Are Non-Catholics Christians?

The following dialogues are from under a video, where I thought I had made a long running comment, and only had to collect the comments to give my refutation of the video. I only found one comment of mine on it. Too little to publish here. But I looked around for debates and here they are:

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I'm sorry, but the title should have been "are non-Catholics Christians?"

Since I saw you were "Baptist", where was your church in VIIth C. AD?

NZ Bro Trev

We were at home in a house church praying you lot don't find us.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@NZ Bro Trev I'm very sorry, but that can't be true, because God did not set up a light to just put a bushel over it.

House Churches definitely existed in Rome in persecution times, and some (perhaps all) cardinal titles (they are titles for Churches in Rome) go back to those house Churches.

BUT, that was not all the presence. Popes were making sure the Church was visible.

For Nero killing Christians (including the then Pope, St Peter) we do have testimony in Tacitus he did so. For people being martyred in Lyons next century, we do have court procedures. For third century we have a famous author like Origen and we have St Paul the First Hermit founding Hermitism (fleeing to Egyptian desert) during Decian persecution. And both are documented by people surviving next century past Constantinian peace.

I think even St Paul the First Hermit did so. He was visited by St Anthony the great who had himself fled the persecution by Diocletian and who knew St Athanasius of Alexandria who wrote about him.

Not to mention we have a very detailed martyrology for at first many martyrs in these centuries of persecution:

MARTYROLOGIUM ROMANUM
GREGORII XIII JUSSU EDITUM, URBANI VIII ET CLEMENTIS X AUCTORITATE RECOGNITUM AC DEINDE ANNO MDCCXLIX BENEDICTI XIV LABORE ET STUDIO AUCTUM ET CASTIGATUM
http://www.liturgialatina.org/martyrologium/35.htm

on it, the essay by me says a bit on how it was made at the end:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Feet and Martyrologies
https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2019/02/feet-and-martyrologies.html

II

Charles Whitmill

The problem I have with the Catholic Church many people died by the hand of the Catholic Church

Matt

they like to brush that under the rug

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Matt Saying no to the fake martyrologies in Foxe and in Thielemann is not brushing sth under the rug.

As to documented works of the historic inquisition, not all of us do so.

Some are in fact saying the Inquisition was right, and so do I (right most of the time, not every time).

III

Asaph Vapor

No matter how smug and arrogant Catholics are and how many times they claim they are believers of Christ, they are not. Catholicism came from Pagan Rome and its pagan emperors in AD313-380. Catholicism is completely man made and 95% of catholic teachings are not from the Bible, neither from the apostles or Jesus. Catholic Church was not the original church, neither were early apostles Catholics. All it’s pagan doctrines come from Rome. Catholic Church is the apostate church described in Revelations 17-18. To be destroyed in the last days. God says come out of it!

( Modified Cynthia X's quote)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You know, there was another time when God said to come out of Babylon.

It came after some 70 years of Babylonian captivity, not after centuries of it.

Asaph Vapor

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
So?

[saw above by Asaph Vapor after posting next]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Catholic Church is the apostate church described in Revelations 17-18. To be destroyed in the last days."

To be founded and destroyed in the last days, more likely.

Though I have seen Catholics saying the harlot is actually Judaism.

So, in that sense "come out of her" would refer to faithful trapped in Judaism.

B u t ... doesn't this contradict what I just said? Not if there were very few Jews who were faithful and these always or mostly became Catholics before they died, between when they rejected Christ and the endtimes.

This situation cannot apply to normal Christians from Constantine to Reformation or Theodeosius to Reformation. That contradicts Matthew 28:20, and if you claim "hiding in house Churches" (all of them, so none were documented), that contradicts Matthew 5:15-16.

[after seeing above by Asaph Vapor I added next]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Asaph Vapor You are aware Christians have been in the Catholic Church for centuries, not for 70 years, right?

Asaph Vapor

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
YOU:
To be founded and destroyed in the last days, more likely. Though I have seen Catholics saying the harlot is actually Judaism. So, in that sense "come out of her" would refer to faithful trapped in Judaism.

ME:
Nay not Judaism. Nowhere indicate its Judaism.
Read Rev 17-18 for yourself. It's RCC the mother harlot.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
YOU:
B u t ... doesn't this contradict what I just said? Not if there were very few Jews who were faithful and these always or mostly became Catholics before they died, between when they rejected Christ and the endtimes.

ME:
Not sure what you are talking about.
But the nation of Israel will come back to God and Jesus.
Romans 11, Zech 12.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
YOU:
This situation cannot apply to normal Christians from Constantine to Reformation or Theodeosius to Reformation. That contradicts Matthew 28:20, and if you claim "hiding in house Churches" (all of them, so none were documented), that contradicts Matthew 5:15-16.

