Mariology

Buzzard

Active member
No, the covenant is the relationship/bond God has with His Church.

Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord: 33 but this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

pilgrim;
That ain't Rome nor the RCC
 

pilgrim

Well-known member
Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

pilgrim;
That ain't Rome nor the RCC
Gal 6: 14 But far be it from me to glory except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. 15 For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. 16 Peace and mercy be upon all who walk by this rule, upon the Israel of God.
 

Maxtar

Active member
The New Testament that you told me to read.

They just cannot admit that as the new Christian religion evolved from the apostolic age there was but one Universal (Catholic) Christian Church. It was led by men called Bishop's who had authority and decided things, and one of the things that they decided was the Canon of the NT Scriptures.

I am talking about what all Christendom knows as the ECF's (Early Church Fathers). They were not Baptists, they were not Anglicans, they were not Methodists, they were known as Universalists, or Catholics (katholikos - directly from the Greek). Our friends here can spout all the nonsense they want about Christian history, but they cannot change the reality of the Universal or Katholikos Church. And they cannot prove otherwise no matter how hard they try.
 

mica

Well-known member
They just cannot admit that as the new Christian religion evolved from the apostolic age there was but one Universal (Catholic) Christian Church. It was led by men called Bishop's who had authority and decided things, and one of the things that they decided was the Canon of the NT Scriptures.

I am talking about what all Christendom knows as the ECF's (Early Church Fathers). They were not Baptists, they were not Anglicans, they were not Methodists, they were known as Universalists, or Catholics (katholikos - directly from the Greek). Our friends here can spout all the nonsense they want about Christian history, but they cannot change the reality of the Universal or Katholikos Church. And they cannot prove otherwise no matter how hard they try.
Who needs to prove God is right? Can you prove Him to be wrong? even tho most all of what catholics do believe isn't God's truth. In believing what they do, they sure do attempt to prove Him wrong.
 

mica

Well-known member
They just cannot admit that as the new Christian religion evolved from the apostolic age there was but one Universal (Catholic) Christian Church. It was led by men called Bishop's who had authority and decided things, and one of the things that they decided was the Canon of the NT Scriptures.

I am talking about what all Christendom knows as the ECF's (Early Church Fathers). They were not Baptists, they were not Anglicans, they were not Methodists, they were known as Universalists, or Catholics (katholikos - directly from the Greek). Our friends here can spout all the nonsense they want about Christian history, but they cannot change the reality of the Universal or Katholikos Church. And they cannot prove otherwise no matter how hard they try.
The NT is Christian history. Read it.
 

mica

Well-known member
They just cannot admit that as the new Christian religion evolved from the apostolic age there was but one Universal (Catholic) Christian Church. It was led by men called Bishop's who had authority and decided things, and one of the things that they decided was the Canon of the NT Scriptures.

I am talking about what all Christendom knows as the ECF's (Early Church Fathers). They were not Baptists, they were not Anglicans, they were not Methodists, they were known as Universalists, or Catholics (katholikos - directly from the Greek). Our friends here can spout all the nonsense they want about Christian history, but they cannot change the reality of the Universal or Katholikos Church. And they cannot prove otherwise no matter how hard they try.
you don't consider the apostles to be Christians? The RCC doesn't teach what the apostles taught.
 

balshan

Well-known member
you don't consider the apostles to be Christians? The RCC doesn't teach what the apostles taught.
Seriously you are right. I mean the Nicaea Council hardly any of the bishops went, that alone shows there was not one universal church. There was no pope who had authority over them all. The scriptures were around before the RCC.

Constantine had invited all 1,800 bishops of the Christian church within the Roman Empire


But only about 318 attended. Most weren't interested in this new institution.
 

balshan

Well-known member
They just cannot admit that as the new Christian religion evolved from the apostolic age there was but one Universal (Catholic) Christian Church. It was led by men called Bishop's who had authority and decided things, and one of the things that they decided was the Canon of the NT Scriptures.

I am talking about what all Christendom knows as the ECF's (Early Church Fathers). They were not Baptists, they were not Anglicans, they were not Methodists, they were known as Universalists, or Catholics (katholikos - directly from the Greek). Our friends here can spout all the nonsense they want about Christian history, but they cannot change the reality of the Universal or Katholikos Church. And they cannot prove otherwise no matter how hard they try.
No there wasn't. Only a few bothered to turn up to Nicaea. Hardly any. The Ecfs were just fallible men. No they came from individual churches eg the Ephesus church, Smyrna church, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, Laodice, Corthin all different not the same different problems.

No you cannot prove otherwise without using revisionist history of the RCC,
 

Maxtar

Active member
No there wasn't. Only a few bothered to turn up to Nicaea. Hardly any. The Ecfs were just fallible men. No they came from individual churches eg the Ephesus church, Smyrna church, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, Laodice, Corthin all different not the same different problems.

