Answering Dr. John Barnett: on Catholic Oral Tradition · his "7 Reasons Roman Catholicism is Wrong" · on "Origin of the Catholic Church" or on what happened with Constantine
Answering "Asaph Vapor": Answering Asaph Vapor · Continuing the Answer to Asaph Vapor · Asaph Vapor's long answer, part I · On Papacy and Apostolic Succession to Asaph Vapor · Answering Asaph Vapor on Blessed Virgin Mary and Church · On Eucharist, Confession and some Other Matters, to Asaph Vapor · Asaph Vapor refuted some more
- Asaph Vapor
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl
YOU:
"Thank you for telling me all are unbiblical then."
Yeah, right, tell me where you historically find a Biblical one, in 500 AD?
ME:
From AD33-100. From the Scriptures duh!
YOU:
"None from Scriptures. All unbiblical stuff then."
Un-Biblical = not directly in Scriptures. Let me tell you one thing more which is un-Biblical in that sense, but also as in directly contradicting the Bible : Sola Scriptura!
ME:
SS is biblical. Can you find any other infallible authorities other than Scriptures? Pls list out
1
2
3
YOU:
"Thank you for confirming the colours."
Other view of them, the end times counter-Church is reducing pastoral to these two colours (penance and martyrdom or exaltation), taking in practise away the white of innocence and of purity of faith, the green of peaceful growth.
Or Dimond Brothers, considering the counter-Church as formally founded at Vatican II "has the colours of the bride, but is not the bride".
You seem to think the presence of these colours is in itself a sign of being the counter-Church. Or harlot.
ME:
Again confirming the colours.
YOU:
"Yes why? What are you proving?"
That the souls of St. George and St. Maurice are under the altar of God in Heaven, and therefore praying for us.
ME:
You clearly do not understand Scriptures. Rev 5-19 refers to the nation of Israel going through the 7 years Tribulations. Nothing to do with Church.
Let alone RCC!
YOU:
"Can Mary come back from the dead to appear in the 7 years Tribulations for Israel in future? Mary have to stay in the wilderness for 3.5 years." What if She stayed in the wilderness of Egypt for 3 and 1/2 years when fleeing to Egypt?
Also, She is not dead.
Also, Israel is not mentioned.
ME:
Its a future event ignorant! Rev 5-19 refers to the nation of Israel going through the 7 years Tribulations. Nothing to do with Mary!
YOU:
"Catholics claimed Mary had only one offspring. Then why Vs 17 says "the rest of her offspring"? So either way Catholics fall into a lie."
Not if the rest of Her offspring start out with St. John the Gospeller (John 19:26) as adopted and spiritual offspring.
ME:
Nice try ignorant!
You are clearly twisting Scriptures!
YOU:
// Rev 12:6 says the woman ran into the wilderness.
>>>> Rev 12 happens during the Great Tribulation (2nd half of the 7 years Tribulation, a future event Daniel 9:27, Mat 24).
>>>> Mary was already dead. She cannot appear in the Tribulation to run away from Satan. So neither is she the queen Catholics claimed she is. //
The Flight to Egypt prefigures parts of the tribulation. Herod was possessed by Satan.
ME:
Rev 5-19 refers to the nation of Israel going through the 7 years Tribulations. Nothing to do with Church.
Let alone RCC!
YOU:
// >>>> The woman refers to Israel going through the persecution running into the wilderness and mountains; a way of escape from God. //
Refers to Israel is interpretation, not the text itself. In Catholic interpretation, "daughter Sion" refers to the Blessed Virgin Mary.
ME:
Except its not Mary. It directly contradicts Vs 6 and 17.
Rev 5-19 refers to the nation of Israel going through the 7 years Tribulations. Nothing to do with Church.
Let alone RCC!
YOU:
// >>>> The only Queen of Heaven in the Bible is a demon actually. Catholics are worshipping demons. //
Except the demon mentioned in Jeremiah is hated by God for taking a title God was reserving for His upcoming Mother.
ME:
WHy would GOD named HIS beloved servant after a demoness in OT? Catholics are clearly clowns!
YOU:
// >>>> vs 17. Dragon make war with the rest of Mary’s offspring? Can’t be Jesus. Read. “the rest of her offspring” which refers to more than one! So NO! Not Mary! //
Spiritual offspring, starting with John 19:26.
ME:
Which part of the BIBLE says Mary has offspring?
Spiritual? Since when John become spiritual offspring ? WAs John a disciple of Mary ?
Physical adoption? THen its physical offspring.
DOnt twist the Scriptures Catholic!
YOU:
// >>>> vs 17. Dragon make war with the Israel’s offspring? Yes. //
Perhaps notably with Palestinian Christians ...
ME:
No comments.
YOU:
// Catholics even changed Gen 3:15 from “HE” to “she” to make Mary Queen!! //
It would seem, Hebrew has female pronouns for "seed" as well as for "woman". LXX renders pronoun to fit "sperma" as neuter, or even as masculine, but Vulgate has "she" referring to woman. Together they reflect that Hebrew is ambiguous about "woman" or "her seed". There is however a part of the verse, where there is no ambiguity at all: And I will put enmity Between you and the woman
Enmity with Satan = not sinning. Bc sinning = slavery under Satan.
ME:
None of the versions says "she".
Including LXX (which Catholic BIBLEs are translated from).
RCC is desperate to make Mary queen!
YOU:
"No other churches exalt Mary as queen of heaven!"
All Christian Churches I know of in 500 AD do.
ME:
Lies. Proof?
