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 author of Babylon Mystery changed his mind....

page: 21
4
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by colbe
 


Dear colbe,

A) I'm glad I make you smile. Yes, we differ, but making people smile and laugh is something I love to do....always has been.

B)

Protestants forever stick with God only requires that we believe He is the Savior.

WHY DO YOU KEEP SAYING THIS?? I was brought up a Protestant...not the same kind of Protestant as lonewolf or NuT, but nevertheless a PROTESTANT (my Grammie was Catholic, until she married my Grandpa, who had been divorced...so she switched to High Episcopal...the earliest memories I have of church are the incense swinging, the votive candles, the Eucharist -- including the transubstantiation thing -- the whole 8.8 yards).

My mother, from a very tender age, was a real fan....used to walk there herself as a little kid....taught Sunday school (which is where my Dad first laid eyes on her, with her little flock as she brought them in for their blessing)...we went to church religiously (pun intended)....she was the acolyte director for years and years...both of my brothers were acolytes (I was not, but I might have been if I weren't totally uninterested. I did however, go to Sunday school, sing in the choir, etc.)

When I was about 16, I stopped going. After that, I started learning things outside of the faith, that helped me to understand what it was about....
Eventually even my mom stopped going. We both "lost religion."

Now, if my Grammie had been able to marry my Grandpa in the Catholic church (if he had not been "excommunicated"), I would have been brought up Catholic. But I wasn't. One of my mom's sisters married a Catholic, and their one child was brought up Catholic.

So, I do know what I'm talking about. Please, colbe, stop lumping all Protestants together. It's just unfair, inaccurate, and shows belligerent intolerance and .... well, please.

Just .... stop. The Protestant bicker among themselves the same as you do with "Protestants."

That is my issue with religion.
We are human, we really don't know. Each of us is different, unique, and MUST find our own way....just as we each lead different lives, even within the same household, we are completely unique.

Why would anyone expect that we ALL share the same spiritual knowledge, awareness, needs, or doubts?

Love,
wildtimes





Hi wildtimes,

I said the above because so many Protestants simplify Salvation, justification. Professing John 3:16, you only have to believe and you
are saved. They profess a list of heresies, OSAS is another.

Thanks so much for sharing your faith background. My history, Catholic all my life, I fell away, similar to you, as a very young adult after my parents died and I returned, actually found, meaning understood the faith for the first time after going to one of Mary's place of apparitions here in the states.

Your sharing helps me see why sometimes you defend the faith.
I gotta share, your dear Grandmother was baptized Catholic then became Episcopalian like your Grandfather. If this is correct,
you realize Episcopal sacraments (except water Baptism and Marriage) are not valid, no Apostolic Succession. The Eucharist does not become Our Lord, it remains bread and wine. As "high church" as they desire to be that's the facts. Look at the falling away of their hierarchy, accepting homosexuality and women priests. Many are converting to the the RCC because of what's happened.

I am not lumping Protestants together, their beliefs are inconsistent,
you have to address each one. And that is what I try to do on ATS. I should of been more specific in the underlined quote of mine.

True, everyone has a different amount of knowledge spiritually but
it is so important now, just before the Great Tribulation to come to the
knowledge of the faith, there is only one. Prophecy says the Remnant
is Roman Catholic and everyone I pray would come to see this truth
before we all experience the Great Warning which is soon. I keep posting
the messages from Heaven, some Protestant too.

The Eucharist is true and everyone needs it...if everyone would believe, all the other question and doubt about the faith would fall away.


love,

colbe




posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by colbe
 



I said the above because so many Protestants simplify Salvation, justification.


I have no idea how Protestants could make the gospel more simple than it already is:



Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:


1 Corinthians 15:1-4



edit on 15-3-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by colbe
 



I gotta share, your dear Grandmother was baptized Catholic then became Episcopalian like your Grandfather. If this is correct,
you realize Episcopal sacraments (except water Baptism and Marriage) are not valid, no Apostolic Succession. The Eucharist does not become Our Lord, it remains bread and wine. As "high church" as they desire to be that's the facts. Look at the falling away of their hierarchy, accepting homosexuality and women priests. Many are converting to the the RCC because of what's happened.