No you cannot prove otherwise without using revisionist history of the RCC,

All of them looked to one central authority which is proven by the scriptures themselves. What were the NT letters to these outlying churches if not the central authority telling them where they were messing up and what they must do to stay with the correct Christian outlook? From the apostolic age the Church evolved into just one Church with the head Bishop in Rome that all of Christendom looked to for guidance. Hence there was complete unity throughout the Christian world until the great schism in the 11th century between East and West. Not only the Christian historical record sustains our claim, but the secular historical record as well.
 
Last edited:

balshan

Well-known member
All of them looked to one central authority which is proven by the scriptures themselves. What were the NT letters to these outlying churches if not the central authority telling them where they were messing up and what they must do to stay with the correct Christian outlook? From the apostolic age the Church evolved into just one Church with the head Bishop in Rome that all of Christendom looked to for guidance. Hence there was complete unity throughout the Christian world until the great schism in the 11th century between East and West. Not only the Christian historical record sustains our claim, but the secular historical record as well.
No they didn't at all. Scriptures gives one example of the different members coming together seeking the Holy Spirit to help. Scripture points to individual independent churches. The letters are to encourage and direct the various individual churches. The churches passed these valuable insights around by making copies. They understood they were scripture, well before your institution existed.

But what difference do these letters make to your institution, none whatsoever, it ignores the letters. It is not the central authority most of the bishops ignored the invite. That speaks volumes. No the records do not sustain your institution false claims. Nicaea doesn't for a start. Hence there was not complete unity throughout the Christian world at all. Your institution destroyed individual churches and destroyed their records, that does not mean they ceased to exist. There was no head bishop in Rome in the apostolic age or after it. Just because you say this person is a pope, does not make them a pope for all Christians. Peter certainly would not want to be associated with most of your so called successors. He would be appalled and he would have done more than Martin Luther and others did in the reformation. Peter could not stand evil.

1 Peter 4+

Therefore, since Christ suffered in his body, arm yourselves also with the same attitude, because whoever suffers in the body is done with sin. 2 As a result, they do not live the rest of their earthly lives for evil human desires, but rather for the will of God. 3 For you have spent enough time in the past doing what pagans choose to do—living in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry.

Peter could not say that about your institution at all, he would say it still wallows in sin. Peter also says in that chapter:

11 If anyone speaks, they should do so as one who speaks the very words of God.

That again cannot be said about your institution. It prefers to ignore His words. You claim Peter as your first pope. He was never bishop of Rome, he was never a pope and he would be appalled by your institution and its tolerance of evil. Your institution is not His church or the central body of Christianity. If it was it would be a light.

The reasons you belittle me so much is because I post scriptures which reveals the truth about your institution. It is not me you are attacking, you are attacking God's word.
 

balshan

Well-known member
So you have no proof for your statement "the RCC founded by men". Looks like that was a made up statement.
Really do you think that Jesus would have founded an institution that ignores scripture. Read what scripture says about reading and obeying God's word.

exod 24:7

Then he took the book of the covenant and read it in the hearing of the people; and they said, “All that the Lord has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient!”

rev 1:3

Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near.

Luke 6:46

Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do what I tell you

acts 5:25

But Peter and the apostles answered, “
We must obey God rather than men

rev 22:18-19

I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.

Deut 4:

You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.


We know your RCC ignores scriptures, twists the words of scripture and add to the words, it also takes words away by ignoring them. So we know your institution is not of God but of man.
 

mica

Well-known member
mica said:
you're the catholic... if you don't know who it was why are you a catholic? I know who it wasn't.
So you have no proof for your statement "the RCC founded by men". Looks like that was a made up statement.
It wasn't 'founded' by Jesus, so who else would it be? men? women? children? mice? It's your religion, so why don't you know?

who is it that is the founder of false religions around the world?
 

pilgrim

Well-known member
It wasn't 'founded' by Jesus, so who else would it be? men? women? children? mice? It's your religion, so why don't you know?

who is it that is the founder of false religions around the world?
If there is no proof that it was started by men, then you have to consider that it was founded by Jesus.
 

balshan

Well-known member
It wasn't 'founded' by Jesus, so who else would it be? men? women? children? mice? It's your religion, so why don't you know?

who is it that is the founder of false religions around the world?
The RCC knows how to lie, so the father of lies?
 

balshan

Well-known member
If there is no proof that it was started by men, then you have to consider that it was founded by Jesus.
Did rejected reasons post 517. But you could consider because of its lies, false history, false claims, false teachings, evil fruit, rejection of most of scripture it was founded by the father of lies.
 
Top