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.

 

The Achilles' Heel of Protestantism

page: 5
3
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 03:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
I see the word "Reformation" and it makes me think the purpose was to reform the Church, not divide it. The Church needed reform, and did reform. We should be one Church now, no? The splitting from the church gave legitimacy to every other group who wanted to go their own way. Now we have umptyleben denominations.

On another note, after over a millenium of using the Bible as is, wasn't it a little grandiose to think that one man, or one small group of men could make those sweeping changes?


The Council of Trent corrected the misuse of indulgences. Martin Luther came along with his heresies. To this day, every time you ask, Protestants cannot find "Sola Scriptura" in the Gospel.

And the nonsensical, Protestants reject the Church and her authority and
take up the Bible now as their authority but the Bible came from the
Church, it is her book.




posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 04:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 

Dear Akragon,

You know how easily confused I get, so please allow me to stumble my way through your description of gnostic beliefs. They:

• do not believe that mankind is inherently evil.
But if this is the case, how do we explain:

• do not believe in a devil which leads people into sin.Humankind has produced enough devils of its own without having to create the fictional variety in order to explain the evil that people do against each other.
If the evil is within us then we're inherently evil. If it comes from the outside, can't we call that source "the Devil?" And apparently, Gnostics do accept a devil, except they give it a different name:

However, true Gnostics do accept that the biblical Jehovah is a demiurge, an evil monster who would present himself as God in order to confuse mankind with regard to what is truly right and wrong.
Does it matter that much if we call it a devil or a demiurge?

Do Gnostics believe in eternal life? If they do, I have more problems. Apparently justice is a virtue, but God can go too far with it:

any God who demands murder to appease justice is unworthy of worship or adoration.
Further, they

do not believe in hell or final judgment. For the doctrine of hell and eternal torment are immoral beliefs, and the doctrine of final judgment perverts and distorts mercy, compassion, and forgiveness.
So, there is no eternal Hell? But, if there is eternal life, where do people go after serving their sentence in Hell, Heaven? If that's true then Hell is insignificant and there is no real punishment because what is even 1000 years in Hell compared to infinity in Heaven? I'm having trouble combining the concept of eternal reward with less than eternal punishment.

I'd appreciate any effort you care to make in clarifying my thinking.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 04:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


You're missing the big part where is says there a perpetual offering by gentile nations, at all times from rising to setting.
edit on 24-2-2012 by 547000 because: (no reason given)



Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by 547000
 

. . . You're missing the big part . . .

Malachi 1:11
For from the rising of the sun, even to its going down, My name shall be great among the Gentiles; In every place incense shall be offered to My name, And a pure offering; For My name shall be great among the nations," Says the LORD of hosts. (NSRV)



jm,

"Incense" ...no way.

The NSRV Bible translation has changed the words in Scripture. In the translation of St. Jerome's Latin Vulgate, the first Bible. The English translation of the Latin Vulgate, the Douay-Rheims Bible, Malachi 1:11 says something different.

Malachi 1:11 confirms the repeated words in Daniel. There is a "continual sacrifice", the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. www.drbo.org...

Malachi 1:11
For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts.


And it doesn't say "pure offering", another error. It says "clean oblation",
the body and blood of Our Lord in the Eucharistic sacrifice. Jesus is offered to the Father, the same as Calvary but in an unbloody manner, the "clean oblation" offered every hour around the world in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Jesus wants you to believe in His presence in the Eucharist, to become Catholic. The Remnant is Roman Catholic. You will better understand when God shows you, actually, every soul on the earth during the Great Warning.



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 05:19 AM
link   
reply to post by colbe
 

Feel free to quote the Latin and make your case using whatever ancient writer you think made these conclusions.
You are just making a naked claim without even presenting a source to show that this is currently, or ever was, held as a doctrine.



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 05:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by colbe
 

Feel free to quote the Latin and make your case using whatever ancient writer you think made these conclusions.
You are just making a naked claim without even presenting a source to show that this is currently, or ever was, held as a doctrine.


Hey, Protestantism doesn't have any "ancient writers" so thanks.

"naked claim", it's historical, you think Christianity doesn't know which
was the first Bible?

Do you have any logic jm? There was a first Bible, the Latin Vulgate. Can
you speak Latin? I can't, so I rely on the English translation of the
Latin Vulgate, the Douay Rheims Bible. Look it up, Malachi 1:11.

www.drbo.org...

