimraboin]

Catholic claim 4... that she has Authority?

Catholic support of that claim is:
3rd claim - Mt. 28:18-20; Mt 16:18-19; Mt 18:18-20; Jn 20:22-23

These verses say:

Matthew 28
18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

Matthew 16
18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

John 20
22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

Matthew 18
18"I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
19"Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. 20For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."

None of these verses tells me that Rome's ideas about itself are true. Again, Catholicism is reading the material that it stole but has not shown how Catholicism is what it claims to be. At least not with these Scriptures. Paul also warned that ravenous wolves would follow him and not spare the sheep. Guess what? That exactly describes how Rome perged all things Jewish from the faith.
Show me why I must accept Catholic understanding of these verses.

Jim

 

[jimraboin]

Catholic claim 5...Peter is chief steward in David's house.

Catholic scriptural support Isaiah 22.

No mention of Jesus telling Peter to set up a succession via election. Just for Peter to feed. How do you see a succession? Ultimately your postion trusts what Eusebius and Constantine invented though you probably are not aware of this fact.

In Revelations, Jesus claims to have the keys that open and close. A clear fulfillment to Isaiah 22.

Third, Jesus is the faithful steward who is working for Israel's King...that would be HaShem...the L-rd Almighty.

So again, why must I accept Catholic opinion of itself when Catholic interpretation is far less reasonable than the whole of Scriptures outlines? Simple. Catholicism doesn't trust Scriptures but the voice of Eusebius and Constantine. All roads lead to them.

In fact, Isaiah 22 is a good Scripture to use that would destroy Catholic idea of succession through election. For it says only one man will be the new steward. Peter died. So it cannot be him. Therefore, Jesus has to be the only true reference this passage is talking about. Which proves my point. Catholicism does not build upon Jesus. No. It rejects him and replaces him with another. Which would explain a great many things.

Jim

 

[Charles33]

Alright Jim,

All these things you are asking are threads in and of themselves, and ones that will get sidetracked with lot of bickering etc. In other words, they are never going to get coverd here is this one thread.

You seem like you have been doing some reading. I have a real question to ask you about all this stuff you are throwing out for everybody here. How much of the early christian patristic texts have you actually read from? I am not talking history books, or Eusebius, or William Carrol or Justo Gonzalez. I am asking if you have read pre-Nicean workds by some fairly early christians say, 2nd century?

These subjects would require fantasitc study to really get a grip on the situations and documents you are talking about. You would have to understand social and historical contexts of both political and philisophical understandings of each period you chose to study to do yourself scholarly justice.

Other than that, we can all go out and grab some old document, accusations, whatever and iterpret them anyway we see that supports our positions. You should know that is easy enough to do. There are two sides to all of this. What the real issue at the end of the day is, after looking closely at these things in context, and listening to both sides rant, you have to come to grips with what you really believe about what you have seen.

And like with a glass of muddy water, only time can produce clarity with all of these things in your inner concience. Ah, and your inner concience is the one thing you cannot appease by twisting some Scriptures or events to support your story. We can all do that quite well.

2000 years of ANY history, not just Catholic, cannot be understood or explained with knee-jerk answers. Even when they are right on, they are not believeable to many people in a time and culture removed from the ancient timelines. I am just saying, a thread cannot possibly alleviate your concerns.

I mean, look at these die hards on this forum. I think we chatter to represent our version of truth so those on the fences get the benefit of quitely observing the details, and doing their own study. You certainly cannot believe that we Catholics here are going to convince a DHK or BobRyan or Yelsew to the RCC do you? Or that they believe they will eventually come on over. Hey, who knows? But really, we all like representing our sides (the real truth), and we all feel better about it once it is off our chests.

 

[Charles33]

No mention of Jesus telling Peter to set up a succession via election. Just for Peter to feed. How do you see a succession? Ultimately your postion trusts what Eusebius and Constantine invented though you probably are not aware of this fact.

See, here is an example. Simple question, but then you try to answer your own question with your bias. And then you insult your own answer presupossing we all would answer in your manner, which I wouldn't. Then, you insult us immediatly stating we would probably not know these never before mentioned things or accusations. Like, lets see, never heard of Eusebius or how Constantine invented the Catholic Church before. See how some of these poor souls may smell a rat and not think you sincere?
Hey, I was raised on Jack Chick and Alberto magazines.

You say 'ultimately' - so that we get the impression that no matter what we beleive it is 'ultimately' attributed to Eusebius or Constantine. And whatever we may find, will have been 'invented'. So you see then how you are setting up a rather bad and negative tone to a possibly sincere inquiry.

You get no good takers like this...

 

[JustAsIAm]

I'm new on this board and have spent most of my time reading rather than posting, but I need to put my 2 cents in here.

It saddens me beyond words that "Christians" are attacking one another so frequently here. I don't think anyone who was unsaved would come into a discussion like this and want to be a Baptist or a Catholic.

Isn't it the Great Commission to go out and make disciples of all nations? Maybe if we were more concerned about only that, rather than ripping apart one another's church, we'd create converts rather than create ridicule towards all Christians. Didn't Christ say that people would know we are Christians by our love of one another?

 

[jimraboin]

Charlie,

You sound like a reasonable man. But if you were a Sadducee in Jesus' day you would hear exactly this tone and intensity from him. Catholicism is not what it says it is. If you want me to move to the middle, push me over there with hard, sound and logical rebuttals to my position.

As for my knowledge of the subject matter, well, give me a rebuttal and see how much more of my own personal study material I can bring to the table.

Jim