Confecting the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ in the RCC mass

[The Biblicist]

So lets get this straight, BIBLICIST, believes the bible is the bible because TERTULLIAN says using an "ENTIRE VOLUME" In his arguments against Marcion.
/
“One man perverts the Scriptures with his hand, another their meaning by his exposition. For although Valentinus seems to use the entire volume, he has none the less laid violent hands on the truth only with amore cunning mind and skill than Marcion.” – Tertullian, Ibid., chapter xxxviii, p. 260

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcionism

Can't read too well huh? He did not say Marcion but Valentinus "seems to use". No, I don't base it on Tertullian's words but on the words of inspired scripture (Isa. 8:16-20) and you would know that if you had read the entire post. Neither am I supporting the theology of any of these uninspired men.

"the Great Whore (Roman Catholocism)"

We would not call anyone a whore or even know.

Tell me Biblicist, What is a Great Whore? One that gives discounts or one that isn't one at all?

You act like you know secular church history but then present this bit of ignorance. Anyone who has read the Reformed Roman Catholics knows precisely what is meant by "The Great Whore." Perhaps you better catch up on your reading.

 

[The American Dream]

Sure is a lot of time and energy in this thread arguing about two cults, the SDA and RCC. A cult is a cult.

 

[The Biblicist]

Sure is a lot of time and energy in this thread arguing about two cults, the SDA and RCC. A cult is a cult.

Well, the RCC are not here to learn or to grow in God's Word. They despise the Word of God and the RCC are here to make proselytes and cause confusion. The SDA are here to make proselytes.

 

[Adonia]

Surely Adonia you can see that your approach is superficial and subjective as one can find anything they want to find in traditions of men. On this thread the subject is the final authority of God's word not the final authority of uninspired often contradictory traditions and opinions of men.

Surely Adonian you really don't think your "opinion" is equal to the Word of God, do you???? Surely you can't believe uninspired traditions of men is equally as inspired as the Word of God can you? If so, we have nothing more to talk about.

And your opinion on what the Scriptures say is not equal to the Word of God either. Uninspired traditions? Who chose the Bishops of the Church after the Apostles died off? Why God my friend. Who inspired what the those same Bishops of the early Church taught all Christianity? Why the Holy Spirit my friend.

 

[Adonia]

Sure is a lot of time and energy in this thread arguing about two cults, the SDA and RCC. A cult is a cult.

Remember, your cult didn't start until 1609, and it has split time and time again as each new cult leader (pastor) finally comes up with the truth. And then another one will come along with "the truth" displacing the one who had the truth before.

There is a Baptist Church in my town where just a few short months ago half of the congregation moved on. HALF of them - gone just like that and hooking up with a new leader. Hey, how do you know which is the correct one to be in? Maybe it's the West Baptist Church on the other side of town that has the correct doctrine, or maybe the famous Westboro Baptist Church is the one with all the truth. And you call us a cult - that's hilarious!

 

[The Biblicist]

And your opinion on what the Scriptures say is not equal to the Word of God either.

That depends on if my interpretation agrees with the Word of God or not. I have set forth the contextual evidence that it does agree. You on the other hand, have not been able to refute it by pointing out contextual factors that would prove it does not agree with God's Word. My position stands until some one can prove otherwise and you have not provided any contextual evidence that can stand the test of context. My position stands the test of context and the test of truth in Isaiah 8:20.

Uninspired traditions? Who chose the Bishops of the Church after the Apostles died off? Why God my friend. Who inspired what the those same Bishops of the early Church taught all Christianity? Why the Holy Spirit my friend.

I got news for you, God chose them when the apostles were alive - they were servants of God. But your uninspired traditions are really the record of predicted prophetic apostasy. The letter to the churches at Rome bears no resemblance to the 4th century church at rome married to the state.

 

[The Biblicist]

Lets get down to brass tacks on this issue. Does or does not the Roman Catholic Catechism clearly and explicitly treat circumcision in the Old Testament as a parallel to baptism in the New Testament in the sense of a sacrament? yes or no? I have the catechism and I can quote several passages from various parts of the catechism that directly address the relationship of circumcision as a sacrament in the Old Testament with respect to baptism in the New Testament.

So, Adonia or Utilyan do you want to participate in this discussion and affirm or deny that the Roman Catholic catechism compares circumcision in the Old Testament to baptism in the New testament both in the sense of a sacrament?

