The true Church of Christ

[kwikphilly]

Quote

Yes, the Lord Jesus Christ founded a Church, and that Church is really His Body.  This body consists of every redeemed soul and it is not visible, because, as Christ said "The Kingdom of God is within you", and also that every one who is born of the Spirit is like the wind -- invisible (John 3:8).      Ezra

And if I may ,Ezra......add the above comment to the reply you posted just prior to this one,,,,,,With love-in Christ,Kwik

[nChrist]

The one true church is not a physical church made with human hands with a denominational name over the door. All of the members of the one true church are saved, and that's the only way you can become a member. That one true church is called the Church which is the Body of Christ. All truly saved people are members of Christ's Body - His Church, regardless of what physical church they attend.

Romans 12:5 KJV So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.

Colossians 3:15-17 KJV And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to the which also ye are called in one body; and be ye thankful. 16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord. 17 And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.

 

[Hoddie]

On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 1:18 PM, HAZARD said:

 

On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 1:18 PM, HAZARD said:

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."

 

Funny Hazard you didn't reveal the source of this information, but I have a pretty good idea where it came from. I am willing to wager that most, if not "all" of these silly stories came from a long debunked work by Alexander Hislop called, "The Two Babylons."

Many a people, like the illustrious Jack Chick, took Hislop's ball and ran with it, perpetuating myth after myth,fairy tale after fairy tale until most Protestants believe some, if not all of it. You should read about one of those former Hislop adherents named Ralph Woodrow, who was as duped as you are but finally did his own research only to find that Hislop didn't have a Scriptural or historical leg to stand on. Here is his website:
http://www.ralphwoodrow.org/books/pa...n-mystery.html

If you were to study the 7th edition of Hislops "The Two Babylons" published in 1871, you would see a note by the editor where it was claimed, "that no one, so far as we are aware, has ventured to challenge the accuracy of the historical proofs adduced in support of the startling announcement on the title page." (But you do support it without any historical proof?) Since then however there have been many who have challenged the accuracy of Hislop's claims. Scholar Lester L.Grabbe has highlighted the picture presented by Hislop, that Nimrod is equated with Ninus is based on a misunderstanding of historical Babylon and its religion. What ironic if not sad though, is his book remains popular with you and the Jehovah's Witnesses, with The Watchtower frequently publishing excerpts from Hislop. Unless of course you are a member of the J.W. sect.

Although extensively footnoted, some commentators and Scholars (in particular Ralph Woodrow) have stated that there are numerous misconceptions, fabrications and grave factual errors in the document. So with that being said Hazard, I would ask you to prove these charges that you posted either Scripturaly or historicaly.

Peace

[Hoddie]

7 hours ago, Ezra said:

What don't you understand by "every word that proceeds from the mouth of God"? 

I do understand, I just don't agree with your fallible personal interpretation of this passage. That is of course you consider your interpretation of Scripture infallible. Do you?

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.

No... and you have yet to show me a passage in the bible that explicitly states that the bible alone is sufficient as a sole rule of faith and truth. Which reminds me, you didn't address my question if you beleive that the bible is the pillar and foundation of truth.

There is only one book in the whole world which can truly be called the Word of God -- and that is the Bible.

Yes I know.... for it was the Catholic Church that compiled it.

That is why the Catholic Bibles could not alter what was written in Matthew 4:4.

You got it all backwards Ezra. History shows It was your very own Martin Luther that alterd what was written. By the time of the Reformation, Christians had been using the same 73 books in their Bibles (46 in the Old Testament, 27 in the New Testament)--and thus considering them inspired--for more than 1100 years. This practice changed with Martin Luther, who dropped the deuterocanonical books on nothing more than his own say-so. Protestantism as a whole has followed his lead in this regard.

One of the two "pillars" of the Protestant Reformation (sola scriptura or "the Bible alone") in part states that nothing can be added to or taken away from God's Word. History shows therefore that Protestants are guilty of violating their own doctrine.

