Do you believe Spirit baptism replaces water baptism?

[Illuminator]

It kind of makes sense....but then they killed thousands of people that were not heretics?......or were some of them heretics?.....how did they know....which ones were heretics?......torture.....blood tests.....crystal ball?

" killed thousands of people" is a cheap shot used to discredit any Catholic argument. If any church leader is guilty of killing thousands of people, they were sinning against God, Church and all mankind. Before you go mouthing off the same empty mantra, provide the whole story, which is never done because the post would be 5 miles long. I resent the tabloid approach to history.

Heretics deviated from Apostolic Teaching. They stood out like a sore thumb. In fact, every heretic in the patristic period thumbed their noses at the Church, and went by "Bible alone". That's why Arius lost out because his teachings were not found in Apostolic Tradition (an incomprehensible term to sola scripturists)

LOL I am thinking that is a modern belief.

It's based on Paul, who uses anathema in Gal. 1:9, I Cor. 16:22 and elsewhere. It's the basis for excommunication. It is IMPOSSIBLE to "athanema" a part of a body that is not part the body at all.

I would have no problem with a one world religion.....as long as it did not try to force its beliefs on others.....and did not try to take over the world.....Shoot I would be happy with two or three religions.....
Any attempt to control beliefs will always lead to bloodshed. The desire of the Church to work toward one belief was good. The attempt to force it caused horrible things and ruined the Church.

If the Church can be ruined, then Jesus is a liar. "...the gates of hell shall not prevail" does not mean "never attacked". The notion that evil has overcome the Church is not in the Bible, it's a man made tradition invented by psychotic anti-Catholics.

The Church's desire to be tied to the rulers of the world who would enforce their beliefs was another problem....One of the reason that early Americans saw the wisdom of separation of church and state.

There you go again with the "enforce their beliefs" mantra, typical of Seventh Day Adventist propaganda and other made-in-America bible clubs. The Americans revolted against the oppressive British ANGLICAN monarchy, not the Catholic Church. Why don't you go after the reformers who gave power to civil authorities to execute Catholics???

"enforce their beliefs" violates religious freedom, the dignity of the human person and opposes centuries of encyclicals. Your mantra is stupid and absurd. You have to go back several centuries to scrape up the few mistakes made by episcopates who were stuck between a rock and a hard place. As if that means anything in todays world.

 

[Grailhunter]

" killed thousands of people" is a cheap shot used to discredit any Catholic argument. If any church leader is guilty of killing thousands of people, they were sinning against God, Church and all mankind. Before you go mouthing off the same empty mantra, provide the whole story, which is never done because the post would be 5 miles long. I resent the tabloid approach to history.

You are probably going to be sorry you said all that! Look, my religion and my take on history is not about what I like and what I do not like. It is what it is. And I know you do not like what happened, and neither do I, but what happened....happened. Not accepting the truth about the past hinders the Church's ability to learn from its mistakes. You need to go study and find out for yourself the truth. And when you....as a Catholic openly deny it, it looks like you condone it.

It would take a book to explain all the errors in your thinking, are they errors in your thinking or holes in your knowledge or do you have the deny latch set?

If you think the Romans would tolerate something like the Catholic Church in their empire without controlling it, you do not know the Romans real well.

That includes the Holy Roman Empire which involved the “30 year war” against the Protestants and as history shows they were part of the power structure of all the ruling parties of Europe all way up to Henry the VIII and the Church of England, Scotland up to Robert the Bruce-when the Catholic Church excommunicated Scotland, and ended with a war between Scotland and England. And then France until the French Revolution. The Catholic Church and Spain…. The Catholic Church directly assisted Queen Mary Tudor (Bloody Mary) and Queen Isabella of Castile with their wars against the Moslem Moors affording them both the Knights of Christ and the Knights Templar and both Queens had a long history of using the Catholic Inquisitional teams against the Jews and Protestants. The Catholic Church and Catholic leaders continued to rule Spain until 1836 when the First Carlist War more or less dethroned them at which point the new regime abolished the major convents and monasteries

There were supposedly over a hundred Inquisitional teams that the Catholic Church put at the disposal of different countries and were active for nearly 6 centuries. Since the tortures and executions were directed and documented by Catholic clergy the numbers killed would probably be recorded in the Vatican Library…Estimates range up to 10 million men, women, and children killed across Europe at the hands of the Church. Starting in 1200 and ending in around 1834 due to the power structure of the Church collapsing due to the Protestant reform and the conquest of Napoleon. A little shorter if you do not include the genocide of the Waldensians and the Cathars which saw monks taking up swords. It is said that Miriam gave Saint Dominic, the founder of the Dominican Order the Rosary during his campaign against the Cathars.

Spanish Inquisition - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Because the Americans were mostly Protestant and believed in separation of Church and State the Catholics never got a foot hold in America….same thing goes for Canada.

The Catholic Church converted South America to Catholicism with the help of the Lady of Guadalupe, the Jesuits, and the Spanish Conquistadors. But the Church there over the years have had a confrontational relationship with the governments and drug lords.

 

[Illuminator]

You are probably going to be sorry you said all that! Look, my religion and my take on history is not about what I like and what I do not like. It is what it is. And I know you do not like what happened, and neither do I, but what happened....happened. Not accepting the truth about the past hinders the Church's ability to learn from its mistakes. You need to go study and find out for yourself the truth. And when you....as a Catholic openly deny it, it looks like you condone it.

I haven't openly denied anything. You are the one who openly denies the Protestant Inquisition.

It would take a book to explain all the errors in your thinking, are they errors in your thinking or holes in your knowledge or do you have the deny latch set?

Simply asserting denial on my part doesn't prove it. I accept any PROTESTANT historian who wrote after 1960. Before that, all of Protestant apologists relied solely on post-enlightenment era polemics. You do the same thing.

If you think the Romans would tolerate something like the Catholic Church in their empire without controlling it, you do not know the Romans real well.

I know the pagan Rome/Christian Rome collusion is a myth invented by psychotic anti-Catholics and made-in-America bible cults.

That includes the Holy Roman Empire which involved the “30 year war” against the Protestants and as history shows they were part of the power structure of all the ruling parties of Europe all way up to Henry the VIII and the Church of England, Scotland up to Robert the Bruce-when the Catholic Church excommunicated Scotland, and ended with a war between Scotland and England. And then France until the French Revolution. The Catholic Church and Spain…. The Catholic Church directly assisted Queen Mary Tudor (Bloody Mary) and Queen Isabella of Castile with their wars against the Moslem Moors affording them both the Knights of Christ and the Knights Templar and both Queens had a long history of using the Catholic Inquisitional teams against the Jews and Protestants. The Catholic Church and Catholic leaders continued to rule Spain until 1836 when the First Carlist War more or less dethroned them at which point the new regime abolished the major convents and monasteries

There were supposedly over a hundred Inquisitional teams that the Catholic Church put at the disposal of different countries and were active for nearly 6 centuries. Since the tortures and executions were directed and documented by Catholic clergy the numbers killed would probably be recorded in the Vatican Library…Estimates range up to 10 million men, women, and children killed across Europe at the hands of the Church. Starting in 1200 and ending in around 1834 due to the power structure of the Church collapsing and due to the Protestant reform and the conquest of Napoleon. A little shorter if you do not include the genocide of the Waldensians and the Cathars which saw monks taking up swords. It is said that Miriam gave Saint Dominic, the founder of the Dominican Order the Rosary during his campaign against the Cathars.