You see the different words in the two and reply with this...

It's your pride, you do not want to change, you staying with juice
and crackers. What is it going to take?

Protestants are so stubborn and prideful.



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by octotom
reply to post by 547000
 


Now you may argue that God ordained that the bible be without error. But this is contradicted by the fact the Martin Luther changed the canon.

No he didn't.


He most certainly DID change it! He added words. He removed books.
He wanted to do more ... even to the point of taking out the 10 commandments.
But his contemporaries ... seeing that he had lost his freak'n mind ... stopped him.

Read - The Facts About Luther by Patrick F. O'Hare.
It will be highly educational.

Side note ... the dude was a complete perv.
"if the wife is unwilling then take the maid" - Martin Luther :shk:


Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
Me brainwashed?

YES YOU. All the BS you spew about Catholics. Every last thing you say has been debunked time and time again. You claim to be a Baptist Missionary supposedly doing God's Will ... but all we see is someone who is brainwashed with Jack Chick tracts and typical Baptist 'Catholics are going to hell' BULL.

Originally posted by vaelamin
I never understood why the catholics worship mary considering

Catholics DO NOT worship Mary.
edit on 2/27/2012 by FlyersFan because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by 547000
 


The bible did not fall from the sky. Why is the NT canon decided the Word of God, but the OT canon is not?

And why not tell Dewey off about calling people anti-christs? Why only me? Because he agrees with you? Because you think I'm too young to know anything?

The bible did not fall from the sky. Correct. It was written by men who said it was the Word of God.
I can't answer why canon is chosen except that the Council at Nicea, which was made up of dozens of bishops of the various sects of Christianity, was held to come to an agreement of some kind.

I'm not a Biblical scholar, and dewey knows a bunch of stuff that I don't. I don't think he agrees with me, I think we have a respect for one another is all.

I wasn't "telling you off", I was pointing out that your new zeal and dogmatic insistence is inappropriate in this venue of discussion. Also, he explained to you why he interpreted what you said the way he did.
I didn't see it that way, and I'm not even sure I understand what he wrote to you in the commentary.

I also don't understand why you are so insistent that Catholicism is the only true way (I know that is what my uncle, a devout and zealous Catholic, also says, and he was in seminary in his 20s).

My issue with all Christian styles is their condemnation of others, their warnings of hellfire and telling people what they "should" and "must" do when they are not Christ, nor God, and neither are the people they are listening to as their "instructors."



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 



You know how easily confused I get, so please allow me to stumble my way through your description of gnostic beliefs. They:

• do not believe that mankind is inherently evil.


No problem my friend... In gnostic belief, its not man that is "evil" its the material world that is evil... Jesus actually agrees...

6Then Jesus said unto them, My time is not yet come: but your time is alway ready.

7The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil.


But if this is the case, how do we explain:

• do not believe in a devil which leads people into sin.Humankind has produced enough devils of its own without having to create the fictional variety in order to explain the evil that people do against each other



If the evil is within us then we're inherently evil. If it comes from the outside, can't we call that source "the Devil?" And apparently, Gnostics do accept a devil, except they give it a different name:
However, true Gnostics do accept that the biblical Jehovah is a demiurge, an evil monster who would present himself as God in order to confuse mankind with regard to what is truly right and wrong.
Does it matter that much if we call it a devil or a demiurge?


It would matter if this Demiurge was responsible for the millions of deaths within the OT... I believe satans kill count in the OT was around 10 if im not mistaken...

In any case i don't particularly believe in Evil... Evil is simply lack of love put into action. Or even selfishness at its worst... It doesn't come from any entity/devil... I also have issues believing any such entity has the power to motivate anyone towards doing "evil"... unless one has a strong belief in "evil entities" in which case that individual gives the entity that power over themselves.


Do Gnostics believe in eternal life? If they do, I have more problems. Apparently justice is a virtue, but God can go too far with it:
any God who demands murder to appease justice is unworthy of worship or adoration


Yes they do... but they believe in reincarnation as well... so if you don't learn what you need to learn this time around, you will have another chance if you are deemed worthy.


Further, they
do not believe in hell or final judgment. For the doctrine of hell and eternal torment are immoral beliefs, and the doctrine of final judgment perverts and distorts mercy, compassion, and forgiveness.
So, there is no eternal Hell? But, if there is eternal life, where do people go after serving their sentence in Hell, Heaven?


