Christians must be converted to the Roman Catholic eucharist, to achieve ecumenical unity.
Cardinal Ratzinger gives Pope John Paul a piece of the physical "Jesus" of Rome.
The theme for 2012 Week of Prayer – “All shall be changed by the victory of Jesus Christ our Lord” – was crafted by the Polish Ecumenical Council.
The Pope spoke about unity to over 8,000 pilgrims gathered in the Vatican’s Paul VI Audience Hall on Jan. 18.
The Pope appealed for unity.
“Unity requires inner conversion, both shared and individual,” and it cannot be “limited to cordiality and cooperation.” Instead, Christians must accept “all the elements of unity which God has conserved for us.”
The mandate for the week of prayer, the Pope underscored, comes from the wish of Christ himself at the Last Supper “that they may all be one.”
He observed that this mission was given a particular impetus by the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) but added that “the unity we strive for cannot result merely from our own efforts.” Rather, “it is a gift we receive ad must constantly invoke from on high.”
The theme for 2012 Week of Prayer – “All shall be changed by the victory of Jesus Christ our Lord” – was crafted by the Polish Ecumenical Council. Pope Benedict said it reflects “their own experience as a nation,” which stayed faithful to Christ “in the midst of trials and upheavals,” including years of occupation by the Nazis and later the Communists.
Ecumenism, the Pope stated, is not an optional extra for Catholics but is “the responsibility of the entire Church and of all the baptized.”
Christians, he said, must make praying for unity an “integral part” of their prayer life, “especially when people from different traditions come together to work for victory in Christ over sin, evil, injustice and the violation of human dignity.”
Source: Ewtnnews
My comment:
Christian unity can only be found among those who obey the Word of God, and not in unity around “elements”. The “elements” in the RCC is “holy items” and sacraments. Born again Christians have nothing in common with such apostate Christianity, and false Christianity.
The Pope represent an apostate religious movement, that can not be branded as “Christianity. The Vatican do not promote Jesus of the Bible, by a hybrid copy that is a man made invention.
There are many differences between Jesus of the Bible, and the copy promoted in Rome. If Roman Catholics wants to become Christians, they will have to renounce all Catholic dogmas, and proclaim that the Scripture is the highest authority in matters of faith.
Exodus 34:27
Then the LORD said to Moses, “Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.”
John 1:14
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
Revelation 21:5
He who was seated on the throne said, “I am making everything new!” Then he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.”
If you want to know more about the Roman Catholic copy of the Messiah, please read this article.
To gather around twisted, apostate religious stuff, will only pave the way for the last and final antichrist.
Written by Ivar
IVAR LET THEM HAVE THERE WAY ITS GODS WILL THEY UNITE UNDER SATAN TO FULFILL HIS PLAN REVELATION 17:16And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire. (THE NATIONS WILL UNITE UNDER A FALSE god) REVELATION 17: 1And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters:
2With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.
3So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.
4And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:
5And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
6And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.
7And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns. (ALL FOR THE FULFILMENT OF GODS PLAN) REVELATION 17:17For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.
IT IS SAD THE WORLD WILL UNITE UNDER SATAN RATHER THEN GOD OF GENESIS BUT ITS ALL IN CONTROL OF GOD ,,JUST THE WORLD THINKS THEY KNOW BETTER THAN GOD THE CREATOR AS THEY HAVE ACCEPTED THE LIE FROM THE CREATURE,, ROMANS 1:25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
May be, I am hearing Roger Oakland’s voice: http://www.understandthetimes.org/
I hope you will continue, Ivar. There are people here in Denmark, who don’t know the true. They have to be informed.
THERE ARE PEOPLE ALL OVER THE WORLD WHO ARE IN MORE DARKNESS THAN THE 1260 YEARS OF THE DARK AGES BUT THIS TIME NOT BECAUSE THEY DO NOT HAVE A CHANCE TO READ THE BIBLE BUT BECAUSE THEY DO NOT WANT TO ACCEPT THE TRUE IF THEY HAVE TO CHANGE WHAT THEY ARE DOING IN SIN NOW,,,ISAIAH 30: 8Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever:
9That this is a rebellious people, lying children, children that will not hear the law of the LORD:
10Which say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits:
THE PEOPLE PREFER LIE OVER TRUTH BUT GOD STILL IS CALLING FOR THEM TO REPENT GOD BLESS
I take huge offence to this as this is full of mindless bigotry fuelled by unjustified hatred for the Catholic Church, the Church that Christ set up under the authority of Peter as vicar.
I’m tired of hearing protestants say this and that about the Church. Most of what they say is not even true! In fact even I would be opposed to what they think is the Catholic Church. However what they think is the RCC really is not the RCC, but rather figment of the hate-filled imagination.
To accuse catholics of not being Christian is to call Christ, the apostles and all saints, Liars. For Christ taught Catholicism, and so did Paul and the others. In fact, Catholicism is firmly rooted in the bible and even has evidence of its legitimacy from outside the bible through the writings of the early church Fathers.
I ask 3 simple questions :
(1) who gave the world the Bible as we know it?
(2) Is the Bible a Catholic book?
(3) Who determined the canon of the bible?
Catholic Encyclopedia > S > Sunday
Sunday (Day of the Sun), as the name of the first day of the week, is derived from Egyptian astrology
Sunday was the first day of the week according to the Jewish method of reckoning, but for Christians it began to take the place of the Jewish Sabbath in Apostolic times as the day set apart for the public and solemn worship of God. The practice of meeting together on the first day of the week for the celebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice
St. Cæsarius of Arles in the sixth century teaching that the holy Doctors of the Church had decreed that the whole glory of the Jewish Sabbath had been transferred to the Sunday, and that Christians must keep the Sunday holy in the same way as the Jews had been commanded to keep holy the Sabbath Day. GOD DID NOT CHANGE THE SABBATH TO SUNDAY MAN DID BY WAY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ,, Colossians 2:22
King James Version (KJV)
22Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?
Romans 2:29
King James Version (KJV)
29But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
DO NOT KNOW ABOUT THE OTHERS YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT BUT GOD LOVES THE CATHOLIC PEOPLE AND IS CALLING THEM TO FOLLOW HIM,, BUT THEY ARE REFUSING TO FOLLOW GOD OVER TRADITIONS
MARK 7: 5Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?
6He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
7Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
13Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
SEARCH YOUR CHURCHES HISTORY THEY PUT THE CHURCH ABOVE GODS LAWS SAME AS THE JEWS DID AT THE TIME OF JESUS ,,,,,, FIND A VERSE WERE THE SABBATH OF GOD IS JUST FOR THE JEWS AND NOT FOR ALL MAN KIND…….
MARK 2:27And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:
28Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.
SAYS THE SABBATH IS MADE FOR MAN NOT MADE FOR THE JEW
ROMANS 10:12For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. (WHEN IT COME TO THE SABBATH THERE IS NOT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN JEW AND GREEK OR GENTIL) IF NO DIFFERENCE WHY DO THE CHURCHES OF THE WORLD SAY THERE IS A DIFFERNCE BETWEEN JEW AND GREEK AND SAY THE SABBATH IS FOR THE JEW AND SUNDAY IS FOR THE CHRISTIANS ,, ACTS 20:7And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. (DO YOU SEE A PRAYER OF WINE IN THIS SO CALLED COMMUNION SABBATH TO SUNDAY CHANGE????? NO THIS IS NOT THE LORDS SUPPER ONLY A MEAL AS IT VERSE 11When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed. (BROKE BREAD AGAIN
THEN REMEMBER THE EVENING BEGAIN THE DAY SO THIS IN TODAYS TIME WOULD BE SATURDAY EVENING ,,,,,, GENESIS 1:5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. (YOU SEE GOD STARTED CREATION WITH THE EVENING THEN WHEN THE SUN RISES ITS MORNING,, AND AT EVENING IT BEGAIN ANOTHER DAY GENESIS 1:8And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. (AND SO ON ) IT WAS MAN AGAIN WHO CHANGED THE TIME OF THE DAY TO MIDNIGHT BEGINNING THE DAY DANIEL 7:Daniel 7:25
King James Version (KJV)
25And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.(MAN CHANGED THE TIMES AND THE LAWS AS PROPHECIED BY DANILE THE PROPHET OF GOD. MAY GOD BLESS AND ENLIGHTEN YOU IN HIS HOLY WORD
Firstly I do know my Church’s history. I have studies it already. Secondly the quotes from the New Testament are taken out of context and thirdly, the EARLY CHURH IN THE TIME OF THE APOSTLES ALSO PRACTICED THE CELEBRATION OF THE EUCHARIST ON SUNDAYS.
Just read the new Testament :
“On the FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK we came together to BREAK BREAD. Paul spoke to the people and, because he intended to leave the next day, kept on talking until midnight.”
(Acts 20:7)
Secondly one of the last surviving manuscripts containing the traditions and practices of the early aspostolic Church, the Didache ( 80AD). It contained the teachings and the instructions given by the 12 apostles themselves. Hence “Didache” means “the teaching”. This is what it said on the practice of the Eucharist and Sunday worship :
“But every Lord’s day, gather yourselves together and BREAK BREAD, and give thanks after having confessed your transgressions, THAT YOUR SACRIFICE MAY BE PURE. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. FOR THIS IS THAT WHICH WAS SPOKEN BY THE LORD : in every place and time, offer to me a pure sacrifice; For I am a great King ,says the Lord, and my name I wonderful among the nations.”
(Didache 14, Christian assembly on the Lord’s day)
Sure the Sabbath was changed by man. This was still in agreement with the words of Christ :
“If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. I tell you the truth, WHATEVER YOU BIND ON EARTH WILL BE BOUND IN HEAVEN, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
(Matthew 18:17-18)
I still await you to answer the three questions I posed for you
how so very sad….how so sad… to watch one so bent on believing a lie not only a lie but to mix it with the lies of this generational poison..what a heart break..of screaming and gnashing of teeth when these find out they have based their eternal destination on lies!
Dear Wandilie,
The disciples gathered to worship. There is no more sacrifice for sin.
Hebrews 10:26
For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,
Psalm 40
Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but my ears you have pierced; burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not require.
Romans 12:1
Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God–this is your spiritual act of worship.
(end of scripture)
There is not one iota in scripture as offering communion bread as a sacrifice. Please read up on the religion of the Mirthas, that did this at the time and also believed you must eat god.
Note that it is accounting purely for the wrong practices of some in the early church. Today idolatry is banned as we are bound to the Ten Commandments of the Lord. No Catholic worships the sun. Notice that it was Gnostics, heretics and those who THOUGHT/CONSIDERED themselves as faith Christians who’s practised such heresy.
No Catholic Church, till this day teaches that we must worship the sun. Number 1 that stupid and number 2 it is heresy as it is idolatry. I was never taught this and no Catholic I know does this. DO YOU KNOW WHAT CATHOLICS BElIEVE?
I find it amazing that Protestants hate the Roman Catholic Church when in actual fact, the RCC was the Church set up by Christ through the apostles! Want me to give evidence? I can easily do this.
Wandilie,
Please look at a monstrance. What is it shaped like? Please notice the center where the Eucharist is. What shape is it?
The communion bread of the Jews was classic Matzo bread. It is bruised and pierced with holes, as Jesus was. It is without yeast,as Jesus was without sin.
The Catholic host is round in a circle, like the sun. It sits in a monstrance with rays coming out on all sides. Next, you must drop to your knees and bow before it as god.
‘jesus’ is then put in a box in the church to stay. Dependent on man and can not move, walk or speak.
http://bible.cc/acts/17-25.htm
http://bible.cc/psalms/115-5.htm
Acts 17:24
“The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands.
Before Jesus, a tabernacle was needed. After His redemption, it is not. We are now temples of the Holy Spirit. His temple is in us, not in a box.
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/6-19.htm
WHAT ARE THE SATUES OF MARY AND JESUS ??????? NOT FLESH AND BLOOD BUT IDOLS , I AM A SABBATH KEEPER FROM THE SCRIPTURES GENESIS 2
1TO 3 AS GOD GAVE EXAMPLE HOW TO KEEP THE 7TH DAY HOLY ,, WERE DID GOD I SAID WHERE DID GOD CHANGE HIS SCRIPTURE???????????????? NO CHANGE MEANING IT STANDS FROM THE FOUNDATION OF CREATION WE ARE NOT TO FOLLOW THE CREATURES TEACHINGS ROMANS : 1:25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Ok Andrea, I never knew you were the Judge of Humanity. I’d rather have Jesus as my judge, thank you. Now secondly, please tell me about these lies that they are telling me. Enlighten me Andrea. WHAT LIES HAVE I BEEN TOLD?
IT IS THE SCRIPTURES THAT JUDGE YOU NOT ME ITS THE FACT THAT TRUTH IS NOT WHAT YOU WANT TO HEAR KNOWLEDGE IS NOT WHAT YOU SEEK
LET US GO TO SCRIPTURES ABOUT NOT RECEIVING KNOWLEDGE FROM GOD AND SEE WHAT GOD HAS TO SAY WILL HE SAVE YOU OR WILL HE DESTORY YOU FOR REJECTIONG THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH????
HOSEA 4:6My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children. (NOT ONLY WILL GOD DESTROY YOU FOR NOT ACCEPTING THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH BUT AS YOU TEACH YOUR CHILDREN THE LIE GOD WILL DESTROY THEM AS WELL ,,,, WOULD IT NOT BE BETTER TO ACCEPT THAT THE LIE HAS BEEN GIVEN TO YOU AND YOU HAVE ACCEPTED IT AS TRUTH AND JUST REPENT AND TURN TO THE CREATOR AND REJECT THE CREATURE????
ROMANS 1:20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
INVISIBLE THINGS FROM CREATION(GENESIS 1:26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. (ALL BELIEVE IN ONE GOD BUT THIER WERE 3 WHO ARE ONE AT CREATION BUT IT WAS INVISIBLE TO MAN) 1ST JOHN 5:7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
ROMANS 1:25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. ((WHO CHANGED THE TRUTH OF GOD?????? INTO A LIE?????? AND YOU WORSHIPPED THE CREATURE MORE THAN THE CREATOR ??????
ROME DID AS DANILE 7:25 SAYS THE ONE THAT CHANGED THE LAWS OF THE SABBATH TO SUNDAY WORSHIP WHAT LAW DO YOU NOT OBEY IF CATHOLIC AND SUNDAY KEEPERS IN THE COMMANDMENTS OF GOD YOU SAY GOD NAILED THEM TO THE CROSS BUT GOD DID NOT AND NEITHER DID JESUS BUT MAN DID
Daniel 7:25
King James Version (KJV)
25And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.
COLOSSIANS 2:21(Touch not; taste not; handle not;
22Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men? (TOUCH NOT OR TAST NOT THE LAWS MAN MAKES OVER GODS LAWS)
May I use this item translated into Danish?
ITS THE TRUTH DO IT IN ANY LANGUAGE YOU WANT ,THE LIE MUST BE REVEILED
Hello Roger.
I am sure, it is the truth. Therefore I want to translate it into Danish and use it on my web-site. But I must have your last name.
MY EMAIL IS BIGRFEL@MSN.COM JUST SEND YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS TO ME AT THIS ADDRESS AND I WILL GIVE YOU AS MUCH INFORMANTION AS YOU NEED AS HOSEA 4:6 SAYS Hosea 4:6
King James Version (KJV)
6My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.
ITS IS THE LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH IS WHY GODS PEOPLE WILL BE LOST IN THE TIMES AHEAD AND IN THE TIMES PAST,,, WE ARE TO SEEK GOD FIRST AND STUDY THE SCRIPTURES TO SEE IF THEY ARE TELLING US THE TRUTH MOST PEOPLE JUST SWALLOW A LIE REATHER THAN SEARCH THE BIBLE TRUTH
May I use this Item, translated into Danish?
Catholic Encyclopedia
Constantine the Great
Historical appreciation
Constantine can rightfully claim the title of Great, for he turned the history of the world into a new course and made Christianity, which until then had suffered bloody persecution, the religion of the State. It is true that the deeper reasons for this change are to be found in the religious movement of the time, but these reasons were hardly imperative, as the Christians formed only a small portion of the population, being a fifth part in the West and the half of the population in a large section of the East. Constantine’s decision depended less on general conditions than on a personal act; his personality, therefore, deserves careful consideration.
Long before this, belief in the old polytheism had been shaken; in more stolid natures, as Diocletian, it showed its strength only in the form of superstition, magic, and divination. The world was fully ripe for monotheism or its modified form, henotheism, but this monotheism offered itself in varied guises, under the forms of various Oriental religions: in the worship of the sun, in the veneration of Mithras, in Judaism, and in Christianity. Whoever wished to avoid making a violent break with the past and his surroundings sought out some Oriental form of worship which did not demand from him too severe a sacrifice; in such cases Christianity naturally came last. Probably many of the more noble-minded recognized the truth contained in Judaism and Christianity, but believed that they could appropriate it without being obliged on that account to renounce the beauty of other worships. Such a man was the Emperor Alexander Severus; another thus minded was Aurelian, whose opinions were confirmed by Christians like Paul of Samosata. Not only Gnostics and other heretics, but Christians who considered themselves faithful, held in a measure to the worship of the sun. Leo the Great in his day says that it was the custom of many Christians to stand on the steps of the church of St. Peter and pay homage to the sun by obeisance and prayers
THE MOST FAITHFUL IN THE FOUNDATION OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH WORSHIPPED THE SUN god THIS IS THE FOUNDATION CAN NOT BE CHANGED
SAME AS THE SABBATH IS THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD FROM CREATION AND CAN NOT BE CHANGED BY MAN WHO ARE NOT gods BUT MORTAL MEN
IN CHIRST MAY GOD OPEN YOUR HEARTS TO THE TRUTH
these people are nuts! they are playing right into Satan’s hands but then …again so is Pharaoh!
And what is nuts about us? Please tell me, I reall want to hear this.
Did Mary have children besides Jesus? Since you claim your faith rests on the Catholic Doctrine?
What is nuts…anyone who has the truth in front of them and they refuse to believe it! …I asked a question….Did Mary have other children besides Jesus? According to your Catholic faith she did not…what is your answer?
I have truth right in front of me and I BELIEVE IT! What is nuts is those who think the truth is a lie (people like you).
Now to answer your question :
This is an easy question to answer; NO SHE DID NOT.
Here is why (follow the link) :
http://www.debate.org/debates/Jesus-had-biological-siblings/1/
Note : the link takes you to an online debate I’m having with a baptist friend of mine on this very topic. I posted one round of arguments and he could not reply to them. Let’s see if you can. Read them please.
“But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son.” (Matthew 1:25 NIV84)
“And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son” (Matthew 1:25 KJV)
The main word here is ’til’ which indicates very clearly after the birth of Jesus, Joseph then had union with his wife Mary.
There can be a million human hypothesis, but if they contradict one iota of scripture then they are not truth.
GOOD FOR YOU
@kay
Protestants have fallen in love with this argument even though it is extremely weak . here is why :
They most commonly make two arguments based on Matthew 1:25: “[A]nd he did not know her until (Greek: heos, also translated into English as “till”) she brought forth her firstborn son.” They first argue that the natural inference from “till” is that Joseph and Mary afterward lived together as husband and wife, in the usual sense, and had several children. Otherwise, why would Jesus be called “first-born”? Doesn’t that mean there must have been at least a “second-born,” perhaps a “third-born,” and so on? But they are using a narrow, modern meaning of “until,” instead of the meaning it had when the Bible was written. In the Bible, it means only that some action did not happen up to a certain point; it does not imply that the action did happen later, which is the modern sense of the term. In fact, if the modern sense is forced on the Bible, some ridiculous meanings result.
Consider this line: “Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death” (2 Sam. 6:23). Are we to assume she had children after her death?
There is also the burial of Moses. The book of Deuteronomy says that no one knew the location of his grave “until this present day” (Deut. 34:6, Knox). But we know that no one has known since that day either.
The examples could be multiplied, but you get the idea—nothing can be proved from the use of the word “till” in Matthew 1:25. Recent translations give a better sense of the verse: “He had no relations with her at any time before she bore a son” (New American Bible); “He had not known her when she bore a son” (Knox).
Wandile,
Be careful about pridefully calling someone protestant. You say my belief is weak. My belief is based on what scripture wrote. Your ’til’ references are weak & don’t make sense: child birth post death is unheard of, Moses location is
irrelevant. To know one’s wife after she gave birth to a son makes logical sense.
Dear Wandilie,
Shalom to you.
I skimmed your debate. Let’s start with your first argument.
1. Jewish Miriam did not vow life long virginity by asking the angel how could she be pregnant when she never had sex.
In Jewish law and canon law, a marriage is not a marriage unless consummated. For Mary to deny her husband her body is unscriptural. Joseph was a normal man, not a eunuch.
http://www.biblestudytools.com/gnta/1-corinthians/7-5.html
2. Because Jesus’ siblings were not mentioned when he was lost, does not prove He did not have siblings. If anything, it leans the other direction. Families traveled in caravan style, with relatives, cousins and siblings all going together to the feasts. It would be very easy to lose a child when the kids hung out in groups together behind or in front of you, assured He was with “Uncle so and so and brother James”.
3.At the time of the crucifixion Jesus’ brothers did not believe he was the Messiah. They thought He was out of His mind and told Him to show Himself on the Feast of Booths as to make a big public appearance to prove Himself.
John 7
Jesus at the Feast of Booths
1 After this Jesus went about in Galilee. He would not go about in Judea, because the Jews[a] were seeking to kill him. 2 Now the Jews’ Feast of Booths was at hand. 3 So his brothers[b] said to him, “Leave here and go to Judea, that your disciples also may see the works you are doing. 4 For no one works in secret if he seeks to be known openly. If you do these things, show yourself to the world.” 5 For not even his brothers believed in him. 6 Jesus said to them, “My time has not yet come, but your time is always here. 7 The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify about it that its works are evil. 8 You go up to the feast. I am not[c] going up to this feast, for my time has not yet fully come.” 9 After saying this, he remained in Galilee.
Mark 3
20 Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat. 21 When his family[b] heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.”
Jesus starts to make differentiation between spiritual family and natural family even telling those to hate their own mother brother sister. Hate does not mean to really hate them, but it is used as a comparison to the love and loyalty we need to have to Him above our biological family.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+12%3A46-50&version=NIV
http://bible.cc/luke/14-26.htm
Jesus would naturally tell Mary to be with John, her spiritual brother/family in the Lord. His biological family did not believe. Mary would have needed the support of other believers, and not the mocking coming from her sons, which would have devastated the already grieving mother. James did come to believe later, but this was after the crucifixion.
Dear Ivar,
Thank you for exposing the satanic lies coming from this deceitful cult.
By requiring that all the world unite under the damnable heresy of the Eucharist — and the black magic involved in which the priest makes contact with satan during the prayers for “transubstantiation” — (falsely claiming that a “sacred miracle” has occurred each time the mass is held and now the bread and wine have become the “literal” body and blood of Jesus Christ) — is PURE BLASPHEMY and totally unscriptural.
We are seeing prophecy being fulfilled perfectly that points to the Roman papal system and the pope as the final antichrist. The fact that the eucharist is being used as something that will unite the world’s religions in the last days, may point to the worship of this “host” (a false sacrifice of Jesus’ finished work on the Cross) as the Mark of the Beast.
Jesus offered Himself as a sacrifice ONCE. Perverting His Holy Blood by performing a blasphemous “mass” (death of Christ) in which Jesus is said to be sacrificed over and over again, says His ONE TIME SACRIFICE was NOT enough and that His completed work of redemption on the cross was NOT enough.
“But BY HIS OWN BLOOD He entered in ONCE into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us” (Hebrews 9:12).
This is yet another attempt by satan to try desperately to usurp the AUTHORITY, POWER, and DOMINION of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
“For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: Nor yet that He should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now ONCE in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself” (Hebrews 9:24-26).
God’s judgment against this great WHORE will be so severe that the Bible says it will never end. “For true and righteous are His judgments: for He hath judged the great whore, which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of his servants at her hand. HER SMOKE ROSE UP FOREVER AND EVER” (Rev.19).
“Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you” (2 Corinthians 6:17).
I never expected to be mobbed by comments but I will address them in due time. Anyway I’d just like to make it know that I have my own blog on here that shed light on various misconceptions about the Catholic Church. I urge all who are intellectually honest, to take a look at it :
http://www.wandile93.wordpress.com/2012/02/04/3/
I will later address the issues misconceptions contained in this blog (News that matters) by putting forward more blog posts.