Spanish Inquisition - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Because the Americans were mostly Protestant and believed in separation of Church and State the Catholics never got a foot hold in America….same thing goes for Canada.

The Catholic Church converted South America to Catholicism with the help of the Lady of Guadalupe, the Jesuits, and the Spanish Conquistadors. But the Church there over the years have had a confrontation relationship with the governments and drug lords.

If the Church is as bad as you claim, there would be no confrontation relationship with the governments and drug lords.​

Definition of PRESENTISM

an attitude toward the past dominated by present-day attitudes and experiences… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

​

I'm not a slave to boring irrelevant medieval politics that has nothing to do with official Church teaching.​

 

[Gospel Believer]

This is just absurd! Why are you wasting people's time with this off-topic garbage?

Anyone can choose a selected source to justify their "truth". Even Satan did that when he met Jesus in the wilderness.

I could just as easily say (with equal justification) that many conservatives tend to turn the Word of God into fables or fictional stories. And anyone who defends Christian conservatism is seriously in trouble with the LORD. It is blatantly obvious that conservatives are rejecting the one true God. -- but that would be stooping to your level of bigotry.

It is obvious that you either have never read the parable of the good Samaritan or simply don't believe it. Samaritans were despised by the Jews, just as you despise liberals, but he was the one whom Jesus described as the one who truly loved his neighbor. => Your unChristian intolerance and criticism of others in Christ is disgusting!!! <=

While you're at it, read the parable of the self-righteous Pharisee and the tax collector.

Luke 18:9-14, "He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous and regarded others with contempt: “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee, standing by himself, was praying thus, ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people: thieves, rogues, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give a tenth of all my income.’ But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven but was beating his breast and saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’ I tell you, this man went down to his home justified rather than the other, for all who exalt themselves will be humbled, but all who humble themselves will be exalted.”

I will continue to oppose your condemnation of your brothers and sisters => whom Christ has accepted <=

Never debate anybody that watches Fox “ News”......

 

[Illuminator]

​

As we all know and as many of our well-established textbooks have argued for decades, the Inquisition was one of the most frightening and bloody chapters in Western history; Pope Pius XII was anti-Semitic and rightfully called “Hitler’s Pope,” the Dark Ages were stunting the progress of knowledge to be redeemed only by the secular spirit of the Enlightenment. The religious Crusades were an early example of the rapacious Western thirst for riches and power. But what if these long held beliefs were all wrong?

In this stunning, powerful, and ultimately persuasive book, Rodney Stark, one of the most highly regarded sociologists of religion and bestselling author of The Rise of Christianity (HarperSanFrancisco 1997), argues that some of our most firmly held ideas about history, ideas that paint the Catholic Church in the least favorable light are, in fact, fiction. Why have we held these wrongheaded ideas so firmly and for so long? And if our beliefs are wrong, what is the truth?

In each chapter, Stark takes on a well-established anti-Catholic myth, gives a fascinating history of how each myth became conventional wisdom and presents a startling picture of the real truth. For example, instead of the Spanish Inquisition being an anomaly of torture and murder of innocent people persecuted for “imaginary” crimes such as witchcraft and blasphemy, Stark argues that not only did the Spanish Inquisition spill very little blood, but it was a major force in support of moderation and justice.

Stark dispels the myth of Pope Pius XII being apathetic or even helpful to the Nazi movement, such as to merit the title “Hitler’s Pope,” and instead shows that the campaign to link Pope Pius XII to Hitler was initiated by the Soviet Union, presumably in hopes of neutralizing the Vatican in post-World War II affairs. Many praised Pope Pius XIIs vigorous and devoted efforts to saving Jewish lives during the war.

Instead of understanding the Dark Ages as a millennium of ignorance and backwardness inspired by the Catholic Church’s power, Stark argues that the whole notion of the “Dark Ages” was an act of pride perpetuated by anti-religious intellectuals who were determined to claim that theirs was the era of “Enlightenment.”

In the end, readers of Bearing False Witness will have a more accurate history of the Catholic Church and will also understand why it became unfairly maligned for so long. Bearing False Witness is a compelling and sobering account of how egotism and ideology often work together to give us a false truth.

Amazon.ca

The author is not a Catholic, so you can't claim doctrinal bias.

 

[Grailhunter]

It's based on Paul, who uses anathema in Gal. 1:9, I Cor. 16:22 and elsewhere. It's the basis for excommunication. It is IMPOSSIBLE to "athanema" a part of a body that is not part the body at all.

I agree.....with the theology of it, but that is not what happened.

I haven't openly denied anything. You are the one who openly denies the Protestant Inquisition.

I haven't openly denied anything. You are the one who openly denies the Protestant Inquisition.

You are just hurting yourself. Most anywhere on the web the Protestant Inquisition is the catholic torturing Protestants....you are looking for a needle in a haystack.

I haven't openly denied anything. You are the one who openly denies the Protestant Inquisition.

Simply asserting denial on my part doesn't prove it. I accept any PROTESTANT historian who wrote after 1960. Before that, all of Protestant apologists relied solely on post-enlightenment era polemics. You do the same thing.

I know the pagan Rome/Christian Rome collusion is a myth invented by psychotic anti-Catholics and made-in-America bible cults.

If the Church is as bad as you claim, there would be no confrontation relationship with the governments and drug lords.​

Definition of PRESENTISM

an attitude toward the past dominated by present-day attitudes and experiences… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

​

I'm not a slave to boring irrelevant medieval politics that has nothing to do with official Church teaching.​

I know denial when I see it.

 

[Grailhunter]

View attachment 30908​

As we all know and as many of our well-established textbooks have argued for decades, the Inquisition was one of the most frightening and bloody chapters in Western history; Pope Pius XII was anti-Semitic and rightfully called “Hitler’s Pope,” the Dark Ages were stunting the progress of knowledge to be redeemed only by the secular spirit of the Enlightenment. The religious Crusades were an early example of the rapacious Western thirst for riches and power. But what if these long held beliefs were all wrong?

In this stunning, powerful, and ultimately persuasive book, Rodney Stark, one of the most highly regarded sociologists of religion and bestselling author of The Rise of Christianity (HarperSanFrancisco 1997), argues that some of our most firmly held ideas about history, ideas that paint the Catholic Church in the least favorable light are, in fact, fiction. Why have we held these wrongheaded ideas so firmly and for so long? And if our beliefs are wrong, what is the truth?

In each chapter, Stark takes on a well-established anti-Catholic myth, gives a fascinating history of how each myth became conventional wisdom and presents a startling picture of the real truth. For example, instead of the Spanish Inquisition being an anomaly of torture and murder of innocent people persecuted for “imaginary” crimes such as witchcraft and blasphemy, Stark argues that not only did the Spanish Inquisition spill very little blood, but it was a major force in support of moderation and justice.

Stark dispels the myth of Pope Pius XII being apathetic or even helpful to the Nazi movement, such as to merit the title “Hitler’s Pope,” and instead shows that the campaign to link Pope Pius XII to Hitler was initiated by the Soviet Union, presumably in hopes of neutralizing the Vatican in post-World War II affairs. Many praised Pope Pius XIIs vigorous and devoted efforts to saving Jewish lives during the war.

Instead of understanding the Dark Ages as a millennium of ignorance and backwardness inspired by the Catholic Church’s power, Stark argues that the whole notion of the “Dark Ages” was an act of pride perpetuated by anti-religious intellectuals who were determined to claim that theirs was the era of “Enlightenment.”

In the end, readers of Bearing False Witness will have a more accurate history of the Catholic Church and will also understand why it became unfairly maligned for so long. Bearing False Witness is a compelling and sobering account of how egotism and ideology often work together to give us a false truth.