Actually, I don't think Grandpa was a member of anything....but he had been divorced. My Grammie wanted to marry him, but the RCC said "no." I don't know if he was Catholic before that or not. I'll ask my mom.

Okay, so I was water baptized and married in the Episcopal Church.

And,

If this is correct,
you realize Episcopal sacraments (except water Baptism and Marriage) are not valid, no Apostolic Succession. The Eucharist does not become Our Lord, it remains bread and wine. As "high church" as they desire to be that's the facts. Look at the falling away of their hierarchy, accepting homosexuality and women priests. Many are converting to the the RCC because of what's happened.

WHAT??!! Are you serious? colbe, that is spectacularly unfair.......
so, all my life, my communions, with all the on-the-knees, head-lowering, somber recitation of the EUCHARIST....and how I was unworthy "so much as to pick up the crumbs from under thy table" (or some such statement that I was A LOSER, and always would be, no matter what!) is of no consequence in the issue of my "salvation"?

What?

wow



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by colbe
 


As "high church" as they desire to be that's the facts. Look at the falling away of their hierarchy,

accepting homosexuality and women priests.

Many are converting to the the RCC because of what's happened.


Are you freaking SERIOUS? THIS^^^ is why....what?

I have never, ever heard of an Episcopalian priest (of either gender, thanks very much) molesting little kids. If a person, a human being, recognizes they have a strength in spirituality and wants to become a "priest" (resisted rolly-eyes), what freaking diff does it make what gender they are? Or persuasion? Ya know, they go a lot further toward your precious St Paul's dictum of "love your enemies" and all that universalist acceptance (which, by the way, colbe, was a result of Paul trying to keep his franchises together and encourage tolerance among people throughout the Roman empire, which was STILL PAGAN).

Furthermore, you need to look into Constantine, before the silly "Council"... He was going to war, and in a superstitious gesture, carried a banner/flag representing JC. This was in 312 CE (Current Era). He won. So then he was "converted".....before that, there was NO ROMAN CHURCH of Christianity.

Paul was trying, he was recruiting folks (generally those who had money, because they could "house" their "brethren" of the faith who were traveling).

He was a leather-worker OR tent-maker (translation dependent....*gasp* like the BIBLE!!), and in those days a tent was equivalent to "business class" travel. The well-to-do would prefer a private room than stay in an inn, which were generally considered, well, ghettoey. So, tents (especially quality tents well-made) were a luxury item (like today's private jets, pretty much).....

Paul was hobnobbing with the folks who had $$$$, and encouraging them to "buy in" to his franchise of churches......
colbe, seriously,
please please look past your staunch position.
Please?



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


Hello Wild and everyone else,

I have continued to read the posts but have stopped responding, mainly because I found myself falling into the same trap as most of the posters. We all want to be right, and for some they believe that if you don't believe their right you can't go to heaven. Is this what Jesus said?

Most certainly not. Jesus came to teach people about the Spirits at work in this world. The Holy Spirit of God and the Spirit of this world Satan. His teachings amount to this, listen to the Holy Spirit and do what it says.

We sit around arguing this and that all day and we have become obsessed with listening to men. Christians have formed over 40,000 denominations based on the interpretations of the bible. Why are we following 40,000 different men. Didn't Paul say not to do that? Didn't Christ say that true believers would no longer go anywhere to worship God but instead worship in the Spirit?

The Holy Spirit is the consciousness IN YOU teaching you all things. When you have the feeling to do something that is right, follow through by doing the right thing and are filled with Joy, this is the Holy Spirit at work IN YOU.

Yes you should read scripture but more importantly you should listen to the Holy Spirit in you and be consumed by the pursuit of Joy that fills you when you follow what he says. We are all pursuing righteousness by the law, something the bible plainly says cannot be accomplished. Righteousness is obtained by listening to the spirit and doing what it says.

Even a child that cannot yet read can understand what the spirit says. You know when you are filled with anger, grief, depression or any other negative emotion you have failed to follow the Holy Spirit and thus are facing God's judgment. For those who listen to the spirit know that the path ahead leads to heaven. The joy of looking to the true Sabbath rest with Christ in heaven will give you the strength and courage to overcome any obstacle the world puts in your way.