ME:
How does it contradict Mat 28:20? Even when Christians were martyred, Jesus was with them.

Neither does it contradict Mat 5. House churches were documented in the Bible.
Read Acts.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
YOU:
You are aware Christians have been in the Catholic Church for centuries, not for 70 years, right?

ME:
Since when Christians were in Catholic church?

Since when i said 70 years?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I am taking the dialogues again, but adding to them, but instead of "You" and "Me" I am taking HGL where it is me, you can use HGL to, and Asaph where it is you as the dialogues build up.

I'll number them.

I

HGL:
To be founded and destroyed in the last days, more likely. Though I have seen Catholics saying the harlot is actually Judaism. So, in that sense "come out of her" would refer to faithful trapped in Judaism.

Asaph:
Nay not Judaism. Nowhere indicate its Judaism.
Read Rev 17-18 for yourself. It's RCC the mother harlot.

HGL:
Can't be RCC, since Christians in it can't be a recent thing, and for other reasons. Can be Judaism or can be Vatican II, "RC" being too ecumenic with Judaism.

What indicates RCC and what excludes Judaism to you?

Asaph:
Simple. Read for yourself. Next comment.
@Hans-Georg Lundahl
RC church is the woman on the scarlet beast. Rev 17
CHeck out this description from the Bible that fits RC church perfectly:

• RCC (woman)
• Rome ( sits on 7 hills)
• Beast ( spirit of Anti-Christ)
• Woman on a scarlet beast : RCC rides on the spirit of Anti X.

• 1. RC church priests like to wear scarlet and purple. Verse 17:4.
• 2. RC church loves to use golden cups. Verse 17:4.
• 3. RC church persecuted the real Christians (saints) in history from Roman times to modern history. Verse 17:6.
• 4. Seven mountains where the woman sits. Rome is called the city on 7 hills. Verse 17:9 THat's basically talking about RC church.
• 5. Kings have whoredom with her. Only RC church rules over kings. Verse 18:3

The Great Prostitute and the Beast
Rev 17:1 Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and talked with me, saying to me, "Come, I will show you the judgment of the great harlot who sits on many waters,
Rev 17:2 with whom the kings of the earth committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth were made drunk with the wine of her fornication."
Rev 17:3 So he carried me away in the Spirit into the wilderness. And I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast which was full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.
Rev 17:4 The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and precious stones and pearls, having in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the filthiness of her fornication.
Rev 17:5 And on her forehead a name was written: MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
Rev 17:6 I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. And when I saw her, I marveled with great amazement.
Rev 17:7 But the angel said to me, "Why did you marvel? I will tell you the mystery of the woman and of the beast that carries her, which has the seven heads and the ten horns.
Rev 17:8 The beast that you saw was, and is not, and will ascend out of the bottomless pit and go to perdition. And those who dwell on the earth will marvel, whose names are not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world, when they see the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.
Rev 17:9 "Here is the mind which has wisdom: The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits. .
Rev 18:2 And he cried with a strong voice, saying: Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great: and hath become a cavern of demons, and the home of every unclean spirit, and the home of every unclean and hateful bird and the home of every unclean and hateful beast of prey.
Rev 18:3 For all the nations have drunken of the wine of her wrath; and the kings of the earth have practised whoredom with her; and the merchants of the earth have been enriched by the abundance of her luxuries.
Rev 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying: Come ye out of her, my people; that ye may not participate in her sins, and may not partake of her plagues.

HGL:
Text stands. Now to your fits.

• RCC (woman) - Judaism is also a woman. So is Vatican II sect.
• Rome ( sits on 7 hills) - Jerusalem also has seven hills and Vatican II sect occupies Rome.
• Beast ( spirit of Anti-Christ) - much better fit to Zionism (for Judaism) or Communism (for Vatican II sect)
• Woman on a scarlet beast : RCC rides on the spirit of Anti X. - Or Judaism rides Zionism and Communism, or Vatican II sect can start riding Communism.

1. RC church priests like to wear scarlet and purple. Verse 17:4.

It so happens, white and green and blue are more popular. Black also happens, and the harlot says sth about not wearing colours of mourning:

As much as she hath glorified herself, and lived in delicacies, so much torment and sorrow give ye to her; because she saith in her heart: I sit a queen, and am no widow; and sorrow I shall not see. Apocalypse (Revelation) 18:7

Church is born on Good Friday, as a widow. RCC wears black on Good Friday, Vatican II sect wears purple instead, and Judaism doesn't have one.

