Your really are showing ignorance of etymology of words, but that is no surprise. Do you have an italian background. Father in Italian is padre. Babbo is dad, daddy. Never heard my father call his father pope once.
The origins of the RC Denomination?
- Thread starter Mik
- Start date
Again, you quoted part of Matt 16:18 (of course you didn't give chapter and verse). You wrote Isaiah 22 (that's a whole chapter with no reference to which verse/s) was being referenced.) You were wrong. What part verse/s of Isaiah Chapter 22 reference Matt 16:18? So you are refuted.
Wrong. Maybe you want to read Isaiah 22 and actually read what happened to this office of 'Prime Minister'.
Maybe you want to read Isaiah 22 and actually read what happened to your first 'Prime Minister' (hint: lineage ends)
Nope. Broken and corrupt.
Your post has been easily refuted.
So you have tried to steer this thread away from the actual topic. (I understand why)
If you want to continue this down this road, start your own thread.
Now do you want to actually address the thread?
(Again, I get why you are avoiding the article. The history of the rc denomination is ugly. The truth can be unbearable when it destroys the foundation of what one believes. For a member of the rc denomination, the true history (not the rc version) of the rc denomination is devastating and the defense/avoidance measures kick in. I was in your shoes, I know.)
No it hasn't not one RC has proved their objections, in fact, they have not clearly stated what they object to. Other than it tells the truth about the RCC and its origins.
Try reading the Word of God. Filled with the history of His Church, The Body of Christ.
You know dingoling you would earn respect if you just admitted when you are wrong. No one can be right on everything. I mean are doing my degrees the only thing that I really learnt was it did not matter how much I studied and learnt I was still ignorant of so much.
Bonnie
Super Member
Yes, I know, so it isn't even Italian or derived from Latin. Better inform dingoling of that.
Arch Stanton
Well-known member
Typical. Not one rc denomination member has refuted anything in the article. How can you deceive your self like that? (I know)
I figured that. May God bless you and all efforts here to present the Truth to those who are here to defend the rc denomination.
Which is not your church. Glad you can see the difference.
Bonnie
Super Member
Christ's church, the Way--NOT the Roman Catholic Church.
Almost. Christ's universal Church (The word catholic (derived via Late Latin catholicus, from the Greek adjective καθολικός katholikos 'universal') comes from the Greek phrase καθόλου katholou ') Church.
Arch Stanton
Well-known member
The Way, Nazarenes, Christians, Catholics -- THE SAME
Arch Stanton
Well-known member
LifeIn
Well-known member
Actually I did not avoid the article. I directly disproved one of the claims, and I posted this before, but perhaps you missed it so I will do it again with some elaboration.
The OP article states:
"The first clear hints of Catholic Mariology occur in the writings of Origen."
But........
Origen lived from 185 AD to 254 AD. He could not have been the first to write about any of those troublesome Mariology doctrines, for we have St. Irenaeus of Lyons (died c 203 AD, when Origen was only a teenager). St. Iraneaus is consided in Church history to be the Father of Mariology, writing about Mary as the "New Eve" (contrasting Eve's disobedience with Mary's obedience) he wrote:
As Eve was seduced by the word of an angel and so fled from God after disobeying his word, Mary in her turn was given the good news by the word of an angel, and bore God in obedience to his word.
Thus we have an earlier clear indication of calling Mary the "Mother of God" - one of those troublesome Marian doctrines.
We even have the writings of Justin Martyr (died 165 AD , before Origen was even born) who compared the Eve/Mary parallelism with the Adam/Christ parallelism. One cannot fail to see the beginnings of Mariology in that.
So the OP claim about Origen being the "origin" of Mariology is fully disproven.
Roman Catholic not the SAME.
Refuted nothing that the article provided about Mother of God .
You are almost there...Turn to Christ and the true Gospel (not the other Gospel of Rome).
Now can we get back to the op?
Now do you want to actually address the thread?
(Again, I get why you are avoiding the article. The history of the rc denomination is ugly. The truth can be unbearable when it destroys the foundation of what one believes. For a member of the rc denomination, the true history (not the rc version) of the rc denomination is devastating and the defense/avoidance measures kick in. I was in your shoes, I know.)
Last edited: