Catholic Preist Sings Song About Lucifer

[Brakelite]

If you want to believe that Jesus lied about His Church NOT succumbing to darkness (Matt. 16:18) – be my guest.

His church didn't fall away. Yours did. Only Rome and Alexandria in the beginning, then as Rome coerced and forced others to submit to papal authority through the use of secular armies such as Clovis anciently and the Ustachi (for example) more recently, were other churches included. But for centuries there were good people throughout the world who never surrendered to the apostasy.

And how many Catholics were murdered at the hands of Protestants??

I have no idea. I know of a few though. Guy Fawkes and his friends, do they count? Oh, sorry, that wasn't murder was it. That was an execution for treason. But as I've told you before, I am happy to acknowledge that on the protestant side there were absolutely some killings against Catholics that were unwarranted. Even against other protestants. So hypocrite, never. The train I point out Catholic institutional sins above all others is because it is beginning institutional sins that scripture points to. Again and again.

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

Catholic Preist Sings Song About lucifer

Well, catholics are NOT Christians since they don't follow the Doctrine of Christ taught in God's Word.

Jesus and His Apostles never taught anyone to pray to mary or dead people... among other false doctrines that don't come from the Lord. Just sayin...

 

[Phoneman777]

Not exactly . . .
First of all – Jesus gave His Apostles the power to forgive sins or retain sins. That WHATEVER they bound or loosed on earth would be bound or loosed in Heaven (Matt. 16:219, Matt. 18:15-18).

Where does it say this power to "bind and loose" refers to forgiving or retaining sins? These texts refer to "church discipline" which is up to and including kicking out the disobedient - not "the judgment seat of Christ" to which the forgiveness or retention of sin pertains. That seat alone belongs to Christ (2 Corinthians 5:10 KJV).

Where in these texts do we find justification for the following claims of the papacy:

“The Catholic Church is a respecter of conscience and of liberty...Nevertheless, when confronted by heresy, ... she has recourse to force, to corporal punishment, to torture...She lit in Italy...the funeral piles of the inquisition.” Catholic Professor Baudrillart “The Catholic Church, Renaissance and Protestantism” p. 182, 183

Jesus didn’t give the power to the crowds that He taught. He ONLY gave it to His inner circle – the leaders of His Church. Paul makes this distinction several times:
2 Cor. 5:18-20
“And all this is from God, who has reconciled us to himself through Christ and given us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting their trespasses against them and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. So we are ambassadors for Christ, as if God were appealing through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.”

Reconciliation to Jesus - when it comes to the church, if people reject the Gospel presentation of reconciliation, we're to "dust the sand" from our shoes, not light the fires of persecution.

In 2 Cor. 2:10, he states, “Whomever you forgive anything, so do I. For indeed what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for you in the presence of Christ.”

This a lateral statement between Paul and fellow believers.

In the Greek, the word “presence” in this phrase is Prosopone, which means Person. In the PERSON of Christ is a more correct translation. Paul was indicating that they were forgiving sins in the PERSON of Christ, which is translated into Latin as In Persona Christi.

To appear "in the person of Christ" means to give appearance "according to as Christ is" - it refers to ourselves measuring up to Christ, not taking Christ's measuring stick and compelling others by force to adhere to it.

Paul is saying "Christ agrees with what I'm doing because I do it according to His will" -- the papacy twists this around and claims, "The sentence of the priest precedes, and God subscribes to it".

He also differentiate the role of the laity from the authority the clergy:
1 Thess. 5:12
We ask you, brothers, to respect those who are laboring among you and who are OVER YOU in the Lord and who admonish you,

1 Tim. 5:17
Let the elders that RULE WELL be counted worthy of DOUBLE HONOUR, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.

Yes, but to what degree is this "lordship"? THAT IS THE QUESTION. Two points show this "lordship" and "rule" is limited to administration of daily church affairs only - definition of truth and corporal/capital punishment belongs to Christ alone.

1) common sense: the incontrovertible emphasis of Christ's ministry is "servanthood" not "domination". The "mind of Christ" is to be in the Christian and Christ never went around killing people who disagreed.

2) Acts 15:23 KJV places the laity ON EQUAL GROUND with the leaders of the church when it came to doctrinal questions and major issues arising among them - the only inequality that existed is in administration.