THE BIBLE IS A HISTORY BOOK FROM CREATION TO NOW AND NO ONE IS SAYING A CATHOLIC CAN NOT BE SAVED IF TRULY OBEYING GOD , BUT SUNDAY IS NOT A COMMANDMENT OF GOD ,,, IF YOU SAY PAUL OR ANY APOSTLE CHANGED OR STARTED TO WORSHIP ON SUNDAY NOT THE SABBATH THEY ARE NOT GOD THEREFOR CAN NOT CHANGE GODS LAWS THE CHURCH CAN NOT CHANGE THE LAWS NEITHER CAN A MAN ONLY GOD COULD BUT HE SAID HE DID NOT CHANGE GODS LAWS
HEBREWS 4:4For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works.
5And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest.
6Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief:
7Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts.
8For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.
9There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.
JESUS DID NOT CHANGE THE SABBATH REST SO IF PAUL FOLLOWS JESUS HE DID NOT CHANGE ANYTHING EITHER .
THE JEWS ALWAYS GAVE TITHES ON SUNDAY BECAUSE ON THERE WAY OUT OF THE CHURCH ON SABBATH IT WAS SUNDOWN AND SUNDOWN EVENING A NEW DAY BEGAN (THAT WOULD BE THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK)
GENESIS 1:
5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
AS YOU CAN SEE GOD CREATED THE DAY STARTING WITH THE EVENING ((NOT AS WE DO TODAY AT MIDNIGHT))THEREFORE ANY MENTION OF THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK WAS AT SUNDOWN AS IN ACTS 20:7 AND 1ST CORINTHIANS 16:2Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come. (THIS WAS ASKED AS THEY WOULD LEAVE THE CHURCH AT SUNDOWN THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK) IF THEY DID NOT HAVE EXTRA TO GIVE PAUL WOULD SEND SOMEONE TO PICK IT UP AT THERE HOUSE ,, BUT PAUL WAS NOT PREACHING ON SUNDAY HE WAS PREACHING ON SABBATH AS YOU SAID YOU WANT INTELLECTUALLY HONEST PEOPLE SO FIND ME IN THE BIBLE WHERE GOD CHANGED THE 7TH DAY TO THE 1ST DAY IT IS NOT IN SCRIPTURE BECASUE GOD DID NOT IT IS IN HISTORY AS GOD SAID IT WOULD BE IN DANIEL 7:Daniel 7:25
King James Version (KJV)
25And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.(ASK YOURSELF WHAT LAW WAS CHANGED OF GODS LAWS????????? ONLY THE SABBATH 7TH DAY MAN HAS TRANSFERED TO THE 1ST DAY OF THE WEEK ONLY THE AUTHOR CAN CHANGE HIS BOOK???? AND GOD IS THE AUTHOR OF THE BIBLE BUT SATAN IS THE AUTHOR OF CONFUSSION
Read the Greek for those misinformed. For instance believing in God is not a one time occurrence.The word is in the present tense meaning continual believing throughout your life. Yes, Christ died once and for all. However, the sacrifice is Jesus’ offering of his loving surrender to the Father continues in eternity because his priesthood is eternal. Therefore, his sacrifice continues eternally. Jesus did not retire from his priesthood, just as he did not resign his kingship. “For Christ has entered, not into a sanctuary made with hands, a copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf” (Heb 9:24).
The word now is a primary particle of present time, meaning Jesus continues to offer himself as on our behalf. This verse reinforces Jesus’ ongoing priestly mediation in heaven, which is connected with his death on the cross. So while the death and suffering ended on Calvary, the offering continues in heaven.
To say the Church is in era would go against Christ admonition that the gates of hell will not prevail against it. So in other words, that would suggest or mean that the gates of hell prevailed against the Church for 1500 years until the Reformation which is ludicrous.
If you read the early church fathers who were appointed and instructed by the apostles themselves, the doctrine stated in their letters is no different than the doctrine of the Catholic Church,today. The harlot drunken with the blood of martyrs and saints is referring mainly to the Roman persecution of the church during the first three centuries as well as afterwards.
Beside there are 38000 Protestant Christian denominations in the world today each proclaiming a different way for salvation with a ‘pope’ over each of them stating their particular dogma. This is in direct violation of Christ command that they are may be one. Paul warned of schisms and factions within the Church whose results are diametrically opposed to Christ’s command.
Wow–I hardly know where to begin, Dan. But, I’ll give it a go.
Dan: “Read the Greek for those misinformed. For instance believing in God is not a one time occurrence.The word is in the present tense, meaning continual believing throughout your life.”
Ellen: The word in Greek is pistus–the meaning of which includes believing plus obedient behavior. It is not enough just to believe, the Book of James reminds us in 2:19 that even the demons believe that God is who He says He is. Jesus said that if we love Him, we will obey Him. I would agree that we are to persevere in the faith, but Scripture tells us that God the Father began a good work in us and is faithful to continue His work in us. (Phil. 1:6) It also says that God the Father is working in us to give us the desire to obey Him and the power to do what pleases Him. (Phil. 2:13) We can rest in that truth. We can have the peace of knowing that WE do not have to constantly strive as children of God. Jesus said His yoke was easy and His burden light on those who would follow Him (unlike that of the Pharisees). (Matthew 11:30) And that is true. We obey Him, but that is no great sacrifice, because we love Him. We do not need to go to the Confessional (we confess our sins directly to God), say the rosary, light candles, hobble up steps on our knees, whip ourselves, parade in the street with idolatrous statues, or do penance. Those are religious rituals that are somehow intended to “earn back” the grace that a true believer has already been granted when he/she first truly believed. One does not bob in and out of salvation. That is a hellish doctrine because it undermines the whole concept of grace and “being born from above”.
Dan: “To say the Church is in era would go against Christ admonition that the gates of hell will not prevail against it. So in other words, that would suggest or mean that the gates of hell prevailed against the Church for 1500 years until the Reformation which is ludicrous.”
Ellen: There have always been Biblical Christians from the beginning of the faith. (Yes, even in the Roman Catholic Church, after the Roman church permitted Bible-reading among its members. My aunt was a Catholic and read faithfully from the word of God every day–even though that was unusual for a Catholic.) The early Christian writers such as Irenaeus (c. 200 A.D.) quoted long passages of Scripture from the Old Testament (Septuagint) and the New Testament in their writings. Even though the New Testament was not formalized into the Canon until the Council of Nicea, the early Christians were well familiar with its texts and they were widely circulated among the churches, as soon as they were penned. It has been said that, even if the Bible was somehow taken from us, it would be possible to reconstruct it from the writings of the early Christians.
But, the Roman Catholic church came to persecute those who wanted to follow the Bible (instead of man-made rules) after it came to have political power. The Roman church was corrupted by its power and, as a result, hell was served. In wedding itself to the Roman Empire in 380 A.D. it was in clear contradiction to the teachings of Jesus, who taught us to, “Give to Caesar, that which is Caesar’s and give to God, that which is God’s.” Jesus refused to get involved with the politics of His day and the Roman Church made a grave error in seeking worldly power. It ultimately led to persecuting not only unbelievers but believers as well. NOWHERE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT are we told to murder anyone because of his/her beliefs. We are to love unbelievers and win them over to the Truth. The Holy Spirit DOES NOT lead anyone to murder others.
The Reformation was conducted to bring believers back to the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles, by means of reading the Bible for themselves. Jesus said in John 17:17, “Make them pure and holy by teaching them your words of truth. Your word is truth.” We do not need man-made “sacraments”–we have the word of God. Further, 1 John 2:27 says, “But you have received the Holy Spirit, and He lives within you, so you don’t need anyone to teach you what is true.” We know from Romans 8:9 that if we don’t have the Holy Spirit living in us, we aren’t Christians at all.
Dan: “The harlot drunken with the blood of martyrs and saints is referring mainly to the Roman persecution of the church during the first three centuries as well as afterwards.”
Ellen: My interpretation of the Whore of Babylon is that “she” represents an amalgam of all false religions whose practitioners have come to persecute the people of God. Unfortunately, that included the Roman church at points in its history.
Dan: “Beside there are 38000 Protestant Christian denominations in the world today each proclaiming a different way for salvation with a ‘pope’ over each of them stating their particular dogma.” This is actually untrue. All who truly love Christ and through Him, the Father, are part of the universal Bride of Christ. There are true and false believers in every church that carries the name of Christ. I believe that is one of the purposes of Christ’s examination of the seven churches in the Book of Revelation chapters 2 and 3–to help us to distinguish proper churches from improper ones.
