It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Are Catholics Christian?

page: 13
4
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by VIKINGANT
 




Further conversations discussed the prospect that Catholisism was born not from Christianity as is believed but other Pagan religions. The arguments include the fact that they "worship" many gods. (IE the saints through thier prayers) and Idols (IE crucifixes etc)


Dear VikingGant

Well anybody that told that the origin of the Roman Church is the paganism is liying you in one of the most cynical ways that somebody can do or lives in a complete ignorance about this topic.

Actually it is difficult to find a church in the history of Christianism that has more martyrs in defense of the faith that the Roman one, starting by his first Pope St Peter.

The Roman Church was prosecuted by many Emperors during four centuries until Constantin converted to Christianism, and that was the consequence of a miracle done by God to him. He won a so important battle against the Barbarians using the Christian Cross in his shields and flags, according with the promise given in a vission.

Anybody that can visit Rome could confirm with his own eyes that the catacombs in the underground of the downtown of the city are solid evidence of the existence of a flourish Christian community in Rome that was leading since its begining by Simon Peter the Apostle of Christ.

If the Catholic church would not be Christian almost nothing in the west can be considered as Christian, since anyway Protestantism started in the Catholic church.

Martin Luther was an Agustine priest and Doctor of the Church, until he abjured publically of his faith, so was Luther Pagan more than half of his life?!! Did he learn Christian Theology with Pagans?!! that is a visible contradiction of this argument that is supported precisely in the most fanatic and radical side of the Protestantism.

It was Christ in person the one that founded Catholicism, since it was him the one that gave to Peter the authority to be the first Pope.

You can confirm that in this quote of the New Testament:




Jesus replied,

"Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

(St. Matthew 16:17-20)


[edit on 7/13/2008 by The angel of light]




posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 03:05 PM
link   
I believe it more likely the "Rock" was in Peter's statement that Jesus was the Son of God.
That the Lords family went to Sylvester or the REAL first Pope asking for the church be moved back to its rightful location in Jerusalem. To this request it was this founding father of Catholicism, Sylvester that sent Roman troops out and killed off all the bloodline as could be found.
www.angelfire.com...

www.newadvent.org...

Origin, a early church father once wrote “If we must change so much about this man why not pick a man more to your liking to begin with?”
I believe the Catholic “Church” AKA Whore of Babylon did just that with their “Sainted” Paul. This is the true martyr that Catholicism is based.
www.ovrlnd.com...

I believe Jesus had no complaints of Judaism and in fact proclaimed it the correct faith. He did not like some of the leaders that, like the Catholic order, became obsessed with the worldly wealth collected from the faithful.

If Jesus wanted a new church in Rome it seems to me he would have gone there and started it.

Catholics, while many are good people, are NOT Christians they are at best Paulians, if by Christians you mean followers of Jesus or Yeshua.

The shame of sex, virgin birth such as was said to be the case with Julius Caesar and others at the time the Universal Church of Rome was first founded. This church says if you do not believe in Virgin Birth you can not be saved.

