Agreed, but don't overlook Hebrews 13:17.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Why The RCC Is A Cult
- Thread starter The American Dream
- Start date
- Status
And that ties in with 1 Timothy 5:17 where elders in a local assembly who demonstrate good leadership qualities in the church should be given "double honor" for their efforts. (See KJV, NIV, ESV, NET, NET,GWT, ASV, ERV, Weymouth and WEB.
BIG difference is that none of them ever claimed to be standing in for jesus here on earth, for being literally jesus to people in the fashion of speaking and teaching ex cathrenda to us!
" On behalf of Christ, therefore, we are acting as ambassadors, God, as it were, appealing through us" {2nd Corinthians 5:20 }
Hebrews 5:1
Heb. 2:17
The apostles consecrated other presbyters [male clergy ] for example Paul, Barnabas, Timothy, Titus and Matthias [ Acts 13:3, 14:22, 1:24-26, and Titus 1:4 }
All authority was given from Jesus to His Apostles { Luke 10:16 }
Only a Bishop can give the Sacrament of Holy Orders [ presbyters/ priests ]
{ Titus 1:5 }
Jesus commissions His first priests { Matt.28: 18-20 }
Hebrews 5:1
Heb. 2:17
The apostles consecrated other presbyters [male clergy ] for example Paul, Barnabas, Timothy, Titus and Matthias [ Acts 13:3, 14:22, 1:24-26, and Titus 1:4 }
All authority was given from Jesus to His Apostles { Luke 10:16 }
Only a Bishop can give the Sacrament of Holy Orders [ presbyters/ priests ]
{ Titus 1:5 }
Jesus commissions His first priests { Matt.28: 18-20 }
In the NT, 'bishop' and 'presbyter' was one office or order, not two. The terms were used interchangeably.
Rebel, you wrote: "In the NT, 'bishop' and 'presbyter' was one office or order, not two. The terms were used interchangeably. "
OK, but even if what you wrote is true, the balance of what I wrote proves that Jesus instituted the priesthood within His Catholic/Apostolic Church.
OK, but even if what you wrote is true, the balance of what I wrote proves that Jesus instituted the priesthood within His Catholic/Apostolic Church.
There is no NT 'priesthood'. Every believer is a priest, according to the NT.
No, he believes the Bible as do I. From your posts in 2011 you believe the Catechism not the Bible. You uphold RCC tradition not the Bible. You can give no Biblical evidence of what you have posted. Using the Bible alone, and quoting the verses in their proper contexts you can't prove Rebel wrong.
Catholicism is a cult. It started in the fourth century. It is anti-biblical.
DHK, realizing that this is a Baptist site I am limited in pointing out the truth of Catholicism. I was banned for trying to speak the truth of the teachings of Christ's Church, so,I must hold back from defending Christ's Church.
Let's see If Christianity is a book religion, would that be permissible to discuss ? If so, please explain how did it flourish during the first 1500 years of Church history when the vast majority of people were illiterate?
How could the Apostle Thomas establish the church in India that survives to this day (and is now in communion with the Catholic Church) without leaving them with one word of New Testament Scripture? Thank You and God Bless.
I forgot to mention that as a Catholic I believe that the Holy Bible is the inerrant Word of God.
Let's see If Christianity is a book religion, would that be permissible to discuss ? If so, please explain how did it flourish during the first 1500 years of Church history when the vast majority of people were illiterate?
How could the Apostle Thomas establish the church in India that survives to this day (and is now in communion with the Catholic Church) without leaving them with one word of New Testament Scripture? Thank You and God Bless.
I forgot to mention that as a Catholic I believe that the Holy Bible is the inerrant Word of God.
Last edited by a moderator:
Read this thread through. The RCC is not Christ's Church and never has been. Some have posted lengthy lists of complete heresies which the RCC believes in. I posted how the RCC practices both blasphemy and idolatry to this very day. The church of Christ would never do that. The RCC doesn't even fit the definition of a "church."
I am not so much concerned with "religion" as I am with Biblical Christianity, or which the RCC does not fit. Read the book of Acts. Paul went on three different missionary journeys and established over 100 churches. Each church was a local independent autonomous church. There was no denomination, no hierarchy involved. Paul wrote 13 epistles. Each one was addressed to either a local church or a pastor of a local church. In the Book of Revelation Jesus wrote to seven churches or the pastors of seven local churches. The Bible has much to say about local churches, but never a denomination or a universal church--nothing whatsoever that describes the monstrosity of the RCC.
These churches continued under different names for more than 1500 years as attested by the RCC itself. Cardinal Hosius attested that the Waldenses flourished for 1100 years going back to the time of the Apostles.
Have you read all the works of Augustine yet?
How about all the voluminous works of the Early Church Fathers?