The bible is not that complicated, it is man that has made the message complicated. Listen to the Holy Spirit and he will guide you and in fact dwell within you so that you may know for certain the he is real. He will separate your spirit from the spirit of the world so that you may learn all things if you simply believe the Holy Spirit is in you and choose to do what it says.

Do you understand? This is the good news. The Spirit lives in you and all you have to do is listen to him. If you can believe this than you can follow Christ. I don't think you even need to read the bible if you continue to take of the bread and wine, which is to listen to the words of the Holy Spirit and follow what the Holy Spirit guides you to do.

I listen to the bible everyday searching for more truth, but the more I listen the more I realize the simple truth is Christ lives in you.


edit on 15-3-2012 by sacgamer25 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by sacgamer25
 



The bible is not that complicated, it is man that has made the message complicated. Listen to the Holy Spirit and he will guide you and in fact dwell within you so that you may know for certain the he is real. He will separate your spirit from the spirit of the world so that you may learn all things if you simply believe the Holy Spirit is in you and choose to do what it says.

Do you understand? This is the good news. The Spirit lives in you and all you have to do is listen to him. If you can believe this than you can follow Christ. I don't think you even need to read the bible if you continue to take of the bread and wine, which is to listen to the words of the Holy Spirit and follow what the Holy Spirit guides you to do.

Hey there!!
I, for one, missed your participation!!

Okay, since your post was addressed (?) to me, I'd like to respond.

Listen to the Holy Spirit and he will guide you and in fact dwell within you so that you may know for certain the he is real. He will separate your spirit from the spirit of the world so that you may learn all things if you simply believe the Holy Spirit is in you and choose to do what it says.

Right?? Totally on board with that... as you know,.

Do you understand? This is the good news. The Spirit lives in you and all you have to do is listen to him. If you can believe this than you can follow Christ.

I don't think you even need to read the bible if you continue to take of the bread and wine,

Whoa.
Wait. What??
If you continue to take the bread and wine?

Sorry, missed friend, but ya lost me there.....



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by colbe
 

. . . no Apostolic Succession.

The Roman church killed the legitimate people who would have been in line, during the Arian wars.
They were replaced by Pagans with no connection to Christians from which to inherit whatever thing you image is supposed to be handed down.
The people who are in power now (the "orthodox" faction) killed the real Christians (the Arians) and took it over.



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by sacgamer25
 

I don't think you even need to read the bible if . . .

I used to try to teach the sort of general message you try to present but found some difficulty squaring it up with the New Testament.
There's a couple ways to deal with that.
1) forget the Bible.
2) toss out certain books of the NT
3) change your message to fit better the NT

My suggestion is to move past #1 as quickly as you can.



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by colbe
 



He was
touched by the good thief's actions, as Dismus was dying. This one of
the three types of baptism, the baptism of desire. The other two,
water baptism and baptism by blood, martyrdom.


I wish I could just add stuff to the gospel.
Congratulations Colbe, you just called God a liar. You are claiming in fact He IS a respecter of persons. That He does require one thing from person A to be justified and a completely different thing from person B.



Ephesians 4:5-6 ~ "There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and one God and Father, who is over all and in all and living through all."


Paul: "One Lord, one faith, ONE BAPTISM.

Try going by what the Bible says and not what men in the church say. Oh that's right, you believe the Bible isn't an authority whatsoever.

I remember God saying that He "magnified His Word above His own Name". And we all know how He feels about His own name.




edit on 15-3-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)


The Bible doesn't interpret itself, there needs to be an authority to interpret it. There is one but you reject it. NTT, the Church gave you your Bible, she is God's authority on earth. The pillar and foundation of Truth is the Church not the Bible. 1Tim 3:15.

My words don't say what you said they mean. The Good thief received the baptism of desire. I said there are three kinds of baptism. Baptism is a requirement for salvation. Dismus didn't know of the Eucharist to
reject it but you do.

You asked the question, I gave you Our Lord's words in Scripture. Paul said it too in 1 Cor 11:29.

Paul's words were dead serious, if you fail to discern it is the "body" (the Eucharist) of Our Lord, you bring judgment on yourself.


1Cor 11:29
For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by colbe
 

. . . no Apostolic Succession.

The Roman church killed the legitimate people who would have been in line, during the Arian wars.
They were replaced by Pagans with no connection to Christians from which to inherit whatever thing you image is supposed to be handed down.
The people who are in power now (the "orthodox" faction) killed the real Christians (the Arians) and took it over.


A fellow brother, Reverend Wodwrow says you're wrong, read the OP.

This an incorrect Protestant explanation of Christian history because Christian history is Roman Catholic.

Protestantism, made up doctrines from the minds of men not God.


Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by colbe
 
Are you a practicing Catholic?
No, I am not, nor have I ever been officially a Catholic. My only point is that I am thoroughly familiar with the Church, on an intimate level, so you need not be concerned over me.
Maybe you should just be happy that I am not attacking you or the Church.

edit on 14-3-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



Another non-Catholic and their rejection of the true faith. Hmmm, your three words "...no Apostolic Succession." This is false. Where is the Apostolic Succession to connects Protestants to Christ? The Protestant heresies are no where in the quotes of the first Christians. Look
at history, not until the revolt in 1517.

Are you denying the men who knew the Apostles and stated Catholic Truth (the Eucharist)? Ignatius of Antioch, a bishop who knew John the Apostle didn't exist? St. Peter is buried in the Basilica. How could you
go to Rome and deny Catholic history?

See, it could happen this year, only God can bring all Christians together
into one belief.


blessings jm,



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 12:09 AM
link   
colbe said:
"As "high church" as they desire to be that's the facts. Look at the falling away of their hierarchy, accepting homosexuality and women priests.
Many are converting to the the RCC because of what's happened."

It's faster for me to reply in CAPS this time wildtimes. I want you to become Catholic, I hope at the Great Warning.

~ ~ ~

wildtimes said:
Are you XXXX SERIOUS? THIS^^^ is why....what?

I have never, ever heard of an Episcopalian priest (of either gender, thanks very much) molesting little kids.

CHANGING THE SUBJECT, THERE ARE SEXUAL SINNERS EVERYWHERE. AND THE PRIEST SCANDAL WAS HOMOSEXUAL.
SODOMY IS A GRAVE SIN, THERE ARE ORDAINED EPISCOPAL
SODOMITES.

If a person, a human being, recognizes they have a strength in spirituality and wants to become a "priest" (resisted rolly-eyes), what XXX diff does it make what gender they are? Or persuasion?

IT MATTERS wildtimes, THE PRIESTHOOD IS MALE. ANOTHER FALLING AWAY OF PROTESTANTISM FROM THE TRUTH.

Ya know, they go a lot further toward your precious St Paul's dictum of "love your enemies" and all that universalist acceptance (which, by the way, colbe, was a result of Paul trying to keep his franchises together and encourage tolerance among people throughout the Roman empire, which was STILL PAGAN).

I AGREE, LOVE THE SINNER, NOT THE SIN. GOD WILL NEVER
APPROVE OF WOMEN PRIESTS OR SODOMY.

Furthermore, you need to look into Constantine, before the silly "Council"... He was going to war, and in a superstitious gesture, carried a banner/flag representing JC. This was in 312 CE (Current Era). He won. So then he was "converted".....before that, there was NO ROMAN CHURCH of Christianity.

YOUR TWO SENTENCE EARLY CHURCH HISTORY AND MENTION OF THAT ONE GUY AGAIN, ST. HELENA'S SON, CONSTANTINE IS A JOKE. FIGURE IT OUT, THERE HAS TO BE MORE THAN THIS REPEATED TWO SENTENCES THAT TOOK PLACE FROM 33 A.D.
UNTIL 1517 AND THE REVOLT. THERE ARE LIBRARIES FULL.


Paul was trying, he was recruiting folks (generally those who had money, because they could "house" their "brethren" of the faith who were traveling).