By the way, this verse is another indication that the endtimes Babylon very much has to do with Babylonian captivity, since we find a near perfect match in Isaiah:

And now hear these things, thou that art delicate, and dwellest confidently, that sayest in thy heart: I am, and there is none else besides me: I shall not sit as a widow, and I shall not know barrenness. Isaias (Isaiah) 47:8

2. RC church loves to use golden cups. Verse 17:4.

So do both Judaism and Vatican II sect.

"3. RC church persecuted the real Christians (saints) in history from Roman times to modern history. Verse 17:6."

Judaism has both itself persecuted and also incited persecutions, from the one where St Paul was on the road to Damascus to the one under Communism.

Vatican II sect could also soon be considered as too oppressive to true Catholics. Also, there is another kind of drunkenness with blood of saints than the murdering of them oneself : getting so excited the Church is getting martyrs that one forgets Christian nations need protection and Christians need protection against enemies of Christendom.

4. Seven mountains where the woman sits. Rome is called the city on 7 hills. Verse 17:9
THat's basically talking about RC church. - Or Vatican II sect or seven hills of Jerusalem.

5. Kings have whoredom with her. Only RC church rules over kings. Verse 18:3

Unless presidents also counts. Plus how much are Christian royalty now indebted to Judaism? Plus how many Catholic Kings prefer Catholicism over Vatican II sect?

II

HGL:
B u t ... doesn't this contradict what I just said? Not if there were very few Jews who were faithful and these always or mostly became Catholics before they died, between when they rejected Christ and the endtimes.

Asaph:
Not sure what you are talking about.
But the nation of Israel will come back to God and Jesus.
Romans 11, Zech 12.

HGL:
Not contradicting the conversion of Jews, we Catholics believe that.

I was talking of faithful only having a short term stay in Babylon before getting told to get out. Majority of the 2000 years, the faithful either were Catholics from beginning or converted to Catholicism from Judaism, meaning there weren't all that many faithful in Babylon as per Judaism. And the faithful in Catholic Church were not in a Babylonic captivity.

Asaph:
Rev 17-18 has nothing to do with Babylonian captivity. It has to do with RCC being destroyed in the last days in the future time during the 7 years Tribulation of the nation of Israel.

HGL: And THAT is a parallel to the end of the Babylonian captivity.

Isaiah 13:19-22 And that Babylon, glorious among kingdoms, the famous pride of the Chaldeans, shall be even as the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrha. It shall no more be inhabited for ever, and it shall not be founded unto generation and generation: neither shall the Arabian pitch his tents there, nor shall shepherds rest there. But wild beasts shall rest there, and their houses shall be filled with serpents, and ostriches shall dwell there, and the hairy ones shall dance there: And owls shall answer one another there, in the houses thereof, and sirens in the temples of pleasure.

Apocalypse 18:1-2 And after these things, I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power: and the earth was enlightened with his glory. And he cried out with a strong voice, saying: Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen; and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every unclean spirit, and the hold of every unclean and hateful bird:

Isaiah 48:20 Come forth out of Babylon, flee ye from the Chaldeans, declare it with the voice of joy: make this to be heard, and speak it out even to the ends of the earth. Say: The Lord hath redeemed his servant Jacob.

Apocalypse 18:4-5 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying: Go out from her, my people; that you be not partakers of her sins, and that you receive not of her plagues. For her sins have reached unto heaven, and the Lord hath remembered her iniquities.

III

HGL:
This situation cannot apply to normal Christians from Constantine to Reformation or Theodeosius to Reformation. That contradicts Matthew 28:20, and if you claim "hiding in house Churches" (all of them, so none were documented), that contradicts Matthew 5:15-16.

Asaph:
How does it contradict Mat 28:20? Even when Christians were martyred, Jesus was with them.

Neither does it contradict Mat 5. House churches were documented in the Bible.
Read Acts.

HGL:
I am not denying house churches. I am denying, for the Church, a situation where no one of it is known over the world because all house churches are successfully hiding and avoiding martyrdom while the world is un-Christian. THAT situation cannot happen. Not to the real Church. Bc Matthew 5.

IV

HGL:
You are aware Christians have been in the Catholic Church for centuries, not for 70 years, right?

IV a

Asaph:
Since when Christians were in Catholic church?

HGL:
If you claim there never were, why would God tell any Christian in it to get our of her?

If there were lots of Christians over many centuries between 313 and now, and not all hiding in house churches, the ones that weren't, that were visible, would have been Christians in the Catholic Church. BUT if 70 years is possible, 1700 years is impossible for a Babylonian captivity of the faithful.

Asaph:
Rev 17-18 has nothing to do with Babylonian captivity in 586 BC. It has to do with destruction of Babylon (Rome with RCC) in the last days.

HGL:
They are very perfect parallels and therefore have to do with each other.

IV b

Asaph:
Since when i said 70 years?

HGL:
You don't need to say it, 70 years is a Biblical requisite, or a comparable, not a much larger time is a Biblical requisite for the Babylon harlot from which faithful must come out.

If you take Vatican II sect, it has existed since fewer decades as per that council, or perhaps about that time if its infiltration of Catholicism started before the council.

If you take Judaism, it is only recently that lots of faithful souls are in it who haven't yet become Catholics.

What you can't take is however historic Catholicism. It's been there and had Christians for too long.

Asaph:
You are misreading Revelations altogether.
Rev 1-3, 19-21 : church
Rev 4-19: Israel .

Revelations 4-19 happens during the 7 years Tribulation of Israel (in future).
Same account in Daniel 9 and Mat 24.

HGL:
Israel does not replace the Church. The Church IS the true Israel.

Either way, Apocalypse 18 clearly parallels Isaiah 47 and 48 and Isaiah 13 in details, so 70 years, as in the situation Isaiah was talking of, is a prerequisite.

"Rev 4-19: Israel" - this would definitely imply Judaism, since it's what Israelites must get out of.

IV

Asaph Vapor

Papal infallibility is such a hoax.

• 1. Some popes were kids, can kids decide what teachings are infallible?
• 2. Some popes were murderers and crooks, can you trust these to decide on what doctrines are infallible?
• 3. Some popes bought their titles. Can you really trust such people to give you doctrines?
• 4. If Popes are fallible, so are their doctrines. So its absolutely silly to believe fallible pope to give you infallible doctrines.
• 5. Some periods, there were more than one pope at the same time. SO which pope is infallible? One or all?
  
  There are multiple popes at one time during certain period , who is right?
  
  Pope 1 says A is right
  Pope 2 says B is right.
  
  Who is right?

THis is one silly doctrine of RCC . Same applied to Partriachs of Ortho faith.

I cant believe Catholics are so gullible!!!
My toes are laughing!!!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Papal infallibility is such a hoax."

Church infallibility is not a hoax, as per I Thessalonians 3:15.

Papal supremacy is not a hoax, as per Matthew 16:19 (keys of the kingdom = how King David named his "prime minister").

Papal supremacy and Church infallibility would however contradict if Popes were fallible in ruling the Church on God's behalf.

"1. Some popes were kids, can kids decide what teachings are infallible?"

Name one who was a child and who tried to make an infallible pronouncement on teaching?

"2. Some popes were murderers and crooks, can you trust these to decide on what doctrines are infallible?"

As long as Judas Ischariot was among the Apostles, he could work miracles, same as the other ones.

"3. Some popes bought their titles. Can you really trust such people to give you doctrines?"

Name one pope guilty of Simony who also made a doctrinal pronouncement upheld by the Catholic Church?

"4. If Popes are fallible, so are their doctrines. So its absolutely silly to believe fallible pope to give you infallible doctrines."

No, if St Peter was fallible as a person (as per your reading of a passage in Galatians or as per some verses in the Gospels, however these refer to before he became Pope), this doesn't change he was infallible in I and II Peter.

"5. Some periods, there were more than one pope at the same time. SO which pope is infallible? One or all?"

The one who was the true Pope, not the one who was the fake Pope.

Difficult to decide? Sometimes yes, many Catholics now believe "Pope Francis" is and "Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI" was a true Pope. Does it invalidate the doctrine? No.

"Pope 1 says A is right"
"Pope 2 says B is right."

Examples of for instance a Rome Pope and an Avignon Pope contradicting each other on doctrine?

I can name one discrepancy. Blessed Charlemagne was canonised by an Avignon Pope and now he counts only as blessed, not saint, because he was canonised by the wrong Pope. The one who wasn't Pope.

"THis is one silly doctrine of RCC . Same applied to Partriachs of Ortho faith. I cant believe Catholics are so gullible!!! My toes are laughing!!!"

Were you finding as much comedy gold in Christian doctrines you accept before you became a Christian?

Asaph Vapor

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
What has it got to do with 1 Th 3:15?
2 Thessalonians 3:15 New International Version (NIV). 15 Yet do not regard them as an enemy, but warn them as you would a fellow believer.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
YOU:
Papal supremacy is not a hoax, as per Matthew 16:19 (keys of the kingdom = how King David named his "prime minister"). Papal supremacy and Church infallibility would however contradict if Popes were fallible in ruling the Church on God's behalf.

ME:
Papacy infallibility is in the teaching ministry, nothing to do with papal S and church I.

But Papal Supremacy is a hoax too. Nowhere in Mat 16 mentions about pope, or concept of pope, or Peter as pope. Neither RCC.