YOU:
"Neither do they include pagan goddesses into the pantheon of false Marys."
I am not considering Bergoglio, the Patxamama worshipper, as a Catholic.
"WHich part of the BIBLE says Pachamama the Amazon naked pregnant fertility goddess = Mary?"
None, neither does the Catholic Church.
Note, Patxamama is not an Amazonian, but an Andine version of Ceres / Demeter.
ME:
Lies!
At Amazon Synod 2019, Rome’s Church OFFICIALLY acknowledged the worship of an Amazon naked fertility pagan goddess called Pachamama.
>>>Pachamama “prayer” included in an official booklet of the mission agency of the Italian bishops’ conference. Here is the full prayer, as translated from the Italian:
Pachamama of these places, drink and eat as much as you like of these offerings, so that this land may be fruitful. Pachamama, good Mother Be propitious! Be propitious! Let the oxen walk well, and let them not get tired. Make the seed taste good, that nothing bad happen to it, that frost may not disrupt it, that it produce good food. We ask you: give us everything. Be propitious! Be propitious!
(Prayer to the Mother Earth of the Inca peoples)
Interestingly, the original Quechua version of the prayer and its Spanish modern translation are slightly different.
The first two lines read as follows:
Pachamama of these places, Drink, chew coca, and eat as much as you like of these offerings…
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~’
On October 4, Pope Francis attended an act of idolatrous worship of the pagan goddess Pachamama. He allowed this worship to take place in the Vatican Gardens, thus desecrating the vicinity of the graves of the martyrs and of the church of the Apostle Peter.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~’
Pachamama is a goddess revered by the indigenous peoples of the Andes. She is also known as the earth/time mother. ... As it is a syncretic religion, the figure of the Virgin Mary was associated with that of the Pachamama for many of the indigenous people.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~’
YOU:
"Or lady of lourdes or Fat Timah or Lady of Guadeloupe?"
We can take Luke 1, where Elisabeth said : Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
ME:
Lies. Luke 1 says nothing of "lady of lourdes or Fat Timah or Lady of Guadeloupe.
Why Catholics love to lie and twist Scriptures?
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Asaph Vapor Quickly one point:
"From AD33-100. From the Scriptures duh! "
Matthew 28:20 specifies "all days" so up to 100 is not enough.
"SS is biblical. Can you find any other infallible authorities other than Scriptures? Pls list out"
1 Twelve Disciples or 72 ([Luke 10:16])
2 St. Peter (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.)
3 Word of mouth by St. Paul
- Asaph Vapor
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl
YOU: Yeah, right, tell me where you historically find a Biblical one, in 500 AD?
me: From AD33-100. From the Scriptures duh! "
Matthew 28:20 specifies "all days" so up to 100 is not enough.
ME:
AD33-100 is the scope of NT Scriptures. That's where all the Original doctrines come from.
How is infallible Scriptures not good enough you ignorant??
YOU: "SS is biblical. Can you find any other infallible authorities other than Scriptures? Pls list out"
1 Twelve Disciples or 72 ([Luke 10:16])
2 St. Peter (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.)
3 Word of mouth by St. Paul
ME:
THank you for admitting its all the early church. Not RCC.
Can you find any other infallible authorities other than Scriptures in present days? Pls list out"
1
2
3
Pls prove from Scriptures, RCC = the Church Christ founded.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Asaph Vapor I was not even arguing that.
I have proven from Scripture YOUR Church is NOT the Church Christ founded.
Matthew 28:20. Since every day in AD 500 falls under the timespan between just before Ascension and Doomsday, every day in AD 500 Christ was with His Church which was active on earth more or less well obeying but not blatantly misbeying the injunction to teach all nations to obey all things whatsoever Christ has taught His first clergy. Same applies to every day in 499 and 501.
This does not immediately clinch to RCC, but narrows down to RCC, EOC, Copts, Armenians and Assyrians. For back then, Monothelites may have been an option, while the difference RCC / EOC did not yet apply, but, since then, the Monothelites have joined the RCC and are now known as Maronites, one of the Uniate Churches.
A Church that was absent in 500 (neither present separately nor present in a larger unity since then split) is most definitely NOT an option.
And neither is a back then invisible Church so, since God did not light a lamp to put it under a bushel, nor build a city on a mountain so it could remain hidden.
@Asaph Vapor "THank you for admitting its all the early church. Not RCC.
Can you find any other infallible authorities other than Scriptures in present days? Pls list out"
1 Successors of twelve or 72 disciples
2 Successors of St. Peter
3 Continuation of the word of mouth which was not written down in epistles in the NT canon.
Why do all these need successors, continuation? Bc Matthew 28:20!
I forgot one in early Church which for exact same reason is still there today : the Church Herself.
"But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."
[1 Timothy 3:15]
@Asaph Vapor "AD33-100 is the scope of NT Scriptures. That's where all the Original doctrines come from.
How is infallible Scriptures not good enough you ignorant??"
I am very much not pretending any new doctrines have come about in AD 500. However, in Matthew 28:20 it is very definite, if AD 500 arrived before Doomsday (and it did) there would be (and there was) a Church perpetuating the doctrines given back then.
Where is YOUR alternative for that Church?
I mean, God could have allowed the Church to vanish in 100 or in 325 or whatever you like, and then raised it again, as far as His omnipotence is concerned. But NOT as far as His faithfulness to the promise is concerned. Precisely as God could have created Adam very gradually over many thousands of generations from apes, as far as His omnipotence is concerned, but arguably not as to His goodness, and definitely not as to His truthfulness.