Dan: “This is in direct violation of Christ command that they are may be one. Paul warned of schisms and factions within the Church whose results are diametrically opposed to Christ’s command.”
Ellen: But the Apostle Paul also said, in 1 Cor. 11:18-19, “…I hear that there are divisions among you when you meet as a church, and to some extent, I believe it. But of course, there must be divisions among you so that those of you who are right will be recognized!” I agree that some of the church splits among Protestants have occurred because of silly differences but when central doctrines are concerned, there must be divisions. All correct doctrine is derived solely from Scripture and not by the whim of any man. The Bible has authority over faith and the practice of it. Giving undue authority to men is typically a VERY bad idea.
Some of you have brought up arguments that need the light of the Bible and some thought that takes history and Jewish culture into consideration.
On the matter of whether Mary had relations with Joseph after the birth of Jesus, we cannot know for certain because Scripture is silent on the matter. But since Scripture tells us, in Matthew 2, that Joseph was still around when Jesus was a toddler, it is quite likely that Joseph and Mary were enjoying a normal, godly marriage by that time. The Roman church actually insults Mary to suggest that she would have denied her husband normal marital relations. To do so would have given him justification to seek a divorce. It is also to suggest that a sexual relationship within marriage is somehow wrong, when, in fact, it is the only sexual expression that God sanctions. The apparent reason for saying that Mary was a perpetual virgin was because it was thought to be a necessary part of her deification as the “Queen of Heaven”. Giving her that title is pagan in the extreme. Scripture never once speaks of there being an actual “Queen of Heaven”. The only mention of that title was in Jeremiah 7:18 when he denounced the worship of the “goddess” Ashtoreth who was known as the “Queen of Heaven”.
To focus on whether or not Jesus had half-brothers and half-sisters is to miss the point. It is presumed that Joseph and Mary had further children after the birth of Jesus—but God could have closed her womb. We just don’t know, as Scripture is silent on that point. It does tell us that Jesus had other brothers and sisters and that Mary kept company with them, but we do not know whether they were children that Joseph had with Mary or another previous wife. He could have been a widower with children when he married Mary. It is unlikely that Joseph had a second wife because the practice of having multiple wives necessitated some amount of wealth. That was unlikely in Joseph’s case as he was a carpenter–a man of modest means.
On which day of the week is the proper day to worship: While it is true that the last day of the week is the actual Sabbath, Scripture tells us that the early church met on the first day of the week as well as throughout the week (see Acts 2:44-47). There were many Jews in the early church and it is a good assumption that they observed the Sabbath, as well as meeting as the Church at other times. It should be remembered that Jesus Himself, disregarded the strict rabbinic rules about Sabbath observance and merely pointed out that “the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” Sabbath observance is the only one of the Ten Commandments which Jesus did not confirm—although as a “blameless” Jew, He would have been very likely to have observed the Sabbath day of rest. Under rabbinic Judaism, Sabbath observance had come to be carried out to a ridiculous extreme and Jesus would have been unlikely to approve of that. In any case, worshiping and serving God should be a daily practice. Since most of us do not work at our jobs on Saturday or Sunday, we need not be concerned about this issue. To keep arguing about it is silly and puts us in the same category as Jewish scholars who had endless arguments and debates about the details while neglecting the focus on larger things.
As a further note, it should be remembered that the Jewish authorities had already agreed to put those Jews who believed that Jesus was the Messiah, out of the synagogue (John 9:22). So that made Sabbath observance more difficult for the Jewish believers.
Here iis what the Bible says about Jesus and His family.
Mar 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.
And also here,
Mat 13:54 And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works?
Mat 13:55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
Mat 13:56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?
That is simple enough to understand. Children can read it and understand it perfectly. Each of us has the freedom and ability to receive it, as it’s written, or put another interpretation to it.
As far as whether Joseph had a normal relationship with Mary, here is what the Bible says.
Mat 1:24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
Mat 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
“…knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son…”
After she gave birth to Jesus, Joseph knew his wife, Mary, and they had sons and daughters like it says in Mark 6 and Matthew 13. This isn’t too hard to understand either.
Somtimes Catholics will ask, “Who gave us the Bible?”, then proceed to show it was the Catholic church that put it together, or confirmed it, at Nicea. This is not true at all. Nicea was an event was where the Catholic church gave Catholics a Catholic version of the Bible.
The Peshitta, Italic, the Old Latin Vulgate and the Waldensian Bibles have a history predating Nicea. The Catholic church did nothing but agree, to a certain extant, with what was already known.
Sometimes Catholics will point to the people called, “the early church fathers” and use their writings to support Catholic doctrine and their religion. Before a person goes down that road the Bible warns us.
Act 20:27 For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.
Act 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
Act 20:29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
Act 20:30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
After going over the writings of these “early church fathers” I don’t doubt that Paul was writing about some of them. Men from outside creeping in, some from the inside, deceiving and being deceived. Anyway, it doesn’t matter what they wrote or said. We won’t be judged by what they wrote or said and we don’t live by what they wrote or said.
Dave,
You might find this article exceedingly interesting. The author does a very thorough job of uncovering (through various historical accounts and Scripture itself) who the real founder of the RCC is. I’ll give you a hint–the author makes a good case that it was NOT the Apostle Peter. He simply was very unlikely to have been in Rome at the time that the RCC was being founded–and this can be easily demonstrated from Scripture. And, from historical accounts (Justin Martyr) we can see just who was and who that someone was claiming to be. The article is quite lengthy but certainly intriguing. Good reading!
http://www.reformation.org/simon-the-magician.html
Hi Ellen,
I read the article at the link you gave. It was interesting and something to consider. The points about Peter not being in Rome, or founding a church there, were well made.
Firstly the Bible was not produced at the council of Nicaea. The Council of Nicaea had NOTHING to do with Bible canon. It was called to address the heretical sect of Arianism and decide on a formal date for easter…
Get your church history straight before you pst mindless anti-catholic bigotry. The Bible was produced at the Councils of Rome, Hippo and Carthage and more broadly, the african Synods.
In full detail :
Pope Damasus, 366-384, in his Decree, listed the
books of today’s canon.
The Council of Rome, 382, was the forum which
prompted Pope Damasus’ Decree.
Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse wrote to Pope
Innocent I in 405 requesting a list of canonical
books. Pope Innocent listed the present canon.
The Council of Hippo,
a local north Africa council of
bishops created the list of the Old and New
Testament books in 393 which is the same as the
Roman Catholic list today.
The Council of Carthage,
a local north Africa council of bishops created the same list of canonical books in 397. This is the council which many Protestant
and Evangelical Christians take as the authority for
the New Testament canon of books. The Old
Testament canon from the same council is identical
to Roman Catholic canon today. Another Council of
Carthage in 419 offered the same list of canonical
books.
Before the Councils, there was really no official Canon of scripture, only attempts at formulating one. Before the Councils there was no book known as “The Holy Bible”. There were only floating scriptures that. The Church used in circulation. It wasn’t until the Roman Catholic Church called together, the Councils of Rome Carthage and African synods, that the Bible came to existence. Hence history plainly shows that it was the Roman Catholic Church that gave the world the Bible.
The above comment was directed at Dave 1543
Hi wandile93,
Excuse me for not having the council name correct. I was too hasty and used Ellen’s reference. What you wrote is the Catholic version of how we got the Bible.
Mmmm—no, Wandile, the Codex Sinaiticus predates all of that and it contains the New Testament in nearly identical form to what we have today. The books of the New Testament were widely circulated through the churches of Asia Minor from about 55 A.D. on, only a couple of decades after the Crucifixion. And the early Christians would, of course, had access to the Septuagint (the Old Testament in Greek) the books of which are identical to the more or less recently discovered Dead Sea Scrolls (1948).
Remember I said :
“Before the Councils, there was really no official
Canon of scripture, only attempts at formulating one.”
The Codex Sinaiticus as well as other codices like Codex Vaticanus fall under this quotation. They are the evidence of the attempts to formulate a canon but these attempts were failed attempts as we don’t use the canons of the ancient codices, but rather use the canon formulated at the Councils that I mentioned . The canon decided at the Councils of Hippo , Rome and Carthage are what came to be known as the canon of scripture or simply, The Holy Bible.