 

[Phoneman777]

You are conflating the term “apostasy” with a specific event.
Apostasy is the renunciation of once-held beliefs. “Apostate” Jerusalem refers to the people who murdered the prophets and killed Jesus.

You keep missing the crucial point that Revelation 17 is a vision given to John of events FAR INTO THE FUTURE which means it's got nothing to do with Jerusalem which has long since been destroyed, relative to this vision.

As for an “illegitimate” priesthood – that’s NOT what the Bible teaches.

Yes, it does, as seen below:

In the Old Testament, there were three levels of Priests:
- The High Priest (Lev. 16, Haggai 1:12-14 S).
- The Levitical/Ministerial Priesthood (Lev. 16).
- The rest of the people were a General priesthood of believers (Exod. 19:6).

Wrong - there were only two: Levitical and Laity. The High Priest functioned as an integral part of the Levitical priesthood.

In the New Testament, there are also three levels of Priests:
- Jesus, our High Priest (1 Tim. 2:5, Heb. 7:22-25)
- The Ministerial Priests (James 5:14-15)
- The General priesthood of all Christians (1 Peter 2:5-9).

As I've shown you from the OT that there was only the Levitical and Laity priesthood, so today there is only Christ's High Priestly ministry in heaven and the Christian laity "kings and priests" on earth.

In short – you’re DEAD WRONG again . . .

Care to retract this statement, DB?

And that’s why the Catholic Church has always taught the same:
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

The catholic church is an apostate church which is not Christ's end time "remnant church" to which He will soon come...because the "remnant church" will be exactly like the apostolic church, keeping the same commandments as they did (Revelation 12:17 KJV).

The catholic church by her own admission below disqualifies herself as the "remnant church" by her boast that she changed God's commandments:

“Sunday is our mark of authority …. The church is above the Bible, and this transference of sabbath observance is proof of that fact” (The Catholic Record of London, Ontario, Sept. 1, 1923)

 

[Phoneman777]

And now, you compound your lies.
THIS ‘is what YOU said

“… the atrocities committed by Pagan Rome against God's people pale in comparison to those of papal Rome.
Pagan Rome - desiring a reputation as "cultured" and "civilized" among the ancients - strove to be as non-violent as possible. Violence against Christians was for the most part done reluctantly, and mostly due to political expediency, until the era of Constantine.”

This is absolute historically-bankrupt nonsense.
The pagan Romans DELIGHTED in murdering Christians. They filled venues like Nero’s Circus and the Colosseum to watch people be torn apart by wild beasts and have their streets lit up with human torches.

When they weren’t butchering Christians, they attended Gladiator matches to watch men murder each other for their “entertainment”.

“Straw man” indeed . . .

WRONG.

Pope Gregory DID celebrate upon hearing the news of the massacre ONLY because ethe king had been spared from a Huguenot conspiracy. THAT is why he had the medal created.

He lamented – even wept at the lives that were lost

WRONG.

YOU stated that Jesus was talking about FUTURE events.
He was NOT, as I have shown., so now you’re back-pedaling . . .

This is a complete FALLACY. Show me this teaching from the Catechism.
Will you ever stop lying??

DB, have you ever asked yourself the question: "if I were ever accused in court of being a follower of Christ, would there be enough evidence to convict me?"

You have zeal, but not for God...it is for that Pedophile-in-Chief in Rome. Your love of papal power and to be in association with it does not now or will ever fit you for heavenly citizenship.

You are an emotionally unstable mess who is constantly proved wrong, but stubbornly refuses to repent - the very definition of the character of Satan whose emotions which got the best of him led him to both rebel in heaven and continue that rebellion beyond the point of no return.

Papal Rome's horrific persecution and murder of innocent Christians during the papal Dark Ages makes Pagan Rome's treatment of Christians look like an extended stay at the Ritz-Carlton in New Orleans.

 

[Phoneman777]

Jesus is (Col. 1:18).

The Pope is His earthly representative (Matt. 16:18-19, Mark 16:7, Luke 22:31-32, John 21:15-19).

Have you ever thought how ridiculous it is for the papacy to claim to be above the very authority to which it claims grants it that authority? Doesn't the Word of God say the one who grants blessing is greater than the one being blessed?