Church infallibility is based on the Body of Christ consisting of all believers. Nothing to do with RCC.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
YOU:
"1. Some popes were kids, can kids decide what teachings are infallible?" Name one who was a child and who tried to make an infallible pronouncement on teaching?

ME:
I do not need to cite any example. Papal infallibility doctrine says that whatever the pope says from the ex cathedra (seat of Peter) is infallible; which is false.

Kid popes cannot give you infallible teachings.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
YOU:
"2. Some popes were murderers and crooks, can you trust these to decide on what doctrines are infallible?" As long as Judas Ischariot was among the Apostles, he could work miracles, same as the other ones.

ME:
YEs except this is not miracles. It's teachings. Dont misquote.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
YOU:
"3. Some popes bought their titles. Can you really trust such people to give you doctrines?" Name one pope guilty of Simony who also made a doctrinal pronouncement upheld by the Catholic Church?

ME:
No need to cite an example .
No matter what nobody can trust non believers who bought titles to come up with right doctrines.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
YOU:
4. If Popes are fallible, so are their doctrines. So its absolutely silly to believe fallible pope to give you infallible doctrines." No, if St Peter was fallible as a person (as per your reading of a passage in Galatians or as per some verses in the Gospels, however these refer to before he became Pope), this doesn't change he was infallible in I and II Peter.

ME:
Scripture is inspired by God. Canon is closed by now (AD 100s). Scripture ofc is infallible.