To all those who are against the Church of Christ,the Roman Catholic Church, I want you to hear the truth from the words of one of the early church fathers :
Ignatius of Antioch ,who was among the
Apostolic Fathers, was the third Bishop of Antioch, and
was A STUDENT OF JOHN THE APOSTLE. En route to his martyrdom in Rome, Ignatius wrote a series of letters which have been preserved as an example of very early Christian theology. Important topics addressed in these letters include ecclesiology, the sacraments, and the role of bishops.
Chapter 8 (of the letter to the Smyrnaeans). Let nothing be done without
the bishop
“See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ
does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the
apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the
institution of God. Let no man do anything connected
with the Church without the bishop. LET THAT BE DEEMED A PROPER EUCHARIST, which is [administered] either by the
bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it.
Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the
multitude [of the people] also be; even as, WHEREVER
JESUS CHRIST IS, THERE IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. It is not
lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to
celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve
of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is
done may be secure and valid.”
Clearly he got these teachings from St John, so the Eucharist was believed in by the early Church and taught by the apostles as evident, their students taught faith in the Eucharist too.
I’ll sign off with the words of Ignatius :
“WHEREVER JESUS CHRIST IS, THERE IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH”
Amen.
Prove it, Wandilie. Not from RCC sources, please.
When he referred to the “Catholic Church” he was merely speaking of all true believers–he was NOT referring to the Roman Catholic Church.
Acts 2:42, “They joined with the other believers and devoted themselves to the Apostles’ teaching and fellowship, sharing in the Lord’s Supper and in prayer.” No mention of the “Eucharist” there or any “bishops” as being very important to what they were doing.
Ha! Huge error to put your faith in the Eucharist on an assumption that Ignatius got his teaching from John! that’s like saying the 3rd man to run my business will do everything the way I did! Ludicrous!
Wandile:
You make a HUGE assumption that Ignatius clearly got his teachings from John. John did & could speak/write for himself. He certainly did not need Ignatius to teach for him.
Early church fathers were not “all-knowing”.
Kay
“Clearly he got these teachings from St John” is a HUGE assumption. I do not base my faith on that reasoning any longer.
The funny thing is, the early church was the Roman Catholic Church. So asking me to prove from sources other than RCC sources is like asking me to make up christian history. The plain truth is that THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY IS CATHOLIC.
My evidence lies in the manuscript evidence of the early Church ( the writings of the Church Fathers), which ironically is CATHOLIC lol!
NO–the early church was the early church–IT WAS NOT THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH. The RCC claims that the history of Christianity is all theirs, but that is simply a convenient lie. And they have conveniently white-washed much of the horrendous stuff that went on in the RCC. Check actual historical accounts by those who had no axe to grind. Even Justin Martyr (whom, of course, the RCC claims) cast much doubt as to what the RCC says was its founding.
Wandile,
Sadly, it is a exercise in futility to answer your posts anymore using the truth of God’s word — as it is clear that, “satan, who is the god of this world, has blinded the minds of those who don’t believe. They are unable to see the glorious light of the Good News. They don’t understand this message about the glory of Christ, who is the exact likeness of God” ( 2 Cor. 4:4).
After reading your replies — that are nothing more than rehashing the false propaganda put out by the Roman Catholic church — I’m afraid there is not much to say when you can still defend blatant satanic worship even when it is exposed over and over on this site. I guess you think it is ok to tap the blood of a dead pope and bow down and worship that as well, as your blasphemous pope leader and his followers do. *SIGH*
At this point, this nursery rhyme is all that comes to mind to offer you:
Around, Around the Mulberry Bush
The Monkey Chased the Weasel
The Monkey Thought it Was a Joke
Pop Goes the Weasel
May the truth set you free, somehow, someday, somewhere — before it’s too late.
God Bless.
There is no such thing as “the catholic version” of how the Bible came to be. There is only the TRUE story and the FALSE story. What I told you is the TRUE and HISTORICAL story, backed up by tons of manuscript evidence and scholarlary approval.
Have you ever studied any theology??
Dear Wandile,
You’re free to post RCC propaganda until you are blue in the face by futile and inaccurate methods using the philosophical theory of criticism, “deconstructionism”. And you are free to study “theology” until your reading glasses become so thick that they don’t rest on the bridge of your nose anymore due to the weight.
But the sad truth is that you are just a follower of a man-made movement and don’t have a personal relationship with the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. You may think that you do, but frankly, anyone who can read this blog and see photos of skeletons and dead body parts and blood being kissed and worshiped — and completely ignore all of that — yet resort to debating (in error) the origins of certain words is DECEIVED.
It is through the Holy Spirit that you will be convicted of how evil this “religion” is. Only by the Sprit would be able to discern truth from error. But since you have “rebelled and grieved his Holy Spirit, he turned and became their enemy and he himself fought against them” (Is. 63:10).
“The natural (carnal) man receiveth not the things of the Spirit, for they are foolishness unto him” (1Cor.2:14)
Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. (2 Cor. 3;17)
Please read about the Holy Spirit:
——————-
Every true Christian is born of the Spirit. As such they have experienced the work of the Holy Spirit in a number of important ways. These ways include but are not limited to: conviction, regeneration and the witness of the Spirit in our lives that we are children of God. However, the dimension of power that God wants for His children can only be reached through the Baptism in the Holy Spirit. It is God’s will that every Christian be baptized in the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:38,39).
Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Acts 2:39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
Even though some Christians achieve results without the actual baptism in the Holy Spirit, they would achieve more if they yielded to God so as to receive the Baptism in the Spirit. It is possible for a Christian to recognize many aspects of the Holy Spirit’s work and enjoy a measure of His blessing in life and ministry, without ever being baptized in the Spirit in the Biblical way.
Some say that the Baptism in the Holy Spirit no longer exists today. Others take another approach and say that EVERY born again Christian was baptized in the Spirit at his conversion. Both kinds of teaching have the effect of robbing believers of something very important that Christ provided for them as part of their necessary inheritance in this life.
We will see from the Bible that the baptism in the Spirit is not the same as regeneration. It is important that we do not allow tradition – even “evangelical tradition” – to take a higher place than the Word of God in our doctrine and in our lives.
Biblical Proof That These Are Separate Works
Although the Bible does give examples of people who were baptized in the Spirit at the same time as their regeneration, we will see that this is not always what happens. The Book of Acts reveals that repentance, baptism in water and the baptism in the Holy Spirit, although all part of our salvation package, do not necessarily happen in the same order all the time. It is interesting to note that in Acts, where the Baptism in the Spirit happens to believers at the time of their conversion, the Bible puts emphasis on the fact that the apostles knew they were baptized in the Spirit “for they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God” (Acts 10:46; Acts 11:15- 16).
Acts 10:45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Acts 10:46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
Acts 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
We certainly do not believe that speaking in tongues is the proof of being born again. However, we can see that consistently it is the sign accompanying the New Testament Baptism in the Holy Spirit.
It is important to state that every true born again Christian has the Holy Spirit. “Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.” (Romans 8:9). The Holy Spirit is given by God “to those who obey Him” (Acts 5:32).
More: http://www.christian-faith.com/forjesus/baptism-in-the-Holy-Spirit
——————–
The only thing I can do for you is lead you in a prayer so you can be set free from the lies and bondage you are in. Debating will not change anything because you have been blinded.
“Dear Heavenly Father, I come to you boldly in Jesus’ name. Take me as I am. I now give myself – my heart, my mind, my body, my time, talents and treasure to you. Fill me and possess me. I renounce sins and self. Jesus, sanctify me. Cleanse me, purge me, purify me. Your will be done in my life, on earth as it is in heaven. Let me manifest a faithful spirit, a pure mind and a sickless body to your glory. Dear Jesus, thank you for the most wonderful gift of all – the gift of salvation. Lord, you promised another gift – the gift of the Holy Spirit. I want all you have for me. Baptize me in the Holy Spirit like you did in the days of the Early Church. I consecrate my life to you. Amen.”
Hahaha this is hilarious and almost bordering on pathetic!!!
As evident in the numerous writings of the early Church, like the letter of Ignatius I provided, the early Church identified themselves with the title , “the Catholic Church”.
So was this Catholic Church the same Church we know today as the “Roman Catholic Church”? The simple answer is YES!
Let me give you brief lesson on the term “Roman Catholic Church”
How Did the Catholic Church Get Her
Name?
The Creed which we recite on Sundays and holy days
speaks of one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. As
everybody knows, however, the Church referred to in
this Creed is more commonly called just the Catholic
Church. It is not, by the way, properly called the Roman
Catholic Church, but simply the Catholic Church.