Who did these people write for and why?
Did you know that when Alexander the Great conquered the "world" the one great thing that he gave the world at that time was a universal language, even as the Romans to come gave the world a network of roads. Greek was so universal that it was said "even the slaves could read." But that was in the time of Christ.
Do you think that all of a sudden all the Jews gave up their synagogue education?
There were great works of history that came out of that period of time, as well as in the areas of theology and literature. To say that people were illiterate is foolish indeed. There are still nations today where the illiteracy rate is high, but that doesn't stop Christianity from flourishing.
And why couldn't he?
Catholics have a penchant for names, relics, and idoatry.
What is the name of the church you put on your profile?
St John the Baptist
This is the name of a Catholic Church?? How ironic. John the Baptist stood against everything Catholic. He would condemn the whole thing.
Thomas never condoned anything Catholic and existed well before the RCC ever came into existence. He brought Christianity to India, not Catholicism.
He came with what NT documents he had. He didn't have to have them all.
There were others that followed Thomas. History simply mentions him as the first one.
To add to the history above:
The Italic or pre-Waldensian Church produced a version of the NT which was translated from the Received Text by the year A.D. 157. Theodore Beza, the associate and successor of John Calvin and the great Swiss reformer, credits the Italic Church to have begun in A.D. 120.
A translation of the NT into Syrian was made in A.D. 150. This translation was called the Peshitta Version.
In about A.D. 350, a missionary to the Goths by the name of Ulfilas translated the NT into the Gothic language.
In Europe, various groups include the Gallic Church of southern France (A.D. 177); the Celtic Church of Great Britain; the Church of Scotland and Ireland; Codex W of Matthew in the 4th or 5th century; Codex A in the Gospels in the 5th century; the vast majority of extant NT manuscripts; the early Greek church (A.D. 312-1453); all came about.
The Word of God flourished throughout the world in the early centuries first by the apostles and secondly by the disciples of the apostles.
2Ti 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
The Italic or pre-Waldensian Church produced a version of the NT which was translated from the Received Text by the year A.D. 157. Theodore Beza, the associate and successor of John Calvin and the great Swiss reformer, credits the Italic Church to have begun in A.D. 120.
A translation of the NT into Syrian was made in A.D. 150. This translation was called the Peshitta Version.
In about A.D. 350, a missionary to the Goths by the name of Ulfilas translated the NT into the Gothic language.
In Europe, various groups include the Gallic Church of southern France (A.D. 177); the Celtic Church of Great Britain; the Church of Scotland and Ireland; Codex W of Matthew in the 4th or 5th century; Codex A in the Gospels in the 5th century; the vast majority of extant NT manuscripts; the early Greek church (A.D. 312-1453); all came about.
The Word of God flourished throughout the world in the early centuries first by the apostles and secondly by the disciples of the apostles.
2Ti 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
1 Peter 2:9 says Rebel is right. The church(saved by Christ) is a "a royal priesthood, a holy nation ."
Some of this may have already been said:
1. Bible teaches that offices of bishop and presbyter are the same(Titus 1: 5-7) Rebel is right. Catholic tradition says they are different.
2. Bible teaches all have sinned. (Heb. 4:15: ROM 3:10-12), but RCC says Mary was sinless.
3. Bible teaches Christ's sacrifice was once for all (Heb. 7:27, 9:28, 10:10). RCC tradition says priest sacrifices Christ on the altar at Mass.
4. Bible says not to bow to statues (Ex. 20:4-5). RCC tradition teaches some statues are fine.
5. The Bible says all Christians are saints and priests (Eph. 1:1, 1 Peter 2:9) Rebel is right again. RCC says saints and priests are from special castes within the Church.
6. The Bible says that Jesus is the ONLY Mediator between God and man(1Tim. 2:5), but RCC has placed Mary as Co-mediator.
7. The Bible says Christians can and should know that they have eternal life(1 John 5:13), but RCC tradition says Christian's cannot and shouldn't know that.
If the bible is the inerrant word of God, why does RCC tradition, treat it as errant?
RCC has no leg to stand on, per scripture. The only argument they have is the authority of the RCC and tradition. Both of those account for nothing when placed against scripture.
1. Bible teaches that offices of bishop and presbyter are the same(Titus 1: 5-7) Rebel is right. Catholic tradition says they are different.
2. Bible teaches all have sinned. (Heb. 4:15: ROM 3:10-12), but RCC says Mary was sinless.
3. Bible teaches Christ's sacrifice was once for all (Heb. 7:27, 9:28, 10:10). RCC tradition says priest sacrifices Christ on the altar at Mass.