YES, THERE WEREN'T CATHEDRALS AND CATHOLIC CHURCHES
YET BUT THE BREAKING OF BREAD IS THE EUCHARIST. PAUL
IS A ROMAN CATHOLIC PRIEST WHO CONFECTED THE EUCHARIST.
AND READ OF PAUL'S MIRACLES DONE IN GOD'S WILL IN THE BOOK OF ACTS. READ 1 COR, CHAPTER 11 FOR PAUL'S WITNESS ABOUT THE
EUCHARIST.

He was a leather-worker OR tent-maker (translation dependent....*gasp* like the BIBLE!!), and in those days a tent was equivalent to "business class" travel. The well-to-do would prefer a private room than stay in an inn, which were generally considered, well, ghettoey. So, tents (especially quality tents well-made) were a luxury item (like today's private jets, pretty much).....

Paul was hobnobbing with the folks who had $$$$, and encouraging them to "buy in" to his franchise of churches......
colbe, seriously,
please please look past your staunch position.
Please?


IT'S NOT A 'STAUNCH POSITION', IT IS THE TRUTH.
THERE IS HISTORY, WE CAN KNOW, JESUS ESTABLISHED ONE CHURCH.



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 02:05 AM
link   
reply to post by colbe
 



bring judgment on yourself.


And what is that judgment Paul says will come from taking the bread and wine unworthily? Three things will happen to those who partake unworthily, what are they?



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 03:48 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

Peter tells you to be careful when reading Paul because you misinterpret it to your own destruction. Paul in fact tells you to work out your salvation in trembling. Does that sound like justification by faith alone to you? How far are you going to go to distort scripture to follow a doctrine that did not develop till hundreds, if not thousand/s, of years? Jesus said it was His Body and Blood INDEED, which throws away the idea that those who left misunderstood Him.

Acts 2:38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

From the mouth of Jesus: "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except one be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God!"

John 3:36
One who believes in the Son has eternal life, but one who disobeys the Son won't see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.

Matthew 18:3 And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Mark 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

To believe Jesus is to obey Him because He is God. If you believe in Him you do what He says, including getting baptized and taking the Eucharist. You take it on faith that it is His Body and Blood because God is omnipotent, as a child would. With the knowledge of His claims you become culpable for your obedience. If you are ignorant of Christ you still may be saved. If you are vincibly ignorant, you are screwed.

James 2


17 Even so faith, if it have not works, is dead in itself.

18 But some men will say: Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without works; and I will shew thee my faith by works.

19 Thou believest that there is one God. Thou dost well: the devils also believe and tremble.

20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

21 *Was not Abraham, our father, justified by works, offering up Isaac, his son, upon the altar?

22 Seest thou that faith did co-operate with his works: and by works faith was made perfect?

23 And the Scripture was fulfilled, saying: *Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God.

24 Do you see that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only?

edit on 16-3-2012 by 547000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 03:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


Stop rationalizing the words of Jesus. If you hear and do not act on what you hear you are in trouble. For your information in those 3 days dead Jesus went to the realm of the dead and saved the just. You are culpable for how you personally act with regard to knowledge of the truth.



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 03:54 AM
link   
I am still wondering what explanation there is for the miracles if it is only symbolic.



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 04:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by colbe
 



bring judgment on yourself.


And what is that judgment Paul says will come from taking the bread and wine unworthily? Three things will happen to those who partake unworthily, what are they?


Who cares, you are avoiding the Eucharist again. Look at the verse,
Paul is speaking of the "body" of Our Lord. Bread and wine become
the "body" and "blood" of Our Lord. You say no and ignore most of Christianity believes in the Real Presence.


1 Cor 11:29
For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 06:12 AM
link   
Backwards text of Daniel reveals Jesus as Messiah

Not related, but this is just amazing.



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 08:07 AM
link   
reply to post by colbe
 



PAUL
IS A ROMAN CATHOLIC PRIEST WHO CONFECTED THE EUCHARIST.

Nope. He was a Christian proselytizer, traveling around the area setting up churches, preaching to the Gentiles. Jesus was only talking to Jews.

As for women, what about Lydia and Phoebe? Huh? Paul's recruits.

