Jump to content
IGNORED

The true Church of Christ


Guest Judas Machabeus

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  16
  • Topic Count:  134
  • Topics Per Day:  0.04
  • Content Count:  8,142
  • Content Per Day:  2.37
  • Reputation:   6,612
  • Days Won:  20
  • Joined:  11/02/2014
  • Status:  Offline

15 minutes ago, Hoddie said:

And what is your personal interpretation of Matt. 4:4?

One does not need any "personal" interpretation of Matthew 4:4.  Even a child can read it and understand what it says.  It is also a direct rebuttal to the claim that the Bible does not uphold Sola Scriptura.  Here's what the Douay-Rheims and Latin Vulgate present.

Who answered and said: It is written, Not in bread alone doth man live, but in every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God. qui respondens dixit scriptum est non in pane solo vivet homo sed in omni verbo quod procedit de ore Dei

There is no mention of "tradition" "Holy Tradition" "traditions of men" or "traditions of the apostles".  Just the pure, unadulterated Word of God.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  11
  • Topic Count:  320
  • Topics Per Day:  0.04
  • Content Count:  6,829
  • Content Per Day:  0.85
  • Reputation:   3,570
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  02/16/2002
  • Status:  Offline

2 hours ago, Hoddie said:

Found this article that I feel fits this thread to a tee.

5 Reasons the Catholic Church is the True Church: By Amelia Monroe Carlson.

There are many reasons the Roman Catholic Church is the true Church of Jesus Christ, however, some of those reasons are necessary for discussions with those outside the Catholic Church. Jesus prayed for unity of believers and unity begins with understanding. The understanding of the Church’s beliefs is essential in working toward that unity. Here are some key reasons to keep in mind when speaking to non-Catholics:

1.) Authority- Jesus gave specific instructions regarding dealing with members of the Church who were in sin. Matthew 18:15-18 says "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother. If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that ‘every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector. Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." What Evangelical/Protestant Church has the authority to remove someone completely from the church? None. If an individual is removed from a ‘congregation’ then he/she can go down the street and join another ‘congregation’ of the same denomination. The congregations are individualized and have no authority outside their own denomination. That is not true with the Catholic Church. If removed from the Catholic Church, one cannot go to another city and join another Catholic Parish.

2.) History- The Roman Catholic Church is the oldest and original Christian Church, therefore, the beliefs and teachings of the Church were directly passed onto the leaders of the Catholic Church by the apostles. The Catholic Church began with the teachings of Jesus Christ, around 1st Century AD in the province of Judea of the Roman Empire. The Catholic Church is the continuation of the early Christian community established by Jesus and no modern Christian Church can make that claim. By the end of the 2nd century, bishops began congregating in regional synods and to correct doctrinal and policy issues and by the time the 3rd century came around, the Bishop of Rome (Pope) served as the decisive authority, kind of like a court of appeals, for problems and issues the bishops could not resolve. This is identical to the Bible’s teaching. In Exodus 18 we see where the children of Israel brought their disputes to Moses and Moses settled those disputes. However, it also shows where leaders appointed by Moses also worked to settle disputes.

The Catholic Church remained the only Christian Church until the East-West Schism of 1054, which caused medieval Christianity to split and become two separate branches. The greatest division, however, came during the Reformation from 1517-1648, led by Martin Luther. The East-West (Great) Schism was caused by Patriarch Michael I. According to Titus 3:9-11, the divisions led by Patriarch Michael I and Martin Luther were sin. "Avoid foolish arguments, genealogies, rivalries, and quarrels about the law, for they are useless and futile. After a first and second warning, break off contact with a heretic, realizing that such a person is perverted and sinful and stands self-condemned.."

Cont:

2.) History- The rcc is the oldest and original apostate church and the teachings of Nimrod and his queen were passed on following leaders.  