What did Jesus say?
"And he said to him, "Why do you ask me about what is good? One
there is who is good. If you would enter life, keep the
commandments." Matthew 19:16-17
Here according to Jesus, to enter Heaven, we follow the
commandments.
A question to the Christians is: why would Jesus mislead this man
if the 'only way to heaven was through the blood of Jesus'?
Was Jesus misleading this man by teaching that Works will open the
Gates of Heaven?
"Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for
theirs is the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5:10
Here Jesus says that Martyrs will go to Heaven, those who die and
suffer for a good cause will go to Heaven.
Is Jesus again being misleading since all Christians claim that the one
and only way to Heaven is through the blood of Jesus as the church
teaches.
Here again a Lawyer asked the Important Question, How to enter
Heaven;
And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying,
"Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?"
Jesus said "What is written in the law? How do
you read?"
And he answered, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your
heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all
your mind; and your neighbor as yourself."
And he said to him, "You have answered right; do this, and you will
live." Luke 10:25-28
The lawyer asked the teacher Jesus how to have eternal life and
Jesus replied "Read"... "The Law"..... "Obey the Law" believe in
God and love your neighbor.
Why in front of all these people would Jesus not tell them the
so-called only way that the Christians of today are saying 'no way to heaven except
through the blood of Jesus', why would Jesus contradict today's
Christians?
Are Christians freed from the Law as the modern Christians teach?
"Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and
teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he
who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom
of heaven." Matthew 5:19
Why would Jesus Teach this if he came so that his blood can relax
the Law, why is it when he was on earth, he Taught Not to Relax the
Law? And Those who follow the Laws will be the Highest in
Heaven.
"Not every one who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the
kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in
heaven." Matthew 7:21
Salvation according to some Christians comes from taking Jesus as
your god and accepting the claimed blood sacrifice, while on the
Other Hand, Jesus seems to be saying the Opposite. Why is that?
Aren't Christians supposed to follow the Teachings of Jesus,
As far as Salvation is concerned, Muslims are
following the Teachings of Jesus, why haven't the
Christians started yet ?
"For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother,
and sister, and mother." (Mark 3:35) If Jesus is god, why would he claim that
who ever follows the Commandments would be the brother or
mother of god ? Does god have a mother of brother?
"Jesus said to him, "If you would be perfect, go, sell what you
possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven;
and come, follow me." Matthew 19:21
Giving to directly to the Poor, one of the 5 Pillars of Islam, Jesus is
Teaching Piety to Enter Heaven.
"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a
needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." Matthew
19:24
This Verse was very revealing to me, Jesus is repeatedly saying, a
rich man will not enter Heaven.
Some Christians of today claim that Jesus died for all sins, yet Jesus
repeatedly taught that greed will prevent you from entering Heaven.
What about those Christians who are rich? Aren't they saved
according to the 10% collecting church?
Now according to the church and Christians of modern day, 'who ever
believes in the blood of Jesus and accepts Jesus as god, then that is
the only way that person is saved, not through works.
Now let's see if Jesus again contradicts the church;
"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears my word and believes Him
who sent me, has eternal life; he does not come into judgment, but
has passed from death to life." John 5:24
It is Clear that according to Jesus the way to Heaven is to believe in
God (who Sent Jesus) and to hear (follow) the words of Jesus.
Does Jesus want us to believe in his blood Or to believe that he
is from God?
"Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to me
shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst. John
6:35
Therefore Jesus is Telling them that if they believe in him (While he
was Alive) that they will receive paradise.
"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the
works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I
go to the Father." John 14:12
Truly, Honestly, I give you my Word Jesus Says: the Human who
does Works as I do (Jesus followed the Laws of Moses) then that
human will follow me to the Father (God).
"Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, "I am the light of the world; he
who follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of
life." John 8:12
What does a light do? it guides, directs, it shows you the Right Path,
A light does not symbolize one to be sacrificed, but instead, one to
Guide. Jesus guides to a specific form of Judaism an no place else.



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Comforter
 



Babylon did just that with their “Sainted” Paul

I do not think the knowledge that Jesus ever existed would even be known to the world, today, if it was not for Paul.
It would have remained a sect with no broad appeal to anyone outside of it.
Jesus said to follow the teachings of the Pharisees because they sit in the seat of Moses.
So, if following the law was what it was all about, why is Jesus not redundant?
Jesus came to declare a kingdom and that he was the King of it.
Saying that got him killed.
He came out of death and was given the power of God to go ahead and rule his Kingdom.
By believing in our king, we pass through death, with him and we have a new glorious life that we own by Faith.
If this is not true, we have no reason to consider our selves as Christians, at all.
Peter believed Jesus was the Messiah and said so un-equivocally.
That is our foundation.
Without Paul, none of this would have been clear to us, today and we would be slaves to the rulers of the world, forever.

[edit on 13-7-2008 by jmdewey60]



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Comforter
 




Posted by Comforter
If Jesus wanted a new church in Rome it seems to me he would have gone there and started it.


Excuse me Comforter but although your personal opinions can be respectable you are no body to claim if the Plan of jesus Christ was correctly designed or not.

The truth is that Christ sent to Rome two of his more powerful messengers that were St Peter & St Paul and both died in their mission, no body would offer his life for a false assignment, so it is clear that you are so wrong, you are trying to judge God and that is a terrible blasphemy, even to the Holy Ghost that was the one acting through the two Apostles.