They were WOMEN....

and Paul sent letters ("epistles") to the various "branches" of his "churches" to keep them in line...to Corinth, for example, the "love" chapter that is so famous at weddings. He was the administrator, but there was no way to communicate except by hand-delivered letters. You see his letters get more and more "brotherly love"--oriented as he expanded the franchises. He was worried that the "recruits" wouldn't follow orders...

Paul actually stretched the words of Jesus from "love your neighbors" (by which he meant "your Jewish, Israeli neighbors"; Jesus didn't talk about interethnic, universal brotherhood among nations at all...that was Paul's ambitious idea).

ROME was a pagan city and empire, colbe. Pagan. Paul went in there preaching anyway....Constantine heard the story, and carried a banner representing the cross into war. He won. He converted. THEN, it became the Roman Catholic Church. Not one day before that, colbe.

Not one.

And it might be faster for you to use all caps, but it's certainly still a gesture that is unpleasant.

I'm not turning Catholic, dude. No way. I don't want anything to do with that mysogynistic bunch of posers.

It's NOT the truth. It's the story you have chosen to believe despite mounting evidence to the contrary.

After Jesus died, Simon Peter, one of Jesus' disciples, became a strong leader in the Jewish Christian movement. Later James, most likely Jesus' brother, took over leadership. These followers of Christ viewed themselves as a reform movement within Judaism yet they continued to follow many of the Jewish laws.

At this time Saul, originally one of the strongest persecutors of the early Jewish Christians, had a blinding vision of Jesus Christ on the road to Damascus, and became a Christian. Adopting the name Paul, he became the greatest evangelist of the early Christian church. Paul's ministry, also called Pauline Christianity, was directed mainly to Gentiles rather than Jews. In subtle ways, the early church was already becoming divided.

Another belief system at this time was Gnostic Christianity, which taught that Jesus was a spirit being, sent by God to impart knowledge to humans so that they could escape the miseries of life on earth.

In addition to Gnostic, Jewish, and Pauline Christianity, there were already many other versions of Christianity being taught. After the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, the Jewish Christian movement was scattered. Pauline and Gnostic Christianity were left as the dominant groups.

The Roman Empire legally recognized Pauline Christianity as a valid religion in 313 AD. Later in that century, in 380 AD, Roman Catholicism became the official religion of the Roman Empire. During the following 1000 years, Catholics were the only people recognized as Christians.

In 1054 AD, a formal split occurred between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. This division remains in effect today.
christianity.about.com...
so booya.
No. I'm not becoming Catholic. Ever.
Why, do you get a commission or something?

You don't want me there, colbe, you wouldn't like my attitude. I'm not good at disguising my feelings, and even if it became the State Religion (heaven help us), I'd be faking it, and that with attitude.

If it comes down to it, and someone -- some MAN or WOMAN -- tells me I MUST, by LAW, follow ANY religion, I'll go through the motions, but not with any kind of genuine sincerity. I'm a good actress, I can put on a character, but even so, my attitude seeps through one way or another.
edit on 16-3-2012 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by colbe
 

Where is the Apostolic Succession to connects Protestants to Christ?

No need, since "Apostolic Succession" is something fabricated by the Roman church.
It works for them, if Peter died in Rome, so giving their particular faction of schismatics an advantage if legitimacy was based on the number of relics you own.

St. Peter is buried in the Basilica.
There is not evidence that it is anything more than a legend.

Ignatius of Antioch, a bishop who knew John the Apostle didn't exist?
He did not, as far as I know, support the idea that the Bishop of Rome had preeminence over the entire world.

In many ways, then, we cannot even be certain there was an Ignatius of Antioch.
This tradition is based upon the seven letters, as well as others, mentions of him by other early Christians, and by a medieval document, Martyrium Ignatii. The Martyrium
www.earlychristianhistory.info...
The writing that makes the claim that Ignatius was a student of John was written in the Middle Ages.
edit on 16-3-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 



The writing that makes the claim that Ignatius was a student of John was written in the Middle Ages.


That wouldn't be the same Middle Ages that the RCC had a choke-hold on all of Christiandom would it?

Lolz, Colbe, lolz.




top topics



 
4
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join