The term Roman Catholic is not used by the Church
herself; it is a relatively modern term, and one,
moreover, that is confined largely to the English
language. The English-speaking bishops at the First
Vatican Council in 1870, in fact, conducted a vigorous
and successful campaign to insure that the term Roman
Catholic was nowhere included in any of the Council’s
official documents about the Church herself, and the
term was not included.
Similarly, nowhere in the 16 documents of the Second
Vatican Council will you find the term Roman Catholic.
Pope Paul VI signed all the documents of the Second
Vatican Council as “I, Paul. Bishop of the Catholic
Church.” Simply that — Catholic Church. There are
references to the Roman curia, the Roman missal, the
Roman rite, etc., but when the adjective Roman is
applied to the Church herself, it refers to the Diocese of
Rome!
Cardinals, for example, are called cardinals of the Holy
Roman Church, but that designation means that when
they are named to be cardinals they have thereby
become honorary clergy of the Holy Father’s home
diocese, the Diocese of Rome. Each cardinal is given a
titular church in Rome, and when the cardinals
participate in the election of a new pope. they are
participating in a process that in ancient times was
carried out by the clergy of the Diocese of Rome.
Although the Diocese of Rome is central to the Catholic
Church, this does not mean that the Roman rite, or, as is
sometimes said, the Latin rite, is co-terminus with the
Church as a whole; that would mean neglecting the
Byzantine, Chaldean, Maronite or other Oriental rites
which are all very much part of the Catholic Church
today, as in the past.
In our day, much greater emphasis has been given to
these “non-Roman” rites of the Catholic Church. The
Second Vatican Council devoted a special document,
Orientalium Ecclesiarum (Decree on Eastern Catholic
Churches), to the Eastern rites which belong to the
Catholic Church, and the new Catechism of the Catholic
Church similarly gives considerable attention to the
distinctive traditions and spirituality of these Eastern
rites.
So the proper name for the universal Church is not the Roman Catholic Church. Far from it. That term caught on mostly in English-speaking countries; it was promoted mostly by Anglicans, supporters of the “branch theory” of the Church, namely, that the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the creed was supposed to consist of three major branches, the Anglican, the Orthodox and the so-called Roman Catholic. It was to avoid that kind of interpretation that the English-speaking bishops at Vatican I succeeded in warning the Church away from ever using the term officially herself: It too easily could be misunderstood.
Today in an era of widespread dissent in the Church, and of equally widespread confusion regarding what authentic Catholic identity is supposed to consist of, many loyal Catholics have recently taken to using the term Roman Catholic in order to affirm their understanding that the Catholic Church of the Sunday creed is the same Church that is united with the Vicar of Christ in Rome, the Pope. This understanding of theirs
is correct, but such Catholics should nevertheless beware of using the term, not only because of its dubious origins in Anglican circles intending to suggest that there just might be some other Catholic Church around somewhere besides the Roman one: but also because it often still is used today to suggest that the Roman Catholic Church is something other and lesser than the Catholic Church of the creed. It is commonly used by some dissenting theologians, for example, who appear to be attempting to categorize the Roman Catholic Church as just another contemporary “Christian denomination”–not the body that is identical with the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the creed.
The proper name of the Church, then, is the Catholic Church. It is not ever called “the Christian Church,” either. Although the prestigious Oxford University Press currently publishes a learned and rather useful reference book called “The Oxford Book of the Christian Church,” the fact is that there has never been a major entity in history called by that name; the Oxford University Press has adopted a misnomer, for the Church of Christ has never been called the Christian Church.
Very early in post-apostolic times, however. the Church did acquire a proper name–and precisely in order to distinguish herself from rival bodies which by then were already beginning to form. The name that the Church acquired when it became necessary for her to have a proper name was the name by which she has been known ever since-the Catholic Church. The name appears in Christian literature for the first time around the end of the first century. By the time it was written down, it had certainly already been in use, for the indications are that everybody understood exactly what was meant by the name when it was written. Around the year A.D. 107, a bishop, St. Ignatius of Antioch in the Near East, was arrested, brought to Rome by armed guards and eventually martyred there in the arena. In a farewell letter which this early bishop and martyr wrote to his fellow Christians in Smyrna (today Izmir in modern Turkey), he made the first written mention in history of “the Catholic Church.” He wrote, “Where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” (To the Smyrnaeans 8:2). Thus, the second century of Christianity had scarcely begun when the
name of the Catholic Church was already in use.
Thereafter, mention of the name became more and more frequent in the written record. It appears in the
oldest written account we possess outside the New Testament of the martyrdom of a Christian for his faith,
the “Martyrdom of St. Polycarp,” bishop of the same Church of Smyrna to which St. Ignatius of Antioch had
written. St. Polycarp was martyred around 155, and the account of his sufferings dates back to that time. The
narrator informs us that in his final prayers before giving up his life for Christ, St. Polycarp “remembered all who
had met with him at any time, both small and great, both those with and those without renown, and the whole
Catholic Church throughout the world.”
We know that St. Polycarp, at the time of his death in 155, had been a Christian for 86 years. He could not, therefore, have been born much later than 69 or 70. Yet
it appears to have been a normal part of the vocabulary of a man of this era to be able to speak of “the whole
Catholic Church throughout the world.”
The name had caught on, and no doubt for good reasons.
The term “catholic” simply means “universal,” and when employing it in those early days, St. Ignatius of Antioch
and St. Polycarp of Smyrna were referring to the Church that was already “everywhere,” as distinguished from
whatever sects, schisms or splinter groups might have grown up here and there, in opposition to the Catholic Church.
The term was already understood even then to be an especially fitting name because the Catholic Church
was for everyone, not just for adepts, enthusiasts or the specially initiated who might have been attracted to her.
Again, it was already understood that the Church was “catholic” because — to adopt a modern expression –
she possessed the fullness of the means of salvation. She also was destined to be “universal” in time as well
as in space, and it was to her that applied the promise of Christ to Peter and the other apostles that “the powers of
death shall not prevail” against her (Mt 16:18).
The Catechism of the Catholic Church in our own day has concisely summed up all the reasons why the name
of the Church of Christ has been the Catholic Church:
“The Church is catholic,” the Catechism teaches, “[because] she proclaims the fullness of the faith. She bears in herself and administers the totality of the
means of salvation. She is sent out to all peoples. She speaks to all men. She encompasses all times. She is
‘missionary of her very nature’” (no. 868).
So the name became attached to her for good. By the time of the first ecumenical council of the Church, held
at Nicaea in Asia Minor in the year 325 A.D., the bishops of that council were legislating quite naturally in
the name of the universal body they called in the Council of Nicaea’s official documents “the Catholic
Church.” As most people know, it was that same council which formulated the basic Creed in which the term
“catholic” was retained as one of the four marks of the true Church of Christ. And it is the same name which is
to be found in all 16 documents of the twenty-first
ecumenical council of the Church, Vatican Council II.
I could go on and on but you get the point. Do you want. A lesson the the history of the early church and how she became whom she is today; The Catholic Church seated in the Vatican City? Lol
Lol you do know that not everything in Christian faith is recorded in the Bible right? The bible even admits this.
I provided the Didache passage earlier showing the teachings of the Apostles. They easily used the word Eucharist and the early Church fathers (some were students of the apostles themselves) did the same!
So much of our modern terminology is not in the Bible like; Holy trinity, Hypostatic Union, beautific vision etc yet you still believe in all those things… Why? Because they were handed down to us through sacred tradition from the apostles
There is no such thing as “the
catholic version” of how the Bible
came to be. There is only the
TRUE story and the FALSE story.
What I told you is the TRUE and
HISTORICAL story, backed up by
tons of manuscript evidence and
scholarlary approval.
Have you ever studied any
theology??
Dave 1543
Your arrogance is unbecoming of someone who claims to be a Christian, Wandile. Why would I accept any screed from an institution that has a murderous history and yet claims to represent Christ on the earth? Did the Holy Spirit lead Catholics in France to the murder of 30,000 French Protestants in Paris alone? How about the 700,000 Protestants who were murdered, persecuted and exiled from France to neighboring countries (and had their possessions confiscated by greedy Catholics)? And don’t tell me that this was not done at the behest of the RCC authorities throughout France. Do you think the Holy Spirit led Catholics to that? Read this and I hope you weep that you are defending a corrupt institution that is indefensible in its actions over the centuries:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Bartholomew%27s_Day_massacre
The First Council of Nicea:
“The First Council of Nicaea is the first ecumenical council of the catholic Church. Most significantly, it resulted in the first, extra-biblical, uniform Christian doctrine, called the Creed of Nicaea. With the creation of the creed, a precedent was established for subsequent local and regional councils of Bishops (Synods) to create statements of belief and canons of doctrinal orthodoxy— the intent being to define unity of beliefs for the whole of
Christendom.”
