The Source of False Religion . . .

[balshan]

edit

Real believers see who founded the RCC. The RCC leaders have been and still are liars that teach false doctrines, so are they Christian? They certainly are not the successors to the apostles who laid down their lives like their leader Jesus for the sheep. Your leaders harm the sheep. Lies have one source.

John 8:44

You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies

 

[Stella1000]

so you have a different standard for believers here than you can meet in support of the rcc?

If you are here to prove the Catholic Church is false and Catholics are unsaved, you need to support that pretty soundly.

 

[balshan]

Yes, Jesus said that every careless word the we post on the internet we will be held accountable on the day of judgment. We need to say a rosery for them or make a sacrifice for them

Well RCs are in trouble then. The rosary will not help you and you cannot even spell it, so much for modern day RC teaching.

 

[balshan]

If you are here to prove the Catholic Church is false and Catholics are unsaved, you need to support that pretty soundly.

If you claim that the evil tree (RCC) was founded by Jesus then you need to support that pretty soundly and you haven't.

 

[dingoling.]

Which was not your evil institution. Your institution fails every scriptural test how can it be the visible church? It harms the flock? The visible real church look after the flock.

Can you name any of these Christians of the visible real church from the 5th century to the 15th century?

 

[Theo1689]

Yes I'd like a sound explanation of where the true Church went if the Church in Rome was false. If one is going to start a conversation with such a diabolical premise, you have to be prepared to back it up and follow it up with evidence of the 'true' Church in history.

Are any of the nonCC's here able to explain this?

All we see here are attempts to derail discussion AWAY from Romanism, because you KNOW it's indefensible and bankrupt, so you try to fallaciously shift the burden of proof onto us. Sorry, that's not going to work.

Furthur, you are also fallaciously trying to demand that we accept YOUR doctrine of "apostolic succession" (in terms of a physical line). The true church is NOT identified by "apostolic succession", it's determined by whether it proclaims BIBLICAL TRUTH.

And the Christian church does precisely that.
And the Romanist church does not.

 

[balshan]

Can you name any of these Christians of the visible real church from the 5th century to the 15th century?

For what purpose you ignore what is written. The St Thomas Christians were around and yet your evil tree authorized its minions to destroy the very evidence of its existence. But they kept their history in song and dance. It then has the audacity to claim they were heretics. The evidence that they weren't was destroyed, so easy to lie about others when you destroy their history. But typical of how the RCC rewrote its history and became powerful.

 

[Theo1689]

Can you name any of these Christians of the visible real church from the 5th century to the 15th century?

Nice red herring.
This is the ROMAN CATHOLICISM forum.
Try to stay on topic, rather than derrailing all the discussions.

 

[balshan]

Can you name any of these Christians of the visible real church from the 5th century to the 15th century?

All you do when you ask these questions is -

1. Give us the chance to show how evil your institution has been throughout the centuries.
2. Prove RCs don't know real history.
3. Show there were real Christians around that your institution destroyed but could not wipe out.

 

[dingoling.]

All you do when you ask these questions is -

1. Give us the chance to show how evil your institution has been throughout the centuries.
2. Prove RCs don't know real history.
3. Show there were real Christians around that your institution destroyed but could not wipe out.

If we are asked that question we can give a very long list.

 

[balshan]

If we are asked that question we can give a very long list.

Your institution adds to scripture, your institution goes beyond scripture and your institution takes away/ignores scripture. When the spirts are tested your institution fails and it teaches another gospel. When the fruit is tested you institution is shown to be the bad tree. Yep I can keep going you are so right.

 

[Theo1689]

And how do you know this? Other than your peculiar biblical interpretation, or just uttering an opinion, you cannot prove such a thing.

I hope everyone sees Romanists saying the Bible is worthless, since (according to them) they can simply dismiss anything in it that they don't like as "your peculiar biblical interpretation".

 

[dingoling.]

I hope everyone sees Romanists saying the Bible is worthless, since (according to them) they can simply dismiss anything in it that they don't like as "your peculiar biblical interpretation".

I didn't see that. Can you post where the "Romanists" said the Bible is worthless? Thanks.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Yes, we have heard it before. Babylon became a dwelling-place of demons....."

Revelations 18:2, "He called out with a mighty voice, “Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great! It has become a dwelling-place of demons, a haunt of every foul spirit, a haunt of every foul bird, a haunt of every foul and hateful beast."

It is sad that some Christians would stoop that low to equate the CC with Babylon.

It fits so well, though!!!!

 

[Misfit]

I hope everyone sees Romanists saying the Bible is worthless, since (according to them) they can simply dismiss anything in it that they don't like as "your peculiar biblical interpretation".

Well, for over a millennium and a half the Bible was basically interpreted in one way - the orthodox way. Then suddenly, it was Katy bar the door with every new scriptural genius interpreting it this way or that way, each to his own designs.

 

[Theo1689]

Well, for over a millennium and a half the Bible was basically interpreted in one way -

The ECF's interpreted the Bible in one way:
- sola Scriptura
- sola Fide
- the church is built upon Peter's confession, not Peter himself.

The the RCC came along, and "suddenly, it was Katy bar the door with every new scriptural genius interpreting it in this way and that way, each to his own designs".

 

[Misfit]

The ECF's interpreted the Bible in one way:
- sola Scriptura
- sola Fide

If you are correct, why did they support the Papacy, Apostolic Succession, the "Real Presence" in the Eucharist to name a few things?

The the RCC came along, and "suddenly, it was Katy bar the door with every new scriptural genius interpreting it in this way and that way, each to his own designs".

No, that would be your folks, the people you look up to. The arrival of your hero Chuckie Spurgeon was not the be all and end all of Christianity that's for sure.

 

[Theo1689]

If you are correct, why did they support the Papacy, Apostolic Succession, the "Real Presence" in the Eucharist to name a few things?

"If" I'm correct?
So you deny the accuracy of the ECF writings?

No, that would be your folks, the people you look up to. The arrival of your hero Chuckie Spurgeon was not the be all and end all of Christianity that's for sure.

I'm pretty sure Spurgeon was never a Romanist.
So why are you bringing him up?
You are SO afraid to discuss Romanism, aren't you?

 

[Misfit]

So you deny the accuracy of the ECF writings?

So you deny their true belief's on the Papacy etc.? Sure they held high the scriptures, but not as you folks interpret them.

 

[Theo1689]

So you deny their true belief's on the Papacy etc.? Sure they held high the scriptures, but not as you folks interpret them.

Denial is more than a river in Egypt.
Stop trying to turn the ECF's into proto-Romanists.