The infallible Scriptures are for 500 AD not enough because they very clearly state they will never be enough in the sense of dispensing from existence of a Church.
@Asaph Vapor "Again confirming the colours."
More precisely, extant in Novus Ordo on Good Friday, as well as in EOC and High Church Anglicanism ...
"You clearly do not understand Scriptures. Rev 5-19 refers to the nation of Israel going through the 7 years Tribulations. Nothing to do with Church."
When in AD 33 to 100 did that doctrine come into the Scriptures?
"Let alone RCC!"
Dito.
"Its a future event ignorant! Rev 5-19 refers to the nation of Israel going through the 7 years Tribulations. Nothing to do with Mary!"
All of it being future is again sth which I do not find in the Scriptures that the Church left us from 33 to 100 AD.
"Nice try ignorant!
You are clearly twisting Scriptures!"
That was not an answer.
Repeat of doctrine from outside the writings from 33 to 100, a k a NT canon.
"Except its not Mary. It directly contradicts Vs 6 and 17."
Unless offspring is taken as spiritual offspring. Even St Paul claimed to have such.
Repeat of doctrine from outside the writings from 33 to 100, a k a NT canon.
"WHy would GOD named HIS beloved servant after a demoness in OT? Catholics are clearly clowns!"
Why would God name Mary "queen of heaven"?
a) why would He name Her queen of Judah? Because Her Son is King of Judah.
b) why would Judah be in Heaven? Bc in Apocalypse we see the capital of heaven as Jerusalem, i e the capital of Judah
c) why would He name Her for a demoness, bc He didn't, the demoness was usurping a title Satan had known for thousands of years God was intending to give His Mother.
"Which part of the BIBLE says Mary has offspring?"
Luke 2 for physical offspring, John 19:26 for spiritual.
"Spiritual? Since when John become spiritual offspring ? WAs John a disciple of Mary ?"
He became Her adopted son, see John 19:26.
"Physical adoption? THen its physical offspring."
Adoption is not physical.
"DOnt twist the Scriptures Catholic!"
You are the one doing so to avoid obvious conclusions.
"No comments."
Indeed, somewhat off topic, since not quite the exegesis of Apoc 12 we were discussing.
"None of the versions says "she"."
For Hebrew original having a feminine word for seed, I refer to Heinz Lothar Barth:
Ipsa conteret. Maria die Schlangenzertreterin: Philologische und theologische Überlegungen zum Protoevangelium (gen 3,15) (Livre en allemand) (Allemand) Broché – 1 décembre 2000
de Heinz L Barth (Auteur)
https://www.amazon.fr/Ipsa-conteret-Maria-Schlangenzertreterin-Protoevangelium/dp/3934692036
"Including LXX (which Catholic BIBLEs are translated from)."
Catholic Latin OTs came in two versions :
* Vetus Latina from LXX
AND THEN
* Vulgate either directly from Hebrew or from Hebrew via Aquila, according to how the learned consider the language capacities of St. Jerome. In Genesis 5 and 11 you can check very easily that the Vulgate is NOT from LXX.
"RCC is desperate to make Mary queen!"
Except the point was more on co-redemptrix, which the words of St. Elisabeth confirm independently of exact translation of Genesis 3:15.
Queen is a syllogism : Christ is King of Heavenly Jerusalem, Mary is Mother of the King, in Judah the Mother of the King is Queen, and therefore Mary is Queen of Heavenly Jerusalem.
"Lies. Proof?"
Check with EOC, Copts, Armenians and Assyrians.
"Lies!
At Amazon Synod 2019, Rome’s Church OFFICIALLY acknowledged the worship of an Amazon naked fertility pagan goddess called Pachamama."
Bergoglio is NOT representing Rome's Church, and neither is the Amazon synod doing so.
BBL, perhaps, will check time left.
@Asaph Vapor Had time to finish:
"(Prayer to the Mother Earth of the Inca peoples)"
Thank you and the Inca peoples are in the Andes, not the Amazon jungle.
"Pachamama of these places, Drink, chew coca, and eat as much as you like of these offerings…"
Not the least surprised.
"On October 4, Pope Francis attended an act of idolatrous worship of the pagan goddess Pachamama. He allowed this worship to take place in the Vatican Gardens, thus desecrating the vicinity of the graves of the martyrs and of the church of the Apostle Peter."
Agree except in calling Bergoglio "pope Francis". He is neither Catholic nor Pope.
"Pachamama is a goddess revered by the indigenous peoples of the Andes. She is also known as the earth/time mother. ... As it is a syncretic religion, the figure of the Virgin Mary was associated with that of the Pachamama for many of the indigenous people."
And real Catholics don't encourage that confusion or syncretism.
"Lies. Luke 1 says nothing of "lady of lourdes or Fat Timah or Lady of Guadeloupe."
It says sth about Mary appearing before Elisabeth.
"Why Catholics love to lie and twist Scriptures?"
Why do you love to use two measures, you get away with adding things not in the text itself, while we must stick to bare text only without comment? And without application and without reasoning about what it implies, why?
- Asaph Vapor
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl
YOU:
I have proven from Scripture YOUR Church is NOT the Church Christ founded.
Matthew 28:20. Since every day in AD 500 falls under the timespan between just before Ascension and Doomsday, every day in AD 500 Christ was with His Church which was active on earth more or less well obeying but not blatantly misbeying the injunction to teach all nations to obey all things whatsoever Christ has taught His first clergy. Same applies to every day in 499 and 501.