The doctrine of Hell is a myth either way... Jesus calls it Gehenna... which is an actual place outside of Jerusalam. Some believe he is relating to the closest thing possible on this physical plane... i do not. I believe he is comparing what could happen to you in the next life... you may be stricken with disease or deformity which will leave you in "hell" on earth... Thus the reason i made this thread...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Gnostics do believe in judgement after death as christians do, but there is no belief in eternal punishment... Once said punishment is served you return to the physical world in whatever Body you deserve... i believe this to be true as well as compared to Christian beliefs.


If that's true then Hell is insignificant and there is no real punishment because what is even 1000 years in Hell compared to infinity in Heaven? I'm having trouble combining the concept of eternal reward with less than eternal punishment.


Eternal reward is the idea that you get to spend eternity with God... The fault in that line of thinking is that you already have that reward... God is with us every single day of our lives, even if we don't realize it.

A merciful God would not condem any of his children to eternal punishment....

37Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven: 38Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.


I'd appreciate any effort you care to make in clarifying my thinking.

With respect,
Charles1952


No problem... im always here for questions


edit on 27-2-2012 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by 547000
 


The bible did not fall from the sky. Why is the NT canon decided the Word of God, but the OT canon is not?

And why not tell Dewey off about calling people anti-christs? Why only me? Because he agrees with you? Because you think I'm too young to know anything?

The bible did not fall from the sky. Correct. It was written by men who said it was the Word of God.
I can't answer why canon is chosen except that the Council at Nicea, which was made up of dozens of bishops of the various sects of Christianity, was held to come to an agreement of some kind.

I'm not a Biblical scholar, and dewey knows a bunch of stuff that I don't. I don't think he agrees with me, I think we have a respect for one another is all.

I wasn't "telling you off", I was pointing out that your new zeal and dogmatic insistence is inappropriate in this venue of discussion. Also, he explained to you why he interpreted what you said the way he did.
I didn't see it that way, and I'm not even sure I understand what he wrote to you in the commentary.

I also don't understand why you are so insistent that Catholicism is the only true way (I know that is what my uncle, a devout and zealous Catholic, also says, and he was in seminary in his 20s).

My issue with all Christian styles is their condemnation of others, their warnings of hellfire and telling people what they "should" and "must" do when they are not Christ, nor God, and neither are the people they are listening to as their "instructors."





How come you mention a Roman Catholic Council, Nicea wildtimes
and can't see the Bible is a Catholic book?

By God given authority, guided by the Holy Spirit, Pope Damasus
decided the Canon in 382. The bishops of his time confirmed his
choices. St. Jerome not quite agreeing but in obedience translated
the original writing on all of the Holy Father's choices.

The Canon has not changed since 382. Silly Luther, in rebellion threw
out the Old Testament Canon (there were two) that Jesus and the
Apostles taught from call the Septuagint.

You can't remain Protestant. You have no authority, look at the fruit
of Protestantism, everyone deciding for themselves the most important
thing, our justification. Wow and look right here, you can't agree with jm
Dewey.

Jesus established an authority so we can know. God has always done
this...you see it in the Old and accept it but not in the New Covenant.


God bless,

colbe



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by 547000
 



It's not my fault people ignore the logical implications of church history.

No, but it is entirely your fault that you claim to know more than you really do.
Church history, the real, full history is a very tricky subject requiring hours and hours and hours, indeed years worth of hours to master; careful thought, critical thinking, research, cross-referencing, study of translations, sociological and cultural matters, anthropology, and pre-Christian philosophies. When new things are discovered, the whole picture changes even more.

You admit you are young, and were only very, very recently even exposed to religion at all!
There are people who've made careers, whole lifetimes of studying these things, from the earliest records of our modern humanity.
'ancient writers of Protestantism'?
How about all the people who didn't believe the Roman Catholic Church from the get-go? By definition, they were Protestants. When they saw the RCC becoming a means for getting rich, controlling people, and implementing all of the pagan holidays and rituals, they protested. It's been going on forever.

Catholicism in its fullest glittering idolatry and occultism and arrogance, claiming to be the Truth, and condemning, excluding or even excommunicating members is the opposite of what the earliest Christians believed.

Keep studying.
I don't mean to 'tell you off', I only mean to remind you that you are a learner at beginner level. A student driver, so to speak. Ask questions, use your brain and your spirit to decipher it all. It is an individual journey, and takes a long time, patience, and dedication.


edit on 27-2-2012 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


hi,

Does it drive you crazy, the same protests explained a hundred time
and Protestants keep coming back to object once more.