Amazon.ca

The author is not a Catholic, so you can't claim doctrinal bias.

So I take it this a book of denial. LOL The Pope has apologized for these evils. The historians out there are not necessary religious so they are not taking up for the Protestants. If you want to live in a fantasy world between your ears that is your choice.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

View attachment 30908​

As we all know and as many of our well-established textbooks have argued for decades, the Inquisition was one of the most frightening and bloody chapters in Western history; Pope Pius XII was anti-Semitic and rightfully called “Hitler’s Pope,” the Dark Ages were stunting the progress of knowledge to be redeemed only by the secular spirit of the Enlightenment. The religious Crusades were an early example of the rapacious Western thirst for riches and power. But what if these long held beliefs were all wrong?

In this stunning, powerful, and ultimately persuasive book, Rodney Stark, one of the most highly regarded sociologists of religion and bestselling author of The Rise of Christianity (HarperSanFrancisco 1997), argues that some of our most firmly held ideas about history, ideas that paint the Catholic Church in the least favorable light are, in fact, fiction. Why have we held these wrongheaded ideas so firmly and for so long? And if our beliefs are wrong, what is the truth?

In each chapter, Stark takes on a well-established anti-Catholic myth, gives a fascinating history of how each myth became conventional wisdom and presents a startling picture of the real truth. For example, instead of the Spanish Inquisition being an anomaly of torture and murder of innocent people persecuted for “imaginary” crimes such as witchcraft and blasphemy, Stark argues that not only did the Spanish Inquisition spill very little blood, but it was a major force in support of moderation and justice.

Stark dispels the myth of Pope Pius XII being apathetic or even helpful to the Nazi movement, such as to merit the title “Hitler’s Pope,” and instead shows that the campaign to link Pope Pius XII to Hitler was initiated by the Soviet Union, presumably in hopes of neutralizing the Vatican in post-World War II affairs. Many praised Pope Pius XIIs vigorous and devoted efforts to saving Jewish lives during the war.

Instead of understanding the Dark Ages as a millennium of ignorance and backwardness inspired by the Catholic Church’s power, Stark argues that the whole notion of the “Dark Ages” was an act of pride perpetuated by anti-religious intellectuals who were determined to claim that theirs was the era of “Enlightenment.”

In the end, readers of Bearing False Witness will have a more accurate history of the Catholic Church and will also understand why it became unfairly maligned for so long. Bearing False Witness is a compelling and sobering account of how egotism and ideology often work together to give us a false truth.

Amazon.ca

The author is not a Catholic, so you can't claim doctrinal bias.

Watch a few minutes of the author in a YouTube video titled “End of Religion” and I can say that it is extremely odd that he speaks of Christianity and mysticism, astrology on the same playing field. You cannot be for other religions and yet also for Christianity. So his defense of the Catholic Church means he is either a closet Catholic (working secretly for the Vatican) and or he was an Ecumenist (A friend of all churches despite the errors in doctrine between one another). He did not write a book exposing the errors of the Catholic Church in regards to doctrine, and so I cannot take his writing seriously as not being unbiased. Besides, there is nothing new under the sun as Scripture says. Rome killed the Lord Jesus Christ, and it makes sense that they would persecute and kill Christians throughout the centuries (because they are representation of Christ). What about William Tyndale? What about Bloody Mary? What about the Christian Waldenses? Yeah, I am not buying his re-telling of those events if he does touch upon those historical events.

Besides, the Roman Catholic Church was formed by Constantine. It was a mix of pagan religions with Christianity. In the beginning, they did not even always change the statues. They just changed the names.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

1126 - Peter of Bruis - Burned at the Stake - Rejected Rome’s traditions
1155 - Arnold of Brescia - Bible Preacher - Hanged and Burned
1211 - 80 Waldensians - burned at the stake
1215 - 80 Christians - Tried by red hot iron and burned to death the same day in Strasburg, Germany.
1237 - 15 Christians burned alive at Cerdagne and Castlebon, Spain
1315 - Waldensian Bishop Neumunster - Burned at the stake in Hamburg, Germany
1315 - 50 Women and children burned at the stake in Schweidnitz in Silesia
1386 - Christmas Eve- Inquisitor Borelli attacks Valley of Pragela; hundreds frozen to death trying to escape.
1400 - William Sawtree - Wycliffe follower - Burned at the stake
1408 - John Resby - Heresy - Burned at Perth, Scotland
1409 - Tailor named Bradbe - Wycliffe follower - Roasted alive in a barrel
1415 - John Huss - Burned for preaching the Gospel and rejecting Rome’s views
1416 - 300 burned at the stake in Saxony
1417 - Sir John Oldcastle - Helped distribute Wycliffe Bible - Martyred for his faith by being roasted over fire
1427 - John Purvey - Bible distribution - died in prison - 1421-7
1431 - Paul Craws - Convicted at St. Andrews, Scotland and burned to death
1481/2 - 2,000 people burned alive in Spanish Inquisition in Seville and Castile
1488 - 3,000 Waldensian believers murdered in a cave called Aigue-Froid
1506 - William Tylsworth - Burned for his faith in the Word of God
1511 - James Brewster - Burned at the stake - Having a book of Scripture
1514 - Richard Hun - Died suspiciously in Lollard’s Tower in London
1519 - Six men and women burned for teaching their children the Lord’s prayer - London
1525 - Gospel preacher named Schuch - Burned at the stake in Strasburg for preaching and having a Bible - His Bible was burned with him.
1528 - Patrick Hamilton - Burned at the Stake in Scotland for declaring that it is the right of any person to read God’s Word
1529 - Louis Berquin - Burned at the Stake in France for printing and distributing Bible tracts in French
1530 - John Tewksbury - Burned at the stake for Bible distribution - England
1531 - Thomas Bilney - Martyred for preaching and distributing the Tyndale Bible
1531 - Richard Bayfield - Burned at the stake for Scripture distribution
1532 - James Bainham - Burned for possessing Scriptures in the English language
1533 - Henry Forrest - Benedictine Monk who became saved - Burned at the stake in St. Andrews, Scotland
1533 - John Fryth - Burned for preaching the true Gospel - England
1534/5 - 24 Protestants burned alive in Paris, France
1535 - Dean Forret - Burned for having Scripture in the English tongue - Scotland
1536 - William Tyndale - Burned at the Stake for Translating the Bible into English - His translation became the groundwork for the King James Version
1536 - Ann Boleyn - Wife of Henry the VIII - Beheaded for the true faith
1540 - Thomas Garrett - Friend of Tyndale - Burned at the stake - England
1545 - Massacre of Merindol and Cabrieres, France - Thousands of Waldensians murdered
1546 - Peter Chapot burned to death in Meaux, France for bringing French bibles to France
1546 - Stephen Polliot - Burned at the Stake for bringing Scriptures into France - His tongue was cut out so he could not witness to those around him at his execution.
1546 - Ann Askew - Tortured and burnt for studying and believing the true Scriptures
1548 - Paul Fagius - Burned for translating the Bible - England
1548 - Martin Bucer - Burned for translating the Bible - England
1553 - Nicholas Nayle - Burned at the stake in Paris because he brought gospel books for believers.
1554 - Lady Jane Grey - Beheaded for her conversion to true Christianity
1555 - Nicholas Ridley - Burned for his faith - England
1555 - Hugh Latimer - Burned for his faith - England
1555 - John Rogers - Translator of the Matthews Bible into English
1556 - Bartholmew Hector - Preaching and Bible Distribution -Burned at Thurin
1560 - Julian Hernandez - Burned at the stake in Spain for Bible Distribution
1560 - Jean Louis Paschale - Believed the Bible over Romish teachings
1560 - Stefano Negrino - Starved to death in prison - Italy
1561 - 88 men had throats slit in Montalto - Italy
1561 - Hugo Chiamps - Entrails torn from his body at Turin, Italy
1561 - Peter Geymarali - Entrails torn from his body at Lucerna, Italy
1561 - Maria Romano - Buried alive at Rocco-patia, Italy
1561 - Magdalen Foulano - Buried alive at San Giovanni, Italy
1561 - Susan Michelini - Hands and feet bound - Left to die in cold and hunger - Saracena, Italy
1561 - Bartholomew Fache - Gashed with Sabres and wounds filled with quicklime - Died from the agonizing pain
1561 - James Baridari -Sulpherous matches placed all over body and then lit
1561 - Daniel Revelli - Mouth filled with gun powder and then lit - Head blown to pieces
1561 - Maria Monnen - Flesh cut from cheek and chin thus exposing cheek bone- left to Perish
1561 - Thomas Margueti - Mutilated to death at Miraboco, Italy
1561 - Sudan Jaquin - Cut to bits in La Torre, Italy
1561 - Sara Rostagnol - Slit open from legs to Bosom - Perished on road between Eyral and Lucerna
1561 - Anna Char bonnier - Impaled on a spike and carried from San Giovanni to La Torre
1561 - Daniel Rambaud - Refused to renounce the true Gospel as they took his nails off, then fingers, then his feet, then his hands, then his arms and finally his legs at Paesano, Italy
1562 - James Bovell - Rejected Rome’s teachings in favor of the Bible
1566 - Francesco Spinula - Drowned at Venice, Italy for making a Latin version of the Psalms
1567 - Pietro Carnesecchi - Refused to bow to papal authority
1570 - Aonio Paleario - Martyred for writing a book called “The benefit of Christ’s Death.”
1572 - St Bartholomew’s Day Massacre - 4,000 brutally murdered of the French Huguenots - It lasted from August 24 to October 23 - Total killed during this time was about 35,000
1605 - Gunpowder plot attempt to kill King James and his 47 translators (creating the King James Bible).
　
October 27, 1842 - Bibles burned in Lake Champlain, New York in the USA!
　

