Zone1 Catholics: Is Jesus essentially "leaving" His (the Original) Church?

[gtopa1]

sorry.. I just don't like presumption.. gets on my nerves. \why do you assume i do not or never have spent time in the \real presence?

It's the best thing in life.. If people did that more often, they would not

use drugs
fornicate
get addicted to the above
and may just have a chance of getting to Heaven.. which requires leaving the dumbass things of this life behind

What I said: "spend more time in His presence."

What you said I said: "why do you assume i do not or never have spent time in the \real presence?"



Greg

 

[surada]

He's a word salad specialist. You'll get no meaningful discussion from him

Doesn't that mean Christian Bible?

 

[BreezeWood]

No one has yet been "born again" until the resurrection of the he dead. Another her li fr and he Catholic/Protestant Cult.

In this age, Christians are BEGOTTEN of the Spirtit

that may be, all have failed yet unlike you some have tried - and some

surly, have freed their spirits ...

 

[ninja007]

A list of false teachings in the Roman Catholic Church

A list of false teachings in the Roman Catholic Church including it being the one true church, infallibility, authority, salvation, tradition.

carm.org

 

[ninja007]

Salvation, A hidden teaching of the Roman Catholic church

JESUS plus works for righteousness equals nothing

Why would a Church that claims to find its source and continuation in the apostles say so many things that oppose and contradict the Bible whom the apostles and prophets wrote? Why would they add teachings that would end up contradicting the very Scripture they claim to have preserved? Most Catholics would say they do not, but we should examine carefully whether this is true. Because the facts show this and we always need to deal with the facts to get to the truth. If you want to know the truth about Catholicism ask a former Catholic that was born again the biblical way (not born by baptism) and see what they have to say.

Sacerdotalism means that salvation is mediated through the priesthood. “Since you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit ….having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever”(1 Pet 1:22-23). Instead of being regenerated by the word Roman Catholics have a completely different approach to salvation. They combine elements from the Old Testament (ie. priesthood, dress, rituals etc.), as the means of grace is dispensed by the priest and through the church.

Canon 4 “If anyone shall say that the sacraments are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that, although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them, through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification; let him be anathema.”

Why does Roman Catholicism attempt through the sacraments to obtain what Jesus did on the cross did almost 2,000 years ago? Everywhere one looks in the church they find a cross, but they do not tell the people the cross was Christ's final complete work for their sins and that one needs faith to receive the work that Christ did- NOT sacraments. They instead depend on a sacrament blessed and administered by the priest, the wafer becomes the ongoing sacrifice for their sins. So the cross is made of NO effect.

Unfortunately, what they add does nullifies the simple gospel. They believe they are saved through the sacraments (which are only symbols of the actual event). They do not trust that the cross that Christ died on can bring full redemption in and of itself; this is why there is a Eucharist. This is what Paul stated as a different gospel.

That true sacrifice can never to be repeated because it paid the full penalty demanded by God's justice and made it possible for God to “be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus” (Rom. 3:26). So “there is no more offering for sin” (Heb. 10:18). The cross is crucial for our sin to be taken away, not what a priest does today in administering a sacrament.

Constantine when he legalized Christianity had the pagans enter the church by baptism, not by being born spiritually (known today as being born again). Today, in Roman Catholicism, to be born again is interpreted as being baptized to have their sin nature removed.

 

[ninja007]

The Catholic Catechism says of baptism, for example: “Baptism not only purifies from all sins, but also makes the neophyte 'a new creature,' an adopted son of God, who has become a 'partaker of the divine nature,' member of Christ and co-heir with him, and a temple of the Holy Spirit” (Catechism 1265).

Yet it was Peter who they claim was the first Pope who said the opposite.
1 Pet 3:21 There is also an antitype which now saves us-- baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
The filth of the flesh is the sin nature. Baptism according to Peter does not remove this, he also calls it an antitype, which is a type of another type. This proves it is a symbol of the real event.


The Bible teaches that it is the blood of Jesus that can only take away sin.


Luke 22:19-20 And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you.

 

[surada]

A list of false teachings in the Roman Catholic Church

A list of false teachings in the Roman Catholic Church including it being the one true church, infallibility, authority, salvation, tradition.

carm.org

Luther fell out with the Catholic Church while he was in Rome so he attacked them. He claimed Rome is the whore of Babylon which is asinine on it's face.

 

[surada]

The Catholic Catechism says of baptism, for example: “Baptism not only purifies from all sins, but also makes the neophyte 'a new creature,' an adopted son of God, who has become a 'partaker of the divine nature,' member of Christ and co-heir with him, and a temple of the Holy Spirit” (Catechism 1265).

Yet it was Peter who they claim was the first Pope who said the opposite.
1 Pet 3:21 There is also an antitype which now saves us-- baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
The filth of the flesh is the sin nature. Baptism according to Peter does not remove this, he also calls it an antitype, which is a type of another type. This proves it is a symbol of the real event.