And the most ridiculous, to take the Catholic Bible and call it their one
and only authority while they reject the Church.

It's going to take a divine intervention. We love them though....


take care,

colbe



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by 547000
 



It's not my fault people ignore the logical implications of church history.

No, but it is entirely your fault that you claim to know more than you really do.
Church history, the real, fullhistory is a very tricky subject requiring hours and hours and hours, years worth of hours to master; careful thought, critical thinking, research, cross-referencing, study of translations, sociological and cultural matters, anthropology, and pre-Christian philosophies. When new things are discovered, the whole picture changes even more.

You admit you are young, and were only very, very recently even exposed to religion at all! So excuse me if I don't feel the need to admire your disrespectful zeal. You have learned a teensy-weensy little bit of surface religion stuff.

There are people who've made careers, whole lifetimes of studying these things, from the earliest records of our modern humanity. You are in no position to call anyone names, and your knowledge of Protestantism is flawed, just as your knowledge of the early church is flawed.

In other words, you don't know what you're talking about, and you're talking about what you don't know rudely and with intolerance, and badgering people who are way past the point where you are now.

'ancient writers of Protestantism'?
How about all the people who didn't believe the church? By definition, they were Protestants. When they saw the RCC becoming a means for getting rich, controlling people, and implementing all of the pagan holidays and rituals, they protested. It's been going on forever.

Catholicism in its fullest glittering idolatry and occultism and arrogance to be the Truth and exclude or even excommunicate members is the opposite of what the earliest Christians believed.
Keep studying.


edit on 27-2-2012 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)


It doesn't take hourse of study, you could be wrong in your study.

It takes recognizing the beliefs of the first Christians, reading their
quotes because much of the Bible is ignored by Protestants or
misinterpreted. You can argue forever about the meaning of the
Bible when your reject the Church, her interpretation. She decided
the Canon, it's true then and logical, the Church was given the gift to interpret the Bible.

Protestants disobey, they take the easy way. There are not many
requirements in Protestantism.

Here's another fact, many Protestant pastors convert when they read the
quotes of the Church Fathers, the first Christians and they recognize
personally, how do they have any authority when the Protestant preacher down the street is preaching something else.


colbe



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by colbe
 



How come you mention a Roman Catholic Council, Nicea wildtimes
and can't see the Bible is a Catholic book?

By God given authority, guided by the Holy Spirit, Pope Damasus
decided the Canon in 382.

First of all, I don't study or follow the Bible precisely because it is a construct of the Catholic Church, and was not penned by God or Christ. Protestants (in the sense you are using it) used the Bible, but changed the practices and removed from them the parts that smacked of things they didn't like.

And a Pope is not given authority by God; men did that.
I can be whatever I want, colbe, thanks, and you are not in a position to tell me I'm wrong in my beliefs or "can't stay" anything.

I'm a growing, developing soul. It's not your decision to make what I can or cannot "stay" or become.
I will go by what we know of what Jesus himself said. Not some Pope or bunch of greedy bishops or Emperors or anyone else who proclaimed their sovereignty to do so.

Christian enough for ya?
What he said, and ONLY what he said. Everything else is hearsay, opinion, human conjecture, and based on ego.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by colbe
 



How come you mention a Roman Catholic Council, Nicea wildtimes
and can't see the Bible is a Catholic book?

By God given authority, guided by the Holy Spirit, Pope Damasus
decided the Canon in 382.

First of all, I don't study or follow the Bible precisely because it is a construct of the Catholic Church, and was not penned by God or Christ. Protestants (in the sense you are using it) used the Bible, but changed the practices and removed from them the parts that smacked of things they didn't like.

And a Pope is not given authority by God; men did that.
I can be whatever I want, colbe, thanks, and you are not in a position to tell me I'm wrong in my beliefs or "can't stay" anything.

I'm a growing, developing soul. It's not your decision to make what I can or cannot "stay" or become.
I will go by what we know of what Jesus himself said. Not some Pope or bunch of greedy bishops or Emperors or anyone else who proclaimed their sovereignty to do so.

Christian enough for ya?
What he said, and ONLY what he said. Everything else is hearsay, opinion, human conjecture, and based on ego.