Peace

[HAZARD]

32 minutes ago, Hoddie said:

Funny Hazard you didn't reveal the source of this information, but I have a pretty good idea where it came from. I am willing to wager that most, if not "all" of these silly stories came from a long debunked work by Alexander Hislop called, "The Two Babylons."

Many a people, like the illustrious Jack Chick, took Hislop's ball and ran with it, perpetuating myth after myth,fairy tale after fairy tale until most Protestants believe some, if not all of it. You should read about one of those former Hislop adherents named Ralph Woodrow, who was as duped as you are but finally did his own research only to find that Hislop didn't have a Scriptural or historical leg to stand on. Here is his website:
http://www.ralphwoodrow.org/books/pa...n-mystery.html

If you were to study the 7th edition of Hislops "The Two Babylons" published in 1871, you would see a note by the editor where it was claimed, "that no one, so far as we are aware, has ventured to challenge the accuracy of the historical proofs adduced in support of the startling announcement on the title page." (But you do support it without any historical proof?) Since then however there have been many who have challenged the accuracy of Hislop's claims. Scholar Lester L.Grabbe has highlighted the picture presented by Hislop, that Nimrod is equated with Ninus is based on a misunderstanding of historical Babylon and its religion. What ironic if not sad though, is his book remains popular with you and the Jehovah's Witnesses, with The Watchtower frequently publishing excerpts from Hislop. Unless of course you are a member of the J.W. sect.

Although extensively footnoted, some commentators and Scholars (in particular Ralph Woodrow) have stated that there are numerous misconceptions, fabrications and grave factual errors in the document. So with that being said Hazard, I would ask you to prove these charges that you posted either Scripturaly or historicaly.

Peace

Sorry, wrong again. Its not funny at all, its all true. 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 corrupt 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 ostensible objects of worship were the Supreme Father, the Incarnate Female or Queen of Heaven, and her Son, (MARY WORSHIP).  The last two were only objects of worship, as the Supreme Father was said not to interfere with mortal affaires. Read the book,  (Nimrod 111, Page 239).

Jesus thanked God that the truths of the Bible were hidden from the worldly wise, (Popes and the hierarchy of the rcc),  who refused to believe, and stated that God has "revealed them unto babes" (Matt. 11:25-27). He gives the reason truths are hidden from anyone. It is because they refuse to humble themselves to believe and conform to the Bible (Matt.13:10-17). Jesus speaks of the devil taking the Word from the hearts of men lest it should bring forth fruit (Matt. 13:19-23. Paul also speaks of the devil blinding the minds of men lest they should believe, and he also speaks of men wilfully handling the Word of God dishonestly and deceitfully (2 Cor. 4:1-6).

I'm putting you on ignore!

[Hoddie]

4 hours ago, HAZARD said:

Sorry, wrong again. Its not funny at all, its all true.

All true??? Say's who? If this excerpt isn't from Alexander Hislop's "The Two Babylons" where is it from? Why all the secrecy? Why are you so hesitant on revealing it's source?

By not doing so Hazard, you leave the reader to question it's authenticity, which in turn would lead people to question the validity of any other information you may present in defence of your argument.  And that my friend "is"  no laughing matter!

　

I'm putting you on ignore!

Thats to bad.... I enjoyed our discussions. But if that is your wish...so be it.

　

Peace

[Hoddie]

On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 3:28 PM, BacKaran said:

Dear hoddie,Why is it that if the rcc states Peter was the first pope, how come all popes aren't Jews?