 The city Babylon was built by Nimrod, the mighty hunter (Gen. 10:8-10). It was the seat of the first great apostasy against God after the flood. Here the Babylonian Cult was invented by Nimrod and his Queen, Semiramis. It was a system claiming the highest wisdom and ability to reveal the most divine secrets. This cult was characterized by the word "Mystery" because of its mysteries. Beside confessing to the priests at admission to this cult, one was compelled to drink of "mysterious beverages," which says Salvert (Des Sciences Occultes, Page 259) was indespensible on the part of those who saught initation into these mysteries. The "mysterious beverages' were composed of wine, honey, water, and flour. They were always of an intoxicating nature, and untill the aspirants had come under the influence of it and had their understanding dimmed they were not prepared for what they were to see and hear. The method was to introduce privately, little by little, information under seal of secrecy and sanction of oath that would be impossible to reveal otherwise. This has been the policy of the Roman Church and the secret of the power of the priests over the lives of men whom they could expose to the world for their sins that have been confessed to them. Once admitted, men were no longer Babylonians, Assyrians, or Egyptians, but were members of a mystical brotherhood, over whom was placed a Supreme Pontif or High Priest whos word was final in all things in thelives of the brotherhood regardless of the country in which they lived. The ostensible objects of worship were the Supreme Father, the Incarnate Female or Queen of Heaven, and her Son. The last two were only objects of worship, as the Supreme Father was said not to interfere with mortal affaires (Nimrod 111, Page 239). This system is believed to have come from fallen angels and demons. The object of the cult was to rule the world by these dogmas. Much more can be said but to simplify things, Damasus, Bishop of the Christian Church at Rome, was elected to the office of Supreme Pontif. He had been bishop for twelve years, having been made suchin 366 A. D. through influence of the monks of Mount Carmel, a college of the Babylonian religion originally founded by the priests of Jezebel and continued to this day in connection with Rome. So, in 378 A. D., the babylonian system of religion became part of Christendom, for the bishop of Rome, who later became the supreme head of the organized church, was already Supreme Pontiff of the Babylonian Order. All the teachings of pagan Babylon and Rome were gradually interspersed into the Christian religious organization. Soon after Damasus was made Supreme Pontiff, the rites of Babylon began to come to the front. The worship of the Roman Church became babylonish, and under him, the heathen temples were restored and beautified and the rituals established. Thus, the currupt religious system under the figure of a woman with a golden cup in her hand, making all nations drunk with her fornication, is called by God "MYSTERY BABYLON THE GREAT."

The first practice that grew up after this union was the introduction of the worship of the saints, especially of the virgin Mary. Thousands of pagans entered the church in those days who were accustomed to worshiping the gods of towns and places, who were not thoroughly Christianized. The veneration of saints and holy men became a worship. Saints were considered lesser dieties, whos intercession availed with God. Places connected with the lives of holy men were considered sacred and pilgrimages were started. Relics or bones of saints were believed to have miraculous power. The worship of the virgin Mary was set up in 381 A. D., three years after Damasus became bead of the Babylonian Cult.

Just as the Babylonian cult worshiped the "Queen of Heaven and her Son" and did not worship the Supreme Father because he simply did not interfere with mortal affairs, so the Roman Chrurch has a similar worship in that they worship Mary as the mother of God and her Son. The image of mother and child was an object of worship in Babylon long before Christ was born. From Babylon it spread to the ends of the Earth. The original mother was Semiramis, the beautiful queen of Nimrod, who was a paragon of unbridled lust and licentiousness.

In the "mysteries," which she had the chief part in forming, she was worshiped as Rhea (Chronicon Paschal, Volume 1, Page 65), the great "Mother of the God's" with such atrocious rites as identified her with Venus, the mother of all impurity. She raised Babylon, where she reigned to eminence among the nations as the great seat idolatry and consecrated prostetution (Hesiod, Theogonia, Volume 36, Page 435). The apocalyptic emblem of the harlot with cup in hand was one of idolatry derived from ancient Babylon, as they were exhibited in Greece, for thus the Greek Venus was originally represented (Herodotus, Historia, Book 1, cap. 199, Page 92).

Ironicilly the Roman Church has taken this as her emblem. In 1825 a medal was struck bearing the image of Pope Leo X11 on one side and on the other side Rome symbolized by a woman with a cross in her left hand and a cup in her right hand and a legend around her "Sedet Super Universum"; that is, "The whole world is her seat."

