Zone1 It's virtually impossible for Protestants to understand Catholicism

[Cougarbear]

Abstrahot, I accept that very most people today - inspired also from weird US-American ways of life - are no shy to break continuously the eighth commandement.



H-u-m-i-l-i-t-y ... Bescheidenheit, Demut, Ergebenheit ... no concrete idea what you lilke to say now. I speak with you - is this not a form of humility if you think about? Instead to speak with someone like you I could speak with god and to brush up my holiness instead only to be your asshole.



To baptize dead people is absurde - except you are able to call them back into life.



Eh? Why to hate dead people? They are dead. Sometimes the death of people is able to cause relief. Not a good start into the own death I would say - but who is dead is dead.

So, you say Peter and Paul lied. Why should I then take your word for anything?
1Peter:18-22, “18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
22 Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.”

So, Jesus is a liar when he told Peter what he did after his crucifixion? After reading these truths you still think our spirits are dead too when we die? No. We go to either paradise or hell. Either place, for those who did not get baptized with proper authority, we are not damned because baptism for those dead bodies can be done through vicarious baptisms. That is what Paul was talking about. The spirits of the people are present and the live person is given authority to be baptized for that person because baptism is an earthly ordinance and must be done physically on earth. The dead body doesn’t become live again. We don’t dig up dead bodies. How stupid can you be? This was being done by all the Christians of Peter and Paul’s time. What happened Catholic Church? There are dead spirits wanting their work done for them.

 

[zaangalewa]

Your answer said that anything goes.

?

That means good and evil is the same and approved.

?

Good is evil and evil is good.

?

Everything is included.

?

All the 40,000 different sects of Christianity are all included in the RCC is what you said.

No. I said there are billions of ways to find god. And I think it's always good to start now and here wherever now and here is. A student of Chemistry may find his way to god by studying Chemistry for example.

To you all is good even if it’s evil.

Okay. A blue flower. Is it good or is it evil? For how many things are you able to use your good and evil concept? And how often are you not able to use this concept?

That’s why you have a billion members.

Much more than a billion. All of them are idiots - but you are clever because you are no Catholic.

If it feels good do it.

Thank you.

Really sad.

You know what is "sad". Sad. But after every Saderday comes a Sunday.



Translation:

We announce you the dear advent.
Look, the first candle will soon be burning!
We announce you a holy time.
Prepare the way for the Lord!
Rejoice, you Christians! Rejoice greatly.
The Lord is already near.

 

[Cougarbear]

?



?



?



?



No. I said there are billions of ways to find god. And I think it's always good to start now and here wherever now and here is. A student of Chemistry may find his way to god by studying Chemistry for example.




Okay. A blue flower. Is it good or is it evil? For how many thungs are you able to use you good and evil concept? And how often are you not able to use this concept?



Much more than a billion. All of them are idiots - but you are clever because you are no Catholic.



Thank you.



You know what is "sad". Sad. But after every Saderday comes a Sunday.



Translation:

We announce you the dear advent.
Look, the first candle will soon be burning!
We announce you a holy time.
Prepare the way for the Lord!
Rejoice, you Christians! Rejoice greatly.
The Lord is already near.

James 1:5-9 says this is the way to find God. Not a billion ways. You reject the Bible as doctrine and authority? Do Catholics do too?

 

[Meriweather]

James 1:5-9 says this is the way to find God. Not a billion ways. You reject the Bible as doctrine and authority? Do Catholics do too?

All throughout scripture we see God meeting people where they are, and then patiently drawing them to him. Just because someone is seeking God in a way that does not meet your approval, does not mean that God will not find them. Instead, He says he leaves those who have found Him and goes in search of the lost.

 

[Cougarbear]

All throughout scripture we see God meeting people where they are, and then patiently drawing them to him. Just because someone is seeking God in a way that does not meet your approval, does not mean that God will not find them. Instead, He says he leaves those who have found Him and goes in search of the lost.

So, James was wrong. The Bible is wrong. That’s what I’m getting from Catholics in here. The only ones God seeks are His Prophets and Apostles because he calls them. Give an example otherwise.

 

[zaangalewa]

James 1:5-9 says this is the way to find God. Not a billion ways. You reject the Bible as doctrine and authority? Do Catholics do too?

I "reject" butchering the bible as you are doing.

 

[zaangalewa]

So, James was wrong. The Bible is wrong. That’s what I’m getting from Catholics in here. The only ones God seeks are His Prophets and Apostles because he calls them. Give an example otherwise.

