The origins of the RC Denomination?

Thanks for not disproving the claims. Expected.
To explain why I am not attempting to "disprove" the claims, consider this claim of mine:

"There is an onion orbiting the sun."

Can you disprove it? No, you cannot. Does that mean I've exposed some truth about space or onions? Of course not. It is just another claim with no support, just like the claims in the OP. On the other hand, if I said:

"There is an onion orbiting the sun, and here is a picture from the Hubble Space Telescope that proves it."

Then you could refute my claim by debunking the photograph because now I have offered some supposed support which you can examine critically. So if you want me to "refute" some claim in the OP, then cite some supposed support for that claim and then I will have something to refute.
 
MMDAN said:



LifeIn said:
To explain why I am not attempting to "disprove" the claims, consider this claim of mine:

"There is an onion orbiting the sun."

Can you disprove it? No, you cannot. Does that mean I've exposed some truth about space or onions? Of course not. It is just another claim with no support, just like the claims in the OP. On the other hand, if I said:

"There is an onion orbiting the sun, and here is a picture from the Hubble Space Telescope that proves it."

Then you could refute my claim by debunking the photograph because now I have offered some supposed support which you can examine critically. So if you want me to "refute" some claim in the OP, then cite some supposed support for that claim and then I will have something to refute.
===================== end liefun post
well then Lifein;
refute this
God says you do
"Worship the Sun"

Buzzard said:
Ezekiel 8:
He said also unto me,
Turn thee yet again, and thou shalt see greater abominations that they do.

14 Then he brought me to the door of the gate of the Lord's house
which was toward the north;
and, behold, there sat women weeping for Tammuz.

And he brought me into the inner court of the Lord's house,
and, behold, at the door of the temple of the Lord,
between the porch and the altar,
were about five and twenty men,
with their backs toward the temple of the Lord,
and their faces toward the east;
and they worshipped the sun toward the east.


Then he brought me to the door of the gate of the Lord's house
which was toward the north;

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!
For thou hast said in thine heart,
I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God:
I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation,
in the sides of the north:
 
Last edited:
To explain why I am not attempting to "disprove" the claims, consider this claim of mine:

"There is an onion orbiting the sun."

Can you disprove it? No, you cannot. Does that mean I've exposed some truth about space or onions? Of course not. It is just another claim with no support, just like the claims in the OP. On the other hand, if I said:

"There is an onion orbiting the sun, and here is a picture from the Hubble Space Telescope that proves it."

Then you could refute my claim by debunking the photograph because now I have offered some supposed support which you can examine critically. So if you want me to "refute" some claim in the OP, then cite some supposed support for that claim and then I will have something to refute.
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 get why you are avoiding the article. The history of the rc denomination is ugly.
This right here is an example of confirmation bias, where one imagines and accepts any interpretation that confirms their preferred belief and rejects all interpretations that challenge their belief, regardless of the reliability of those interpretations. My analysis of the lack of support for the claims in the OP is objective and unrelated to any specific ideological perspective.
 
This right here is an example of confirmation bias, where one imagines and accepts any interpretation that confirms their preferred belief and rejects all interpretations that challenge their belief, regardless of the reliability of those interpretations. My analysis of the lack of support for the claims in the OP is objective and unrelated to any specific ideological perspective.
Predictable. 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.
 
SMH. About what I expected.
Your reply of "about what I expected" reveals the fact that you choose to believe that it is the RCC which knows all and that the Roman Catholic Church is the foundation of your wisdom. However ding, it is God who will personally communicate to you only as much wisdom as you need to know, and are capable of understanding, if you only trust Him.
 
Your reply of "about what I expected" reveals the fact that you choose to believe that it is the RCC which knows all and that the Roman Catholic Church is the foundation of your wisdom. However ding, it is God who will personally communicate to you only as much wisdom as you need to know, and are capable of understanding, if you only trust Him.
I'm not ding.
 
Mik was quoting ding here

dingoling. said:
Your OP is from a very bias source. Proving it wrong would be almost like proving that the earth is a sphere to someone who believes that the earth is flat.
========================================

and clicked the wrong one
 
However ding, it is God who will personally communicate to you only as much wisdom as you need to know, and are capable of understanding, if you only trust Him.
That's great if it is God that is doing the communicating. But what often happens (as with David Koresh and Jim Jones) is that one will imagine it is God that is talking directly to them when in actuality it is their own voice and that who is really being trusted.
 
From Got Questions:

The Roman Catholic Church contends that its origin is the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ in approximately AD 30. The Catholic Church proclaims itself to be the church that Jesus Christ died for, the church that was established and built by the apostles. Is that the true origin of the Catholic Church? On the contrary. Even a cursory reading of the New Testament will reveal that the Catholic Church does not have its origin in the teachings of Jesus or His apostles. In the New Testament, there is no mention of the papacy, worship/adoration of Mary (or the immaculate conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, or Mary as co-redemptrix and mediatrix), petitioning saints in heaven for their prayers, apostolic succession, the ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism, confession of sin to a priest, purgatory, indulgences, or the equal authority of church tradition and Scripture. So, if the origin of the Catholic Church is not in the teachings of Jesus and His apostles, as recorded in the New Testament, what is the true origin of the Catholic Church?