This does not immediately clinch to RCC, but narrows down to RCC, EOC, Copts, Armenians and Assyrians. For back then, Monothelites may have been an option, while the difference RCC / EOC did not yet apply, but since then the Monothelites have joined the RCC and are now known as Maronites, one of the Uniate Churches.
A Church that was absent in 500 (neither present separately nor present in a larger unity since then split) is most definitely NOT an option.
And neither is a back then invisible Church so, since God did not light a lamp to put it under a bushel, nor build a city on a mountain so it could remain hidden
ME:
Church in Original Greek Ekklesia refers to Assembly of believers. Not some sect called RCC.
Church is the Body of Christ consisting of all worldwide believers. Nothing to do with RCC.
Church = believers.
There was always Church aka believers at any given time in history.
Your theory that "church (organisation) must be there at every point in history" is not valid.
@Hans-Georg Lundahl
YOU:
1 Successors of twelve or 72 disciples
2 Successors of St. Peter
3 Continuation of the word of mouth which was not written down in epistles in the NT canon.
Why do all these need successors, continuation? Bc Matthew 28:20!
I forgot one in early Church which for exact same reason is still there today : the Church Herself.
"But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."
[1 Timothy 3:15]
ME:
1. THen pls prove from Scriptures, RCC priests or poops are the successors and that they are infallible.
2. Can you find any other infallible authorities other than Scriptures in present days? Pls list out"
--
--
--
3. Church in Original Greek Ekklesia refers to assembly of believers. Nothing to do with soem sect called RCC. Church aka believers is the pillar of truth. Surely it is.
@Hans-Georg Lundahl
YOU:
I mean, God could have allowed the Church to vanish in 100 or in 325 or whatever you like,
ME;
1. You are confused. I am talking about doctrines. Not church.
2. Jesus and Apostles gave infallible doctrines (all NT scriptures were written before AD100). That's the only doctrines we adhere to. Not some fallible doctrines that came much later by RCC cult.
@Hans-Georg Lundahl
YOU:
"On October 4, Pope Francis attended an act of idolatrous worship of the pagan goddess Pachamama. He allowed this worship to take place in the Vatican Gardens, thus desecrating the vicinity of the graves of the martyrs and of the church of the Apostle Peter."
Agree except in calling Bergoglio "pope Francis". He is neither Catholic nor Pope.
ME:
Since when anyone calls "Bergoglio "pope Francis""?
@Hans-Georg Lundahl
YOU:
"Pachamama is a goddess revered by the indigenous peoples of the Andes. She is also known as the earth/time mother. ... As it is a syncretic religion, the figure of the Virgin Mary was associated with that of the Pachamama for many of the indigenous people."
And real Catholics don't encourage that confusion or syncretism.
ME:
Amazon Synod is Roman Catholic. Thank you for admitting RCC is a cult.
@Hans-Georg Lundahl
YOU:
"Lies. Luke 1 says nothing of "lady of lourdes or Fat Timah or Lady of Guadeloupe."
It says sth about Mary appearing before Elisabeth.
ME:
1. Again you point is not even a point.
2. Still Luke 1 says nothing of "lady of Lourdes or Fat Timah or Lady of Guadeloupe." You are still misquoting! Luke 1 doesnt even prove any of the points.
@Hans-Georg Lundahl
YOU: Why Catholics love to lie and twist Scriptures?"
Why do you love to use two measures, you get away with adding things not in the text itself, while we must stick to bare text only without comment? And without application and without reasoning about what it implies, why?
ME:
What is two measures?
Since when i added things in text? Pls list out
1
2
3
@Hans-Georg Lundahl Why Catholics cannot prove your 95% RCC doctrines NOT from SCRIPTURES?
RCC has no truth. RCC is a cult.
95% of RCC doctrines are MAN MADE and not from the Bible, neither from Jesus or Apostles.
Catholics are NOT Christians.
Catholics know very well there is something wrong with their doctrines.
1. Catholics say Mary was sinless. Yet BIBLE says Mary offered a sinner's offering. Lk 2:23-24, Lev 12:6-8, Rom 3:10.
2. Catholics say Peter was celibate. Yet BIBLE says Peter had mother in law. Mat 8:14-15, Mar 1:30-31, Luk 4:38-39.
3. Catholics say Mary was perpetually virgin. Yet BIBLE says Jesus had brothers and sisters. Mk 6:3, Mat 13:55, Mat 27:56, Mar 6:3, Mar 15:40, Mar 15:47.
4. Catholics say confess to priests. Yet BIBLE says confess to GOD directly. 1 John 1:9, Mat 6, Romans 14:11.
5. Catholics say drink of the literal blood of Jesus. Yet BIBLE says do not drink blood. Acts 15, Lev 7:26.
6. Catholics say pray to Mary and "saints". Yet BIBLE says do not contact the dead. Deut 18:11, Isaiah 8:19.
7. Catholics say their statues are not idols. Yet BIBLE says do not bow down to graven images (statues). Deut 4, Exo 20:4-5.
8. Catholics say Holy Water. Yet BIBLE mentions nothing about it.
9. Catholics say Peter was pope. Yet BIBLE says Peter was just a leader of the Jerusalem Church. Gal 2:9, Mat 16:18
10. Catholics say there is a seat of Peter. Yet BIBLE says nothing about it.
11. Catholics say there is a NT clergy priesthood. Yet NT says OT priesthood was done away with. There is no clergy priesthood in NT. Heb 7:27, 9:12, 10:10.
12. Catholics say work for salvation (faith + good works + 7 sacraments + obedience = salvation). Yet Bible says believe in Jesus to be saved. Acts 16:30-31, John 3:16.