You need not explain or qualify what is and what is not a sacrament as we will simply accept the Roman Catholic definition for the sake of argument. Does circumcision in the Old Testament compare to baptism in the New Testament as a "sacrament" so defined by Rome?

 

[BobRyan]

And here is the explanation HE gives in John 6 itself!

In John 6 Jesus said - "eating literal flesh is pointless - it is my WORD that has life and spirit" John 6

John 6
51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever:

(Not -- "in the future -- if any man eat of this bread")

And what is the response of the too-literalist faithLESS ??

52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

(not - "some day in the future whoever then eats my flesh will have eternal life" ) yet neither the too-literal-faithLESS disciples nor the faithFULL disciples of John 6 ... bite Christ in John 6.

55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.

(not "this is the bread that will come" but this is the "bread that CAME"... and not "my flesh will one day be meat indeed" but "my flesh IS"... and not "He that in the future eateth" but already - he who does now already eat!)

60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
63 It is the Spirit that give life; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.


There it is Christ's answer. Yet it is an answer much-to-be-ignored by the faithLESS disciples in John 6 who left because they did not listen to the vs 63 explanation -- and instead took Christ too literally.
===============================================================

The scripture says JESUS KNOWS what they are thinking.

John 6
60Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this said, “This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?” 61But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, “Does this cause you to stumble? 62“What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?
Jesus KNOWS what they are thinking,

Agreed -- yet when He questioned them - they give the right answer -- pointing to His own explanation

62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
63 It is the Spirit that give life; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

They say
68 But Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

The entire focus of Christ's message in John 6 was on the subject of how to gain eternal life.

58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.


Peter said that the secret to eternal life was the WORD of Christ.

68 But Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life

Christ said that eating physical flesh was pointless - but it is the WORDS of Christ that give eternal life.

"the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."

Peter gets the point. But does not know why Christ used to repulsive symbolism.

Christ did it to chase off the too-literal-faithLESS group ahead of time. Because allowing them to stay - only to have them all bail when Christ was crucified would have been too much of an added burden to the faithFUL disciples in that upper room.

In John 6 Jesus did NOT say "some day in the FUTURE you must eat my flesh"... a detail you keep ignoring.

 

[BobRyan]

Lets get down to brass tacks on this issue. Does or does not the Roman Catholic Catechism clearly and explicitly treat circumcision in the Old Testament as a parallel to baptism in the New Testament in the sense of a sacrament? yes or no? I have the catechism and I can quote several passages from various parts of the catechism that directly address the relationship of circumcision as a sacrament in the Old Testament with respect to baptism in the New Testament.

Which is a problem for several reasons.

1. Both circumcision and baptism were being practiced BEFORE the cross --
2. only MALES were circumcised meaning that woman would not be baptized using that model.
3. Romans 2 says that circumcision is the symbolic form for the New Birth. "circumcise your heart" as both OT and NT point out.
4. The RCC claims that the priest has 'powers' to "mark the soul" of the infant so that the baptized infant is saved - having made no decision to follow Christ. Purely by the "powers" of the priest.

 

[utilyan]

Well, the RCC are not here to learn or to grow in God's Word. They despise the Word of God and the RCC are here to make proselytes and cause confusion. The SDA are here to make proselytes.

You certainly can't win the debates, so you attack character.

You can stay Baptist not here to convert anyone, I'm just challenging the hypocrisy that you don't even believe what you say you believe.


We are Bible believing Christians and believe every word of the bible is true. We don't have to WRITE IN any extra assumed rules, Nor do we REWRITE scripture BACKWARDS.

James 2
24You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

We say what it says^ You can't even say amen to this verse you literally backwards of Christianity.

We bible believing Christians can say amen to the whole thing and read it all straight forward as it says.

You see that man is justified by faith alone and not by works. <--that is backwards.

In essence you belong to one denomination called SOLA SCRIPTURA a mess of thousand different views. You might say well no im a Baptist.....No you are a Baptist view inside the mess of sola scriptura. You might also be a calvinisist again a view inside a mess called sola scriptura.


We more strictly demand scripture this is called being conservative.

We ask to see the scripture that spells out and plainly states that it is the ONLY sole rule of faith.

And then you get upset because you don't know scripture and can't find that FALSE MADE UP RULE anywhere.

I show hey if there is a dispute Jesus says take it to the church. Bam.

I show the church is the pillar and ground of truth.. Bam.