Moreover you are saying that St Peter and St Paul died for nothing and that when St Paul wrote his letter to Romans he was suffering of delusion, since according with your so curious theory Rome was always pagane and there was no Christian Church at all there!!, that is Heretic!!.

The Catholic Church represents among the Orthodox, coptics, armenians and other eastern rite denominations the eldest part of Christianity and as it they deserve all the respect from the new Christians of this side of the ocean.

Remember that America was populated by Paganism in times in which Rome was a flourish Christian community as well as the major part of Europe and the middle east.

The claim that Catholicism is not Christian is part of the rethoric of the evangelic fundamentalism that is behind all the great matters that we are dealing with in this epoch of crisis in America.

thanks for your atention,

The Angel of lightness




[edit on 7/13/2008 by The angel of light]



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by The angel of light
 





The claim that Catholicism is not Christian is part of the rethoric of the evangelic fundamentalism that is behind all the great matters that we are dealing with in this epoch of crisis in America.



I agree that the evangelic fundamentalists are becoming a major problem in America.But you can't deny that the Catholic Church goes against some of Jesus' major lessons and laws.And,as quoted in my earlier post,there are verses (more than i quoted) that quite clearly state that Jesus is the Rock on which to build,not Peter!






Remember that America was populated by Paganism in times in which Rome was a flourish Christian community as well as the major part of Europe and the middle east.


Pagan is a name given to those who believe in more than 1 god.
It was practised in the Americas because they hadn't even heard of Jesus Christ.There are tribes and ppls still like this today.





Well anybody that told that the origin of the Roman Church is the paganism is liying you in one of the most cynical ways that somebody can do or lives in a complete ignorance about this topic.



Much of Christian symbolism comes from other faiths.For example.The halo was a sign of the Greek god Apollo.The cross is one of the oldest and most popular sacred symbols in the world.The phoenix,symbol of rebirth,has been used to represent the resurrection.

For influences on doctrine Zoroastrianism is a good place to start.


Zoroastrianism clearly has had a large influence on Christianity. There are many aspects of Christianity that were not drawn from Judaism, although that religion was the major predecessor of Christianity. One of the most obvious tenets of Christianity that has its roots in Zoroastrianism is the concept of dualism. The Zoroastrian faith believes in two original spirits; Ahura Mazda, the Eternal and Uncreated, the Wise Lord, and Angra Mainyu, Uncreated but not Eternal, the Evil Spirit. This dualist nature is thought to have come from the fact the people of Zarathustra were invaded by nomads during the time of Zarathustra's life, and that he therefore had very strong sentiments on the nature of good and evil (Flower 56). From this basic concept springs many others, many of which are also found in Christianity. Zoroastrianism has a very clear notion of the concepts of heaven and hell. These were the realities that Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu had created for themselves. According to Zoroastrian belief, at the time of death, the dead are led over Chinvat Bridge. This is a bridge shaped like a sword that bridges this world and heaven. If the soul is worthy, then he or she is led across by a beautiful woman. If the soul is unworthy, then he or she is led across by an old hag, and when the soul is halfway across the bridge turns on its edge and the soul topples to hell (Flower 57). Zoroastrianism also teaches of a second judgement. Zoroastrian tradition holds that, after Zarathustra, there will come three more prophets born of a virgin, each of whom will become pregnant after bathing in a lake which preserves "the seed of the prophet" (Traditional 7). The last of these is to be the Saoshyant, or savior, who will bring about the final judgement. At this time, everyone will be resurrected (this is called Ristakhiz; Traditional 7) and judged a second time by Ahura Mazda, and the final battle between good and evil will take place. Some doctrines hold that the wicked will burn eternally in hell, but newer beliefs state that these may be purified in a river of molten metal and allowed to rejoin the new, idyllic Earth that is free of evil (Flower 56). All these are precursors to corresponding beliefs in Christianity. The notion of a savior being born of a virgin is obviously well known, as are the concepts of heaven and hell, judgement at death and also at a later day of Judgement, and the existence of evil. Evil as an independent force was an idea that had its roots in Zoroastrianism, and in particular the terrible events that Christianity holds will be unleashed by evil upon the world are thought to be taken almost directly from Zoroastrianism (Zoroastrianism, 575). In short, Christianity has been very visibly influenced by Zoroastrianism.