Notice that the term “catholic” carries a small “c”, Wandile?
“The council affirmed and defined what it believed to be the teachings of the Apostles regarding who Christ is: that Christ is the one true God in deity with the Father.”
As I said before, the Scriptures were widely known and circulated before the Council of Nicea. The creeds and canons of doctrinal orthodoxy were what was developed (in addition to lending its stamp of approval to the Bible in its present form). The last was unnecessary, of course, because the Scriptures were already widely known and accepted until the RCC took the Bible away from the people and participated in plunging Europe into the darkness of 1000 years of misrule. I will leave you with a quote from American statesman, Daniel Webster from 1823: “If Truth be not diffused, error will be; if God and His word are not known and received, the devil and his works will gain ascendancy; if the evangelical volume [the Bible] does not reach every hamlet, the pages of a corrupt and licentious literature will; if the power of the Gospel is not felt throughout the length and breadth of the land, anarchy and misrule, degradation and misery, corruption and darkness will reign without mitigation or end.”
The Roman Catholic Church presided over such a debacle for 1000 years. “She” has much for which to account.
Wandile: “Lol you do know that not everything in Christian faith is recorded in the Bible right? The bible even admits this.”
Everything we need for the practice of the faith is in the Bible. If you are referring to what the Apostle John said, here is the actual quote and you can see that he was not making your case: “And I suppose that if all the other things that Jesus did were written down, the whole world could not contain the books.”
Yet the Apostles were extremely careful to explain ALL aspects of the faith through the power of the Holy Spirit–2 Timothy 3:16 “All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right. 17 God uses it to prepare and equip his people to do every good work.”
Show me in the New Testament where it says that we need “priestly intercession” the “sacrifice of the mass” the “sacraments”–etc.? Don’t you think it would have been important for the Apostles to mention those things in the New Testament if they were vital?
Ellen,
I completely agree with you on this point very much! The main pillars of Catholicism are the need for priestly intercession, Eucharist (& more!) and the apostles don’t talk about ANY of it! They don’t talk about finding Jesus now in a wafer! They didn’t write about adoring their beloved Savior now in a wafer! Hello! They didn’t write
about it because it is all bologne, that’s why! A big fat lie!
Wandile: “I could go on and on but you get the point. Do you want. A lesson the the history of the early church and how she became whom she is today; The Catholic Church seated in the Vatican City? Lol”
I already know who “she” is.
Vatican Hill was a place where pagans venerated their dead heroes before it ever became the site of the Roman church. Can you ever imagine the Apostle Peter’s followers placing his dead body there as the RCC claims? Ever wonder why there is an obelisk in the center of “St. Peter’s square” Wandile? Such a pagan thing right in the middle there—maybe you should investigate that.
Here is a lesson on how the Catholic church developed. “The History of Romanism, From The Earliest Corruptions of Christianity” by John Dowling. It can be read at Google books
http://books.google.com/books?id=w84tAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=history+of+romanism&hl=en&sa=X&ei=M9ZvT5qBM8Ti0QGMu_m5Bg&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=history%20of%20romanism&f=false
Here is a quote from the preface of the above book.
“While a multitude of works have been published (many of great value) on the subjects of controversy between protestants and papists, or on special topics illustrative of particular periods in the history, or particular traits in the character of Popery, the need has long been felt of a complete, yet comprehensive History of Romanism through the whole period of its existance, which, in the compass of a single volume, might present, in chronological order, the origin and history of its unscriptural doctrines and ceremonies, the biography of its most famous (or infamous) popes, the proceedings and decrees of its most celebrated councils, with so much of the details of its tyranny over monarchs and states in the days of its glory-of its inquisitions, massacres, tortures, and burnings-and of the successful or unsuccessful efforts of reformers in various ages to rescue the world from its thraldom, as might be necessary for a full exhibition of its unchanging character.”
I think he does a good job in exposing the true character of the papacy and its religion/church.
“He who believes and is baptized shall
be saved,
but he who does not believe shall be
condemned.”
-Mark 16:16
“This is plain speaking, my dear
people; but there is no use in covering
the Truth. I want to speak the Truth to you,
as the Apostles preached it in their time;
no salvation out of the Church of our
Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
V.
Now, which is that Church? There are
now three hundred and fifty different
Protestant churches in existence, and
almost ever year one or two more are
added; and besides this number there is
the Roman Catholic Church.
Now, which of all these varied
churches is the one Church of our Lord
and Savior Jesus Christ? All claim to be
the Church of Jesus.
But, my dear beloved people, it is
evident no church can be the Church of
Jesus except the one that was
established by Jesus. And when did
Jesus establish His Church? When?
When He was here upon earth. And how
long ago is it that Christ was on earth?
You know our Christian era dates from
Him. He was born many centuries ago.
That is an historical fact admitted by all.
He lived on earth thirty-three years. That
was about nineteen centuries before our
time. That is the time Christ established
His Church on earth. Any Church, then,
that has not existed thus long, is not the
Church of Jesus Christ, but is the
institution or invention of some man or
other; not of God, not of Christ, but of
man.
Now, where is the Church, and which
is the Church that has existed thus long?
All history informs you that it is the
Catholic Church; She, and She only
among all Christian denominations on
the face of the earth, has existed so long.
All history, I say, bears testimony to this;
not only Catholic history, but Pagan
history, Jewish history, and Protestant
history, indirectly.
The history, then, of all nations, of all
people, bears testimony that the Catholic
Church is the oldest, the first; is the one
established by our Lord and Savior Jesus
Christ.
If there be any Protestant preacher
who can prove that the Catholic Church
has come into existence since that time
let him come to see me, and I will give
him a thousand dollars. My dear
preachers, here is the chance of making
money; a thousand dollars for you.
Not only all history, but all the
monuments of antiquity bear testimony to
this, and all nations of the earth proclaim
it. Call on one of your preachers and ask
him which was the first church, the first
Christian Church. Was it Presbyterian, the
Episcopalian, the Church of England, the
Methodist, the Universalist or the
Unitarian? And they will answer you it
was the Catholic Church.
But, my dear friend, if you admit that
the Catholic Church is the first and oldest,
the Church established by Christ, why are
you not a Catholic? To this they answer
that the Catholic Church has become
corrupted; has fallen into error, and that,
therefore, it was necessary to establish a
new church. A new church, a new
religion.
And to this we answer: that if the
Catholic Church had been once the True
Church, then She is True yet, and shall
be the True Church of God to the end of
time, or Jesus Christ has deceived us.
Hear me, Jesus, here what I say! I say
that if the Catholic Church now, in the
nineteenth century, is not the True
Church of God as she was 1854 years
ago, then I say, Jesus, Thou has
deceived us, and Thou art an impostor!
And if I do not speak the truth, Jesus,
strike me dead in this pulpit, let me fall
dead in this pulpit, for I do not want to be
a preacher of a false religion!”
- Fr. Arnold Damen S.J. (1850 – 1890)
Dear wandile93
Shalom.
You wrote:
But, my dear friend, if you admit that the Catholic Church is the first and oldest,
the Church established by Christ, why are you not a Catholic?
My comment:
Let the underlines a few things:
1. There was no Catholic Church before 315 A.D. Simply because the Emperor of Rome was slaughtering people who believed in the Jewish Messiah, the majority of them from Churches in Israel, Turkey and Northern Africa.
2. The Eastern Assyrian Church was formed loge time before there was a Pope. This Church had absolutely nothing to do with the Empire of the Western Mediterranean. The Italian regiments never managed to take the Kingdom of Parthia, before the Roman Empire fell apart.
3 The Thomas Church in India was formed by the Jewish Apostles Thomas in the years 52-55 A.D. This Church was formed in Jewish colonies that had existed in India from 300-200 B.C. It had absolutely nothing to do with Roman Catholicism
I could go on.
4. You are not on this site to debate. You have published a pamphlet of a Roman Catholic priest. If you are here to spread Vatican propaganda booklets, I will spam you. Now you have been warned in advance.