What you are doing is nothing else than to use a totally stupid political propaganda strategy.

 

[ding]

Now we've shifted the topic to texts, eh? lol now the texts were written by Catholics? lol where did I say anything when they were written? I've clearly said the orthodox claims of authenticity were the valid claims. Please cite where I said otherwise. These assorted dodges you're throwing out are pretty weak. that's because the Catholic Church wasn't the first, and came along much later, and forced a made up history on the West via Rome.

No list of eye witnesses, just people who wrote legends.

The texts from antiquity are the evidence that Peter set foot in Rome. So no changing of subject on my part. Your claim was Peter never set foot in Rome, right?

Do you have anything from antiquity that says Ignatius of Antioch, Dionysius of Corinth, Irenaeus, Gaius, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, The Little Labyrinth, The Poem Against the Marcionites, Eusebius of Caesarea, Peter of Alexandria, Lactantius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Optatus, Epiphanius of Salamis, Pope Damasus I, Jerome and Augustine were wrong that Peter did set foot in Rome?

 

[ding]

lol don't need one, since you can't provide any evidence he did. If he were there, Paul would said so, along with many other witnesses. Can you prove Jesus never set foot in Mexico City?

Is it likely that the apostle Peter went to Rome and founded the church there?​

Interestingly, the Bible says nothing about Peter ever traveling to Rome.


When the gospels end, Peter is in Jerusalem. It’s the same in the Book of Acts. The apostle Paul, in his letters, also talks about meeting Peter in the eastern Mediterranean. After Jesus’ death, Paul says that Jesus’ brother, James, and Peter are the co-leaders of the “church,” or assembly, of Jesus-followers in Jerusalem.


In short, there is no early textual evidence for Peter in Rome, so for some people, it’s very hard to believe that he ever traveled there. Not only is it a very long way, according to the New Testament, Peter was a fisherman who was not very educated and who spoke only Aramaic; he was not the type of person that might travel widely across the Roman Empire to a large city where Latin and Greek were the dominant languages.

The Apostle Peter in Rome

Brown University Religious Studies professor Nicola Denzey Lewis answers frequently asked questions about the apostle Peter

www.biblicalarchaeology.org

There is zero evidence Peter went anywhere, much less Rome. It's a fictional 'tradition'. Peter, John, and James remained in Jerusalem to preach to the Jews while Paul went out to the Gentiles and founded churches. The first bishop, or 'Pope', was James and in Jerusalem.

There is a written record from multiple sources that said Peter did set foot in Rome.

 

[ding]

If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. ~ Jesus

 

[Cougarbear]

I "reject" butchering the bible as you are doing.

I’m following the Bible reading it word for word. You are changing it adding your own philosophy. Exactly what Isaiah warned against. Using your own philosophy mingling it with scripture when it fits your narrative. Or, you just ignore the scripture like with James or Pau and Peter with the fact preaching and baptism goes on with the dead. And, the Bible says God only reveals his secrets to his servants the prophets. Not Popes. Not you. (Amos 3:7). It’s you that butchers the Bible.

 

[Cougarbear]

What you are doing is nothing else than to use a totally stupid political propaganda strategy.

Political?
Are you having a brain fart? I’m applying biblical scripture while you are inserting philosophies of man mingled with your own opinions.

 

[ElmerMudd]

So what? They are no Christians. They baptize dead people.



"The church" has not the name of the Lord in it. It is the church of the Lord. Head of our angler's club is Jesus.



No. I had a short time ago a "discussion" with a Mormon who showed to me very clear that Mormons are not Christian. I seldom spoke with someone who was so far from reality, rationality and love in the name of the bible which we and the Jews wrote and componed. Nevertheless your Tabernacle choir is really great.

Here by the way one of the very typical ways how we express our faith in god:

zaangalewa's opinion. Not the opinion of God. I am not sure what God's opinion is. Mortal humans need to be humble and not act like they are God.

 

[Meriweather]

So, James was wrong. The Bible is wrong. That’s what I’m getting from Catholics in here. The only ones God seeks are His Prophets and Apostles because he calls them. Give an example otherwise.

How does Christ finding the lost sheep interfere with persevering? Jesus did not say he was seeking the Prophets and Apostles of Israel, but the lost sheep of Israel.

 

[DudleySmith]

The texts from antiquity are the evidence that Peter set foot in Rome. So no changing of subject on my part. Your claim was Peter never set foot in Rome, right?