13. Catholics says they must do penance to atone for their sins. Yet Bible says repent, confess and sins will be forgiven. 1 John 1:9, Mat 6.
14. Catholics say Mary went straight to heaven without dying. Yet Bible says nothing about it.
15. RCC says Islam and Christianity have the same GOD. Yet Islam doesn't believe in death and resurrection of Jesus and Trinity.
Roman Catholicism is full of contradiction and anti Scriptures. Nothing is more evil than a cult disguising as Christianity deceiving many. Worse than satanism.
@Hans-Georg Lundahl Bogus claims of Roman Catholic Cult and Catholics
1. RCC claimed to be the Church Christ founded. Yet BIBLE says Jerusalem Church was the Church Christ and Apostles founded. Whole Book of Acts says so.
2. Catholics claimed early church was catholic aka RCC believers. Yet BIBLE says early Church was Christian. Mary, Apostles and early believers were all Christians. Acts 11:26. All early writers were all Christians.
3. RCC claimed to be the One True Church. Yet BIBLE says in Original Greek word for Church means Assembly of believers. Not some sects. No sect can represent the whole Church which is the Body of Christ.
4. RCC claimed to come up with the canon. Yet real history tells us Early Christian Church discovered the canon over time. RCC merely took credit for that list.
5. RCC claimed NT comes from RCC. Yet real history tells us Early Christian Church and Apostles wrote the books. RCC wrote nothing. By AD100s, NT 27 books were already in all churches. Not AD300s as claimed by Catholics!
6. Catholics claimed Scriptures were inspired because they compiled them in AD300s. Yet BIBLE says Scriptures were already Scriptures the moment they were written. Apostles affirmed one another’s books as Scriptures. Disciples accepted the books as Scriptures.
7. RCC claimed all its doctrines were from Apostolic traditions. Yet a good check shows 95% of RCC doctrines are NOT from traditions of Apostles or Jesus. Only 5% were from Apostolic Traditions. 95% of RCC doctrines were invented by RCC’s magisterium and false traditions over the millennial.
8. RCC claimed Peter was pope. Yet real history says papacy only came much later in the centuries.
9. RCC claimed it has Primacy. Yet there is no such thing as Primacy of a Church.
10. RCC claimed there is such thing as Apostolic Succession. Yet BIBLE says elders replaced the 12 Apostles. Titus 1:5. Not new Apostles. Catholics cannot list out 12 new Apostles back then and now.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~’
Heretical claims of Catholics
1.
Catholics claim:
Not everything needs to be in the BIBLE. That is only an excuse for them to put in their false doctrines.
BIBLE says:
While it is true not everything is in the BIBLE, but BIBLE says all doctrines of the faith are in the BIBLE. 2 Tim 3:16-17.
You see how all these heretical Catholics lie?
2.
Catholic claim:
Doctrines can come from traditions of RCC.
BIBLE says:
Yet BIBLE says only Past traditions of Apostles are accepted. Not future false traditions of RCC. 2 Thes 2:15.
You see how all these heretical Catholics lie?
3. Catholics claim:
Scriptures is not the only infallible source.
BIBLE says:
Yet BIBLE says traditions of Apostles are Past Tense. 2 The 2:15. In the absence of traditions of Apostles now, isnt Scriptures the only infallible source? 2Tim 3:16-17. Yet Catholics cannot find any other infallible sources.
You see how all these heretical Catholics lie?
4.
Catholics claim:
their doctrines come from Apostolic traditions.
Yet a good check with RCC history, 95% of RCC doctrines come from RCC's own invention and not from traditions of Apostles.
You see how all these heretical Catholics lie?
5. THERE IS NO HONEST CATHOLIC HERE WHO CAN ANSWER THIS? GOOD GRIEF! NO WONDER RCC IS A CULT!
If Catholics claim Scriptures is not the ONLY INFALLIBLE AUTHORITY FOR DOCTRINES NOW IN MODERN DAYS, then kindly list out other infallible authorities for doctrines now in modern days.
1
2
3
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~’
Heresies of Roman Catholic Church on salvation
1. RCC says outside RCC there is no salvation.
BIBLE says apart from Jesus there is no salvation. John 14:6. John 3:16.
2. RCC says apart from pope there is no salvation!
BIBLE says apart from Jesus there is no salvation! John 14:6. John 3:16.
3. RCC says Mary is the Gateway to heaven. No one can enter Heaven but through her means.
BIBLE says apart from Jesus there is no salvation! John 14:6. John 3:16.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ask for proof!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bogus claims of RCC:
1. RCC claimed only RCC has the authority to interpret Scriptures. But cannot show us any proof of its authority.
You see how all these heretical Catholics lie?
2. RCC claimed you need an infallible interpreter. Yet in the BIBLE all believers interpreted Scriptures and they were not infallible.
You see how all these heretical Catholics lie?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Asaph Vapor I spent two hours replying, now I start to post:
"Church in Original Greek Ekklesia refers to Assembly of believers."
Agreed.
"Not some sect called RCC."
Remains to be disputed.
"Church is the Body of Christ consisting of all worldwide believers."
Agreed.
"Nothing to do with RCC."
Except for identity.
"Church = believers."
Yes. Roman Catholic believers. And as believers, also organised as Christ and the Apostles inspired by the Holy Ghost organised them.
"There was always Church aka believers at any given time in history."
Sure. Where was it in 500 AD?
"Your theory that "church (organisation) must be there at every point in history" is not valid."