What scripture do you bring to the table? NONE. you get stories ABOUT scripture, its importance and how helpful it is.

Amen to all that.

But you never have scripture give an eleventh commandment Scripture is the sole rule of faith and the final authority. Never quite having to state ONLY HERE, ONLY THIS.

And what is funny I CAN FIND other useful tools like scripture which scripture DOES CLAIM is sufficient ONLY by itself.

James 1
2Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials, 3knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance. 4And let endurance have its perfect result, so that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.

Had it said SCRIPTURE rather then ENDURANCE, wow tell me you wouldn't be quoting this line hopping up and down saying "sola scriptura."

But does anyone say "SOLA ENDURANCE" ?

It flat out says "perfect and complete, lacking in nothing." YOU can only DREAM it would ever say that about scripture.

Endurance is categorized as being in a league above scripture.

 

[The Biblicist]

You certainly can't win the debates, so you attack character.

What a hypocrit you are!!!!! I have been trying to get you to into a contextual debate on this subject and ALL THE TIME you have been attacking character, changing subjects. It would be great if I could get you to stick to the theme of this thread and get you to deal with the evidence I have presented. The few times you have tried I have shown that your response fail the CONTEXT and make nonsense. You have yet to enter this debate seriously as an exegete or an expositor of scripture. You are so busy asserting your traditions and opinions you have spent no time dealing with the actual substance of this debate in any kind of a serious exegetical manner whatsoever.

We are Bible believing Christians and believe every word of the bible is true. We don't have to WRITE IN any extra assumed rules, Nor do we REWRITE scripture BACKWARDS.

Neither do you have any desire or ability to rightly divide the word of truth as you have yet to enter into this debate that is concerned with proper contextual based Bible exposition of Isaiah 8:16-20 within its immediate and overal. Biblcial context. I have tried over and over again to get you into a serious debate on the text that this whole thread is about and you simply will not deal with it. You ignore it, you change the subject, you personalize it, ou divert to another subject but you wont deal with it.

Look at the rest of this post by you! Diversion, change of subject, but no serious exposition abilitites with the text of this thread which I have thrust in your face over and over and over and over again but to no avail as you simply run from it.

 

[utilyan]

What a hypocrit you are!!!!! I have been trying to get you to into a contextual debate on this subject and ALL THE TIME you have been attacking character, changing subjects. It would be great if I could get you to stick to the theme of this thread and get you to deal with the evidence I have presented. The few times you have tried I have shown that your response fail the CONTEXT and make nonsense. You have yet to enter this debate seriously as an exegete or an expositor of scripture. You are so busy asserting your traditions and opinions you have spent no time dealing with the actual substance of this debate in any kind of a serious exegetical manner whatsoever.


Neither do you have any desire or ability to rightly divide the word of truth as you have yet to enter into this debate that is concerned with proper contextual based Bible exposition of Isaiah 8:16-20 within its immediate and overal. Biblcial context. I have tried over and over again to get you into a serious debate on the text that this whole thread is about and you simply will not deal with it. You ignore it, you change the subject, you personalize it, ou divert to another subject but you wont deal with it.

Look at the rest of this post by you! Diversion, change of subject, but no serious exposition abilitites with the text of this thread which I have thrust in your face over and over and over and over again but to no avail as you simply run from it.

If by rightly dividing you mean butchering and adding your own spin. I don't have that desire I am HAPPY the way scripture is without you trashing it.


1st Isaiah is a TRUE STORY. Non-fiction STORY. And a collection of writings prob by differ authors.

2nd YOU are not speaking to the LAW or the TESTIMONY By trying to Force in a HUMAN TRADITION of Sola Scriptura.

The LAW was already established and it does NOT include Sola Scriptura. The TESTIMONY is established WITNESSED and TESTIFIED and it DOES NOT INCLUDE SOLA SCRIPTURA.


"Scripture is the sole rule of authority" is NOT one of the Ten Commandments.


You found a a verse that is the equivalent of saying "YOU better do what the bible says" and rewrite to "YOU CAN ONLY DO WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS"

YOU BETTER CUT THE GRASS does not mean YOU ONLY CUT THE GRASS.

It does not teach sola scriptura not by a long shot. No Jew believes in sola scriptura. Jesus did not practice it, neither did the apostles.

What is right and what is wrong has always existed since GOD has existed within God.