The term Jew is used in at least two senses in Scripture: to refer to those who are ethnically Jews and to those who are religiously Jews. Jesus was a Jew in both senses. In fact, he completed the Jewish religion by serving as the Messiah (Christ) whom the prophets had long foretold.The completed form of the Jewish religion is known as Christianity, and its adherents are Christians or "followers of the Christ." Unfortunately, many people who were ethnically Jewish did not recognize Jesus'role as Messiah and so did not accept Christianity, the completed form of Judaism. Instead, they stayed with a partial, incomplete form of Judaism. Other Jews (the apostles and their followers) did recognize that Jesus was the Messiah and embraced the new, completed form of Judaism.

Shortly thereafter it was recognized that one could be a follower of Christ even if one did not ethnically join the Jewish people. Thus the apostles began to make many Gentile converts to the Christian faith. It is thus possible for a person to be a Jew religiously (because he has accepted Christianity, the completed form of the Jewish faith) but not be a Jew ethnically. This is the case with most Christians today.It is this difference between being a Jew ethnically and religiously that lies behind Paul's statement in Romans 2:28-29: "For he is not a real Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical. He is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart, spiritual and not literal."

Christians are those who Paul refers to as being inwardly (religiously) Jewish, while non-Christian Jews are those who he refers to as being outwardly (ethnically) Jewish. The former condition, he stresses, is the more important.Unfortunately, over the course of time some Christians broke away from the Church that Jesus founded, and so a name was needed to distinguish this Church from the ones that broke off from it. Because all the breakaways were particular, local groups, it was decided to call the Church Jesus founded the "universal" (Greek, kataholos "according to the whole") Church, and thus the name Catholic was applied to it.That is why Jesus was a Jew and we (and the Pope) are Catholics: Jesus came to complete the Jewish religion by creating a Church that would serve as its fulfillment and be open to people of all races, not just ethnic Jews. As Catholics, we are those who have accepted the fulfillment of the Jewish faith by joining the Church that Jesus founded.------(Catholicanswers.com)

And married like Peter was?

You must be refuring to what St. Matthew recorded in the Gospel, "Jesus entered Peter’s house and found Peter’s mother-in-law in bed with a fever. He took her by the hand and the fever left her" (Mt 8:14-15). Note that the passage does not mention St. Peter’s wife, but only his mother-in-law. The Gospels, however, make no mention of St. Peter’s wife, living or nonliving. Therefore, St. Peter’s wife must have died before Jesus called him to be an apostle.

Jesus didn't believe in titles for only He is worthy of the title King of Kings. Blessings, bac

Not quite sure what you mean, but yes, Catholic agree Jesus Christ is the "King of Kings!" If you are suggesting that Catholics consider the pope equal to God... abosolutely not! Like a stream can never be higher than it's source, a creation can never be greater than it's creator.

　

Peace

　

　

[Ezra]

On 10/27/2016 at 11:39 PM, Hoddie said:

If this excerpt isn't from Alexander Hislop's "The Two Babylons" where is it from?

Let's say it is from Hislop's book (of which I have a copy).  That does not change the facts since Hislop consulted many sources, and there are also others who concur with Hislop. 

The real problem is the wilful blindness of those who refuse to acknowledge that the RCC incorporated a whole host of pagan beliefs and practices into its system. Take Pontifex Maximus as just one example.  You tell us the origin of this title and how it come into the Catholic church.

[Hoddie]

On Sunday, October 30, 2016 at 10:28 AM, Ezra said:

Let's say it is from Hislop's book (of which I have a copy).  That does not change the facts since Hislop consulted many sources, and there are also others who concur with Hislop.

Okay.... let's do! Now you speak of facts Ezra, but I don't see any evidence of who these so-called sources are that agreed with Hislop. Am I just supposed to take your word for it? Sorry.... it dosen't work that way, you need to back it up with something.... anything.

The real problem is the wilful blindness of those who refuse to acknowledge that the RCC incorporated a whole host of pagan beliefs and practices into its system. Take

Pontifex Maximus as just one example. You tell us the origin of this title and how it come into the Catholic church.