Source:
Murdered by the Church of Rome

 

[Illuminator]

1126
1572 - St Bartholomew’s Day Massacre - 4,000 brutally murdered of the French Huguenots - It lasted from August 24 to October 23 - Total killed during this time was about 35,000
1605 - Gunpowder plot attempt to kill King James and his 47 translators (creating the King James Bible).
　
October 27, 1842 - Bibles burned in Lake Champlain, New York in the USA!
　

Source:
Murdered by the Church of Rome

Your source:

Shows only one credential, Dr. Ken Matto is a lifetime member of the Dean Burgon Society
The Dean Burgon Society is an organisation that promotes and defends the King James Bible and the underlying Hebrew and Greek manuscripts through extensive publications, seminars, online information, and selling printed material. The current president is D. A. Waite.

It's an "old school tie" club with no mechanism for ruling out inaccuracies. It's a for-profit internet group with no accountability to any reputable institution of learning. The home page tells lies against the "Catholic Bible". There are many authorized translations used by both Catholics and Protestants. There is no copywrite on this mysterious "Catholic Bible". A red flag when up.
+++
The decision whether to use an old or a modern translation is complicated by attitudes held by conservative Christians. Some Protestants will tell you that the only acceptable version of the Bible is the King James. This position is known as “King James-onlyism.” Its advocates often make jokes such as, “If the King James Version was good enough for the Paul, it’s good enough for me” or “My King James Version corrects your Greek text.”

They claim that the King James is based on the only perfect set of manuscripts we have (a false claim; there are no perfect manuscripts, and the ones used for the KJV were compiled by a Catholic, Erasmus), that it is the only translation that avoids liberal renderings, and that its translators were saintly and scholarly men. Since the King James is also known as “the Authorized Version” (AV), its advocates sometimes argue that it is the only version to ever have been “authorized.” [To this one may point out that it was authorized only in the Anglican Church, which now uses other translations, and that the man who authorized it, King James I, was scarcely the well-spring of moral authority King James-onlyites paint him as (in fact, he was a notorious homosexual). For a critique of King James-onlyism, see D. A. Carson, The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979).]

As amusing as King James-onlyism may sound, many Protestants take it seriously. There is even a Catholic equivalent, which we might call “Douay-Rheims-onlyism.” The Douay-Rheims version, which predates the King James (the complete KJV was published in 1611, the complete Douay-Rheims in 1609) was the standard Bible for English-speaking Catholics until the twentieth century.

The arguments for Douay-Rheims-onlyism mirror the arguments for King James-onlyism. Just as the King James is said to be superior because of the manuscripts on which it is based, so the Douay-Rheims is said to be superior because it is based on the Vulgate, Jerome’s ancient Latin translation of the Bible. Appeals are made to how saintly and scholarly Jerome and the translators of the Douay-Rheims were, and to the fact that the Douay-Rheims, like the King James, avoids modern, liberal renderings. Finally, stress is laid on the fact that the Douay-Rheims, being based on the Vulgate, is based on the official or “authorized” Bible of the Latin Church.

Choosing a Bible Translation

Which is the best Bible Translation for Catholics to use? Some background on the methods translators use can help you choose the one that is right for you.

www.catholic.com

As for your list, are you sure none of the victims on your list were Catholics? I'm not going to debunk each one, some may be true, but I will comment on the last one.
1605 - Gunpowder plot attempt to kill King James and his 47 translators (creating the King James Bible).

It was an ill-fated conspiracy with disastrous consequences. On November 5, 1605, a small group of fanatic Catholics in England planned to blow up the House of Parliament, killing the assembled leadership and assassinating King James I. When it had become clear that King James was not to grant Catholics any relief from the persecution of his predecessor, Queen Elizabeth I, the plot was hatched among a few desperate men. From a rented building the conspirators dug a trench to a cellar beneath Parliament. The room was filled with barrels of gunpowder. One of the conspirators, Guy Fawkes, was to set off the charge. But the conspiracy was discovered, Fawkes arrested, and a roundup began of possible conspirators. Among those captured were a small cadre of Catholic priests. They had nothing to do with the conspiracy. But the government was less interested in the facts, more interested in the propaganda value.

The result of the Plot ended up with more laws persecuting Catholics.

Gunpowder Plot, The

Gunpowder Plot, the (oath taken May, 1604, plot discovered November, 1605). Robert Catesby, the originator of the Powder Plot, owned estates at Lapworth and Ash...

www.catholic.com

 

[Grailhunter]

Your source:
View attachment 30915
Shows only one credential, Dr. Ken Matto is a lifetime member of the Dean Burgon Society
The Dean Burgon Society is an organisation that promotes and defends the King James Bible and the underlying Hebrew and Greek manuscripts through extensive publications, seminars, online information, and selling printed material. The current president is D. A. Waite.

It's an "old school tie" club with no mechanism for ruling out inaccuracies. It's a for-profit internet group with no accountability to any reputable institution of learning. The home page tells lies against the "Catholic Bible". There are many authorized translations used by both Catholics and Protestants. There is no copywrite on this mysterious "Catholic Bible". A red flag when up.
+++
The decision whether to use an old or a modern translation is complicated by attitudes held by conservative Christians. Some Protestants will tell you that the only acceptable version of the Bible is the King James. This position is known as “King James-onlyism.” Its advocates often make jokes such as, “If the King James Version was good enough for the Paul, it’s good enough for me” or “My King James Version corrects your Greek text.”