Mark 7

6And He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:
‘THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS,
BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME.
7‘BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME,
TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.’
8“Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”



Which commandment says "SOLA SCRIPTURA"? Which says you will worship your bible and your bible is GOD?


God wrote the 10 commandments, he didn't write exodus. Exodus tells a STORY that mentions 10 commandments. That's the actual LAW.

 

[The Biblicist]

If by rightly dividing you mean butchering and adding your own spin. I don't have that desire I am HAPPY the way scripture is without you trashing it.


1st Isaiah is a TRUE STORY. Non-fiction STORY. And a collection of writings prob by differ authors.

2nd YOU are not speaking to the LAW or the TESTIMONY By trying to Force in a HUMAN TRADITION of Sola Scriptura.

The LAW was already established and it does NOT include Sola Scriptura. The TESTIMONY is established WITNESSED and TESTIFIED and it DOES NOT INCLUDE SOLA SCRIPTURA.


"Scripture is the sole rule of authority" is NOT one of the Ten Commandments.


You found a a verse that is the equivalent of saying "YOU better do what the bible says" and rewrite to "YOU CAN ONLY DO WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS"

YOU BETTER CUT THE GRASS does not mean YOU ONLY CUT THE GRASS.

It does not teach sola scriptura not by a long shot. No Jew believes in sola scriptura. Jesus did not practice it, neither did the apostles.

What is right and what is wrong has always existed since GOD has existed within God.



Mark 7

6And He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:
‘THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS,
BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME.
7‘BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME,
TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.’
8“Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”



Which commandment says "SOLA SCRIPTURA"? Which says you will worship your bible and your bible is GOD?


God wrote the 10 commandments, he didn't write exodus. Exodus tells a STORY that mentions 10 commandments. That's the actual LAW.

Again, more useless personal opinions without any support or substance. Get into the text itself and provide substance for your opinions or simply remove yourself from the debate as who cares about your personal opinions.

 

[The American Dream]

Remember, your cult didn't start until 1609, and it has split time and time again as each new cult leader (pastor) finally comes up with the truth. And then another one will come along with "the truth" displacing the one who had the truth before.

There is a Baptist Church in my town where just a few short months ago half of the congregation moved on. HALF of them - gone just like that and hooking up with a new leader. Hey, how do you know which is the correct one to be in? Maybe it's the West Baptist Church on the other side of town that has the correct doctrine, or maybe the famous Westboro Baptist Church is the one with all the truth. And you call us a cult - that's hilarious!

Each Baptist Church is autonomous, as it should be, instead of a pyramid scheme like your organized cult. You core doctrine is rotten to the core. I do know for starters the RCC did not start until around 425 AD. There were no Popes during that time, and Peter was certainly not your first one. The RCC has warped baptism and the Lords Supper so badly it is not even recognizable in the Scriptures, then you make up seven more sacraments that have no foundation in the Bible. You worship and pray to created being. You go through a third party of corrupt priests to ask or forgiveness of sins. You create holy water that has no use or purpose. Local churches of like faith and order to modern day Baptists did not start in 1609. Christ promised to preserve His church, so what do you think was doing that from year zero until the Reformation. It sure was not the RCC, as this is the greatest threat to Christs church in history. A series of local New Testament churches were preserving His church. The RCC is interested in money and power, not the love of Christ or the Gospel. Why is it your services never open a Bible to study Scripture? Why is all that money in the RCC wasted on layers of bureaucracy? That money could be used for missionaries if you had sound doctrine. It could be used to help the sick and poor, instead of lining the pockets of the Pope and his cardinals. Don't even compare the circus you serve with a Holy God.

 

[Adonia]

Each Baptist Church is autonomous, as it should be, instead of a pyramid scheme like your organized cult. You core doctrine is rotten to the core. I do know for starters the RCC did not start until around 425 AD. There were no Popes during that time, and Peter was certainly not your first one. The RCC has warped baptism and the Lords Supper so badly it is not even recognizable in the Scriptures, then you make up seven more sacraments that have no foundation in the Bible. You worship and pray to created being. You go through a third party of corrupt priests to ask or forgiveness of sins. You create holy water that has no use or purpose. Local churches of like faith and order to modern day Baptists did not start in 1609. Christ promised to preserve His church, so what do you think was doing that from year zero until the Reformation. It sure was not the RCC, as this is the greatest threat to Christs church in history. A series of local New Testament churches were preserving His church. The RCC is interested in money and power, not the love of Christ or the Gospel. Why is it your services never open a Bible to study Scripture? Why is all that money in the RCC wasted on layers of bureaucracy? That money could be used for missionaries if you had sound doctrine. It could be used to help the sick and poor, instead of lining the pockets of the Pope and his cardinals. Don't even compare the circus you serve with a Holy God.