I'll tell you Erza the same thing I told Hazard. It seems you have a misunderstanding on how a discussion or debate (if you will) is conducted. I ask a question......you reply. You ask a question...I reply. It's not a one-way street where one side asks all the questions, and all the other side does is answer. I answerd your last post directed towards me (a very thorough responce I might add) and you can't return the courtesy? After you address the question I put forth to you in my last post, I then will respond to your question reguarding the Pontifex Maximus. My question was/is... Is it your belief that the bible is the pillar and foundation of truth? If so, please elaborate. If not, what is?

　

Peace

[Ezra]

 

 

1 hour ago, Hoddie said:

Okay.... let's do! Now you speak of facts Ezra, but I don't see any evidence of who these so-called sources are that agreed with Hislop. Am I just supposed to take your word for it? Sorry.... it dosen't work that way, you need to back it up with something.... anything.

 

History of the Christian Church by Philip Schaff is a standard scholarly work accepted by most Christians.  Hislop simply provided the details:  Here is what he says about PAGANISM within the RCC. I trust that after reading this you will quit defending the indefensible and seek for the truth. http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/3_ch07.htm

 

"In the Nicene age the church laid aside her lowly servant-form, and put on a splendid imperial garb. She exchanged the primitive simplicity of her cultus for a richly colored multiplicity. She drew all the fine arts into the service of the sanctuary, and began her sublime creations of Christian architecture, sculpture, painting, poetry, and music. In place of the pagan temple and altar arose everywhere the stately church and the chapel in honor of Christ, of the Virgin Mary, of martyrs and saints.

 

The kindred ideas of priesthood, sacrifice, and altar became more fully developed and more firmly fixed, as the outward hierarchy grew. The mass, or daily repetition of the atoning sacrifice of Christ by the hand of the priest, became the mysterious centre of the whole system of worship. The number of church festivals was increased; processions, and pilgrimages, and a multitude of significant and superstitious customs and ceremonies were introduced. The public worship of God assumed, if we may so speak, a dramatic, theatrical character, which made it attractive and imposing to the mass of the people, who were as yet incapable, for the most part, of worshipping God in spirit and in truth. It was addressed rather to the eye and the ear, to feeling and imagination, than to intelligence and will. In short, we already find in the Nicene age almost all the essential features of the sacerdotal, mysterious, ceremonial, symbolical cultus of the Greek and Roman churches of the present day.

 

This enrichment and embellishment of the cultus was, on one hand, a real advance, and unquestionably had a disciplinary and educational power, like the hierarchical organization, for the training of the popular masses. But the gain in outward appearance and splendor was balanced by many a loss in simplicity and spirituality. While the senses and the imagination were entertained and charmed, the heart not rarely returned cold and hungry. Not a few pagan habits and ceremonies, concealed under new names, crept into the church, or were baptized only with water, not with the fire and Spirit of the gospel. It is well known with what peculiar tenacity a people cleave to religious usages; and it could not be expected that they should break off in an instant from the traditions of centuries...

 

In the Christian martyr-worship and saint-worship, which now spread with giant strides over the whole Christian world, we cannot possibly mistake the succession of the pagan worship of gods and heroes, with its noisy popular festivities. Augustine puts into the mouth of a heathen the question: "Wherefore must we forsake gods, which the Christians themselves worship with us?"  He deplores the frequent revels and amusements at the tombs of the martyrs; though he thinks that allowance should be made for these weaknesses out of regard to the ancient custom.

 

Leo the Great speaks of Christians in Rome who first worshipped the rising sun, doing homage to the pagan Apollo, before repairing to the basilica of St. Peter. Theodoret defends the Christian practices at the graves of the martyrs by pointing to the pagan libations, propitiations, gods, and demigods. Since Hercules, Aesculapitis, Bacchus, the Dioscuri, and many other objects of pagan worship were mere deified men, the Christians, he thinks, cannot be blamed for honoring their martyrs—not making them gods but venerating them as witnesses and servants of the only, true God."