Catholic Church

skybridgepress.comleft a comment

You don't know anything about worshipping in Spirit and in truth unless you understand the following 3 minute Bible study video at http:// youtube.com/skybridgepress To "understand" biblically means to depart from evil.

yes2faithleft a comment

It's no good you quoting Holy Scriptures at me that you do not understand. Everything you say originates from your intellect alone and not from The Lord Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit. Every time you write you display your religious credentials and reveal a throat that is an open sepulchre. I have wasted enough of my time on you and it is now time I shook the dust from my shoes.

adam_w_royalleft a comment

"But sanctify the Lord Christ in your hearts, being ready always to satisfy every one that asketh you a reason of that hope which is in you." 1 Pet: 3:15 "But prove all things; hold fast that which is good." 1 Thes 5:21 "Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand the hearing? them that are weaned from the milk, that are drawn away from the breasts." Isaias 28:9 "The innocent believeth every word: the discreet man considereth his steps" Prov 14:15 "The childish shall possess folly, and the prudent shall look for knowledge" Prov 14:18 "And Paul, according to his custom, went in unto them; and for three sabbath days he reasoned with them out of the scriptures:" Acts 17:2 There are more, but I feel the point is made. Scripture clearly shows rationality is a good thing. So syllogism is good according to the Bible . When I first answered the question about infallibility I listed the criteria, so your football quote makes little sense. As for the Paul and Peter thing, I did answer your question, but it requires a logical deduction to see that. (Just as an example of how St. Paul showed that St. Peter was to be honored consider their race to the empty tomb of Christ. St. Paul arrived first but waited so that St. Peter would be the one to look in it before him.) I find it interesting that you quote the word Cephas, for it is the Hellenistic form of Kepha (the word Christ actually said), and I know you don't approve of the Hellenists. So the Bible actually says "You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church." So St. Peter is the rock. The sentence contains absolutely zero ambiguity. This of course does not diminish Christ being the rock of all and the Catholic Church has never taught that it does. I did not claim the apostles were Roman Catholic, for that denotes specifically the Latin Rite. In Catholicism there is more than one Rite because the early Church was spread geographically far apart with a slow communication system. What I did say is that they were Catholic and this is true (I don't know what Rite they used, I've never looked it up). As far as Simon the Magus goes, the early Church fathers condemned him as a heretic (specifically for trying to buy a spiritual gift), so even if he had been Catholic he would have been excommunicated. Your last paragraph seems to have been cut off and I don't know how to recover the rest of it. You were kind of rambling though so I don't have anything to say about it.

yes2faithleft a comment

I have no issue with syllogism other than to laugh at them. I don't accept premises or syllogism only men of religion and of the high intellect accept syllogisms and premises. Only the Truth and the simplicity that is Jesus Christ is acceptable to me and The Truth Jesus Christ is not a syllogism nor a premise - He's my brother and a real person. Syllogisms is just an intellectual word for man made fabrications or falsehoods - man made nonsense of puffed up vain little men and not of the Holy Spirit. Syllogisms and premises are of endless debate and never coming to an understanding of The Truth Jesus Christ. Ah it's all down to criteria now is it? I wouldn't want to play a game of football with you, with your mobile goal posts or would they be syllogistic goal posts? That line of the gospel is not clear as interpreted by your counterfeit organisation. The Lord did not name Peter the rock, his name was already Cephas as mentioned in John 1:42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone. This naming of Peter took place before the events of Matthew 16. A stone is just A stone it is not The Rock. The rock that The Lord was referring to was the revelation that Peter received from The Father God that enabled Peter to identify his master as the Messiah. Peter was the first human being to ever do this and belief in the Lord Jesus Christ as Saviour is the foundational rock of the True Church - not a puny man. No man could ever be that foundation and to suggest it is a blasphemy. I notice too that you conveniently ignored the point I made about Paul admonishing Peter for his erroneous ideas about the Judaic laws. If Peter were Pope there is no way Paul would have admonished him. Paul's admonishment was severe too, so have you some new criteria for this point as well? Did your Pope Peter not only lose his infallibility but also his rank and authority? Not much of a pope was he, in fact I would put it to you that he was a wimp of a Pope compared to the blood thirsty so and so's who came after him - e.g. Constantine. Mark wrote the first Gospel account and Luke wrote his own along with Acts and neither of these men were Roman Catholics. One of the first Roman Catholics was Simon (Magus) the sorcerer who wanted to buy the Holy Spirit from Peter in Acts 8. Now this is the real spirit of Rome - Salvation for sale - Buy your eternity here folks only £50 in the box and 20 hail Mary's - The love of filthy lucre - Swiss bank accounts - P2 Masonry - Mob money laundered from prostitution, drugs and gambling etc. etc. etc. Roberto Calvi (found hanging under Blackfriars Bridge in London) and Banco Ambrosiano. Even the 'mysterious' death of one of your own who was becoming an embarrassment. Actually he was showing signs of being a man of integrity until they murdered him. "If the Church of God you speak of is the Church founded by Christ it would have had to existed from the beginning and never gone into non existence (the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, and I will be with you always even until the end). Can you show this?" No, anymore than Elijah could have proven with hard evidence that 7,000 others in Israel had not bowed their knees to Baal, until The Lord revealed it to him. Metaphorically, I know because of this example that The Lord has a '7,000' today who are True Believers. I do not have to have hard facts as I know they are out there, probably reading what I am saying to you and having a little chuckle at your replies. The Church of God is definitely not open to all people only those The Father has predestined. For many are called but few are chosen. John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. The fact that you think the Church should be open to all people in this age is just more evidence that you do not know The Lord Jesus Christ and are completely ignorant when it comes to understanding The Lord's plan for mankind.

adam_w_royalleft a comment

What is your issue with syllogisms? Do you deny that rationality, a God given gift, is good and useful? Premises have implications, that is a fact. If you accept a premise you must accept its implications. I have given you the criteria by which it is decided if a Pope's statements are infallible or not. When they are met the Pope is infallible, when they are not met he is fallible. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, contradictory about that. You have created a false dichotomy by ignoring the standards the Church established and projecting your own. Yes Jesus is the rock, there is no doubt in that. He did name St. Peter the rock of the Church though. You cannot deny that Simon became Peter (and Peter means rock, just check the original aramaic). So St. Peter is the rock of the Church. That line of the Gospel is clear. Actually Church members did write the originals (at least one of which was in aramaic, not Greek). We claim to be the original Church, per St. Peter being the rock, so all the New Testament writers were Catholic. There is nothing perverted about the Latin translation of the Bible. It actually preserves meaning better than English, which can obscure things at times due to English be so far removed from the Greek and Aramaic languages. As far as Church approved translations go, all modern versions must be checked against the original writings to be considered valid. If the Church of God you speak of is the Church founded by Christ it would have had to existed from the beginning and never gone into non existence (the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, and I will be with you always even until the end). Can you show this? Historical records do not seem to show a group of nonreligious people just reading the Bible, throughout much of history. Possibly because many people were illiterate and the Bible wasn't in native language for many many years after the Church compiled it. In early Christianity there wasn't even a Bible, so the people had only the Apostles and later the bishops from which to receive information. While the Holy Spirit gives you grace to know Christ, your knowledge of him comes from outside sources as well. Imagine being stranded on a deserted island having never read the Bible. Could you actually say you knew Christ died for your sins? Nope, you couldn't. So your knowledge of Christ does come from the Bible as put together by the Catholic Church. Is the Church of God you talk about open to all people? If it is then it is universal, in the sense the Catholic Church uses the word. So I believe you are just playing a word game with that one.