You don't include your previous all wise, better study up remarks just my response to them. The Bible is a Catholic, it is the inerrant written Word of God.

The only reason you know anything of "what Jesus Himself said" is because of the Roman Catholic Church. Can you understand, it's history,
it's the Truth, "some Pope" you mock gave you your Bible.

The point of this thread, to bring our disbelieving, heretical brothers
and sisters to the fullness of Truth. They accept such a little bit, there
is much more...

Remember friend, no matter what happens, for the future, the RCC is Christ's Church, the most Holy Eucharist is true. The anti-Christ will
abolish the Eucharist but it's only for a short time.

God is going to show you Himself, personally, that He wants you to become Catholic. Say "yes."


blessings,


colbe



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 12:27 AM
link   
Correction ~ taking the "a" out.

"The Bible is Catholic, it is the inerrant written Word of God."



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 01:01 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


Catholicism is the TRUTH. That is why. Protestantism is founded on a LIE.

In this thread I try to illustrate that by logic Protestantism cannot work. This is the "zeal". You're missing the point of this thread.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by 547000
 



It's not my fault people ignore the logical implications of church history.

No, but it is entirely your fault that you claim to know more than you really do.
Church history, the real, full history is a very tricky subject requiring hours and hours and hours, indeed years worth of hours to master; careful thought, critical thinking, research, cross-referencing, study of translations, sociological and cultural matters, anthropology, and pre-Christian philosophies. When new things are discovered, the whole picture changes even more.

You admit you are young, and were only very, very recently even exposed to religion at all!
There are people who've made careers, whole lifetimes of studying these things, from the earliest records of our modern humanity.
'ancient writers of Protestantism'?
How about all the people who didn't believe the Roman Catholic Church from the get-go? By definition, they were Protestants. When they saw the RCC becoming a means for getting rich, controlling people, and implementing all of the pagan holidays and rituals, they protested. It's been going on forever.

Catholicism in its fullest glittering idolatry and occultism and arrogance, claiming to be the Truth, and condemning, excluding or even excommunicating members is the opposite of what the earliest Christians believed.

Keep studying.
I don't mean to 'tell you off', I only mean to remind you that you are a learner at beginner level. A student driver, so to speak. Ask questions, use your brain and your spirit to decipher it all. It is an individual journey, and takes a long time, patience, and dedication.


edit on 27-2-2012 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)


Nah, simple logic as well as reading up what the first Christians believed prove it. Protestantism claims to return to original Christianity but then history shows them wrong.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 02:27 AM
link   
wildtimes and doubters reading this thread that the RCC is the true faith,

I care, really. Listen to 547000. 547000 is a very good apologist. We all must get ready, this is how for these times. Examine our lives, repent, with true contrition confess our sins to God and pray every day, speak to God. The more you speak to God, the closer you feel to Him. Prayer strengthens you, gives you hope.

It's written in Scripture, the prophets are second to the Apostles. I share an excerpt from a message to Darly Chagas, from Our Lord's mother. Darly is a seer from Brazil, so this is a translation.

www.afterthewarning.com...



January 1, 2012

..."The world is so attached to selfishness, idolatry, to himself that even to give a piece of bread to a brother who is hungry, he needs to ask God courage. Without God's help he cannot be charitable. You cannot falter now that the time will be more painful, is like a labor pain. It will be born a new world, everybody is waiting the hour.

From now on, that which will help to change the human mind are: World War, hunger, thirst, strange illnesses and the loss of all material things beyond those that are still kept in secret to be revealed. Externally, the man will remember that he sinned and will ask God for forgiveness. He will endure hunger and will remember that thrown food in the trash and did not give it to anyone, did not practice charity. Did not love God or loved the brothers. For this will have to wake up and prepare to face difficulties. Repent or lose Salvation.

A big part will suffer thirst caused by a sudden change in nature. Never was seen many people suffering in the world, science does not know to explain. All this will spread throughout the earth.

Repent, repent, repent.

This is what I reveal here in this first message of this new year....

Pray, pray, pray"...



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 02:54 AM
link   
The Deceiver divides to conquer: "Catholic", "Protestant", "Gnostic"...
Dogs fighting over dinner's leftovers.
Swearing oaths to earthly organisations proves you have entirely missed your mark.





posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by colbe
 


I am curious as to why you are linking to this Darly Chagas person. Do you believe that this person is being given true messages from Mary?




top topics



 
3
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join