It is unless you want to pretend the NT Church was not organised.
"1. THen pls prove from Scriptures, RCC priests or poops are the successors and that they are infallible."
Not yet the issue. I have already proven from Scripture successors there are, for all days and therefore all ages. You may not be able to document a believer for January 1st 500, but you should at least be able to document one between 480 and 520.
"2. Can you find any other infallible authorities other than Scriptures in present days? Pls list out"
Exact same ones as NT times and through history : Apostles and successors. We need to have successors of Apostles up to Dommsday, which has not yet occurred. Your options on this issue are limited to RCC, EOC, Copts, Armenians, Assyrians.
"3. Church in Original Greek Ekklesia refers to assembly of believers."
And in original NT that assembly was organised. The disciples were divided into the general ones and the 72, the 72 were then the source of the 12, and the 12 for St. Peter. That is in the Gospels. You cannot ask me to ignore the actual context just because you know the meaning of a word.
Btw, "assembly" in the sense of a constitutional assembly. Not of just any gathering, but one gathered or assembled according to a precise constitution. The Athenian ekklesia did not assemble according to Spartan constitution and the Spartan ekklesia not according to the Athenian one.
"Nothing to do with soem sect called RCC."
So, EOC, Copts, Armenians or Assyrians? Or do you have any other Church with a precise constitution that existed in 500 AD?
"Church aka believers is the pillar of truth. Surely it is."
Not "believers" as in single believers spread out, but believers gathered into a precise assembly with a precise constitution.
[I had said: I mean, God could have allowed the Church to vanish in 100 or in 325 or whatever you like,]
"1. You are confused. I am talking about doctrines. Not church."
Then you were confused unless you imagine you get to direct the conversation whereever you want, which is arrogant. I was talking about CHURCH, which is a requirement according to Matthew 28:20.
"Jesus and Apostles gave infallible doctrines (all NT scriptures were written before AD100). That's the only doctrines we adhere to. Not some fallible doctrines that came much later by RCC cult."
One of the infallible doctrines was given in Matthew 28:20 and it says you need to have successors of the apostles in 500 AD and in 2000 AD and even in 2020 AD, since Doomsday hasn't arrived. If you look at the context in Matthew 28, he was not speaking the words to all believers in general, but (verses 16 into start of 18)
And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. [17] And seeing him they adored: but some doubted. [18] And Jesus coming, spoke to them,
So, it's not just the disciples as believers, it's the apostles as directing believers on Christ's behalf, that need to have successors in all days.
"Since when anyone calls "Bergoglio "pope Francis""?"
Except some Catholics, including me don't. For Patxamama incident among others.
"Amazon Synod is Roman Catholic. Thank you for admitting RCC is a cult."
No, it's Neo-Catholic, belongs to the Conciliar Church.
"1. Again you point is not even a point."
You have ears and do not hear.
"2. Still Luke 1 says nothing of "lady of Lourdes or Fat Timah or Lady of Guadeloupe." You are still misquoting! Luke 1 doesnt even prove any of the points."
St. Mary appeared to Elisabeth, and Elisbeth reacted as to the Ark of the Covenant. Since She also appeared in Lourdes, Fatima and Guadalupe, we should consider these places as a place where the Ark of the Covenant has been.
"What is two measures?"
Your measure for yourself : you may say things that aren't in the text as conclusions from the text or supposed history about what happened after Acts. If I do the same, you shout out "Luke 1 didn't say a word about that!"
"Since when i added things in text? Pls list out"
1 That ekklesia means any kind of unorganised or continuously reorganised "assembly" rather than a constitutional one
2 That Apocalypse 12 is about Israel
3 That offspring cannot mean spiritual such.
"Why Catholics cannot prove your 95% RCC doctrines NOT from SCRIPTURES?"
Not from Scriptures means nothing. You can have things:
1 contradicting Scriptures
2 outside the scope of them (could be true or could be false, depends on other evidence)
3 outside their text, but inside their scope and the tradition in which and to which they were given
"RCC has no truth. RCC is a cult."
Yeah, repeating this shout of hatred and condemnation makes you so credible ... not.
"95% of RCC doctrines are MAN MADE and not from the Bible, neither from Jesus or Apostles."
A doctrine can be from Jesus and His apostles without being from the actual text of the Bible. Where in the NT do you find Jesus' doctrine on Genesis 3:15? Yet he certainly gave one. Luke 24:27 says:
And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded to them in all the scriptures, the things that were concerning him.
OT is thicker than NT. Jesus gave a complete OT exposition. This would not be thinner than NT, yet passages explicitly exposing OT definitely are, therefore His OT exposition is in His still existing Church.
"Catholics are NOT Christians."
You wish.
"Catholics know very well there is something wrong with their doctrines."
Only if they fall into the trap of equating "not in the Bible text" with "contradicting the Bible".
"1. Catholics say Mary was sinless. Yet BIBLE says Mary offered a sinner's offering. Lk 2:23-24, Lev 12:6-8, Rom 3:10."
There was a sacrifice for Jesus as firstborn as well. Are you saying He was a sinner?
"2. Catholics say Peter was celibate. Yet BIBLE says Peter had mother in law. Mat 8:14-15, Mar 1:30-31, Luk 4:38-39."
We do not say Peter was celibate all of his life.
"3. Catholics say Mary was perpetually virgin. Yet BIBLE says Jesus had brothers and sisters. Mk 6:3, Mat 13:55, Mat 27:56, Mar 6:3, Mar 15:40, Mar 15:47."
Thanks for putting forth passages where Mary is described as doing the will of the Father, i e as being sinless.
