Jump to content
IGNORED

INDULGENCES


Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Catholic
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  94
  • Topics Per Day:  0.05
  • Content Count:  827
  • Content Per Day:  0.41
  • Reputation:   67
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  09/26/2018
  • Status:  Offline

The earliest "recorded" mention of Catholic was by St. Ignatius of Antioch.  I gave you a head start.

Edited by Concretecamper
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  5
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  194
  • Content Per Day:  0.09
  • Reputation:   20
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  04/12/2018
  • Status:  Offline

On 10/3/2018 at 6:45 PM, Billiards Ball said:

Hi Patrick,

One of my degrees is a Bachelor's of Religion with an emphasis on NT studies. When you say "1,500 years":

1) The Reformation did not start with Luther, but much earlier

2) Since Peter was told you are "Petrus, a little pebble, and I, Jesus Christ, am the ROCK," I place the Roman church as starting with Constantine and his mother

One logical possibility, since thousands of the sects you mentioned "all have different doctrines" but ALL never "found" Marian worship, Ex Cathedra, celibate priests and other heinous doctrines--respectfully--these are heinous doctrines to me--in the scriptures, either all of these are deviant, lost sects, that thousands of times started or schism-started based on their adherence to the Bible--or the RCC is wrong.

PS. Again, please don't get angry with me, but if it was "Rome's Bible" you can understand why I find it also heinous to persecute and kill people for daring to want to put Rome's Bible in the hands of Rome's thralls.

I have little problem with the many poor Catholic doctrines, frankly, my problem is they have the wrong gospel. Salvation is by faith, not works, and we can discuss that as brothers even if I'm not as deep in my Catholic studies as you--we're talking about a BIBLE STUDY.

Pushing tradition above BIBLE STUDY is upsetting to me. If you want to convict my conscience, let's go from the Bible, not Douay commentary. I never want to argue again with you the fact that I'm in the universal church without being in the Catholic "universal!" church. Can we talk Bible or not?

 

Hi Patrick 10-03-18 needs reply

Worthy Christians Forum/Indulgences

[1] One of my degrees is a Bachelor's of Religion with an emphasis on NT studies. When you say "1,500 years":

 1) The Reformation did not start with Luther, but much earlier

[2] 2) Since Peter was told you are "Petrus, a little pebble, and I, Jesus Christ, am the ROCK," I place the Roman church as starting with Constantine and his mother

[3] One logical possibility, since thousands of the sects you mentioned "all have different doctrines" but ALL never "found" Marian worship, Ex Cathedra, celibate priests and other heinous doctrines--respectfully--these are heinous doctrines to me--in the scriptures, either all of these are deviant, lost sects, that thousands of times started or schism-started based on their adherence to the Bible--or the RCC is wrong.

[4] PS. Again, please don't get angry with me, but if it was "Rome's Bible" you can understand why I find it also heinous to persecute and kill people for daring to want to put Rome's Bible in the hands of Rome's thralls.

[5] I have little problem with the many poor Catholic doctrines, frankly, my problem is they have the wrong gospel. Salvation is by faith, not works, and we can discuss that as brothers even if I'm not as deep in my Catholic studies as you--we're talking about a BIBLE STUDY.

[6] Pushing tradition above BIBLE STUDY is upsetting to me. If you want to convict my conscience, let's go from the Bible, not Douay commentary. I never want to argue again with you the fact that I'm in the universal church without being in the Catholic "universal!" church. Can we talk Bible or not?

Hi, and thanks for the POST.

I have taken the liberty of numbering your points; which God willing I sj=hall reply to

[1] Correct; I’m aware of that. Wycliffe, and to a lesser degree Has in the 14th Century were an early influence on 16th Century, Marin Luther {an apostate Catholic Monk} who is the recognized “Father” of the Protestant Revolution. And there were others as well.