They prove nothing. If you claim that just because they're 'ancient' then you must believe everything the Gnostics claim must be true, too.

If Peter went to Rome, the NT writers would have said so; Paul never mentions meeting him in Rome when he went. We know John, Peter, and James went on to minister to the Jews, and James The Less was made the Bishop of Jerusalem while Paul traveled. The original church was in Jerusalem, not Rome, and nobody died and made the Bishop Of Rome the sole leader of all Christianity. That wasn't even a thing until Gregory. You have zero proof, just some 'tradition' claims from less than a dozen sources like the Apocrypha and some writers who were condemned as heretics, all self-justifying and not reliable.

Antioch and Alexandria were bigger deals than Rome was; Rome was important merely because it was the western capital. The important councils were all in the east, under and after Constantine. There was little difference between the east and west until the 11th century, and that is when these 'traditions' suddenly became part of the propaganda war between the corrupt Vatican politicians and the bankers and nobles that had taken over all the offices in the West tried to claim supremacy for themselves. The western 'Church' even went after Thomas of Aquina, one of it's own 'fathers', though post-humously. The 'Church' elite became wealthy and corrupt, mostly bankers plundering the Treasury, while the monasteries and Scholastics were the real working class that maintained the religious and social functions.

Even the Catholic apologists never say there is actual proof, they just say something like 'according to the tradition' to avoid directly lying.

 

[Cougarbear]

How does Christ finding the lost sheep interfere with persevering? Jesus did not say he was seeking the Prophets and Apostles of Israel, but the lost sheep of Israel.

It's called delegation. He started with his Apostles. He and his Apostles went out and spread the word to the lost sheep. He formed his church which included several organization including the "Seventy" who were missionary evangelists, high priests, elders, priests, teachers, deacons and each individual church had organizations of men and women. Every mission from Adam on down to Moses and Moses to Jesus Christ started with a Prophet being called by God in a vision. This way, most people will be judged by their faith in Christ.

Same thing most likely in the spirit world as stated in 1Peter 3:18-22. He probably didn't go directly to the wicked. He went to paradise and established a missionary army to go in and preach to those in that part as well as in paradise too. This way, they too will be judged by their faith as well.

 

[Cougarbear]

zaangalewa's opinion. Not the opinion of God. I am not sure what God's opinion is. Mortal humans need to be humble and not act like they are God.

Well stated. Interesting how Christians say they believe in the Bible as the Word of God and then dismiss those parts that threaten their existence.

 

[ding]

They prove nothing. If you claim that just because they're 'ancient' then you must believe everything the Gnostics claim must be true, too.

If Peter went to Rome, the NT writers would have said so; Paul never mentions meeting him in Rome when he went. We know John, Peter, and James went on to minister to the Jews, and James The Less was made the Bishop of Jerusalem while Paul traveled. The original church was in Jerusalem, not Rome, and nobody died and made the Bishop Of Rome the sole leader of all Christianity. That wasn't even a thing until Gregory. You have zero proof, just some 'tradition' claims from less than a dozen sources like the Apocrypha and some writers who were condemned as heretics, all self-justifying and not reliable.

Antioch and Alexandria were bigger deals than Rome was; Rome was important merely because it was the western capital. The important councils were all in the east, under and after Constantine. There was little difference between the east and west until the 11th century, and that is when these 'traditions' suddenly became part of the propaganda war between the corrupt Vatican politicians and the bankers and nobles that had taken over all the offices in the West tried to claim supremacy for themselves. The western 'Church' even went after Thomas of Aquina, one of it's own 'fathers', though post-humously. The 'Church' elite became wealthy and corrupt, mostly bankers plundering the Treasury, while the monasteries and Scholastics were the real working class that maintained the religious and social functions.

Even the Catholic apologists never say there is actual proof, they just say something like 'according to the tradition' to avoid directly lying.

It proves Peter being in Rome was written about back in antiquity and was not opposed when it was written. It's way more evidence than you have for your belief. You have nothing but conjecture. I have written unopposed accounts that say Peter was in Rome.

 

[ding]

Well stated. Interesting how Christians say they believe in the Bible as the Word of God and then dismiss those parts that threaten their existence.

Says the guy dismissing what Jesus said in John 6:25-66 regarding Jesus' command to eat his flesh and drink his blood.

 

[Cougarbear]

Says the guy dismissing what Jesus said in John 6:25-66 regarding Jesus' command to eat his flesh and drink his blood.

Symbolically. I already gave the scriptures that proves my point. I have yet to see one verse that disproves all my points.