But after the close of canon, fallible popes cannot give infallible doctrines (canon is closed). Nobody can add or subtract from the Bible to give new doctrines.

~~~~~~~~~~~

In any way there is no such thing as pope in the Bible.
This discussion is vain since Catholics cannot even prove there is pope in the Bible.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

If Catholics are honest and have read the New Testament, you would notice the Bible mentions nothing about RCC and catholics.

No mention of RCC
No mention of catholics
No mention of pope
No mention of RCC typed priests, altar and sacrifice
No mention of sinless Mary
No mention of Mary's ascension
No mention of anyone praying to Mary or saints
No mention of Holy Water
No mention of keeping relics of dead saints
No mention of canonised saints
No mention of purgatory
No mention of peter as pope
No mention of peter in Rome
No mention of anyone kissing statues or kneeling before statues
No mention of rosary
No mention of anyone lighting candles to pray

.....

Don’t you find it strange. RCC claimed to be there during apostles’ time, but Bible has totally no mention of RCC and its practices?

History tells us otherwise.
RCC was only founded in AD313-380 by Rome, that’s why there was totally no evidence of RCC present in AD33-100.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
YOU:
5. Some periods, there were more than one pope at the same time. SO which pope is infallible? One or all?" The one who was the true Pope, not the one who was the fake Pope. Difficult to decide? Sometimes yes, many Catholics now believe "Pope Francis" is and "Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI" was a true Pope. Does it invalidate the doctrine? No. "Pope 1 says A is right" "Pope 2 says B is right." Examples of for instance a Rome Pope and an Avignon Pope contradicting each other on doctrine? I can name one discrepancy. Blessed Charlemagne was canonised by an Avignon Pope and now he counts only as blessed, not saint, because he was canonised by the wrong Pope. The one who wasn't Pope.

ME:
you are just proving papal infallibility is a hoax.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
YOU:
THis is one silly doctrine of RCC . Same applied to Partriachs of Ortho faith. I cant believe Catholics are so gullible!!! My toes are laughing!!!" Were you finding as much comedy gold in Christian doctrines you accept before you became a Christian?

ME:
Only 5% of RCC doctrines are from the Bible.
But 90-100% of Protestant doctrines are from the Bible.

Hans Georg Lundahl

Numbering the points A, B and finally C for what was not already numbered, and the numbered threads are then given same numbers as before.

A

Asaph:
What has it got to do with 1 Th 3:15?
2 Thessalonians 3:15 New International Version (NIV). 15 Yet do not regard them as an enemy, but warn them as you would a fellow believer.

HGL:
Sorry, meant I Timothy 3:15!

B

HGL:
Papal supremacy is not a hoax, as per Matthew 16:19 (keys of the kingdom = how King David named his "prime minister"). Papal supremacy and Church infallibility would however contradict if Popes were fallible in ruling the Church on God's behalf.

Asaph:
Papacy infallibility is in the teaching ministry, nothing to do with papal S and church I.

But Papal Supremacy is a hoax too.
Nowhere in Mat 16 mentions about pope, or concept of pope, or Peter as pope. Neither RCC.

Church infallibility is based on the Body of Christ consisting of all believers. Nothing to do with RCC.

HGL:
16:19 clearly says supremacy, since the OT parallels show Christ was intending to make St Peter his prime minister as one would say now.

St Peter being the first pope, this means popes are so after him. St Peter being the only one, as you might prefer, would imply God didn't understand His business, since a vicar for unity of charity is more needed the further away we get from the Apostles.

I

HGL:
"1. Some popes were kids, can kids decide what teachings are infallible?" Name one who was a child and who tried to make an infallible pronouncement on teaching?

Asaph:
I do not need to cite any example.
Papal infallibility doctrine says that whatever the pope says from the ex cathedra (seat of Peter) is infallible; which is false.

Kid popes cannot give you infallible teachings.

HGL:
Human qualifications are not important for God. Also, you have not cited one kid Pope trying to. Yes, you do need to give examples. Otherwise this is no problem for papacy.

II

HGL:
"2. Some popes were murderers and crooks, can you trust these to decide on what doctrines are infallible?" As long as Judas Ischariot was among the Apostles, he could work miracles, same as the other ones.

Asaph:
YEs except this is not miracles. It's teachings.
Dont misquote.

HGL:
I'm not misquoting. I am giving a parallel. Also, Judas was sent out with Jesus' teachings too, and therefore his teachings were infallible up to his open betrayal - except when he was not teaching the people, but suggesting in private, when the woman had anointed Christ's feet : where Christ contradicted him and the Gospeller says he was already evil.

III

HGL:
"3. Some popes bought their titles. Can you really trust such people to give you doctrines?" Name one pope guilty of Simony who also made a doctrinal pronouncement upheld by the Catholic Church?

Asaph:
No need to cite an example .
No matter what nobody can trust non believers who bought titles to come up with right doctrines.

HGL:
First, you would need to prove that a pope was not just a simoniac, but an unbeliever. Unbelievers indeed cannot come up with right doctrines, which means that unbelievers cannot validly hold office in the Catholic Church. Not as Popes, and actually not even as bishops, except when a superior one, the Pope, upholds them temporarily while their unbelief is unknown or before it is judged.

you definitely DO need to cite examples, if you don't have any, you are just making up a point for a point, no need to answer it.

IV

HGL:
4. If Popes are fallible, so are their doctrines. So its absolutely silly to believe fallible pope to give you infallible doctrines." No, if St Peter was fallible as a person (as per your reading of a passage in Galatians or as per some verses in the Gospels, however these refer to before he became Pope), this doesn't change he was infallible in I and II Peter.

IV a

Asaph:
Scripture is inspired by God. Canon is closed by now (AD 100s).
Scripture ofc is infallible.

But after the close of canon, fallible popes cannot give infallible doctrines (canon is closed). Nobody can add or subtract from the Bible to give new doctrines.

HGL:
What God could do to reveal doctrine, He can continue to do to preserve it. Doctrines formulated after 100 or whenever St John was raised to Heaven only reformulate what was given before then.