[2] I AM shocked to see that some seminaries are still teaching this unable to be substantiated claim:

1. Jesus Spoke Aramaic; not Greek. In THAT language the ONLY translation for Peter is “Rock.”

John.1: 40 to 42 “One of the two who heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother. He first found his brother Simon, and said to him, "We have found the Messiah" (which means Christ). He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, "So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas" (which means Peter). [WHICH MEANS ROCK]

 

Strong's Greek Lexicon Search Results {a decidedly Non-Catholic site}

Strong's Greek Lexicon Search Results


Result of search for "Peter":

2786. Kephas kay-fas' of Chaldee origin (compare 3710); the Rock; Cephas (i.e. Kepha), a surname of Peter:--Cephas.


4074. Petros pet'-ros apparently a primary word; a (piece of) rock (larger than 3037); as a name, Petrus, an apostle:--Peter, rock. Compare 2786

 

Result of search for "Cephas":

2786. Kephas kay-fas' of Chaldee origin (compare 3710); the Rock; Cephas (i.e. Kepha), a surname of Peter:--Cephas.

 

www.agapebiblestudy.com"Cephas" is the Greek transliteration of Peter's Aramaic name "Rock" = Kepha, or perhaps in Galilean Aramaic "Qepha". Only John among the Gospels gives this form of Peter's name but it is also the preferred name that St. Paul uses when he writes about Peter.”

 

Feed MY Sheep John 21:15-17

When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs." [16] A second time he said to him, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep." [17] He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, "Do you love me?" And he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep

I CAN provide a detailed list of 50 Peter Bible FIRST references if you’d care to see it?

[3] If you actually care to discuss this plethora of seemingly unjustifiable issues one by one; we can do that.

[4] Protestant TRICK #?  When you don’t have an intelligent response; mock and attack {it’ll work some of the time}; BUT not with me. If you wish to discuss these issue individually; then let’s do so. BUT I expect to answer question you deem worthy to ask; and EXPECT the same curtesy in return. And name calling and accusations is just childish! Your highly educated; I’m just a high school graduate. Surely you were trained to do better than what you have exhibited in this POST?  I noticed that I have yet to see the term “Truth” in your points.

[5] Sure, I’m not on your level; but am still willing to discuss salvation history with you. Lead on, if that is what you wish to discuss?

[6] No my new friend I will not let you tell ME what I can use as evidence. The Douay Bible, as I hope you would have discovered in your studies; pre dates the King James in Publication date. And The Douay is a English Translation of the 4th Century Latin Vulgate. This was of course the WORLDS Bible until the Douay and King James.

The verbal is in your court friend.

May Jesus guide our Life paths,

Patrick

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Catholic
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  94
  • Topics Per Day:  0.05
  • Content Count:  827
  • Content Per Day:  0.41
  • Reputation:   67
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  09/26/2018
  • Status:  Offline

4 hours ago, maryjayne said:

most of his claimed writings are disputed, and the Catholic Church did not exist at that time

The Universal Church certainly existed at that time.  The meaning of Catholic is Universal.

 

4 hours ago, maryjayne said:

most of his claimed writings are disputed

Some, not most.  And the epistle of his that mentions the term Xatholic is not in dispute.

5 hours ago, maryjayne said:

. He was born around 35AD and died around 105AD

Wikipedia serves you well.

5 hours ago, maryjayne said:

His life, while interesting, is not as a member of the Catholic Church as recognised by any bible scholars of repute, as the Catholic church didnt exist then, although the Catholic Church  and claimed they existed at the time of Peter and say he was the first Pope. 

The Catholic Church certainly existed then.  Your argument may be the Roman Catholic Church did not exist then but I have never heard anyone say the Catholic Church didnt exist then.

 

5 hours ago, maryjayne said:

Which is odd given that Jesus Himself said he was the Head of the church

Claiming Jesus is the head of the Church is not odd.  Christ is the head of His Church.