[edit on 13-7-2008 by jakyll]



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 01:54 AM
link   
reply to post by jakyll
 


"The story of Robin Hood predates the life of William Wallace by almost a 100yrs,so that rules that theory out."

The tales of Robin Hood never appeared until long after the death of Wallace. The first literary mention of tales of Robin Hood was 1375, Wallace was unlawfully executed by the English King Edward in 1305. No other historical figure answers the description of Robin Hood or his deeds as thoroughly as Wallace. Robin Hood's nemesis was King Edward who commissioned the Governor of Nottingham, Robert Clifford, specifically to hunt down and capture Wallace. The Sherwood Forest, in present day Paisley, existed during Wallace' lifetime. His wife was Lady Marion Braidfute, his closest and most loyal (lele) friend was Sir John Graham, hence Lele John, and Wallace and his men dressed in green. He is described in the English Cottonian manuscript, a chronicle from the times, as "a low born man, who earns his living with bow and quiver, living with his followers in the woods." He is described by England as an outlaw, which was never really the case as Wallace, being a Scot, was under no obligation to obey the laws of a nation which had usurped Scotland's autonomy. For a more thorough understanding of this, I recommend you read a copy of the book William Wallace Robin hood Revealed, which can be found on Amazon.

The errors in the charges you have brought against the Catholic Church display, as much, your ignorance of its teachings as your ignorance of Robin Hood being based on the life of Wallace. I also recommend that critics of Catholicism read the writings of The Early Church Fathers and the philosphical arguments of Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. In matters of doctrinal teaching the Catholic church is infallible, even should it have been guilty of comitting errors in human judgement and policy, and has to its discredit had its share of bad Popes and bishops, e.g. Bishop Antony Beck who raised arms against Wallace and Scotland, and the bishops who capitulated to that old whoremaister Henry VIII, out of fear for their lives, and broke with the Catholic Church for self-preservation..



[edit on 14-7-2008 by Robhaidheuch]

[edit on 14-7-2008 by Robhaidheuch]



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 06:19 AM
link   
reply to post by jakyll
 



They used to forbid priests to marry.(several apostles were married.)

The apostles were not priests.

1 Timothy.4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

I do not see how this verse applies.
People volunteer to be priests and if they do not want to follow the rules, they can opt out.
I think the above quoted verse has to do with a blanket rule, that covers everyone and is not voluntary.

Mary never had other children after the Lord Jesus. A perpetual virgin.

All this virginity business started out in the Bible and it is not such a big leap for people to consider her virginity as a virtue that they do not want to diminish.

Confessing sins to a priest


Matthew 3:6 Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River.

Who were they confessing to?

[edit on 14-7-2008 by jmdewey60]



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by jakyll
 


"I agree that the evangelic fundamentalists are becoming a major problem in America.But you can't deny that the Catholic Church goes against some of Jesus' major lessons and laws.And,as quoted in my earlier post,there are verses (more than i quoted) that quite clearly state that Jesus is the Rock on which to build,not Peter! "

So, why did Jesus declare that Simon's new name was Cephas (Peter), meaning rock, "Thou art Cephas, and upon this cephas I build my church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it."?

If the church of which Peter was the custodian, the Office Jesus assigned to him when Peter was given 'The Keys of the Kingdom', if that church became corrupt, as has been claimed by many who have posted, then one must also believe Jesus to be either a madman or a liar for claiming Hell shall not prevail against it.

The only way Protestants have ever remained united is in their hatred for the Mother Church. They can't agree on a universal creed, every man is his own pope, the crucifix is frowned upon by some, some deny the Trinity, some deny the divinity of Jesus, some deny the virgin birth, some deny Hell, some deny the existence of demons, some promote abortion, some promote homosexuality, some promote outlandish ideas promoted by satanic Freemasonry that Jesus did not die for Man's sin, deny His Resurrection and make an absurd claim that rests upon fevered imaginings the He married Mary Magdalen and lived happily ever after. It's insanity to adopt any of the foregoing positions and yet claim to be a 'real' Christian. I think the irony is somewhat lost on some of the half-wits who have posted to this thread.



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 





The apostles were not priests.


A priest is a person who has the authority to perform and administer religious rites.The apostles were given this power by Jesus.





I do not see how this verse applies.


1 Timothy.4:1-2 applies because it is about ppl being led astray from God by false teachings.Forbidding someone to marry is a false teaching.