They claim that the King James is based on the only perfect set of manuscripts we have (a false claim; there are no perfect manuscripts, and the ones used for the KJV were compiled by a Catholic, Erasmus), that it is the only translation that avoids liberal renderings, and that its translators were saintly and scholarly men. Since the King James is also known as “the Authorized Version” (AV), its advocates sometimes argue that it is the only version to ever have been “authorized.” [To this one may point out that it was authorized only in the Anglican Church, which now uses other translations, and that the man who authorized it, King James I, was scarcely the well-spring of moral authority King James-onlyites paint him as (in fact, he was a notorious homosexual). For a critique of King James-onlyism, see D. A. Carson, The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979).]

As amusing as King James-onlyism may sound, many Protestants take it seriously. There is even a Catholic equivalent, which we might call “Douay-Rheims-onlyism.” The Douay-Rheims version, which predates the King James (the complete KJV was published in 1611, the complete Douay-Rheims in 1609) was the standard Bible for English-speaking Catholics until the twentieth century.

The arguments for Douay-Rheims-onlyism mirror the arguments for King James-onlyism. Just as the King James is said to be superior because of the manuscripts on which it is based, so the Douay-Rheims is said to be superior because it is based on the Vulgate, Jerome’s ancient Latin translation of the Bible. Appeals are made to how saintly and scholarly Jerome and the translators of the Douay-Rheims were, and to the fact that the Douay-Rheims, like the King James, avoids modern, liberal renderings. Finally, stress is laid on the fact that the Douay-Rheims, being based on the Vulgate, is based on the official or “authorized” Bible of the Latin Church.

Choosing a Bible Translation

Which is the best Bible Translation for Catholics to use? Some background on the methods translators use can help you choose the one that is right for you.

www.catholic.com

As for your list, are you sure none of the victims on your list were Catholics? I'm not going to debunk each one, some may be true, but I will comment on the last one.
1605 - Gunpowder plot attempt to kill King James and his 47 translators (creating the King James Bible).

Guy Fawks was a political activist protesting the harsh treatment Catholics were receiving by government approval. He was not a cleric, and not acting under orders from any priest, bishop or pope. If he was, there would have been a record of it somewhere; lots of people would have noticed. But there is no record of G. Fawks taking orders from the church. None. He tried to blow up parliament, not bible translators.

The result of the Plot ended up with more laws persecuting Catholics.

Gunpowder Plot, The

Gunpowder Plot, the (oath taken May, 1604, plot discovered November, 1605). Robert Catesby, the originator of the Powder Plot, owned estates at Lapworth and Ash...

www.catholic.com

I would not worry about a short list like that, when you got numbers up to 10 million.

And the King James Version of the Bible is wonderful.....the old illustrated copies are beautiful collectors items and the big ones make good table top decorations.....and no Bible sounds better in ceremonies.....scriptures put to poetry. Unfortunately it is known for more or less being the official Bible for false beliefs and inaccuracies. I collect them....the older the better.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Just an observation based on your arrogant remarks . . .

Given your point of view, I can see myself as "arrogant." You practice a religion with an established orthodoxy. I oppose many of your orthodox views. I do it openly and with great confidence and without fear. When someone such as me challenges the orthodoxy of a religion or a religious person, it can seem arrogant to that person.

I already established that MANY things you say aren’t true . . .

By "true" you mean orthodox. And I agree, you measured my views against your orthodox dogma and the verdict was heresy. In your view, not only am I arrogant but I am heretical. But now that your religion can't put me on the rack, that must torque your bird.

They show definitive proof that there IS an office of the Bishopric in the NT.
YOUR position is nothing more than denial.

I see nothing in the scriptures to support the idea of a Bishop or a Bishopric in the Catholic sense. We have Pau's letter to Timothy, written at a time when Christianity was beginning to become a wide-spread phenomenon. Paul advised Timothy to get some help from the locals. Timothy was to pick teachers and overseers from among the elders of the local congregation. The appointment of men to these roles was on an ad hoc basis as the need arose. Timothy was not establishing an office; he was choosing men.

WRONG.

Once again – the word “Episkopay” used in Acts 1:20 translates as “Overseership”.
The word “Episkoppos” is used repeatedly in the NT (1 Tim. 3:1, 2, Phil. 1:1) and translates as “Overseer”.

While it is true that Episkopos refers to an overseer, it doesn't always mean "overseer." In this instance, Peter is quoting a Psalm of David, who is mocking his enemies when they say, "May another take his office." David's opponents want David to be removed from ruling over Israel to be replaced by someone else. David wasn't a Bishop or an overseer. He was a king. The Greek term for "office" has a wide semantic range and can not be forced or limited to a Bishop in the Catholic church.

My dispute with you is not centered on the translation of the word. Our dispute is over your religious suppositions that a vacant office necessarily needs to be filled and that the office that Judas held survived beyond the first century. There is no person alive who might qualify as an apostle. The POPE for instance, is NOT the successor to Peter's office.

Etymologically, “Episkopos” is where we get the word “Bishop”.
“Episkopos” (Greek.), “Obispo” (Latin), “Bishop” (English).

I am only interested in the New Testament meaning, not the Catholic religious meaning.

WRONG.

We have the promise and the guarantee of Jesus Christ that the Holy Spirit wolf guide the church to ALL TRUTH (John 16:12-15).

Look at the passage again. Where does Jesus talk about the church in that passage? You are seeing things that aren't there. At that point, I would clean my glasses if I were you. Jesus is not talking about a religious organization with offices to be filled when vacated.

The moment in question was an intimate gathering of Jesus with the men who would soon begin their role as apostles. His words of comfort are directed at these men in particular, who will serve as his apostles.

According to the Apostle Paul, the church is guided by apostles, yes, but also by preachers and teachers and prophets and evangelists. And he also wrote to Timothy to assign elders to the role of teacher/guardian.

Soooo, you DON’T understand that this criteria applied ONLY to the original group??

Yes, of course. That is the point. No person in the Catholic church is qualified to succeed Peter or the other Apostles.

They needed somebody who had been there from the beginning because they were building the Church from the ground UP.

No. They needed someone who was an eyewitness to the Resurrection.

Their successors continued building on THEIR foundation (Rev. 21:14).

Consider 1Corinthians 3 again. Paul compares and contrasts himself with Apollos. Both of these men were contemporaries; both of them served in Corinth; but each had a different job. Apollos didn't succeed Paul. He served along side of Paul the foundation builder.

Once the foundation is competed, the building no longer needs foundation builders.

Also, consider what Peter said in his second epistle.

2Peter 1:3

for His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence.​

See that? By the time Peter wrote his second epistle, the church already had everything. No Popes are required. No successors needed, wanted or required. We got everything we need from the original 12 and Paul.

Well – you got ONE thing right, Jesus WASS celebrating the Passover meal.
And at the Passover – the Paschal LAMB is to be devoured.
Jesus offers HIMSELF as the Pasha; Lamb.

There is NO other reason why most of His disciples would have abandoned Him in John 6:66. The freaked out when He told them that they had to EAT Him. In other places in the Gospel, Jesus ALWAYS explains Himself when His disciples have a tough time understanding – but NOT here.

He just turned to them and asked, “Do you ALSO want to leave (John 6:67).
No explanation about “symbolism”.