5 hours ago, maryjayne said:

Peter was a shepherd, not the owner of the flock,

Jesus is the Good Sheppard.  But when he ascended into Heaven, He needs an earthly representative.  Research the Davidic Kingdom and see what role the person with the Keys had.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  9
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  406
  • Content Per Day:  0.13
  • Reputation:   102
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  12/14/2015
  • Status:  Offline

8 hours ago, Patrick Miron said:

 

Hi Patrick 10-03-18 needs reply

Worthy Christians Forum/Indulgences

[1] One of my degrees is a Bachelor's of Religion with an emphasis on NT studies. When you say "1,500 years":

 1) The Reformation did not start with Luther, but much earlier

[2] 2) Since Peter was told you are "Petrus, a little pebble, and I, Jesus Christ, am the ROCK," I place the Roman church as starting with Constantine and his mother

[3] One logical possibility, since thousands of the sects you mentioned "all have different doctrines" but ALL never "found" Marian worship, Ex Cathedra, celibate priests and other heinous doctrines--respectfully--these are heinous doctrines to me--in the scriptures, either all of these are deviant, lost sects, that thousands of times started or schism-started based on their adherence to the Bible--or the RCC is wrong.

[4] PS. Again, please don't get angry with me, but if it was "Rome's Bible" you can understand why I find it also heinous to persecute and kill people for daring to want to put Rome's Bible in the hands of Rome's thralls.

[5] I have little problem with the many poor Catholic doctrines, frankly, my problem is they have the wrong gospel. Salvation is by faith, not works, and we can discuss that as brothers even if I'm not as deep in my Catholic studies as you--we're talking about a BIBLE STUDY.

[6] Pushing tradition above BIBLE STUDY is upsetting to me. If you want to convict my conscience, let's go from the Bible, not Douay commentary. I never want to argue again with you the fact that I'm in the universal church without being in the Catholic "universal!" church. Can we talk Bible or not?

Hi, and thanks for the POST.

I have taken the liberty of numbering your points; which God willing I sj=hall reply to

[1] Correct; I’m aware of that. Wycliffe, and to a lesser degree Has in the 14th Century were an early influence on 16th Century, Marin Luther {an apostate Catholic Monk} who is the recognized “Father” of the Protestant Revolution. And there were others as well.

[2] I AM shocked to see that some seminaries are still teaching this unable to be substantiated claim:

1. Jesus Spoke Aramaic; not Greek. In THAT language the ONLY translation for Peter is “Rock.”

John.1: 40 to 42 “One of the two who heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother. He first found his brother Simon, and said to him, "We have found the Messiah" (which means Christ). He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, "So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas" (which means Peter). [WHICH MEANS ROCK]

 

Strong's Greek Lexicon Search Results {a decidedly Non-Catholic site}

Strong's Greek Lexicon Search Results


Result of search for "Peter":

2786. Kephas kay-fas' of Chaldee origin (compare 3710); the Rock; Cephas (i.e. Kepha), a surname of Peter:--Cephas.


4074. Petros pet'-ros apparently a primary word; a (piece of) rock (larger than 3037); as a name, Petrus, an apostle:--Peter, rock. Compare 2786

 

Result of search for "Cephas":

2786. Kephas kay-fas' of Chaldee origin (compare 3710); the Rock; Cephas (i.e. Kepha), a surname of Peter:--Cephas.

 

www.agapebiblestudy.com"Cephas" is the Greek transliteration of Peter's Aramaic name "Rock" = Kepha, or perhaps in Galilean Aramaic "Qepha". Only John among the Gospels gives this form of Peter's name but it is also the preferred name that St. Paul uses when he writes about Peter.”

 

Feed MY Sheep John 21:15-17

When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs." [16] A second time he said to him, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep." [17] He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, "Do you love me?" And he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep

I CAN provide a detailed list of 50 Peter Bible FIRST references if you’d care to see it?

[3] If you actually care to discuss this plethora of seemingly unjustifiable issues one by one; we can do that.

[4] Protestant TRICK #?  When you don’t have an intelligent response; mock and attack {it’ll work some of the time}; BUT not with me. If you wish to discuss these issue individually; then let’s do so. BUT I expect to answer question you deem worthy to ask; and EXPECT the same curtesy in return. And name calling and accusations is just childish! Your highly educated; I’m just a high school graduate. Surely you were trained to do better than what you have exhibited in this POST?  I noticed that I have yet to see the term “Truth” in your points.

[5] Sure, I’m not on your level; but am still willing to discuss salvation history with you. Lead on, if that is what you wish to discuss?