JESUS HIMSELF TELLS YOU WHO HE LEFT AS HIS REPRESENTATIVE ON EARTH:

"But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, Whom the Father will send in My name, He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." (John 14:26 KJV)

"But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, He shall testify of Me". (John 15:26 KJV)

"And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever." (John 14:16 KJV)

John concurs with Jesus:
"But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him." (1 John 2:27 KJV)

 

[Mink57]

Doesn't Jesus Himself say the Holy Spirit is His representative?

Isn't Jesus allowed to have and/or appoint more than one representative, especially for specific purposes?

 

[Phoneman777]

Jesus is (Col. 1:18).

The Pope is His earthly representative (Matt. 16:18-19, Mark 16:7, Luke 22:31-32, John 21:15-19).

The pope may be the head and representative of the catholic church which is apostate, but as far as the Christian church goes, Jesus is the Head and the Holy Spirit is His representative.

 

[Phoneman777]

Isn't Jesus allowed to have and/or appoint more than one representative, especially for specific purposes?

No - 1 John 2:27 KJV makes this clear:'

"But the anointing (of the Holy Spirit) which ye have received of Him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as It hath taught you, ye shall abide in Him."​

There's no mention of the appointing of any other representative other than the Holy Spirit in Scripture. The supposed eligibilty of men to represent Christ in an ecclesiastical capacity is derived from twisting Scripture, eg:

"Thou art (a small pebble of instability), and upon this (giant stone of immense proportion) I will build My church."​

The "Rock" upon which the church is built can't possibly be reckless Peter who suffered constantly from "foot in mouth" disease, as the above shows - the "Rock" upon which it's built is Peter's confession: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God".

Jesus is the "StoneRock", the "CornerStone", the "StoneMountain", the "StoneFortress" to which we either fall upon in humility or have to fall upon us in Judgment.

 

[Mink57]

Have you ever thought how ridiculous it is for the papacy to claim to be above the very authority to which it claims grants it that authority? Doesn't the Word of God say the one who grants blessing is greater than the one being blessed?

JESUS HIMSELF TELLS YOU WHO HE LEFT AS HIS REPRESENTATIVE ON EARTH:

"But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, Whom the Father will send in My name, He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." (John 14:26 KJV)

"But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, He shall testify of Me". (John 15:26 KJV)

"And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever." (John 14:16 KJV)

John concurs with Jesus:
"But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him." (1 John 2:27 KJV)

No - 1 John 2:27 KJV makes this clear:'

"But the anointing (of the Holy Spirit) which ye have received of Him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as It hath taught you, ye shall abide in Him."​

There's no mention of the appointing of any other representative other than the Holy Spirit in Scripture.

In what you quoted from the two posts, I don't see anything to indicate the Holy Spirit is the "representative" of Jesus. Maybe I don't understand what you mean by "representative" of Jesus. Could it be our definitions/understandings simply differ?

Example: I see the Apostles as being "representatives" of Jesus. I see the Seventy-two in Luke 10 also being "representatives" of Jesus. I see Paul as a "representative" of Jesus.

But I'm not seeing the Holy Spirit as a "representative" of Jesus, nor do I see the scriptures you quoted as defining the Holy Spirit as a "representative" of Jesus.

The supposed eligibilty of men to represent Christ in an ecclesiastical capacity is derived from twisting Scripture, eg:

"Thou art (a small pebble of instability), and upon this (giant stone of immense proportion) I will build My church."​

The "Rock" upon which the church is built can't possibly be reckless Peter who suffered constantly from "foot in mouth" disease, as the above shows

Why not? Didn't Peter also receive the same Holy Spirit during the Pentecost just as the other Apostles? Does Jesus not have the ability to turn "sinners" into "saints?"

When Catholics consider Peter as being "the rock" of the church, they consider the following:

- In all four Gospels, the Apostles are listed four times. Peter is named first in every occurrence.
- Peter was chosen by the Father to receive the revelation that Jesus is "The Messiah."
- Peter is listed separately as a witness to the Resurrection before the other Apostles.
- Peter was charged by Christ to "strengthen your brothers and to "feed my sheep."
- Peter presided over the election of Matthias to replace Judas, also listing the requirements for candidacy.
- Peter was the first to preach the Gospel on the day of Pentecost.
- It was Peter who defended the other Apostles before the Sanhedrin in Acts.
- Peter exercised his authority to discipline Ananias, Sapphira and Simon the magician in Acts.
- It was Peter who received a vision of the Lord to inspire the Jewish Christians to allow Gentiles into the Church.