From this original practice, practically all nations have copied a similar worship, but in each land the same figure is carried out under different names. In Egypt the mother and child are known as Isis and Osiris; in India, Isi and Iswara; in Eastern Asia, Cybel and Deoius; in pagan Rome, Fortuna and Jupiter-puer; In Greece, Ceres or as Irene with Plutus in arms, etc. In Thibet, China, and Japan the Jesuits were suprised to find the counterpart of the madonna (the Italian name for virgin) and her child as devoutly worshiped as in Rome itself. Shing Moo, the mother of China, is there represented with child in her arms and a glory around her exactly as if a Roman artist had paintd her. Where did these nations get this common worship if not from Babylon before the dispersion by God in the days of Nimrod (Gen. 11). Thus the worship of Mary in connection with her Son is of Babylonian origin for there is no mention of such worshipin Scripture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  11
  • Topic Count:  320
  • Topics Per Day:  0.04
  • Content Count:  6,829
  • Content Per Day:  0.85
  • Reputation:   3,570
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  02/16/2002
  • Status:  Offline

38 minutes ago, Ezra said:

One does not need any "personal" interpretation of Matthew 4:4.  Even a child can read it and understand what it says.  It is also a direct rebuttal to the claim that the Bible does not uphold Sola Scriptura.  Here's what the Douay-Rheims and Latin Vulgate present.

Who answered and said: It is written, Not in bread alone doth man live, but in every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God. qui respondens dixit scriptum est non in pane solo vivet homo sed in omni verbo quod procedit de ore Dei

There is no mention of "tradition" "Holy Tradition" "traditions of men" or "traditions of the apostles".  Just the pure, unadulterated Word of God.

 

What Ezra said is right and true.

Romans 1:17, For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

 

 :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  11
  • Topic Count:  320
  • Topics Per Day:  0.04
  • Content Count:  6,829
  • Content Per Day:  0.85
  • Reputation:   3,570
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  02/16/2002
  • Status:  Offline

Hoodie wrote:

Quote

"3.) The Catholic Church gave Christians the Bible-"

.

Vatican Archives Reveal Bible Was Once Banned Book

Index of Forbidden Books, which Roman Catholics were forbidden to read or possess on pain of excommunication.  They showed that even the Bible was once on the blacklist. Translations of the holy book ended up on the bonfires along with other "heretical'' works because the Church, whose official language was Latin, was suspicious of allowing the faithful access to sacred texts without ecclesiastical guidance.

http://www.withchrist.org/archives.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  16
  • Topic Count:  134
  • Topics Per Day:  0.04
  • Content Count:  8,142
  • Content Per Day:  2.37
  • Reputation:   6,612
  • Days Won:  20
  • Joined:  11/02/2014
  • Status:  Offline

1 hour ago, HAZARD said:

What Ezra said is right and true.

Romans 1:17, For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

 :thumbsup:

What did the Lord Jesus Christ mean by "and the Scripture cannot be broken"? He meant that the written Word of God cannot be annulled or set at naught or contravened. The RCC has violated this injunction.


King James Bible (John 10:35).
If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

Strong's Concordance
luó: to loose, to release, to dissolve

Original Word: λύω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: luó
Phonetic Spelling: (loo'-o)
Short Definition: I loose, untie, release, destroy
Definition: (a) I loose, untie, release, (b) met: I break, destroy, set at naught, contravene; I break up a meeting, annul.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  11
  • Topic Count:  320
  • Topics Per Day:  0.04
  • Content Count:  6,829
  • Content Per Day:  0.85
  • Reputation:   3,570
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  02/16/2002
  • Status:  Offline

2 minutes ago, Ezra said:

What did the Lord Jesus Christ mean by "and the Scripture cannot be broken"? He meant that the written Word of God cannot be annulled or set at naught or contravened. The RCC has violated this injunction.


King James Bible (John 10:35).
If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

Strong's Concordance
luó: to loose, to release, to dissolve

Original Word: λύω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: luó
Phonetic Spelling: (loo'-o)
Short Definition: I loose, untie, release, destroy
Definition: (a) I loose, untie, release, (b) met: I break, destroy, set at naught, contravene; I break up a meeting, annul.

It sure has in more ways than one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BacKaran

Dear hoddie,

Why is it that if the rcc states Peter was the first pope, how come all popes aren't Jews? And married like Peter was?Jesus didn't believe in titles for only He is worthy of the title King of Kings.  Blessings, bac

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BacKaran

This is what the Bible says plus Jesus gave sermons on the hillsides, from the sea of Galilee, the acoustics are great in some areas and in homes. 