[6] No my new friend I will not let you tell ME what I can use as evidence. The Douay Bible, as I hope you would have discovered in your studies; pre dates the King James in Publication date. And The Douay is a English Translation of the 4th Century Latin Vulgate. This was of course the WORLDS Bible until the Douay and King James.

The verbal is in your court friend.

May Jesus guide our Life paths,

Patrick

In the Aramaic, Peter is, "Cephas", Kepha, the same meaning, And it means a "STONE", Jn 1: 42.

The Rock in the Aramaic, is, "Shua", Meaning  a "MASIVE ROCK".

Peter in Greek, is "Petros", a "STONE" that is easily moved or shaken.

Toe Rock is, "Petra",   "MASIVE ROCK".

The Bible, Aramaic and Greek, All prove that Jesus didn't build His Church on Peter.

 

Catholics twist the scriptures, Aramaic and Greek, And give pure speculations, To build there erroneous doctrines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  5
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  1,502
  • Content Per Day:  0.67
  • Reputation:   662
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  02/05/2018
  • Status:  Offline

11 hours ago, Patrick Miron said:

 

Hi Patrick 10-03-18 needs reply

Worthy Christians Forum/Indulgences

[1] One of my degrees is a Bachelor's of Religion with an emphasis on NT studies. When you say "1,500 years":

 1) The Reformation did not start with Luther, but much earlier

[2] 2) Since Peter was told you are "Petrus, a little pebble, and I, Jesus Christ, am the ROCK," I place the Roman church as starting with Constantine and his mother

[3] One logical possibility, since thousands of the sects you mentioned "all have different doctrines" but ALL never "found" Marian worship, Ex Cathedra, celibate priests and other heinous doctrines--respectfully--these are heinous doctrines to me--in the scriptures, either all of these are deviant, lost sects, that thousands of times started or schism-started based on their adherence to the Bible--or the RCC is wrong.

[4] PS. Again, please don't get angry with me, but if it was "Rome's Bible" you can understand why I find it also heinous to persecute and kill people for daring to want to put Rome's Bible in the hands of Rome's thralls.

[5] I have little problem with the many poor Catholic doctrines, frankly, my problem is they have the wrong gospel. Salvation is by faith, not works, and we can discuss that as brothers even if I'm not as deep in my Catholic studies as you--we're talking about a BIBLE STUDY.

[6] Pushing tradition above BIBLE STUDY is upsetting to me. If you want to convict my conscience, let's go from the Bible, not Douay commentary. I never want to argue again with you the fact that I'm in the universal church without being in the Catholic "universal!" church. Can we talk Bible or not?

Hi, and thanks for the POST.

I have taken the liberty of numbering your points; which God willing I sj=hall reply to

[1] Correct; I’m aware of that. Wycliffe, and to a lesser degree Has in the 14th Century were an early influence on 16th Century, Marin Luther {an apostate Catholic Monk} who is the recognized “Father” of the Protestant Revolution. And there were others as well.

[2] I AM shocked to see that some seminaries are still teaching this unable to be substantiated claim:

1. Jesus Spoke Aramaic; not Greek. In THAT language the ONLY translation for Peter is “Rock.”

John.1: 40 to 42 “One of the two who heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother. He first found his brother Simon, and said to him, "We have found the Messiah" (which means Christ). He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, "So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas" (which means Peter). [WHICH MEANS ROCK]

 

Strong's Greek Lexicon Search Results {a decidedly Non-Catholic site}

Strong's Greek Lexicon Search Results


Result of search for "Peter":

2786. Kephas kay-fas' of Chaldee origin (compare 3710); the Rock; Cephas (i.e. Kepha), a surname of Peter:--Cephas.


4074. Petros pet'-ros apparently a primary word; a (piece of) rock (larger than 3037); as a name, Petrus, an apostle:--Peter, rock. Compare 2786

 

Result of search for "Cephas":

2786. Kephas kay-fas' of Chaldee origin (compare 3710); the Rock; Cephas (i.e. Kepha), a surname of Peter:--Cephas.

 

www.agapebiblestudy.com"Cephas" is the Greek transliteration of Peter's Aramaic name "Rock" = Kepha, or perhaps in Galilean Aramaic "Qepha". Only John among the Gospels gives this form of Peter's name but it is also the preferred name that St. Paul uses when he writes about Peter.”