Matthew 3:6 Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River.

Who were they confessing to?


They were baptized by John the Baptist,they confessed their sins to God.




All this virginity business started out in the Bible and it is not such a big leap for people to consider her virginity as a virtue that they do not want to diminish.


They can see it as a virtue as much as they won't,but they use it to manipulate the facts within the Bible.



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Robhaidheuch
 





The tales of Robin Hood never appeared until long after the death of Wallace. The first literary mention of tales of Robin Hood was 1375,


The 1st mention of a Robin Hood can be traced by to the turn of the 13th century.They began to appear in stories during the age of William Wallace.

www.robinhood.ltd.uk...






No other historical figure answers the description of Robin Hood or his deeds as thoroughly as Wallace.


This link has some of the many candidates.
www.boldoutlaw.com...





His wife was Lady Marion Braidfute


Maid Marion wasn't even in the early ballads.I believe she wasn't added to the stories until the 1400's.






So, why did Jesus declare that Simon's new name was Cephas (Peter), meaning rock, "Thou art Cephas, and upon this cephas I build my church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it."?



Cephas may mean rock but when translated into Greek it does not mean Peter.The word rock in Greek is femmine,the word stone is masculine.No doubt you have heard that argument before.
For a different follow the link below.
credo.stormloader.com...
I would also like your opinion on verses such as Psalm 18:31,a verse that clearly states that no one is the Rock save the Lord.





In matters of doctrinal teaching the Catholic church is infallible,


Show me exactly where in the Bible it says you are allowed to worship false idols.(Mary & the Saints.)
Can you also show me where it says that we should confess your sins to someone other than God,and where it says that man has the power to forgive sins.




[edit on 14-7-2008 by jakyll]



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Robhaidheuch
 



...He married Mary Magdalen and lived happily ever after...

Two parts of this are wrong, in my opinion.
I think if he knew he was going to die, it would have been irresponsible to get married and have children, knowing they were to be widowed and orphaned.
Jesus had to go to heaven to take his position, there, and could not have been here, living an ordinary life.
So, I would agree with you, that this seems to be inconsistent with Christianity.

one must also believe Jesus to be either a madman or a liar for claiming Hell shall not prevail against it.

Depends on you definition of church.

They can't agree on a universal creed, every man is his own pope...

I think that is the best thing about my church.
No creed and no theological hierarchy.



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by jakyll
 


"The 1st mention of a Robin Hood can be traced by to the turn of the 13th century.They began to appear in stories during the age of William Wallace."

If you mean mention of the English judicial term 'robin hood' meaning outlaw perhaps, but no Robin Hood as described in the tales was ever mentioned in the period you cite, as the tales of a Robin Hood did not exist in any literary form during that period. If I am wrong then tell me exactly where? I know, with absolute certainty, you cannot.



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


"I think that is the best thing about my church.
No creed and no theological hierarchy."

No creed means no defined set of beliefs: sounds like a Masonic Temple where one is free to believe in and worship anything one wishes, including Lucifer the fallen angel. No theological hierarchy indicates no authoratative teaching body. Following that logic, one could reinvent Christianity to suit oneself ad infinitum.



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Robhaidheuch
 



one could reinvent Christianity to suit oneself ad infinitum.

That is the idea.
If you think we have it down, perfectly, where is the growth?
We do not think we will be there (perfection) for a long time.
The church owns a bunch of Universities with theology departments for producing pastors.
They take turns, in quarter year periods, among the professors, to teach what they may have special knowledge in.
We are allowed to disagree with them, if we think they might have a particular point wrong.
So, it is not anarchy.
If someone went too far out, they would be in danger of loosing their job at college, and loose whatever chance they would have had to teach the church.
Seems to be a petty good system and has held up for a hundred and fifty years.



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Robhaidheuch
 





If you mean mention of the English judicial term 'robin hood' meaning outlaw perhaps, but no Robin Hood as described in the tales was ever mentioned in the period you cite, as the tales of a Robin Hood did not exist in any literary form during that period. If I am wrong then tell me exactly where? I know, with absolute certainty, you cannot.