The Bible teaches that it is the blood of Jesus that can only take away sin.


Luke 22:19-20 And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you.

Luke lived in Antioch and never met Jesus. That's probably why he screwed up the geography so badly.

 

[zaangalewa]

Luther fell out with the Catholic Church while he was in Rome so he attacked them. He claimed Rome is the whore of Babylon which is asinine on it's face.

The choleric person Martin Luther - a Catholic by the way - was not only an excellent theologist - he also spoke many things which I am only able to subsumize under the category "bloody nonsense" - as for example his later statements against farmers, Jews and Catholics. A disgusting person - but so was the time he lived in too. Rome - not only the religious but also the political centre of the western world - needed a lot of money for the new St. Peter's Basilika, because the Muslims had conquered and eliminated the function of the Hagia Sofia, which had been before the mother church for all Christians. This explains very well the sale of indulgences. A smart idea - also today most people would say so if they would be in a similiar situation. And whenever you take a look at whatever center of political might in history - there's also always a lot of critics. Main reason for:

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Lord Acton

 

[nomadic5]

The Catholic Church has no false teachings if you are speaking of the ancient, still-held, never-been-officially-defied/changed dogmatic teachings of the CC

If you are referring to people who just hate Catholicism (what they think is Catholicism) but don't even know why they hate it and can't know why because they havn't studied it at all

yeh... Who cares what ignorant people have to say? If they don't even care enough to become well-informed, I don't waste my time trying to educate them because they are people who don't listen. Some people are just intellectually lazy but expect to go on some internet forum and argue against... whatever (issues they don't have a clue about), expecting people to think they are brilliant!

 

[notmyfault2020]

What I said: "spend more time in His presence."

What you said I said: "why do you assume i do not or never have spent time in the \real presence?"



Greg

maybe you are correct here. I don't have a lot of time to go back and check my every word.

Anyhow, I think you are one who understands the Real Presence. So that is good to find out. I almost didn't find out myself but thanks to a good priest years ago... God bless him, from the depths of my being.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

If you are saved Jesus is in you and that does not get withdrawn.

That depends on you

 

[BreezeWood]

That depends on you

the spirit is inviolable ... you're with them in the heavens or you will be dead.


oh look,

trying to go soft - or something ... hard to disguise with chosen moniker - death angle - maybe should be diet coke, to save lives.

 

[notmyfault2020]

Salvation, A hidden teaching of the Roman Catholic church

JESUS plus works for righteousness equals nothing

Why would a Church that claims to find its source and continuation in the apostles say so many things that oppose and contradict the Bible whom the apostles and prophets wrote? Why would they add teachings that would end up contradicting the very Scripture they claim to have preserved? Most Catholics would say they do not, but we should examine carefully whether this is true. Because the facts show this and we always need to deal with the facts to get to the truth. If you want to know the truth about Catholicism ask a former Catholic that was born again the biblical way (not born by baptism) and see what they have to say.

Sacerdotalism means that salvation is mediated through the priesthood. “Since you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit ….having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever”(1 Pet 1:22-23). Instead of being regenerated by the word Roman Catholics have a completely different approach to salvation. They combine elements from the Old Testament (ie. priesthood, dress, rituals etc.), as the means of grace is dispensed by the priest and through the church.

Canon 4 “If anyone shall say that the sacraments are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that, although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them, through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification; let him be anathema.”

You think you know everything. I have read the entire Bible and have studied Catholicism and there is nothing contradictory w/ those 2. But people have been taught to believe there are massive contradictions between the 2 so they believe there are. Why do you believe some non=Catholic over a Catholic? While not all Catholics understand their Faith, I happen to be one who does. I have knowledge of such things as the Ark of the Covenant (OT) and how it connects to the present day Tabernacles that house the consecrated Hosts, so that just as in the old days w/ the Ark and the light perpetually burning in he temple to singnify the Presence of God, the tabernacles house Christ Himself (Transubstantiation is in the Bible.. See where Jesus held the Passover and said that all who ate his flesh, drank his blood (OMG, say the protestants) will have eternal life.. This is the HOST given Catholics at Mass.. and I could go on and on...

 

[BreezeWood]

You think you know everything. I have read the entire Bible and have studied Catholicism and there is nothing contradictory w/ those 2. But people have been taught to believe there are massive contradictions between the 2 so they believe there are. Why do you believe some non=Catholic over a Catholic? While not all Catholics understand their Faith, I happen to be one who does. I have knowledge of such things as the Ark of the Covenant (OT) and how it connects to the present day Tabernacles that house the consecrated Hosts, so that just as in the old days w/ the Ark and the light perpetually burning in he temple to singnify the Presence of God, the tabernacles house Christ Himself (Transubstantiation is in the Bible.. See where Jesus held the Passover and said that all who ate his flesh, drank his blood (OMG, say the protestants) will have eternal life.. This is the HOST given Catholics at Mass.. and I could go on and on...

really, you happen to be the only person on planet earth but that's ok ... so you know where the tablets - etched in heaven - are located and the 10 commandments can be read and they are not phony afterall ...

your day of providence, just provide the tablets and no one will ever again be able to refer to you as a - liar.