Oh please, your current sect is just an offshoot of another Christian sect, which in itself is another offshoot - nothing but one dissident man after another who thought he knew better than what came before him.

The Christian Church evolved from that of the Apostles and off into the centuries. There was but one Christian Church, led on this earth by the Bishops appointed by God who were guided by the Holy Spirit, yes, the ones who had the authority to convene councils and synods to decide the doctrines of Christianity and to put down the heresies that popped up now and then. It was that same Church and those same Bishops who brought into being the New Testament Scriptures as we now know them.

All this is verified by history and this one Christian Church held dominance until the 11th century when the first great schism arose that resulted in the Eastern Oorthodox faith tradition. Even they in their wisdom never jettisoned the teaching of the Sacraments as prolumgated by the One Universal Christian Church.

In our Mass we read the Scriptures at each and every one. One from the OT, one from the NT, and a Gospel. Plus, excerpts from the Psalms are also included throughout our worship. Just because we have transposed the words of the Bible into another book (the Missal) that conforms to our liturgical form of worship does not mean we don't have the Bible (as I pointed out before).

And let's not cut the Catholic short as regards charity, shall we? There are numerous ministries within the church that do these things, and the physical wealth of the Church does not detract from this one iota. One could also bring up the fact that many Baptist ministers live very well, very well indeed. From multi-million dollar homes, to big cars and fancy suits, their high syle of life as they preach the Gospel knows no bounds.

Why you attempt to deny the historical fact of how the Christian Church came about and how it evolved throughout time is beyond me.

 

[utilyan]

Each Baptist Church is autonomous, as it should be, instead of a pyramid scheme like your organized cult. You core doctrine is rotten to the core. I do know for starters the RCC did not start until around 425 AD. There were no Popes during that time, and Peter was certainly not your first one. The RCC has warped baptism and the Lords Supper so badly it is not even recognizable in the Scriptures, then you make up seven more sacraments that have no foundation in the Bible. You worship and pray to created being. You go through a third party of corrupt priests to ask or forgiveness of sins. You create holy water that has no use or purpose. Local churches of like faith and order to modern day Baptists did not start in 1609. Christ promised to preserve His church, so what do you think was doing that from year zero until the Reformation. It sure was not the RCC, as this is the greatest threat to Christs church in history. A series of local New Testament churches were preserving His church. The RCC is interested in money and power, not the love of Christ or the Gospel. Why is it your services never open a Bible to study Scripture? Why is all that money in the RCC wasted on layers of bureaucracy? That money could be used for missionaries if you had sound doctrine. It could be used to help the sick and poor, instead of lining the pockets of the Pope and his cardinals. Don't even compare the circus you serve with a Holy God.

Helping sick and the poor...... list of the top charities.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/14/Revenue_1.html

Jesus Christ is a Catholic.

The bible was written by Catholics, its a Catholic book.

Never hear a Baptist say Jesus is a Baptist, or bible is Baptist........Maybe after taking my lead.

NOPE.


It almost sounds like we are the Church. Because we are the church of Jesus Christ, started by Jesus Christ.

All early church fathers PRIOR to "425 AD" Are catholic.

Even the very first generation of bishops ARE catholic, teaching the real presence of Eucharist.


"To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant." ---John Henry Cardinal Newman


Don't you dare study history outside of what your pastor uncle buck or chick tract says. Or you will go down the rabbit hole with many a sleepless nights.

Don't read church history, Definitely don't read church fathers.

Don't read pastor convert stories like Scott Hahn.

There were no Catholics till 425....believe that.

 

[The American Dream]

One could get more Scriptural insight by watching reruns of the Gong Show than studying Catholic doctrine. There is similarity between your church "fathers" and Holy Scripture. Christ promised to preserve His church, so obviously it was done outside the RCC. What you never understood is that prayer and worship is for the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost only. So your club creates saints based on works, which is exactly what the Gospel is not. Your club never got it through their thick skulls that anyone who has come to Christ by grace through faith, is a saint, but not to be worshiped. So you put Peter, Paul and Mary in a special status, even though they are sinners like the rest of us. Or do your pray to them because they wrote "Puff the Magic Dragon." Hail Mary full of grace, you are a sinner like the rest of the human race. As I said above, you have so warped the sacraments, they are nothing but a series of magic acts. If Popes are without sin, why do they die?

Well till next time, here is a cheer for your next Saturday mass: Two, four, six, eight, time to transubstantiate. Ave Maria, gee its good to see ya.

 

[The American Dream]

Oh please, your current sect is just an offshoot of another Christian sect, which in itself is another offshoot - nothing but one dissident man after another who thought he knew better than what came before him.

The Christian Church evolved from that of the Apostles and off into the centuries. There was but one Christian Church, led on this earth by the Bishops appointed by God who were guided by the Holy Spirit, yes, the ones who had the authority to convene councils and synods to decide the doctrines of Christianity and to put down the heresies that popped up now and then. It was that same Church and those same Bishops who brought into being the New Testament Scriptures as we now know them.

All this is verified by history and this one Christian Church held dominance until the 11th century when the first great schism arose that resulted in the Eastern Oorthodox faith tradition. Even they in their wisdom never jettisoned the teaching of the Sacraments as prolumgated by the One Universal Christian Church.

In our Mass we read the Scriptures at each and every one. One from the OT, one from the NT, and a Gospel. Plus, excerpts from the Psalms are also included throughout our worship. Just because we have transposed the words of the Bible into another book (the Missal) that conforms to our liturgical form of worship does not mean we don't have the Bible (as I pointed out before).

And let's not cut the Catholic short as regards charity, shall we? There are numerous ministries within the church that do these things, and the physical wealth of the Church does not detract from this one iota. One could also bring up the fact that many Baptist ministers live very well, very well indeed. From multi-million dollar homes, to big cars and fancy suits, their high syle of life as they preach the Gospel knows no bounds.

Why you attempt to deny the historical fact of how the Christian Church came about and how it evolved throughout time is beyond me.

Oh please Catholics are about as Christian as Mormons. Yes, there was but one Christian church in Acts, and that has nothing to do with the cult known as the Roman Catholic Church today. The RCC gives to charity because the Pope and cardinals pocket the rest. Its like the Pharisees making themselves the center of attention during the offering or prayer time. Your club has been nothing but a drain on the Gospel for 1500 years. Time to shut it down.

 

[utilyan]

One could get more Scriptural insight by watching reruns of the Gong Show than studying Catholic doctrine. There is similarity between your church "fathers" and Holy Scripture. Christ promised to preserve His church, so obviously it was done outside the RCC. What you never understood is that prayer and worship is for the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost only. So your club creates saints based on works, which is exactly what the Gospel is not. Your club never got it through their thick skulls that anyone who has come to Christ by grace through faith, is a saint, but not to be worshiped. So you put Peter, Paul and Mary in a special status, even though they are sinners like the rest of us. Or do your pray to them because they wrote "Puff the Magic Dragon." Hail Mary full of grace, you are a sinner like the rest of the human race. As I said above, you have so warped the sacraments, they are nothing but a series of magic acts. If Popes are without sin, why do they die?

Well till next time, here is a cheer for your next Saturday mass: Two, four, six, eight, time to transubstantiate. Ave Maria, gee its good to see ya.

That means a lot from someone who is against prayer and got their theology from a chick tract.

Jesus Christ is Lord.

We only worship Father Son and Holy Spirit.

You have to have the holy spirit to say Jesus Christ is LORD.

I'm still waiting for you to say it.

 

[The Biblicist]

We only worship Father Son and Holy Spirit.

You have to have the holy spirit to say Jesus Christ is LORD.

I'm still waiting for you to say it.

That is a blatant lie. You ascribe every characteristic that constitutes true worship to Mary. You ascribe the very titles and attributes to Mary that belong exclusively to God.

do you actually think verbalizing "Jesus is Lord" is what Paul meant? I could pay a drunk $5 and he would says "Jesus is Lord."

What Paul is referring to is that the speech in the congregational worship service (and that was the issue in the context) had to be consistent with the Lordship of Christ - meaning their speech and practice in worship had to agree with Christ's revealed will or be in submission to His authority and revealed will. Merely verbalizing "Jesus is Lord" is meaningless.

Roman Catholic worship is nothing but paganism dressed in Christian garments that denies Christ is Lord.