How old is your church?

[Ovedya]

define a heretic. I though we were supposed to witness to the lost above all.

A heretic is someone who opposes the dogma of the Roman Catholic Church. Anyone who goes against so much as one teaching of the RCC is cursed - anathema.

[irishcowboy]

once a person truely accepts Jesus as their Lord, their future sins will be minimal, for their desires will be that of Jesus, will be that of the Lord God, and will be striving to do what God bids them to do, their life will be an example to follow, and if and when they do stumble ( which is almost a given ) then all they need to do is look to the Lord and ask they be forgiven of that one and continue on their way, that sin is forgiven, was also taken upon the cross with all the others........

Jesus died one time, he dont need to die again, and again, and again......

we do not have to dwell on the sins of the past, we all have stumbled, and all have sinned and all fall short of the Kingdom of God.... and nothing we can physically do will grant us entrance.....

dont get me wrong, I am not trying to justify sin, for sin is sin is sin..... I am not trying to say it is ok to continue sinning, for if you are continuing to sin, then you may wish to re-evaluate your walk with the Lord......

mike

[sagz4Christ]

I think that if we are not careful, this thread could be highjacked!!!

I am seeing a shift in focus here....and feel it important to remind all parties involved that we are dealing with the age of our chuch/denominations as a way to verify the authenticity of it.

(Not my idea of a subject...but that isn't for me to decide!!)

Anyway...I wonder if we have gone too far off course to be able to get back on the subject at hand?

Just a thought.

[Catsmeow]

define a heretic.  I though we were supposed to witness to the lost above all.

A heretic is someone who opposes the dogma of the Roman Catholic Church. Anyone who goes against so much as one teaching of the RCC is cursed - anathema.

That's clearly proven false. Why? Because I am NOT in agreement with the RCC on many, many issues and I am not accursed.

Believe me, I'm not. I definitely have the Holy Spirit living and dwelling within me, He continually cares for me, blesses me and guides and directs my life.

An accursed person (anathema) would be cut off from the favor and blessing of God. They'd be cut off from having their prayers answered. They'd be cut off from having deep, abiding peace. They wouldn't grow in grace and become more and more converted into the image of Christ Jesus.

Our lives are living witnesses as to whether the Spirit of God dwells within us or not. Our lives are witness to it.

Countless people experience monumental changes in their lives and become "new creations" in Christ Jesus and they do it WITHOUT being part and parcel to the RCC.

So, hm. Tells me that people who have their eyes on Christ are the ones who are blessed; those who have their eyes on "men" are the ones who are cursed.

It's not about religion. It's about Jesus Christ..the Author and Finisher of our faith.

[Guest yod]

Yod, post the rest of the Bible that contains passages that say Jesus meant something else. He said it many times and in my opinion to reiterate that the bread is his flesh.

Douay

How about 3 places that obviously contradict the way you interpret what He said?

===================

God's Covenant With Noah

( Eating Blood Forbidden )

Gen 9:4 "But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it.

====================

God's covenant with Moses

( Eating Blood Forbidden )

Leviticus 17:10

" 'Any Israelite or any alien living among them who eats any blood-I will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from his people. 11 For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life. 12 Therefore I say to the Israelites, "None of you may eat blood, nor may an alien living among you eat blood."

================

The Covenant with Gentiles

The eating of blood forbidden AFTER the ascension of Yeshua...

This was one of only 4 commandments for gentiles. An intellectually honest person would admit this is truth.

Peter was instrumental in this ruling which was made by James (who outranked Peter..disproving his primacy)

Acts 15 The Council at Jerusalem

5Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses."

6The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith.

11No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."

19"It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath."

So again we find the Catholic interpretation in stark contradiction to what the whole of canon teaches in context. Does God contradict Himself....or does He contradict you?

It seems that you would want to submit to His authority instead of a religious institution that has constantly shown itself to be corrupt.

But, hey, it's you soul....

[irishcowboy]

Yep, this thread did get highjacked......

was about how old is the denominations, but ended up being another catholic/protestant arguement.....

oh well...

mike

[Ovedya]

Actually, if you examine the original post more closely, it was more about the RCC being the one true church than anything else.

[Guest yod]

. Please tell me what you think of 1500 years of celebrating the Eucharist before Martin Luther was about.

They didn't start this ritual for quite a few years later. And the period of absolute Vatican rule was called the Dark Ages for good reason! The Vatican kept everyone in darkness as a way of political power....and so they could sell indulgences

If you were Christian you did this. I think you need to study what the early fathers of the church said.

We are! THE church fathers were James, Peter, Paul, John, Mark, Matthew, etc...etc...all jews and not a Catholic in the bunch. No one was a "Catholic" for another 200 years or more.

Are you talking about the anti-semetic gentile leaders that came from the church at Antioch? They had no root in the ORIGINAL church and therefore interpreted the scriptures from a Greek mindset. I appreciate them for what they were but they hardly compare to the actual Apostles.

Ya know in the years 50-400. I think this would suprise you about what Christians were and what the believed. Ya know BEFORE Protestants. WAY BEFORE.

And WAY before the RCC, too. The Catholic Church did not become the institution you currently idolize before the Nicean Council of 325 AD.

Then they set about to destroy the ORIGINAL (jewish)church in a compromise with Constantine, Emperor of Rome, because they hated jews so much that they couldn't stand the thought of any being in the church.

[ColleenLovesMischief]

I tend to think this is a misconception that you have of Catholics treating their rosaries and crucifixes better than Christ.

I was referring to protestants as well with that.

By the way in repeating the same prayers every day I have to ask how you get around Matthew 6:7 And when you pray do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do for they think that they will be heard for their many words.

[jesusislord]

Actually i have found that any thread started by ANGELEDEI is an agruement for the catholic religion....

i am not as inteligent as most of you are and not as well read.... however i do know what GOD says he means..

the WORD OF GOD SAYS NOT TO ADD TO OR TAKE AWAY FROM THE WORD.

AND HE MEANS JUST THAT.......

the RCC has done both........ mostly added to though.

MOST SAY THAT THE SCRIPTURE ABOUT ADDING TO AND TAKING AWAY COMES FROM REVELATION .... 22

which they say it refers to. only the book of REVELATION...... I will dis agree with them in light of this scripture

Deu 4:1 Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the statutes and unto the judgments, which I teach you, for to do [them], that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which the LORD God of your fathers giveth you.

Deu 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.