 

[notmyfault2020]

really, you happen to be the only person on planet earth but that's ok ... so you know where the tablets - etched in heaven - are located and the 10 commandments can be read and they are not phony afterall ...

your day of providence, just provide the tablets and no one will ever again be able to refer to you as a - liar.

I would respond

if only I could figure out what you are saying...

 

[BreezeWood]

I would respond

if only I could figure out what you are saying...

not hard to understand, christian - you're a liar ...

there never existed tablets etched in the heavens as claimed by the deceiver moses and the commandments are used as intended by the crucifiers to persecute and victimize the innocent - n.m.f 2020.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Zone1 Catholics: Is Jesus essentially "leaving" His (the Original) Church?
SUBTOPIC: System of Beliefs
※→ BreezeWood, notmyfault2020, et al,

Rather harsh words, don't you think?

I would respond

if only I could figure out what you are saying...

not hard to understand, christian - you're a liar ...

there never existed tablets etched in the heavens as claimed by the deceiver moses and the commandments are used as intended by the crucifiers to persecute and victimize the innocent - n.m.f 2020.

(COMMENT)

First, there is a tendency to use the term "liar" all too often. That is an ad Hominem attack. It may be true, it may be false or it may be unknown. But unless the sender has the intention of disseminating false information to confuse, mislead, or deliberately deceive the recipients, it is NOT really a lie. It is a mistake of fact.

Don't confuse a "Statement of Fact" with a "Religious Belief." Your assumption that - "there never existed tablets etched in the heavens" - cannot be subjected to the Scientific Method any more than the existence of the "Tablets" can be. Your statement and scenario are a "belief."

Science has yet to enter into evidence any proof of the existence of the heavens or the tablets in question.

Christianity has yet to enter such evidence or proof of their religious belief, supernatural entities, or a Supreme Being (First Cause) that originated the tablets in question.

Just My Thought,

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[BreezeWood]

RE: Zone1 Catholics: Is Jesus essentially "leaving" His (the Original) Church?
SUBTOPIC: System of Beliefs
※→ BreezeWood, notmyfault2020, et al,

Rather harsh words, don't you think?



(COMMENT)

First, there is a tendency to use the term "liar" all too often. That is an ad Hominem attack. It may be true, it may be false or it may be unknown. But unless the sender has the intention of disseminating false information to confuse, mislead, or deliberately deceive the recipients, it is NOT really a lie. It is a mistake of fact.

Don't confuse a "Statement of Fact" with a "Religious Belief." Your assumption that - "there never existed tablets etched in the heavens" - cannot be subjected to the Scientific Method any more than the existence of the "Tablets" can be. Your statement and scenario are a "belief."

Science has yet to enter into evidence any proof of the existence of the heavens or the tablets in question.

Christianity has yet to enter such evidence or proof of their religious belief, supernatural entities, or a Supreme Being (First Cause) that originated the tablets in question.

Just My Thought,

Most Respectfully,
R

I have knowledge of such things as the Ark of the Covenant (OT) and how it connects to the present day Tabernacles that house the consecrated Hosts

rocco, since when - is a lie - an ad hominem, anything ... just curious.

no, there have never existed tablets etched in the heavens, inscribed w/ 10 commandments - that are present in the desert religions - or produce them and corroborate what is used by the crucifiers to persecute and victimize the innocent - moses, the jews the christians and muslims ...

and were destroyed in a fit of jealousy who claimed to have received them over the joy experience of a golden calf. and someway reappear in their documents.

do you ply your silver coins, let your first be your last.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Zone1 Catholics: Is Jesus essentially "leaving" His (the Original) Church?
SUBTOPIC: What is it?
※→ BreezeWood, et al,

Attacking "nomyfault2020's" character (labeling a liar • one who tells lies) rather than challenging the content of the position/argument/opposing view constitutes an ad Hominem fallacy.

rocco, since when - is a lie - an ad hominem, anything ... just curious.

(COMMENT)

While I presented you with the simplest aspect of an ad Hominem, I'm surprised by the response.

Ad hominem is a logical fallacy that involves a personal attack: an argument based on the perceived failings of an adversary rather than on the merits of the case. In short, it's when your rebuttal to an opponent's position is an irrelevant attack on the opponent personally rather than the subject at hand, to discredit the position by discrediting its supporter. It translates as "against the man."

SOURCE: Definition and Examples of an Ad Hominem Fallac​

You are supposed to challenge the "content" as inaccurate and then support your conclusion with alternative evidence. You are not supposed to call your opponent insulting or derogatory names. When you do that, you diminish your own integrity and bleed away your reputation.

Most Respectfully,
R