Deuteronomy 25 mentions brother as needing to marry brother's widow. According to Ruth, Booz was brother of Ruth once another brother had renounced his right of being that brother. Yet neither he nor Booz was son of Naomi.
["]4. Catholics say confess to priests. Yet BIBLE says confess to GOD directly. 1 John 1:9, Mat 6, Romans 14:11.["]
Your first quote says:
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all iniquity.
Where does it say "to God directly" or "without a priest"?
Your last quote says:
For it is written: As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.
Here "confess to God" is not equivalent of confessing one's sins to God.
Matthew 6, are you speaking about the instructions on prayer? Bc, they are not about when one gets forgiven, even if verses 14 and 15 speak about one condition (which is enforced in confessionals).
None of your examples say literally you can be forgiven without going to confession, when confession is available. John 20, verses 21 to 23 says:
He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.
As per Matthew 28:20, these men with this privilege have successors today. They need to know someone's sins and repentance before forgiving, and this knowledge is acquired when the people confess to them.
"5. Catholics say drink of the literal blood of Jesus. Yet BIBLE says do not drink blood. Acts 15, Lev 7:26."
You reason like the guys who rejected Christ in John 6.
"6. Catholics say pray to Mary and "saints". Yet BIBLE says do not contact the dead. Deut 18:11, Isaiah 8:19."
Catholic comment to Isaiah:
[19] "Seek of pythons": That is, people pretending to tell future things by a prophesying spirit.-- Ibid.
[19] "Should not the people seek of their God, for the living of the dead?": Here is signified, that it is to God we should pray to be directed, and not to seek of the dead, (that is, of fortune-tellers dead in sin,) for the health of the living.
Text on Deut. Nor charmer, nor any one that consulteth pythonic spirits, or fortune tellers, or that seeketh the truth from the dead.
We do not consult saints through mediums.
"7. Catholics say their statues are not idols. Yet BIBLE says do not bow down to graven images (statues). Deut 4, Exo 20:4-5."
Exodus 20 has one commandment from verse 2 to verse 6. Verses 4 and 5 are not a separate commandment.
"8. Catholics say Holy Water. Yet BIBLE mentions nothing about it."
Irrelevant if true.
Not true.
"And said to him: Go, wash in the pool of Siloe, which is interpreted, Sent. He went therefore, and washed, and he came seeing."
[John 9:7]
"He answered: That man that is called Jesus made clay, and anointed my eyes, and said to me: Go to the pool of Siloe, and wash. And I went, I washed, and I see."
[John 9:11]
And the other pool of blessed water, John 5:
Now there is at Jerusalem a pond, called Probatica, which in Hebrew is named Bethsaida, having five porches. [3] In these lay a great multitude of sick, of blind, of lame, of withered; waiting for the moving of the water. [4] And an angel of the Lord descended at certain times into the pond; and the water was moved. And he that went down first into the pond after the motion of the water, was made whole, of whatsoever infirmity he lay under.
"9. Catholics say Peter was pope. Yet BIBLE says Peter was just a leader of the Jerusalem Church. Gal 2:9, Mat 16:18"
The Bible specfically mentions his leading (over the others, actually) Jerusalem, but it does not deny his ruling the Church from there, for instance Samaria or Antioch, until he moved to Antioch, from whence he came to Rome (mentioned as Babylon in his epistles).
Matthew 16:19 very clearly states what is also repeated in John 21:15 and following, Peter is being made Christ's plenipotentiary, His vicar for any kind of business.
Galatians 2:9 may be speaking of some other Cephas, as St Paul calls Peter Peter elsewhere in the epistle.
"10. Catholics say there is a seat of Peter. Yet BIBLE says nothing about it."
Jerusalem was his first seat and also that of the other 11.
"11. Catholics say there is a NT clergy priesthood. Yet NT says OT priesthood was done away with. There is no clergy priesthood in NT. Heb 7:27, 9:12, 10:10."
Clergy mentioned in NT : 72, 12, Peter, 7 deacons. And a few more.
But OT clergy is indeed no longer relevant.
"12. Catholics say work for salvation (faith + good works + 7 sacraments + obedience = salvation). Yet Bible says believe in Jesus to be saved. Acts 16:30-31, John 3:16."
Matthew 25 says work for salvation by giving alms. 7 sacraments are not works, they are part of the faith. Obedience to commandments is a corrolary to faith and is in the context of John 3.
"13. Catholics says they must do penance to atone for their sins. Yet Bible says repent, confess and sins will be forgiven. 1 John 1:9, Mat 6."
It does not say anywhere someone who is forgiven can go on to make a party without doing an act of repentance, also known as penance, first.
"14. Catholics say Mary went straight to heaven without dying. Yet Bible says nothing about it."
Without dying is more than we say for certain, and St. Thomas would consider She died, was buried, and resurrected and went to heaven.
"15. RCC says Islam and Christianity have the same GOD. Yet Islam doesn't believe in death and resurrection of Jesus and Trinity."
As with Patxamama incident, you are confusing Conciliar Sect - if that is what the quote from Nostra Aetate means - with the RCC proper.
"Roman Catholicism is full of contradiction and anti Scriptures. Nothing is more evil than a cult disguising as Christianity deceiving many. Worse than satanism."
You have shown some against the Conciliar Church, none against RCC.
"@Hans-Georg Lundahl Bogus claims of Roman Catholic Cult and Catholics"
We'll take one and one.
"1. RCC claimed to be the Church Christ founded. Yet BIBLE says Jerusalem Church was the Church Christ and Apostles founded. Whole Book of Acts says so."