 

Feed MY Sheep John 21:15-17

When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs." [16] A second time he said to him, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep." [17] He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, "Do you love me?" And he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep

I CAN provide a detailed list of 50 Peter Bible FIRST references if you’d care to see it?

[3] If you actually care to discuss this plethora of seemingly unjustifiable issues one by one; we can do that.

[4] Protestant TRICK #?  When you don’t have an intelligent response; mock and attack {it’ll work some of the time}; BUT not with me. If you wish to discuss these issue individually; then let’s do so. BUT I expect to answer question you deem worthy to ask; and EXPECT the same curtesy in return. And name calling and accusations is just childish! Your highly educated; I’m just a high school graduate. Surely you were trained to do better than what you have exhibited in this POST?  I noticed that I have yet to see the term “Truth” in your points.

[5] Sure, I’m not on your level; but am still willing to discuss salvation history with you. Lead on, if that is what you wish to discuss?

[6] No my new friend I will not let you tell ME what I can use as evidence. The Douay Bible, as I hope you would have discovered in your studies; pre dates the King James in Publication date. And The Douay is a English Translation of the 4th Century Latin Vulgate. This was of course the WORLDS Bible until the Douay and King James.

The verbal is in your court friend.

May Jesus guide our Life paths,

Patrick

Hi!

It's not a "trick", you suggest from Catholic tradition and Catholic doctrine (that I cannot confirm via scriptures) that the Roman church can alter scripture via "new revelation". No. No church can do so.

The scriptures say Paul would go unto Gentiles, Peter to the Jews. How can Peter be the first pope of Rome?

The NT Greek scriptures supersede Aramaic or English or other translations. Peter has no special key the 11 and Paul didn't have, Jesus is the Rock in many OT and NT prophecies, and Jesus tells us in Revelation HE holds the key of David and the keys of death and Hell.

The church's authority, Rome or any other church, is from the scriptures. So I cannot join with Rome because their gospel is not the biblical, saving gospel.

I have no problem with the Douay Bible, I have a problem with quoting Douay or any commentary that misquotes the scriptures. The point of Peter's letter was that scripture supersedes even Peter's personal traditions! The Douay point that Peter was saying the church can give new interpretations, even where they contradict scripture, is the absolute opposite of Peter's point, "...the Bible prophecies are more sure than my personal experience with Christ, and you would do well to heed them..."

I do recognize the many Bible listings where Peter was first. Respectfully, Peter was also the first to deny Christ, and frequently the first to put his foot in his mouth. He never claimed to be a Pope and all the Jewish brothers Peter lived beside wouldn't know what a "pope" was. Peter had a wife (Paul questions why Peter can be funded to travel with his wife to teach but others could not) and Peter was not celibate. 

Respectfully, it is not name calling to say Rome killed people for trying to get the Bible to their (medieval) thralls--people who would have joined the Reformation and left the church were they equipped with the scriptures. I was not calling you or any modern Catholic any names.

I've already laid out our mutual choice, either hundreds, even thousands of sects, all of which studied the Bible on their own, but never came up with dozens of extra-biblical doctrines, like Mary as sinless, church leaders speaking via the Spirit to contradict prior revelation, praying to saints, etc. are ALL of them wrong, apostate, deceived, demonic, EVERY TIME THEY SAID THE BIBLE IS THEIR SOLE, GODLY DOCTRINE AUTHORITY, which Satan would surely press AWAY from--or Rome is wrong about the Holy Scriptures. The extra doctrines bother me little, the main issue is that Rome teaches that anyone who trusts Jesus by faith to be saved--which the Bible says is the right thing to do in hundreds of Bible passages (!) is anathema, heretical. How can we stand for this as brothers?