And of course, there's Matthew 16:18-19: "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (emphasis added by me)

Seems pretty compelling to me, that even if Peter was a bit of a 'screw-up', Jesus saw something in him...

I'm just thinking out loud here, but...

...maybe Jesus chose Peter because Peter was a 'screw-up.' Hmmm...

- the "Rock" upon which it's built is Peter's confession: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God
Jesus is the "StoneRock", the "CornerStone", the "StoneMountain", the "StoneFortress" to which we either fall upon in humility or have to fall upon us in Judgment.

Can't tell you how much that I really like this! Did you make this up, or get it from somewhere else?

 

[Mink57]

Well, catholics are NOT Christians since they don't follow the Doctrine of Christ taught in God's Word.

Jesus and His Apostles never taught anyone to pray to mary or dead people... among other false doctrines that don't come from the Lord. Just sayin...

*Yawn* Please do your research before you post. Please...

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

*Yawn* Please do your research before you post. Please...

*Yawn* Please read God's Word and thru the man made religious doctrine out that comes from the blind mind of mankind with the help of the devil.

 

[Mink57]

*Yawn* Please read God's Word and thru the man made religious doctrine out that comes from the blind mind of mankind with the help of the devil.

It seems that while you might read the Words of God, you don't practice them very much...

If you did, you wouldn't be trying to mock me...

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

You shouldn't be implying that catholics are Christians then...

 

[Mink57]

You shouldn't be implying that catholics are Christians then...

Not only are Catholics Christians, but they're the ORIGINAL Christians.

Stick THAT in your bonnet...

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

I don't have a bonnet... I don't swing that way.

No, believers in the Book of Acts are the ORIGINAL Christians.... they did not pray to the dead (necromancy), they did not pray to mary (idolortry), and did not practice, teach, or believe other false doctrines either such as praying the rosary, perkrytory, forbidding ministers to mary (a doctrine of demons, see 1 Timothy 4:3-6) or other such foolishness not taught by Jesus or His Apostles in His written Word.

 

[Mink57]

I don't have a bonnet... I don't swing that way.

No, believers in the Book of Acts are the ORIGINAL Christians.... they did not pray to the dead (necromancy),

Catholics don't pray to the dead; they pray for the dead. There's a difference...

they did not pray to mary (idolortry),

We dont' pray TO Mary; we pray through Mary. Again, there's a difference. But you're too lazy to research WHAT the difference is.

and did not practice, teach, or believe other false doctrines either such as praying the rosary,

Catholics are NOT Sola Scriptura. There is NO SUCH DOCTRINE in the Bible that says that the Word of God begins and ends with Genesis and Revelation.

perkrytory, forbidding ministers to mary (a doctrine of demons, see 1 Timothy 4:3-6) or other such foolishness not taught by Jesus or His Apostles in His written Word.

The idea of Purgatory is in "our" bible. Catholics include the 7 books that Martin Luther didn't include.

You seem to be more concerned with what the bible says, than actually LIVING it.

The Bible ain't about WHICH denomination "wins"...

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

they pray for the dead.

Catholics all over teach praying TO the dead, but praying FOR the dead is false doctrine also.

we pray through Mary

Still idolatry... The Lord never told anybody to do this

catholics are NOT Sola Scriptura.

Exactly... they accept things God never said as Truth which is why they are in so much error!

The idea of Purgatory is in "our" bible.

"Your" bible is false.

 

[Phoneman777]

In what you quoted from the two posts, I don't see anything to indicate the Holy Spirit is the "representative" of Jesus. Maybe I don't understand what you mean by "representative" of Jesus. Could it be our definitions/understandings simply differ?

"...Whom the Father shall send in My name..."

An ambassador is sent "in the name of" the one he represents - likewise, the Holy Spirit is sent "in the name of" Him Whom He represents: Jesus.

Moreover, anyone filled with the Holy Spirit, too, is an "ambassador" for Christ, such as Paul when he spoke of being "in the person of Christ".