First of all, there is NO direct connection between the events recorded in Matthew 26 and the events as recorded in John 6. In John 6, the point centers on a contrast between the ministry of Moses and the ministry of Jesus. Whereas the mana sustained life for a brief time, the life that Jesus provides will sustain life permanently and forever. He spoke these words during an event wherein Jesus himself was giving the people sustenance from heaven. That is, Jesus was feeding the people with food that God provided miraculously.

The people made the connection between the feeding of the five thousand and the Exodus event when Moses gave them mana to eat. So, Jesus uses this opportunity to make an analogy between natural and supernatural sustenance. Natural sustenance requires the ingestion of food to nourish the body, which must be consumed on a regular basis. Supernatural sustenance requires that a person "swallow" the content of the gospel message: I am a sinner in need of God's forgiveness: I am mortal in need of God's power to keep me alive. Jesus is the only person who can guarantee to solve both problems.

Some of Jesus' disciples left because they mistakenly took Jesus at face value, supposing he was advocating cannibalism. The Catholics also were mistaken, but rather than walking away as they should have, they adopted Platonism and invented a way that one might actually "eat" the Lord.

What a stupid idea.

No – arrogance and misinterpretation is why you have so many disjointed and perpetually-splintering Protestant sects . . .

As I said, the fault doesn't lay in the presence of a common corpus. Therefore, your argument has not defeated Sola Scriptura. And don't let it escape your notice that it was a Catholic who nailed the 95 thesis on the Wittenberg door. One could argue that it was the Catholic Church itself that splintered into a thousand pieces. And why did the Catholic Church split into a thousand pieces? The Catholic Church was teaching and practicing false doctrine and a false religion.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Let's review the passages presented by BofL that defeats your claim of no successors.
Acts 1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, ‘Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it’;
and ‘His office let another take.’
Read full chapter
Acts 1:20 in all English translations

Peter is not teaching Catholic theology, the doctrine of apostolic succession, where apostleship is a permanent office in the Church. This idea assumes too much and reads too much into the text. Peter was aware of the "catholic" church, i.e. the entire body of Christ, but Peter was not aware of a religious organization born in Babylon, claiming to be "THE CHURCH."

In Catholic theology, the doctrine of apostolic succession is that the apostolic tradition – including apostolic teaching, preaching, and authority – is handed down from the college of apostles to the college of bishops through the laying on of hands, as a permanent office in the Church.

In Biblical theology, elders in a local church acknowledge a chief elder who is able and willing to teach and to guide the congregation in the walk of faith. According to Biblical theology, an episcopos is a man who is mature in the faith, being of good reputation, and able to lead others in the faith. The most essential qualification for the role of the episcopos is his thorough and complete apprehension of the original gospel message as recorded in the NT.

You can call it succession if you want, but Peter and the others were choosing from among two men ho traveled with the disciples and Jesus and who was an eyewitness to the resurrection. No one alive today can qualify to fill the office of apostle. Therefore, contrary to Catholic doctrine, apostolic teaching, preaching and authority are not passed down by the laying on of hands. There are no more hands.

2 Tim. 2:2, and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.
Read full chapter
2 Timothy 2:2 in all English translations
Jesus > Paul > entrust to faithful men > who will be able to teach others also.
You don't need a calculator to see at least 3 examples of succession.

Again, you can call this succession if you like, but I think a more accurate term is "delegation." The teacher and the Lord is Jesus. Paul served Jesus in his ministry, and faithful men also serve Jesus in their ministry. Paul doesn't succeed Jesus or take over his place as the Son of God, who speaks for God, or comes in the name of the Lord. Jesus is never succeeded. And faithful men are not taking over Paul's place as an apostle of Jesus Christ. Faithful men are helping Paul teach the original gospel to others.

Delegation, not succession.

2 Tim. 1:12-14
12 and therefore I suffer as I do. But I am not ashamed, for I know whom I have believed, and I am sure that he is able to guard until that Day what has been entrusted to me.[a] 13 Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; 14 guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.

Paul is not concerned with those who might take his place. He is concerned for the propagation of "the sound words which you have heard from me." The NT contains a written record of those sound words.

I think you are trying to justify not having bishops, clearly an OFFICE found all over the place in the NT.

I'm sorry for your confusion. Did Paul ask Timothy to appoint an episcopos? Of course he did. But the topic of discussion is Catholic theology and whether or not Catholic theology is Biblical. In my view, the catholic doctrine of apostolic succession does not comport with Biblical teaching.

From my perspective, you are reading into text what isn't there.

Well at least you are reading the text.

You guys are the ones who demand proof-texting for every single belief and practice, (that the Bible never demands), and when we present proof-text, you call it semantics or jargon words. That makes discussion with you impossible.

Again, the issue isn't about who is allowed to accuse the other person of "proof-texting". The issue is whether or not a doctrine has been based on a verse taken out of context. My point is to say that Catholic theology is no different than Protestant theology in that regard.

But what is most essential aspect of Bible study among those who claim to be Christians is a humble standpoint before the text and a willingness to be corrected by the text. Those who affirm an "orthodoxy" are unable to do either one. Orthodoxy is a fixed set of believes enforced by an army. Heretics are punished or killed. At the least, heretics are ostracized and possibly excommunicated. This is not the behavior of those who are committed to voluntary belief and trust in God.

Acts 1:20 was about Matthias being a witness to the resurrection, not anyone alive today. By your Bible-twisting nonsense, you would have to rule out Paul, as he didn't witness the resurrection.

Well, have you never read Acts chapter 9? Did Paul witness the risen Lord? He certainly did. Did Paul receive the teaching of the Lord? Paul went away to Arabia to learn the Gospel and when he returned to compare what he had learned with what Peter, James and John were teaching, none of these men were able to offer him anything thing more.

The Passover seder in the Upper Room and the Crucifixion is one and the same sacrifice. Sadly, walls of proof text will not satisfy you.

No. These are not one and the same thing. Jesus and his disciples ate a Jewish Passover meal according to Jewish customs. The Passover meal memorialized the escape from Egypt and the hardship associated with that trip. That one common event, common to all Jewish people, is remembered once a year. And the event is so closely associated with being Jewish, that even unreligious Jews eat the meal together on the Day of Passover.

And although Jesus is known as the sacrificial Lamb, Jesus himself held up the matzoh of affliction to say "this is my body." Here the Lord is drawing a close association between the matzoh of affliction with his body. If his point was to make an association between his body and the Passover lamb, he would have held up the meat instead.

More importantly, the context of the moment informs our understanding of his declaration "this is my body." Jesus is not saying "this bread is the accident, the substantia which is also my flesh. No, he is reassigning a new meaning to the bread; whereas it meant one thing it now means something else.

Within 60 years after Luther did his nail job, there were 200 interpretations of "This is My Body". Your interpretation is an offshoot of an offshoot of one of those 200 interpretations.

Not really, without Catholic dogma clouding my mind, I came to the conclusion myself.

If you follow your doctrinal history to it's origins, it's less than 500 years old. I'll go with the unanimous and consistent teaching that went unchallenged for over 11 centuries.

I don't care about doctrinal history. I study the Bible myself and I draw my own conclusions. That's it. Simple.

There is no common corpus in your flavor of Protestantism. See post #1570 here.

The fallacious argument waged against the doctrine of "Sola Scriptura" finds evidence against it in the face of many interpretations and many denominations, even though Catholics and Protestants share the same scriptures. Catholics fail to take into account that all we know about the history of theology is found in the extant writings of theologians. And just like today, only the orthodox are allowed to publish.

It is no wonder then, that history, being limited to approved dogma, is absent of dissenting opinions. The absence of dissent for 11 centuries is not proof of universal agreement or unity.

The very same evil is at work today. Only the politically orthodox are allowed to publish.

 

[Jim B]

Dear Jim:

Asking you a question to figure out what you believe is not the same thing as asking questions that are loaded and or so as to accuse somebody of something that is not true.
It would be like Rick asking Bob: “Hey, Bob. So how long have you been beating your wife?”
Yet, Rick does not have any evidence or clues that this is so.
So his question is baseless and unfounded. This is kind of like what you are doing here.
I merely asked my questions towards you because you defended Liberalism, and I wanted to truly know what you believe.


I believe Jesus is the Son of God as Scripture says.
Why would you ask me a loaded question of something that is not true when I gave you no indication of such a thing?
Please keep in mind you defended liberalism (Which gives me the right to ask you what you believe).



I believe Jesus is crucified and resurrected on the third day according to the Scriptures.
Why would you ask me a loaded question of something that is not true when I gave you no indication of such a thing?
Please keep in mind you defended liberalism (Which gives me the right to ask you what you believe).


I believe Jesus created the world and the universe and He is eternal (existing from eternity’s past).
Jesus holds all things together by the word of His power. All these things can be confirmed by Scripture.
Why would you ask me a loaded question of something that is not true when I gave you no indication of such a thing?
Please keep in mind you defended liberalism (Which gives me the right to ask you what you believe).


I believe both the Bible, and Jesus are called the Word of God (according to Scripture).
Why would you ask me a loaded question of something that is not true when I gave you no indication of such a thing?
Please keep in mind you defended liberalism (Which gives me the right to ask you what you believe).


I believe we have access to God’s grace through faith (Which is what Romans 5:1-2 teaches).
So no. I do believe we need to have faith in order to access God’s grace that saves.
Why would you ask me a loaded question of something that is not true when I gave you no indication of such a thing?
Please keep in mind you defended liberalism (Which gives me the right to ask you what you believe).


I believe Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth according to Scripture.
Why would you ask me a loaded question of something that is not true when I gave you no indication of such a thing?
Please keep in mind you defended liberalism (Which gives me the right to ask you what you believe).



Well, I do believe God uses Modern Translations for His glory in that they can help the reader who believes in the King James Bible as their final Word of authority so as to help update the archaic English in the KJB many times. But just because something that is hard to understand at times does not mean it is not perfect. Jesus spoke in parables.

I don’t believe Modern Translations can be trusted as our final Word of authority because they teach false doctrines. I have actually been doing a study on expanding my list of false doctrines that they teach. But this is all a part of my ultimate study that I hope to reveal in the future called, 101 Reasons for the King James Bible.

This was the only non-loaded question you asked me here.
Please keep in mind that I asked my questions so as to figure out what you actually believe and I was not attempting to slander your current beliefs as a Christian by asking loaded questions as you have done.



We are not dead yet and therefore I cannot judge things before the time. I don’t know which Christians (or even unbelievers) will repent and or change their beliefs to fit with what God’s Word says.
Why would you ask me a loaded question of something that is not true when I gave you no indication of such a thing?
Please keep in mind you defended liberalism (Which gives me the right to ask you what you believe).

When you write such garbage as "I don’t believe Modern Translations can be trusted as our final Word of authority because they teach false doctrines" there is no discussion possible! You are clearly deluded!

And I do not believe you when you write "Please keep in mind that I asked my questions so as to figure out what you actually believe and I was not attempting to slander your current beliefs as a Christian". You are either deluded or lying.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Given your point of view, I can see myself as "arrogant." You practice a religion with an established orthodoxy. I oppose many of your orthodox views. I do it openly and with great confidence and without fear. When someone such as me challenges the orthodoxy of a religion or a religious person, it can seem arrogant to that person.
But now that your religion can't put me on the rack, that must torque your bird.

Actually – I was just responding to YOUR earlier comment:
“As I said, your church teaches you what to believe.”

I simply reminded you that since I’ve been proving you wrong on so many things – this kind of cockiness is just silly. In short – you’re talking out of your behind again . . .
And, no need for a “rack” here, as I’ve pretty much destroyed every falsehood you’ve conjured up . . .

I see nothing in the scriptures to support the idea of a Bishop or a Bishopric in the Catholic sense. We have Pau's letter to Timothy, written at a time when Christianity was beginning to become a wide-spread phenomenon. Paul advised Timothy to get some help from the locals. Timothy was to pick teachers and overseers from among the elders of the local congregation. The appointment of men to these roles was on an ad hoc basis as the need arose. Timothy was not establishing an office; he was choosing men.

They were “choosing men” for what? For positions of leadership and Overseeing.

And when THOSE Overseers died off – they did WHAT? Did they simply descend into chaos – or were NEW Overseers chosen to replace them?
THAT is Apostolic Succession in a nutshell.

In his treatise, Against Heresies, Irenaeus lists 13 successive Bishops of Rome (Popes) from Peter all the way to his own day in the 2nd century. Each Bishop SUCCESSED the previous one (Against Heresies 3:3 [A.D. 189]).

While it is true that Episkopos refers to an overseer, it doesn't always mean "overseer." In this instance, Peter is quoting a Psalm of David, who is mocking his enemies when they say, "May another take his office." David's opponents want David to be removed from ruling over Israel to be replaced by someone else. David wasn't a Bishop or an overseer. He was a king. The Greek term for "office" has a wide semantic range and can not be forced or limited to a Bishop in the Catholic church.

There is no person alive who might qualify as an apostle. The POPE for instance, is NOT the successor to Peter's office.
I am only interested in the New Testament meaning, not the Catholic religious meaning.

Peter is quoting TWO Psalm verses:

Psalm 96:2 and 199:8. Whereas, the latter doesn’t use the word “Bishopric” – it used the term “Oversight”, which is precisely the definition of “Bishop”.

I already showed you the etymology from Episkopos” to “Bishop” in my last post but you persist in your denial.

Look at the passage again. Where does Jesus talk about the church in that passage? You are seeing things that aren't there. At that point, I would clean my glasses if I were you. Jesus is not talking about a religious organization with offices to be filled when vacated.

The moment in question was an intimate gathering of Jesus with the men who would soon begin their role as apostles. His words of comfort are directed at these men in particular, who will serve as his apostles.

According to the Apostle Paul, the church is guided by apostles, yes, but also by preachers and teachers and prophets and evangelists. And he also wrote to Timothy to assign elders to the role of teacher/guardian.

Correct – and that’s why we ALSO have Priests, Deacons and other clerics and instructors who occupy those functions.

Jesus was addressing the LEADERS of His Church in this passage – NOT the crowds.

 

[BreadOfLife]

continued . . .

Yes, of course. That is the point. No person in the Catholic church is qualified to succeed Peter or the other Apostles.

Tell that to PETER – who appointed Ignatius to succeed him as Bishop of Antioch.

No. They needed someone who was an eyewitness to the Resurrection.

There were about 500 witnesses to the Resurrection (1 Cor. 16:6).

Peter said that they needed someone who was there from the beginning – from John’s Baptism to Jesus’s Ascension (Acts 1:22).

Consider 1Corinthians 3 again. Paul compares and contrasts himself with Apollos. Both of these men were contemporaries; both of them served in Corinth; but each had a different job. Apollos didn't succeed Paul. He served along side of Paul the foundation builder.

Once the foundation is competed, the building no longer needs foundation builders.

See that? By the time Peter wrote his second epistle, the church already had everything. No Popes are required. No successors needed, wanted or required. We got everything we need from the original 12 and Paul.

I said their successors continued to BUILD ON the foundation of the Apostles.
I didn’t say that continued to build the foundation itself.

I find it humorous, however, that YOUR vision of the Church is one of complete chaos and confusion, devoid of ANY visible leadership . . .

First of all, there is NO direct connection between the events recorded in Matthew 26 and the events as recorded in John 6. In John 6, the point centers on a contrast between the ministry of Moses and the ministry of Jesus. Whereas the mana sustained life for a brief time, the life that Jesus provides will sustain life permanently and forever.
Natural sustenance requires the ingestion of food to nourish the body, which must be consumed on a regular basis. Supernatural sustenance requires that a person "swallow" the content of the gospel message: I am a sinner in need of God's forgiveness: I am mortal in need of God's power to keep me alive. Jesus is the only person who can guarantee to solve both problems.

Some of Jesus' disciples left because they mistakenly took Jesus at face value, supposing he was advocating cannibalism. The Catholics also were mistaken, but rather than walking away as they should have, they adopted Platonism and invented a way that one might actually "eat" the Lord.

What a stupid idea.

WRONG.

First of all, Jesus gave the Bread of Life Discourse the day AFTER He fed the crowd (John 6:22).
Secondly, The correlation between the Passover sacrifice and and

We see not only in the writings of the Early Church, their belief and devotion to the Real Presence and the Eucharist – we also see in historical texts how the pagan Romans referred to the Early Christians as “cannibals” for their UNBIVERSAL belief in the Eucharist.
Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch was a lifelong student of the Apostle John.

He wrote the following on his was to his martyrdom in Rome at the beginning of the 2nd century:

Ignatius of Antioch
Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 107]).

As I said, the fault doesn't lay in the presence of a common corpus. Therefore, your argument has not defeated Sola Scriptura. And don't let it escape your notice that it was a Catholic who nailed the 95 thesis on the Wittenberg door. One could argue that it was the Catholic Church itself that splintered into a thousand pieces. And why did the Catholic Church split into a thousand pieces? The Catholic Church was teaching and practicing false doctrine and a false religion.

The Church isn’t responsible for the doctrinal perversion that sprang upo in the 16th – ANY more than Protestantism, is responsible for the Cults of David Koresh or Jim Jones in the 20th century.
Arrogant and prideful MEN will do what they do.

Paul warned against factions (1 Cor. 3) – but, apparently, your Protestant Fathers didn’t get the memo . . .

 

[GTW27]

continued . . .


Tell that to PETER – who appointed Ignatius to succeed him as Bishop of Antioch.

There were about 500 witnesses to the Resurrection (1 Cor. 16:6).

Peter said that they needed someone who was there from the beginning – from John’s Baptism to Jesus’s Ascension (Acts 1:22).


I said their successors continued to BUILD ON the foundation of the Apostles.
I didn’t say that continued to build the foundation itself.

I find it humorous, however, that YOUR vision of the Church is one of complete chaos and confusion, devoid of ANY visible leadership . . .

WRONG.

First of all, Jesus gave the Bread of Life Discourse the day AFTER He fed the crowd (John 6:22).
Secondly, The correlation between the Passover sacrifice and and

We see not only in the writings of the Early Church, their belief and devotion to the Real Presence and the Eucharist – we also see in historical texts how the pagan Romans referred to the Early Christians as “cannibals” for their UNBIVERSAL belief in the Eucharist.
Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch was a lifelong student of the Apostle John.

He wrote the following on his was to his martyrdom in Rome at the beginning of the 2nd century:

Ignatius of Antioch
Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 107]).

The Church isn’t responsible for the doctrinal perversion that sprang upo in the 16th – ANY more than Protestantism, is responsible for the Cults of David Koresh or Jim Jones in the 20th century.
Arrogant and prideful MEN will do what they do.

Paul warned against factions (1 Cor. 3) – but, apparently, your Protestant Fathers didn’t get the memo . . .

Blessings BreadOfLife. Just stopping by. You know the other day The Lord led me to read one of the threads you were responding in. It was very long with over 100 pages. I was only to read your responses. I actually learned a lot about church history and why Catholics believe what they do. You do not need the sledge hammer. Lay it down. Jesus's healing of the ear should be a lesson to us all.

 

[Jim B]

Blessings BreadOfLife. Just stopping by. You know the other day The Lord led me to read one of the threads you were responding in. It was very long with over 100 pages. I was only to read your responses. I actually learned a lot about church history and why Catholics believe what they do. You do not need the sledge hammer. Lay it down. Jesus's healing of the ear should be a lesson to us all.

Bread of Life is intent on pushing Catholic doctrine down everyone's throats, as though it, and not the word of God, contains the truth. It gets very tiresome. Catholicism is just one of many denominations and, IMHO, are closer to the beliefs and practices of the Jews of the Old Covenant than to the beliefs and practices of the New Covenant believers.

 

[Jim B]

continued . . .


Tell that to PETER – who appointed Ignatius to succeed him as Bishop of Antioch.

There were about 500 witnesses to the Resurrection (1 Cor. 16:6).

Peter said that they needed someone who was there from the beginning – from John’s Baptism to Jesus’s Ascension (Acts 1:22).


I said their successors continued to BUILD ON the foundation of the Apostles.
I didn’t say that continued to build the foundation itself.

I find it humorous, however, that YOUR vision of the Church is one of complete chaos and confusion, devoid of ANY visible leadership . . .

WRONG.

First of all, Jesus gave the Bread of Life Discourse the day AFTER He fed the crowd (John 6:22).
Secondly, The correlation between the Passover sacrifice and and

We see not only in the writings of the Early Church, their belief and devotion to the Real Presence and the Eucharist – we also see in historical texts how the pagan Romans referred to the Early Christians as “cannibals” for their UNBIVERSAL belief in the Eucharist.
Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch was a lifelong student of the Apostle John.

He wrote the following on his was to his martyrdom in Rome at the beginning of the 2nd century:

Ignatius of Antioch
Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 107]).

The Church isn’t responsible for the doctrinal perversion that sprang upo in the 16th – ANY more than Protestantism, is responsible for the Cults of David Koresh or Jim Jones in the 20th century.
Arrogant and prideful MEN will do what they do.

Paul warned against factions (1 Cor. 3) – but, apparently, your Protestant Fathers didn’t get the memo . . .

The Catholic church is the clear leader in the matter of factions. It posits itself as the one true church (which is absurd) and the original church (which is also absurd). As I have said many times before -- but it obviously bears repeating -- there is NO MENTION of the Catholic denomination in the Bible. The "original church" was comprised entirely of believing Jews, and there were many churches throughout the Mediterranean region.

If Paul warned against factions, why does the Catholic church set itself apart from the rest of the body of Christ -- the church?

 

[BreadOfLife]

Blessings BreadOfLife. Just stopping by. You know the other day The Lord led me to read one of the threads you were responding in. It was very long with over 100 pages. I was only to read your responses. I actually learned a lot about church history and why Catholics believe what they do. You do not need the sledge hammer. Lay it down. Jesus's healing of the ear should be a lesson to us all.

The “sledgehammer:” is “ONLY for those who persist in spreading blatant falsehoods about what Catholics teach and believe.

I have absolutely NO problem with someone who simply “disagrees” or has a difference of opinion with Catholic teaching. It is only those posts that seek to denigrate the Catholic faith by exaggerating or lying about the Church.

I expose them for what they are . . .