Robin Hood and different variants have been used by many outlaws.For example,

In 1261,records show a William de Fevre was made an outlaw and one year later in 1262, a royal official renamed him on case records to "William Robehood" or "Robinhood".The significance of this is that as early as 1262, Robin Hood had achieved such fame throughout the region that other outlaws were starting to be named after him.Thus, Robinhood was becoming a generic nickname for outlaws of the time.
There are at least 8 people before 1300 who were given the "Robinhood" nickname, at least 5 of whom were outlaws or people accused of criminal activity.One could speculate that this was a period of time where the activities of the real Robin Hood were well known.


If these men existed before 1300 then you have your beginnings of the myth.At this period in time stories were told by bards,who would change and embelish as they went.The story of Robin Hood is made up of many,not just one.Also,ppl did not write books as they do now,just because it didn't appear in print until much later does not make it false.Some of the oldest and well known myths and legends in the world existed as verbal story before it became a written story.


Robin Hood exists in many forms,simply because his stories were first passed around by spoken word,in the form of folk tales and ballads dating back to the 1200's.


Evidence indicates that the Robin Hood stories and oral ballads/narratives were around a long time before the earliest surviving written ballad,was penned.The oldest surviving printing and earliest ballad but based on earlier work is "A Gest of Robyn Hode".






[edit on 14-7-2008 by jakyll]



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by jakyll
 



A priest is a person who has the authority to perform and administer religious rites.The apostles were given this power by Jesus.

In general, I am kind of with you but I find your arguments a little weak.
I was trying to get you to support your arguments, further.
I just imagine someone, wanting to be convinced to agree with you, having difficulty being swayed by what you had written in your previous post.
If you are satisfied, then, fine.
I have to leave it to the reader to come to their own conclusion on these points of yours.



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by jakyll
 


"Show me exactly where in the Bible it says you are allowed to worship false idols.(Mary & the Saints.)
Can you also show me where it says that we should confess your sins to someone other than God,and where it says that man has the power to forgive sins."

Nowhere in the Catholic Bible is permission given to worship false idols. The Catholic Church has seven sacraments which are dispensed by ministers ordained by the authority that resides in the apostolic succession. Confession requires the penitent to observe the necessary criteria to obtain absolution. If that criteria is met, i.e. true contrition and a firm purpose of amendment then the sinner is absolved and given an appropriate penance to perform as a means of paying some of the debt owed for having offended God. Other penances incurring personal suffering may be received as a gift that comes from God while one still lives on Earth, as otherwise one may have to pay back with interest the debt that is owed and that is necessarily paid during the purification of one's soul should one be admitted to Purgatory.

You are confusing veneration with worship. Failure to venerate the saints indicates a contempt for heroic Christians. Failure to venerate the crucifix indicates a contempt for Christ. Venerable is a title that was often applied to Christians who gave good example by leading blameless lives e.g. the Venerable Bede, one of your compatriots.



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by jakyll
 



"Robin Hood exists in many forms,simply because his stories were first passed around by spoken word,in the form of folk tales and ballads dating back to the 1200's."



"Evidence indicates that the Robin Hood stories and oral ballads/narratives were around a long time before the earliest surviving written ballad,was penned.The oldest surviving printing and earliest ballad but based on earlier work is "A Gest of Robyn Hode".

Hearsay, I asked you to produce evidence.



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by jakyll
 


"Also,ppl did not write books as they do now"

What about the Iliad or the books of the Bible for that matter?

"One could speculate that this was a period of time where the activities of the real Robin Hood were well known."

You have inadvertantly underlined my point by quoting the source above.'SPECULATE'!


[edit on 14-7-2008 by Robhaidheuch]



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Robhaidheuch
 



the Venerable Bede, one of your compatriots.


I actually read his book.(The "Ecclesiastical History")
But, that was so long ago that I get it confused with the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, another book I read.
Oh, well.
The Venerable Bede was Catholic, but English, I think.
Did the Church of England give him the same veneration?
Just wondering.

on 13 November, 1899, that Leo XIII decreed that the feast of Venerable Bede with the title of Doctor Ecclesiae should be celebrated throughout the Church each year on 27 May.

www.newadvent.org...
Interesting little factoid:

The method of dating events relative to Christ's birth (A.D. and B.C.) was popularized with Bede's works.

historymedren.about.com...

[edit on 14-7-2008 by jmdewey60]




top topics



 
4
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join