It is the first see of the RCC. No longer the foremost, but the earliest. Christ founded any Church anywhere, and in Samaria you can see how it went on from Apostles (Acts 8).
"2. Catholics claimed early church was catholic aka RCC believers. Yet BIBLE says early Church was Christian. Mary, Apostles and early believers were all Christians. Acts 11:26. All early writers were all Christians."
We most definitely claim Christian means Catholic. Any other Christians are half measure Christians.
"3. RCC claimed to be the One True Church. Yet BIBLE says in Original Greek word for Church means Assembly of believers. Not some sects. No sect can represent the whole Church which is the Body of Christ."
The Bible says "ekklesia" and that does not mean any crowd, of believers or otherwise, it means a constitutionally assembled crowd.
"4. RCC claimed to come up with the canon. Yet real history tells us Early Christian Church discovered the canon over time. RCC merely took credit for that list."
Councils of Carthage and Rome between 350 and 400 gave the canon, that is the list of what 27 books are inspired.
"5. RCC claimed NT comes from RCC. Yet real history tells us Early Christian Church and Apostles wrote the books. RCC wrote nothing. By AD100s, NT 27 books were already in all churches. Not AD300s as claimed by Catholics!"
We Catholics definitely claim it is by RC like Sts Matthew, Mark, Luke and John living in FIRST century. Don't misrepresent our claim.
"6. Catholics claimed Scriptures were inspired because they compiled them in AD300s. Yet BIBLE says Scriptures were already Scriptures the moment they were written. Apostles affirmed one another’s books as Scriptures. Disciples accepted the books as Scriptures."
The councils from 350 to 400 were assembling the full list of 27 books to which this process happened.
"7. RCC claimed all its doctrines were from Apostolic traditions. Yet a good check shows 95% of RCC doctrines are NOT from traditions of Apostles or Jesus. Only 5% were from Apostolic Traditions. 95% of RCC doctrines were invented by RCC’s magisterium and false traditions over the millennial."
What exactly is your source for Apostolic traditions? Bible only? That is not just against Apostolic traditions as we have received them historically, but against the Bible.
"8. RCC claimed Peter was pope. Yet real history says papacy only came much later in the centuries."
What you call "real history" I call pseudo-analysis of real events.
"9. RCC claimed it has Primacy. Yet there is no such thing as Primacy of a Church."
Acts 8 shows Jerusalem exercising primacy over Samaria.
"10. RCC claimed there is such thing as Apostolic Succession. Yet BIBLE says elders replaced the 12 Apostles. Titus 1:5. Not new Apostles. Catholics cannot list out 12 new Apostles back then and now."
Bishops and presbyters are titles of those replacing apostles. But this replacement is called apostolic because it starts with the 12.
"Heretical claims of Catholics"
I'll take them one by one.
"Catholics claim: Not everything needs to be in the BIBLE."
Yes.
"That is only an excuse for them to put in their false doctrines."
You read the hearts and kidneys of people?
"BIBLE says: While it is true not everything is in the BIBLE,"
Thank you.
"but BIBLE says all doctrines of the faith are in the BIBLE."
No.
"2 Tim 3:16-17."
Let's confer with 1 Tim 3:15.
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
So, the same man already knew Church as deposit of truth, before being told of Scriptures. I'll go back one verse before you cited:
[15] And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation, by the faith which is in Christ Jesus. [16] All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, [17] That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.
1) No mention of all doctrines of faith are explicitly mentioned in the Bible
2) There is a specific mention of the "man of God" which is a function of the Church
3) It does not say the Bible is enough for every single reader, even of goodwill, to be perfect
4) The Scriptures in question were OT Scripture, since St. Timothy could not have known even the earliest writing, Gospel of St. Matthew, of the NT when he was a child.
"You see how all these heretical Catholics lie?"
I see how heretical Protestants lie.
"Catholic claim:Doctrines can come from traditions of RCC."
Which faithfully continue those of Christ and the Apostles.
"BIBLE says:Yet BIBLE says only Past traditions of Apostles are accepted."
And we agree.
"Not future false traditions of RCC."
Would you mind showing any Catholic tradition to have been in NT times as yet only "future"?
2 Thes 2:15.
Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.
Have learned in the past, before St. Paul wrote this. [see for future a few lines down]
And we agree, the last man to add to this was St. John.
"You see how all these heretical Catholics lie?"
I can see how heretical Protestants lie.
"3. Catholics claim:Scriptures is not the only infallible source."
Correct.
"BIBLE says:Yet BIBLE says traditions of Apostles are Past Tense. 2 The 2:15."
which you have learned is past tense
stand fast; and hold are imperatives, which are automatically present to future in meaning
"In the absence of traditions of Apostles now,"
Where does it say the tradition would cease? Nowhere in all NT.
Where does it say all of the Church would cease to stand fast; and hold the traditions, except when copying or translating Bibles? Nowhere in all NT.
"isnt Scriptures the only infallible source?"
No.
"2Tim 3:16-17."
It says Scripture (more specifically OT Scripture, but applies to NT too) is infallible, but as per previous epistle, comparable place, most definitely not the only such.
Where does it say the Church would cease to be the pillar and ground of truth? Nowhere in all the NT.
"Yet Catholics cannot find any other infallible sources."
I gave four, you cannot show they have ceased. Claiming they ceased is against Matthew 28:20.
"You see how all these heretical Catholics lie?"
I see how all these heretical Protestants lie.
No comments:
Post a Comment