4. Bible says not to bow to statues (Ex. 20:4-5). RCC tradition teaches some statues are fine.
5. The Bible says all Christians are saints and priests (Eph. 1:1, 1 Peter 2:9) Rebel is right again. RCC says saints and priests are from special castes within the Church.
6. The Bible says that Jesus is the ONLY Mediator between God and man(1Tim. 2:5), but RCC has placed Mary as Co-mediator.
7. The Bible says Christians can and should know that they have eternal life(1 John 5:13), but RCC tradition says Christian's cannot and shouldn't know that.
If the bible is the inerrant word of God, why does RCC tradition, treat it as errant?
RCC has no leg to stand on, per scripture. The only argument they have is the authority of the RCC and tradition. Both of those account for nothing when placed against scripture.
Lakeside,
Before 1500, the church still had scripture. The letters where available. Teachers, had access to them and did teach from them. The claim of the RCC that there was no scripture before the 1546 is a myth. There is still 99 manuscripts existing today, that were written before 400 A.D. Written before 1546, there is still 5,700 Greek NT manuscripts surviving. If you count other languages, there is nearly 25,000 surviving NT manuscripts. The church had scripture. They church has always had scripture. To say they didn't is a RCC myth.
*facts taken from Article written by Wayne Grudem, research professor at Phoenix Seminary.
Last edited by a moderator:
RCC is the biggest cult in the world selling many products of paganism.
Especially this alone proves that RCC is a pagan religion.
They pray to Mary from all over the world, from Vancouver, Toronto, New York, Boston, Atlanta, Chicago, L.A. Houston, Philippines, Japan, Korea, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Italy, Greece, Germany, Austria, U.K. Spain, Argentine, Mexico, etc., from millions of places of the world.
Unless Mary is a goddess, how can she fly all over the world and listen to their prayers from millions of places at the same time ?
Unless Mary is a goddess,how can she understand so many languages since she couldn't understand what Jesus said in Luke 2:50?
Unless Mary is omniscient, how could she understand all the problems of 1.5 billion Catholics like their diseases, computer problems, legal problems, weakness of their bodies, marriage problems etc?
RCC pray to Mary because they regard her as a goddess.
That's why RCC is absolutely a pagan religion.
Eliyahu
Especially this alone proves that RCC is a pagan religion.
They pray to Mary from all over the world, from Vancouver, Toronto, New York, Boston, Atlanta, Chicago, L.A. Houston, Philippines, Japan, Korea, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Italy, Greece, Germany, Austria, U.K. Spain, Argentine, Mexico, etc., from millions of places of the world.
Unless Mary is a goddess, how can she fly all over the world and listen to their prayers from millions of places at the same time ?
Unless Mary is a goddess,how can she understand so many languages since she couldn't understand what Jesus said in Luke 2:50?
Unless Mary is omniscient, how could she understand all the problems of 1.5 billion Catholics like their diseases, computer problems, legal problems, weakness of their bodies, marriage problems etc?
RCC pray to Mary because they regard her as a goddess.
That's why RCC is absolutely a pagan religion.
Eliyahu
If anyone is desirous of knowing the facts about the early churches and the Roman Catholic Church, please examine these sources very carefully, and also the links within these sources:
http://www.christian-history.org/roman-catholicism.html
http://www.christian-history.org/roman-catholic-one-true-church.html
http://www.christian-history.org/early-christianity.html
http://www.christian-history.org/roman-catholicism.html
http://www.christian-history.org/roman-catholic-one-true-church.html
http://www.christian-history.org/early-christianity.html
I am more interested in the PRESENT Church and or <churches> and the PRESENT Roman Catholic Church of the past two centuries more or less. It[*] has been more idolatrous and anti-Christ than ever.
But will Protestants believe it? Never!
And what would be the MAIN TRAIT of pagan so called 'Christian' Rome?
That it "THINKS ABOVE WHAT IS WRITTEN"!!
[*It --- all of them.]
Last edited by a moderator:
That verse of {1 Cor.4:6} is not as you believe. It means that the Corinthians should avoid the false wisdom of vain speculation, contenting themselves with Paul's proclamation of the Cross, which is the fulfillment of God's promises in the OT [ what is written ] Inflated with pride; literally "puffed up" by those who go beyond the only One and True Interpretation, as that one Interpretation used in selecting the correct Canonical Books found [ and accepted by all ] when compiling the Holy Bible [ NT ], a prophesy of the distant Reformation where mere men became gloated with pride and arrogance , filled with a sense of self- importance above that which is written by God. Not accepting the Fullness of the One True Gospel [ not thousands of conflicting interpretations found today within Protestantism ] through Jesus Christ as passed on down to His Apostles/Successors { Luke10:16 } in both Written form along with Apostolic { oral } Teaching { 2nd Thessalonians 2:15 }. The term is particularly Pauline.
- Status