And why are you "not on my level" for a Bible study? Have you been a Catholic over 70 years? I've been a Christian a fraction of that time. But Rome still de-emphasizes Bible study for Catholics. Why?!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  5
  • Topic Count:  158
  • Topics Per Day:  0.07
  • Content Count:  1,915
  • Content Per Day:  0.81
  • Reputation:   910
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  10/15/2017
  • Status:  Offline

Hi again I just wanted to add that Ignatius was a bishop of Antioch. He wrote several letters. The term Catholic was used in a letter to Smyrna. It meant universal church. Ignatius  was not referring that he was giving the believers an official name. It was just a term he chose to use that caught on. Nothing more. He was not referring to any Roman Catholic that gave them any authority  because the Roman Catholic church. did not exist at that time. I know this has already been stated. The bishops of Rome assumed their authority being flattered of Constantine. They wanted to rule the whole church  east and west. purely a carnal desire not of God. The east believers never excepted this.  

I hoped we could hear your take on this in my first Question to you Patrick I wanted to know if you knew about Ignatius of Antioch

So in conclusion the church  was the church built upon belief in our lord and Savior Jesus Christ. No name was ever given. The Roman Catholic church was built upon lust for power by the bishops of Rome.   

God bless     

  • Brilliant! 1
  • Oy Vey! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Mars Hill
  • Followers:  7
  • Topic Count:  87
  • Topics Per Day:  0.03
  • Content Count:  3,795
  • Content Per Day:  1.36
  • Reputation:   6
  • Days Won:  3
  • Joined:  07/30/2016
  • Status:  Offline

On 10/4/2018 at 9:21 AM, Mike Mclees said:

Can you tell me who is a Catholic. Just when did the church, your church, become Catholic. If Christ or the apostles never spoke the word Catholic as being the divine name for the believers at the birth of the church being Pentecost when was it instituted.   

You seem to throw around that we are ignorant about Catholics and having no understanding. Can you answer this Question. Gives details please.

 In a Catholic Bible, and in Catholic Doctrine, the 3rd Commandment has been removed.

This is the Commandment that says....>"No graven images".

This one is GONE from the Catholic bible, the Catholic Doctrine, and the Catholic church.

Does this matter?   It only matters if you want the Truth.  And, it only matters if God wanted one of his commandments taken out.

 

  • This is Worthy 1
  • Oy Vey! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Mars Hill
  • Followers:  17
  • Topic Count:  18
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  13,256
  • Content Per Day:  5.40
  • Reputation:   1
  • Days Won:  62
  • Joined:  07/07/2017
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  03/25/1972

On ‎10‎/‎4‎/‎2018 at 7:21 AM, Mike Mclees said:

Can you tell me who is a Catholic. Just when did the church, your church, become Catholic. If Christ or the apostles never spoke the word Catholic as being the divine name for the believers at the birth of the church being Pentecost when was it instituted.   

You seem to throw around that we are ignorant about Catholics and having no understanding. Can you answer this Question. Gives details please.

 

Edited by frienduff thaylorde
  • Oy Vey! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Mars Hill
  • Followers:  17
  • Topic Count:  18
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  13,256
  • Content Per Day:  5.40
  • Reputation:   1
  • Days Won:  62
  • Joined:  07/07/2017
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  03/25/1972

PRAISE THE LORD EVERYONE . 

Edited by frienduff thaylorde
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Catholic
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  94
  • Topics Per Day:  0.05
  • Content Count:  827
  • Content Per Day:  0.41
  • Reputation:   67
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  09/26/2018
  • Status:  Offline

On 10/6/2018 at 11:06 PM, frienduff thaylorde said:

THEY BELEIVE IN INCLUSVISM.      Which while it don't deny JESUS as the savoir ,  WHAT IT DOES SAY is that it is NOT necessary to confess him as savoir or LORD

to be saved , just have good works . THAT Even a buddist if he does good works is saved . WHAT A CROCK . 

Everything you just said is wrong.  Sort of like a Luke Skywalker moment here.

Here are some Dogmas of the Catholic Church

1.  Baptism by water (Baptismus fluminis) is, since the promulgation of the Gospel, necessary for all men without exception for salvation

2.  For children before the age of reason, the reception of the Eucharist is not necessary for salvation.

3.  The Sacrament of Penance is necessary for salvation to those who, after Baptism, fall into grievous sin.

So, according to the Catholic Church,the outlook for Budists is pretty bleak as is the outlook for non-Catholics.  This is not my teaching so don't get mad at me.

Edited by Concretecamper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...