If a pope is filled with the Holy Spirit (which I highly doubt) then, yes, he too is a "representative" of Christ, but no more a representative of Christ than the Christian janitor who cleans the lavatory in a small country church in some obscure valley or hollow.

When Catholics consider Peter as being "the rock" of the church, they consider the following:

I'm going point by point to ensure we don't speed past this:

- In all four Gospels, the Apostles are listed four times. Peter is named first in every occurrence.

In Matthew and Mark, Peter and Andrew are mentioned respectively. Both are called to follow simultaneously.

In Luke, Peter is mentioned first, but - again - Jesus calls several to follow simultaneously.

In John, Andrew and another unnamed disciple are mentioned first, calling Jesus "rabbi" and later "Messiah". These two "followers" of Jesus had spent at least 2 hours with Jesus - and possibly all night - before Andrew had to find and drag his brother Peter to meet Jesus.

Claiming this makes Peter special is purely subjective reasoning - wholly inadequate to make Peter a "pope".

- Peter was chosen by the Father to receive the revelation that Jesus is "The Messiah."

The revelation was given first to Andrew and his companion when they left the Jordan with Jesus - not Peter.

They first called Him "rabbi" but after spending time with Him - and presumably being shown the prophecies of the Book of Daniel where "Messiah" is found exclusively - Andrew and his companion knew He was "Messiah".

- Peter is listed separately as a witness to the Resurrection before the other Apostles.

Peter didn't witness any Resurrection, merely an empty tomb, which was first found by women. Should we ordain women popes?

- Peter was charged by Christ to "strengthen your brothers and to "feed my sheep."

Acts 20:28 KJV says elders are to do the exact same thing. I served as elder - does that make me a "pope"?

- Peter presided over the election of Matthias to replace Judas, also listing the requirements for candidacy.

How does this make Peter "the first pope" especially when we know he later submitted to Paul's authority?

- Peter was the first to preach the Gospel on the day of Pentecost.

Paul hadn't joined yet, else he would have surely preached. The man wrote almost the entire NT.

- It was Peter who defended the other Apostles before the Sanhedrin in Acts.

Stephen defended Christ and the church at large and was stoned to death - should he be promoted as "pope"?

- Peter exercised his authority to discipline Ananias, Sapphira and Simon the magician in Acts.

And Paul exercised his authority over Peter when Peter was guilty of racial injustice. So much for Peter's "infallible papacy", right?

- It was Peter who received a vision of the Lord to inspire the Jewish Christians to allow Gentiles into the Church.

Paul received countless visions from God - but because of Peter's racial prejudice, God elected to give him that vision to "show me that I should call any MAN common or unclean".

And of course, there's Matthew 16:18-19: "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (emphasis added by me)

Seems pretty compelling to me, that even if Peter was a bit of a 'screw-up', Jesus saw something in him...

I'm just thinking out loud here, but...

...maybe Jesus chose Peter because Peter was a 'screw-up.' Hmmm...


Can't tell you how much that I really like this! Did you make this up, or get it from somewhere else?

Only if we ignore the original Greek - yes, it seems "Jesus must have seen something in Peter and built the church upon him".

However, in the Greek, Jesus calls Peter "Petros" which is a "small stone of instability" but then says He's going to build His church on this "Petra" which is a "giant rock of immense proportion".

How can "Petros" be "this Petra"? It's like saying "I've got a 12" black and white and upon this big screen IMAX monolith I'm watching the Superbowl".

Peter's confession is the "Petra" to which Jesus was referring and upon which His church is built.

 

[Mink57]

Catholics all over teach praying TO the dead, but praying FOR the dead is false doctrine also.

WHOSE doctrine? Yours? Martin Luther's?

Before Luther came around, 1 and 2 Maccabees was PREACHED in churches. Luther didn't LIKE the idea that yeah...we can pray FOR the dead.

Still idolatry... The Lord never told anybody to do this

Nope. Not even close...

Exactly... they accept things God never said as Truth which is why they are in so much error!


"Your" bible is false.

Nope. *MY* bible isn't "false" YOUR "bible" never said that "the" bible was sola scriptura.

Sorry dude...but the Word of God didn't end with Revelation.

It's like the Constitution of the US. Not EVERTHING is in the Constitution (The Bible).

But it's a good starting point...