Church means an assembly of people, it's not a physical building although that's how the 21st century people relate to it. 

With these end times upon us, as birth pangs as the bible calls them, I can see house churches growing again as we lose our freedoms in the USA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service
  • Followers:  4
  • Topic Count:  1
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  423
  • Content Per Day:  0.15
  • Reputation:   244
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  08/07/2016
  • Status:  Offline

On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Ezra said:

One does not need any "personal" interpretation of Matthew 4:4. 

I would like to take this time to apologize to Hazard, the Moderators and all others within the Worthy Christian Forum. Over on the Assumption thread, I refurred to Hazard a word that was other then his username, and for that I am sorry. My intent was not to be mean-spirited, it was an attempt to counter him(and others) refurring to me at times as "Hoodie. For those that may not be aware of, my username is "Hoddie" The word Hoddie is used to refure to a person that works in the brick masonry trade. Where on the other hand, in some parts of the U.S. "Hoodie" is used in reference to someone that is affiliated with a gang. Now in all fairness, I failed to see where the moderators or members of this forum call out those that called me "Hoodie", for a gang-banger I am not. In the future, I will refrain in attempting to be a wise-guy. I will stick with Scripture, history and the Early Church Fathers to refute the anti-Catholics in their misconstrued beliefs and down right lies of the Catholic Church and her teachings, for a Bob Hope I am not. Again, my deepest apology.

 

Now for the post at hand.

I agree one shouldn't rely on "personal" interpretation of Scripture, because without any sort of authority, there could be thousands of differnt interpretations of this passage, which Protestantism has shown over and over.

Even a child can read it and understand what it says.

So what you are saying is.... if a child was to read this for the first time, the only thing he or she would get out of it would be that the bible is sufficient as a sole rule of faith?

I'll go even futher. Say there was a tribe of people discoverd in the Amazon rain forest that has never seen a bible in thier entire life, and they were read this passage.(or any other passage) Is it your belief that the first and only thing they would take from it is.....Oh yes.... we understand, we believe the Bible, consisting of both the Old and New Testament Scriptures in their entirety, is the only divinely inspired, inerrant, objectively true, and authoritative written Word of God, and the only infallible rule of faith and practice." Is this what you believe?

 

It is also a direct rebuttal to the claim that the Bible does not uphold Sola Scriptura. Here's what the Douay-Rheims and Latin Vulgate present.

Who answered and said: It is written, Not in bread alone doth man live, but in every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God.

 

qui respondens dixit scriptum est non in pane solo vivet homo sed in omni verbo quod procedit de ore Dei

 

There is no mention of "tradition" "Holy Tradition" "traditions of men" or "traditions of the apostles". Just the pure, unadulterated Word of God.

Really, well I seem to be missing the part where this passage says that the bible alone is sufficient as a sole rule of faith. Now let me ask you something...Do you beleive the New Testament is the basis of the Christian faith? If so, it brings up another question, since the Christian faith existed and flourished for years before the first book of the New Testament was written. The books of the New Testament were composed decades after Christ ascended into heaven, and it took centuries for there to be general agreement among Christians as to which books comprised the New Testament. And that brings up another point. How do you know what constitutes the New Testament canon? How do you know for certain that these 27 books here in your New Testament are in fact inspired and should be in the New Testament? And how do you know for certain that maybe some inspired books haven’t been left out of the canon?"

And one last question for you. Is it your belief that the bible is the pillar and foundation of truth?

 

Peace

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  16
  • Topic Count:  134
  • Topics Per Day:  0.04
  • Content Count:  8,142
  • Content Per Day:  2.37
  • Reputation:   6,612
  • Days Won:  20
  • Joined:  11/02/2014
  • Status:  Offline

2 hours ago, Hoddie said:

Really, well I seem to be missing the part where this passage says that the bible alone is sufficient as a sole rule of faith

What don't you understand by "every word that proceeds from the mouth of God"?  Does that not make it crystal clear that the sole rule of faith and practice is Scripture?  And the fact that it is addressed to "man" (mankind in general) means that it applies to the human race.

There is only one book in the whole world which can truly be called the Word of God -- and that is the Bible.  That is why the Catholic Bibles could not alter what was written in Matthew 4:4.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...