IV b Asaph:
In any way there is no such thing as pope in the Bible.
This discussion is vain since Catholics cannot even prove there is pope in the Bible.

HGL:
Except, as I showed, there is.

IV c Asaph:
If Catholics are honest ...

HGL:
Answered elsewhere, don't spam one thread with points I answered in another one.

V

HGL:
5. Some periods, there were more than one pope at the same time. SO which pope is infallible? One or all?" The one who was the true Pope, not the one who was the fake Pope. Difficult to decide? Sometimes yes, many Catholics now believe "Pope Francis" is and "Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI" was a true Pope. Does it invalidate the doctrine? No. "Pope 1 says A is right" "Pope 2 says B is right." Examples of for instance a Rome Pope and an Avignon Pope contradicting each other on doctrine? I can name one discrepancy. Blessed Charlemagne was canonised by an Avignon Pope and now he counts only as blessed, not saint, because he was canonised by the wrong Pope. The one who wasn't Pope.

Asaph:
you are just proving papal infallibility is a hoax.

HGL:
No, that there have been hoax popes does not prove papal infallibility a hoax. That there is forged money does not prove money a forgery.

C

Asaph:
THis is one silly doctrine of RCC . Same applied to Partriachs of Ortho faith. I cant believe Catholics are so gullible!!! My toes are laughing!!!

HGL:
Were you finding as much comedy gold in Christian doctrines you accept before you became a Christian?

Asaph:
Only 5% of RCC doctrines are from the Bible.
But 90-100% of Protestant doctrines are from the Bible.

HGL:
I disagree on percentages. I am making a point about the fact you could be making fun of things you don't understand until they are explained to you, and if you once were not a Christian (at all), I think you may have been in the same situation before.

V

danbuter

Both the Catholic and Protestant Bibles leave out the Book of Enoch. Jesus quoted from Enoch, but that wasn't good enough for it to be included.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

St Paul quoted a pagan poet, should a Stoic poem about Zeus be in the canon, just because its philosophical statements about Zeus were in one passage good enough for St Paul?

danbuter

Paul was not Jesus. @Hans-Georg Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@danbuter I think it was St Jude who quoted book of Henoch, if that even was the case, he said sth which is found in it, and so did St Peter.

St Paul was an apostle like they.

Also, St Paul was preaching on behalf of Jesus inspired by the Holy Spirit.

VI

Matt

Can you talk about all the killing the RCC did and how they took the second commandment out of the bible and split the tenth into two

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Can you talk about all the killing the RCC did"

As per faked Protestant martyrologies centuries after the facts?

"and how they took the second commandment out of the bible and split the tenth into two"

Every verse in Exodus 20 is in a Catholic Bible as much as in a Protestant one.

The verse where you think a new commandment begins is verse 4.

In verse 5 it says "do not serve them" - does this refer only to images in verse 4 or does it rather refer to "strange gods" in verse 3?

Also, while the ten commandments are referred to as ten, they take up 16 verses, verse 2 to verse 17. Neither Roman Numerals counting numbers of commandments (in Protestant Bibles) nor verse numbers (in both Bibles) were there in the Exodus text of Moses.

VII

Asaph Vapor

If Catholics are honest and have read the New Testament, you would notice the Bible mentions nothing about RCC and catholics.
No mention of RCC
No mention of catholics
No mention of pope
No mention of RCC typed priests, altar and sacrifice
No mention of sinless Mary
No mention of Mary's ascension
No mention of anyone praying to Mary or saints
No mention of Holy Water
No mention of keeping relics of dead saints
No mention of canonised saints
No mention of purgatory
No mention of peter as pope
No mention of peter in Rome
No mention of anyone kissing statues or kneeling before statues
No mention of rosary
No mention of anyone lighting candles to pray

.....

Don’t you find it strange. RCC claimed to be there during apostles’ time, but Bible has no mention of RCC and its practices?

History tells us otherwise.
RCC was only founded in AD313-380 by Rome, that’s why there was totally no evidence of RCC present in AD33-100.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"If Catholics are honest and have read the New Testament, you would notice the Bible mentions nothing about RCC and catholics."

If Baptists were honest and had read the New Testament, you would notice it doesn't mention anything about Baptists or Congregations.

Oh, you meant Baptists weren't called exactly that in the time when the NT was being written? Fine, we can say Catholics weren't so ... so, let's see if we kind Catholics under another name ...

"No mention of RCC"

Matthew 16:18. Second half says: I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

In other words, Christ was going to build His Church exactly once.

"No mention of catholics"

Ephesians 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, by the will of God, to all the saints who are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus.

"No mention of pope"

Next verse after Matthew 16:18 is verse 19: And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

"No mention of RCC typed priests, altar and sacrifice"

Hebrews 13:10 We have an altar, whereof they have no power to eat who serve the tabernacle.

Hebrews 6:20 Where the forerunner Jesus is entered for us, made a high priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech.

Genesis 14:18 But Melchisedech the king of Salem, bringing forth bread and wine, for he was the priest of the most high God

Malachias 1:11 For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts.

"No mention of sinless Mary"

Genesis 3:15 I will put enmities between thee and the woman,
2 Peter 2:19 Promising them liberty, whereas they themselves are the slaves of corruption. For by whom a man is overcome, of the same also he is the slave.

Was the woman enemy or slave of Satan? God said He would put enmities, that is total enmity.

"No mention of Mary's ascension"

It happened after Acts, and is probably alluded to in Apocalypse 12.

"No mention of anyone praying to Mary or saints"

To Mary?

And in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God into a city of Galilee, called Nazareth, To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

And a bit further on:

And it came to pass, that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the infant leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.

And the Blessed Virgin Herself:

Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.

Luke 1:26-28, 41-42, 48

When we "pray to Mary" we call Her blessed, as She predicted and use the same words that St Gabriel and St Elisabeth used.

"No mention of Holy Water"

John 9:7 And said to him: Go, wash in the pool of Siloe, which is interpreted, Sent. He went therefore, and washed, and he came seeing.

"No mention of keeping relics of dead saints"

IV Kings (II Kings) 13:20-21

And Eliseus died, and they buried him. And the rovers from Moab came into the land the same year. And some that were burying a man, saw the rovers, and cast the body into the sepulchre of Eliseus. And when it had touched the bones of Eliseus, the man came to life, and stood upon his feet.

Apocalypse (Revelation) 6:9

And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held.

The most noble place of keeping martyrs' relics is under an altar, and St John tells us their souls have a similar position up there.

"No mention of canonised saints"

Our Lady was canonised by Gabriel and Elisabeth and canonised Herself, as shown.

Canonisations by Our Lord:

Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are the meek: for they shall possess the land. Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted. Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice: for they shall have their fill. Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. Blessed are the clean of heart: for they shall see God. Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called children of God. Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and speak all that is evil against you, untruly, for my sake: Be glad and rejoice, for your reward is very great in heaven. For so they persecuted the prophets that were before you. Matthew 5:3-12

And one of those robbers who were hanged, blasphemed him, saying: If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. But the other answering, rebuked him, saying: Neither dost thou fear God, seeing thou art condemned under the same condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this man hath done no evil. And he said to Jesus: Lord, remember me when thou shalt come into thy kingdom. And Jesus said to him: Amen I say to thee, this day thou shalt be with me in paradise. Luke 23:39-43

"No mention of purgatory"

For other foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid; which is Christ Jesus. Now if any man build upon this foundation, gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble: Every man's work shall be manifest; for the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed in fire; and the fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is. If any man's work abide, which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.

I Corinthians 3:11-15

"No mention of peter as pope"

Already answered, Matthew 16:19.

"No mention of peter in Rome"

1 Peter 5:13 The church that is in Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you: and so doth my son Mark.

Babylon being Rome.

"No mention of anyone kissing statues or kneeling before statues"

Genesis 37:6-10

And he said to them: Hear my dream which I dreamed. I thought we were binding sheaves in the field: and my sheaf arose as it were, and stood, and your sheaves standing about, bowed down before my sheaf. His brethren answered: Shalt thou be our king? or shall we be subject to thy dominion? Therefore this matter of his dreams and words ministered nourishment to their envy and hatred. He dreamed also another dream, which he told his brethren, saying: I saw in a dream, as it were the sun, and the moon, and eleven stars worshipping me. And when he had told this to his father and brethren, his father rebuked him, and said: What meaneth this dream that thou hast dreamed? shall I and thy mother, and thy brethren worship thee upon the earth?

Note (by bishop Challoner) : [10] "Worship": This word is not used here to signify divine worship, but an inferior veneration, expressed by the bowing of the body, and that, according to the manner of the eastern nations, down to the ground. "Kissing / kneeling."

Note (by me) if kneeling before Joseph in second dream was before the saint himself, in first dream it was before sheave he had bound that is, before a material object representing him.

"No mention of rosary"

Sign of the Cross "in the Name of + the Father + and of the Son + and of the Holy Ghost" mentioned in Matthew 28:19, since we sign ourselves in the name we are baptised in.
Apostles' Creed not given the text in Bible.
Our Father - see Matthew 6.
Hail Mary - see Luke 1.
Glory - see Isaias (Isaiah) 6:3 combined with Matthew 28:19.

Repeating the prayers is mentioned in Pray without ceasing. [1 Thessalonians 5:17] Counting Hail Mary's (with fingers on beads, not with numbering) allows one to do that for 15 - 45 minutes.

Oh, by the way, if you intended to counter with Matthew 6:7, no, the Greek, the Latin and the correct English of Douay Rheims do not contain any word known to mean repeat, nor does next verse.

"No mention of anyone lighting candles to pray"

They had candlesticks in the Temple, this is repeated in NT:

The mystery of the seven stars, which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches. And the seven candlesticks are the seven churches. Apocalypse (Revelation) 1:20

I think I have fairly and squarely shown Catholicism, if under another name, is there in the New Testament.

"History tells us otherwise."

In whose historiography?

"RCC was only founded in AD313-380 by Rome,"

Normal historiography said 313 and 380 gave privileges in Roman society, not previously enjoyed, after abolishing an anti-privilege of persecution.

I e, the RCC was there before.

"that’s why there was totally no evidence of RCC present in AD33-100."

Sure there is, but you were ignorantly denying the existence of what you weren't looking for.

Also, doesn't your date "AD100" somewhat contradict your previous date 313?

It is at least an admission that from AD100 on in Early Church Fathers you do find evidence of practises not endorsed by Baptist Congregationalism.

One more:

"kissing of pope's feet,"

The Pope is vicar of Christ.

(And Mary was she that anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair: whose brother Lazarus was sick.) John 11:2

Editorial minutiae:

The reason why articles here

are usually not signed. On this blog and this type of blogs by me:

• If they contain dialogue, I can not sign what my opponent said.
• If dialogue continues, sometimes for other reasons, I need to reedit an already published post.

This typ of reedit, I could also do on signed articles, but it can serve as an example: