Roman Catholicism , cult or not?

[Eliyahu]

God preserved the True church throughout the ages which consisted of the true believers all the time, without obeying to the heretics of Idol worship, goddess worship, papacy, indulgence business, etc. despite the inquisition and toruturing by whorish Roman Catholic.

 

[DeclareHim]

Originally posted by Eliyahu:
I would say Catechism of Catholic contains many good teachings too, except some more controversial doctrines. However, when one religion is evaluated or judged, the fruits of them are important.

1) What did Roman Catholic do for preserving Bible? Throughout Europe, only a fraction of texts are remaining. Did they spread the Gospel diligently?

Actually when Rome was in Power they did spread their branch of Christianity. But to the other point the RCC is a major force behind the TR that so many IFB'ers love. Erasmus was a former Catholic priest and was in contact during most of his work on the TR with the Vatican.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by mcneely:
By the way, there could not have been any "born again, bible believing" churches or people in the first few centuries after Jesus' death. Why? Because copies of scripture were EXTREMELY rare. And there was no bible until Rome had adopted Christianity (That's historic, and I didn't read it in a book written by a "Catholic revisionist" ).

That is not historic. That is Catholic revisionism at its best and nonsense at its worst. In the first century what do we have?
Paul wrote 13 epistles to 7 different churches and two pastors pastoring different churches. Jesus himself addresses seven different churches in the Book of Revelation. Paul started approximately 100 churches in three missionary journeys which are recorded in the Book of Acts. This all happened in the Book of Acts.
How say you that there were no churches in the first century outside the Church of Rome which never existed until the fourth century? Who have you been listening to?

Concerning the Scriptures there are many countries today which do not have all the Scripture translated into their native language, and even some that don't have any of the Scripture into their own language. Not much different than Biblical times is it? Nevertheless what does the Bible say:

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
--These people were searching the Scriptures (in this case the Old Testament) in order to validate a New Testament message that was given by Paul. Did they have the Scriptures? The Bible says they did. They searched the Scriptures daily.

2 Peter 3:1-2 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:
2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
--Consider verse 2 in particular. Peter says to be mindful of:
1. the words of the O.T. prophets.
2. the words of "us the apostles."
These were the writers of the Scriptures, the Word of God. The early church knew which books made up the canon. They knew the apostles were used of God to write the Scriptures, and they knew which books were inspired and which were not. That is why Peter could write in such a way. But Peter doesn't stop there. He continues.

2 Peter 3:15-16 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
--Peter refers to the epistles of Paul as Scripture. He knew that they were inspired of God, the Word of God--Scripture, and he accepted them as such. The early church knew which books were Scripture and which were not. They did not need the Catholic Church to tell them which books were Scripture. The completion of the canon of Scripture had absolutely nothing to do with the corrupt pagan Catholic Church. These books were kept and preserved by Bible-believing churches down throughout the ages, and always have been.
There is no evidence that the Catholic Church had anything to do with the preservation of the Bible. God, through the early churches did. Bible believing churches, not denominations, have always existed outside the cult of Catholicism.
DHK

 

[Eliyahu]

Originally posted by DeclareHim:
Actually when Rome was in Power they did spread their branch of Christianity. But to the other point the RCC is a major force behind the TR that so many IFB'ers love. Erasmus was a former Catholic priest and was in contact during most of his work on the TR with the Vatican. [/QB]

I know you are standing on the wrong ground:

Erasmus' were on the list of books forbidden by Roman Catholic.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/indexlibrorum.html


Erasmus was a Catholic on the surface, but his fellowship remained in the circle of reformers.


Rule on the forbidden books:

http://www.myfortress.org/CouncilofTrent.html

Also they prohibited Bible since 1229, until they declare the change officially in 2nd Vatican Council 1962

 

[mcneely]

I'm no longer a participant in this debate. It's bigotry and silliness.

---Justin

 

[D28guy]

Needless to say, any discussion...such as this one...that sheds light on darkness and a false gospel is neither bigotry nor silliness.

It is contending the truth of God in the midst of great error.

It could not possibly be more important.

God bless,

Mike

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by Eliyahu:
Many people don't know that there were so many true believers outside Roman Catholic Church during the dark age.
First of all there was Greek Orthodox or Russian Orthodox. The church went to China even during the first century as we find the Christian monument in China which dates back to Han-Mooje ( The emperor during the first century AD) and it says the year of monument as 86 AD. Then North Korea excavated the Christian village dating back to 2nd century. At that time Aspostle Thomas is believed to have preached in India as there are many records of it.

So why aren't you Orthodox then? NB: they do venerate Mary and the dead saints as well you know. But they're not Catholic, so apparently they're alright. NB2: you didn't read my post properly: I said there was no alternative outisde the Catholic-Orthodox Church (it was one Church remember until 1054 - well after the time to which you refer)

Then Eastern Church after Nestorius advanced to China once again, and Nestorians were the 2nd largest religious group after Taosim there during 6-10 century AD. King Tae Jong was a born again believer who was powerful during 7 c AD.
We find Genghis Khan was an animist but his predecessor Ungkhan was a Christian, and the most powerful emperor of Won Dynasty ( MOngolian dynasty which ruled upto Russia and Poland, Middle East) was Kubhilai Khan and he was a Nestorian Christian, many of the generals are found to have names Philip, John, Mark among Mongloians. Another dynasty called Ryao in North Western Manchuria was Christian dynasty. There were many Jews and Messianic Jews in China too, during Ssoong dynasty. They diminished from the politics from 14c but we can imagine some of them survived almost until the new wave of Portestants missionaries there.

Ah - back to Nestorius again. How many more times - he was a heretic!

Originally posted by me:OK, I'll allow you the Waldenses but certainly no more of JM Carroll's Trail of Hogwash nonsense

But Eliyahu is not daunted and has been at the Carroll KoolAid again:

In Europe, there were many true believers outside RC, i.e. Paulicans, Montanusian, Donatusian, Cathari, Albigene, Waldenese, Bogomil,

Oh dear.Let me try to explain again: the Montanists were proto-charismatics (I don't think DHK would like to share a pulpit with them), the Donatists were Christian albeit schismatics and predate 313, and the Paulicians, Bogomils and Cathari-Albigenses (one group not two BTW) were gnostic dualists and about as far removed from the term 'Christian' as you could get in Europe without being a pagan or Muslim. The Waldenses are the only group in that list which resembles modern evangelicalism. That's why I asked about the period 313-1160, which begins with the toleration of the Church by Constantine and ends with the rise of the Waldenses. But, please, carry on:

West Rhein Bruder Gemeinde, Wieder Taufer Gemeinde, Bohemian Brethren, Moravian Brethren, Heugnots in France.

All good Protestant groups - but dating to after the Reformation - and well after 1160.

There were hundreds of groups in Europe even thoough they were condemned as heretics by RC

Um...there's a reason for that - it's because most of them were

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mcneely:
By the way, there could not have been any "born again, bible believing" churches or people in the first few centuries after Jesus' death. Why? Because copies of scripture were EXTREMELY rare. And there was no bible until Rome had adopted Christianity (That's historic, and I didn't read it in a book written by a "Catholic revisionist" ).

That is not historic. That is Catholic revisionism at its best and nonsense at its worst. In the first century what do we have?
Paul wrote 13 epistles to 7 different churches and two pastors pastoring different churches. Jesus himself addresses seven different churches in the Book of Revelation. Paul started approximately 100 churches in three missionary journeys which are recorded in the Book of Acts. This all happened in the Book of Acts.
How say you that there were no churches in the first century outside the Church of Rome which never existed until the fourth century? Who have you been listening to? </font>[/QUOTE]Um...the facts? The point you are making demonstrates that the Early Church did not have access to the full NT in the way we do; they had only fragments of it - a letter or two of Paul's here, a Gospel there. And then, which Gospel: John's, Thomas', Peter's? What was in and what was out of the NT was not agreed until the end of the 4th century, by which time Christianity was establishe in Rome ie: the Roman Empire. That's what mcneeley meant, as you know very well.

Concerning the Scriptures there are many countries today which do not have all the Scripture translated into their native language, and even some that don't have any of the Scripture into their own language. Not much different than Biblical times is it? Nevertheless what does the Bible say:

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
--These people were searching the Scriptures (in this case the Old Testament) in order to validate a New Testament message that was given by Paul. Did they have the Scriptures? The Bible says they did. They searched the Scriptures daily.

But by 'Scriptures', the Bible means only the OT. The Jews who rejected Jesus had those same 'Scriptures' - and they rejected Him and Him message. Hmmm...bit of a lesson there...maybe Scripture alone isn't enough...

The early church knew which books were Scripture and which were not.

Poppycock! Why then was there such a dispute over the canon of the NT?!

They did not need the Catholic Church to tell them which books were Scripture. The completion of the canon of Scripture had absolutely nothing to do with the corrupt pagan Catholic Church. These books were kept and preserved by Bible-believing churches down throughout the ages, and always have been.
There is no evidence that the Catholic Church had anything to do with the preservation of the Bible. God, through the early churches did. Bible believing churches, not denominations, have always existed outside the cult of Catholicism.
DHK

Prove it (without drinking the Carroll KoolAid )!

[Fixed quote code]

 

[Eliyahu]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
So why aren't you Orthodox then? NB: they do venerate Mary and the dead saints as well you know. But they're not Catholic, so apparently they're alright. NB2: you didn't read my post properly: I said there was no alternative outisde the Catholic-Orthodox Church (it was one Church remember until 1054 - well after the time to which you refer) </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

My information confirms only that they brought the images like Cross and built monuments like Thomas. I am rather negative that Nestorian worshipped Mary, because they denied Theotokos.

Ah - back to Nestorius again. How many more times - he was a heretic !


I disagree ! Cyrill was heretic, while Nestorius was faithful with the God's commandments, refusing Theotokos.

Originally posted by me:OK, I'll allow you the Waldenses but certainly no more of JM Carroll's Trail of Hogwash nonsense

But Eliyahu is not daunted and has been at the Carroll KoolAid again:

In Europe, there were many true believers outside RC, i.e. Paulicans, Montanusian, Donatusian, Cathari, Albigene, Waldenese, Bogomil,

Oh dear.Let me try to explain again: the Montanists were proto-charismatics (I don't think DHK would like to share a pulpit with them), the Donatists were Christian albeit schismatics and predate 313, and the Paulicians, Bogomils and Cathari-Albigenses (one group not two BTW) were gnostic dualists and about as far removed from the term 'Christian' as you could get in Europe without being a pagan or Muslim. The Waldenses are the only group in that list which resembles modern evangelicalism. That's why I asked about the period 313-1160, which begins with the toleration of the Church by Constantine and ends with the rise of the Waldenses. But, please, carry on: qb]</font>

All good Protestant groups - but dating to after the Reformation - and well after 1160.

QUOTE]Um...there's a reason for that - it's because most of them were

You are standing on the wrong information and wrong grounds!

 

[Matt Black]

And you can't even get your quote code right, so why should I trust your 'information'? Do you actually know anything about the Cathars?

[That's what the edit button and preview post are for]

 

[Eliyahu]

I know they were true believers at their times. What Roman Catholic describved about them were groundless as Rc has been cheating the people all the time, with all the heretic theories.

 

[Matt Black]

Ah I see: so dividing people into three groups, perfecti, psychics and sinners, administering the consolamentum at the end of life and then fasting to death, they're all good Christian beliefs are they?

 

[Eliyahu]

You are describing the belief of the people after RC murdered them, with groundless information.

Do you think that you can still trust the murderers excuses full of heretics?

Have you read John Foxe " Martyrs" and Pilgrim Church by EH Broadbent? Are they all liars? No need to rely on Caroll only.

Read and review the followings:

http://www.compusmart.ab.ca/rprince/murders.htm

http://www.lietuvos.net/istorija/katalikai/

http://home.primus.com.au/kenshaw/page8.htm
http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1676.cfm

 

[Eliyahu]

No other religion killed the true believers as many as RC did.
Satan disguised himelf in the form of Jewish Priests, Roman Empire, Roman Catholic, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, Communism, Nazism etc.

 

[Matt Black]

I've read them and, with the partial exception of Foxe, they are as full of crap as Carroll. You see, these guys, like the lunatic fringe of evangelicalism which loves them so much, cannot bear the thought that prior to the Reformation the only Christians by and large in Western Europe were Catholics, because that might mean admitting that the Catholics might have got something right. So they make up groups and pretend they were Christian or, rather, they search through the history books and dig up these heretical groups who have the advantage for them that they were Not Catholics(TM) (better still if they were persecuted by the Catholics) and try to deceive others into believing they were Christians.

 

[Eliyahu]

I don't think all of their beliefs or doctrines were right and correct as we can easily find even the Reformers had very funny mistakes and errors in their doctrines ( not only the predestination etc). We can easily imagine they made certain mistakes. However, RC finds fault with them without considering their fundamental belief such as Salvation and their faith in the fact of Redemption etc, while we notice such accusers of Rc had no actual experience of Being Born Again. Once their beliefs were reiterated or conveyed by RC, they were distorted and twisted totally. Are there any surviving literatures written by them, by those accused as heretics by the RC? RC was scared to see the literatures surviving because they could not continue to tell lies if they survived,

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by Eliyahu:
I don't think all of their beliefs or doctrines were right and correct as we can easily find even the Reformers had very funny mistakes and errors in their doctrines ( not only the predestination etc). We can easily imagine they made certain mistakes.

Except it's a bit more than that; these beliefs were heretical

However, RC finds fault with them without considering their fundamental belief such as Salvation and their faith in the fact of Redemption etc,

These heretical groups had no such beliefs; they believed a false gospel

while we notice such accusers of Rc had no actual experience of Being Born Again.

And you know this how, exactly?

Once their beliefs were reiterated or conveyed by RC, they were distorted and twisted totally. Are there any surviving literatures written by them, by those accused as heretics by the RC? RC was scared to see the literatures surviving because they could not continue to tell lies if they survived,

It is of course true that history is written by the victors; however, if you read LeRoy Ladurie's (a man with no particular axe to grind either way) Montaillou, you will find there Cathar - heretical - beliefs meticulously documented therein.

 

[Eliyahu]

Matt,
I disagree with you on all the items you pointed out.
Do RC have any record about the confession of Cathari's salavation?

Can you admit that Cathari didn't torture and kill the people as many as Roman Catholic did?

I am glad that we are not judged by Roman Catholic but by the Righteous Judge, God.

 

[Matt Black]

There is no way that a Cathar could have been saved and still adhered to their fundamental beliefs; it was a dualist system which, along with many other gnostic cults, viewed all matter as evil and only the spiritual as counting. All true Christians - Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant - should run a mile from their false beliefs.

 

[Chemnitz]

All true Christians - Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant - should run a mile from their false beliefs.

I am not much of a runner, so would it be alright if I rode my bike?