For the first 280 years of Christian history, Christianity was banned by the Roman Empire, and Christians were terribly persecuted. This changed after the “conversion” of the Roman Emperor Constantine. Constantine provided religious toleration with the Edict of Milan in AD 313, effectively lifting the ban on Christianity. Later, in AD 325, Constantine called the Council of Nicea in an attempt to unify Christianity. Constantine envisioned Christianity as a religion that could unite the Roman Empire, which at that time was beginning to fragment and divide. While this may have seemed to be a positive development for the Christian church, the results were anything but positive. Just as Constantine refused to fully embrace the Christian faith, but continued many of his pagan beliefs and practices, so the Christian church that Constantine promoted was a mixture of true Christianity and Roman paganism.



Constantine found that, with the Roman Empire being so vast, expansive, and diverse, not everyone would agree to forsake his or her religious beliefs to embrace Christianity. So, Constantine allowed, and even promoted, the “Christianization” of pagan beliefs. Completely pagan and utterly unbiblical beliefs were given new “Christian” identities. Some clear examples of this are as follows:



(1) The Cult of Isis, an Egyptian mother-goddess religion, was absorbed into Christianity by replacing Isis with Mary. Many of the titles that were used for Isis, such as “Queen of Heaven,” “Mother of God,” and theotokos (“God-bearer”) were attached to Mary. Mary was given an exalted role in the Christian faith, far beyond what the Bible ascribes to her, in order to attract Isis worshippers to a faith they would not otherwise embrace. Many temples to Isis were, in fact, converted into temples dedicated to Mary. The first clear hints of Catholic Mariology occur in the writings of Origen, who lived in Alexandria, Egypt, which happened to be the focal point of Isis worship.



(2) Mithraism was a religion in the Roman Empire in the 1st through 5th centuries AD. It was very popular among the Romans, especially among Roman soldiers, and was possibly the religion of several Roman emperors. While Mithraism was never given “official” status in the Roman Empire, it was the de facto official religion until Constantine and succeeding Roman emperors replaced Mithraism with Christianity. One of the key features of Mithraism was a sacrificial meal, which involved eating the flesh and drinking the blood of a bull. Mithras, the god of Mithraism, was “present” in the flesh and blood of the bull, and when consumed, granted salvation to those who partook of the sacrificial meal (this is known as theophagy, the eating of one’s god). Mithraism also had seven “sacraments,” making the similarities between Mithraism and Roman Catholicism too many to ignore. Church leaders after Constantine found an easy substitute for the sacrificial meal of Mithraism in the concept of the Lord’s Supper/Christian communion. Even before Constantine, some early Christians had begun to attach mysticism to the Lord’s Supper, rejecting the biblical concept of a simple and worshipful remembrance of Christ’s death and shed blood. The Romanization of the Lord’s Supper made the transition to a sacrificial consumption of Jesus Christ, now known as the Catholic Mass/Eucharist, complete.



(3) Most Roman emperors (and citizens) were henotheists. A henotheist is one who believes in the existence of many gods, but focuses primarily on one particular god or considers one particular god supreme over the other gods. For example, the Roman god Jupiter was supreme over the Roman pantheon of gods. Roman sailors were often worshippers of Neptune, the god of the oceans. When the Catholic Church absorbed Roman paganism, it simply replaced the pantheon of gods with the saints. Just as the Roman pantheon of gods had a god of love, a god of peace, a god of war, a god of strength, a god of wisdom, etc., so the Catholic Church has a saint who is “in charge” over each of these, and many other categories. Just as many Roman cities had a god specific to the city, so the Catholic Church provided “patron saints” for the cities.



(4) The supremacy of the Roman bishop (the papacy) was created with the support of the Roman emperors. With the city of Rome being the center of government for the Roman Empire, and with the Roman emperors living in Rome, the city of Rome rose to prominence in all facets of life. Constantine and his successors gave their support to the bishop of Rome as the supreme ruler of the church. Of course, it is best for the unity of the Roman Empire that the government and state religion be centralized. While most other bishops (and Christians) resisted the idea of the Roman bishop being supreme, the Roman bishop eventually rose to supremacy, due to the power and influence of the Roman emperors. When the Roman Empire collapsed, the popes took on the title that had previously belonged to the Roman emperors—Pontifex Maximus.



Many more examples could be given. These four should suffice in demonstrating the origin of the Catholic Church. Of course, the Roman Catholic Church denies the pagan origin of its beliefs and practices. The Catholic Church disguises its pagan beliefs under layers of complicated theology and “church tradition.” Recognizing that many of its beliefs and practices are utterly foreign to Scripture, the Catholic Church is forced to deny the authority and sufficiency of Scripture.



The origin of the Catholic Church is the tragic compromise of Christianity with the pagan religions that surrounded it. Instead of proclaiming the gospel and converting the pagans, the Catholic Church “Christianized” the pagan religions, and “paganized” Christianity. By blurring the differences and erasing the distinctions, yes, the Catholic Church made itself attractive to the people of the Roman Empire. One result was the Catholic Church becoming the supreme religion in the Roman world for centuries. However, another result was the most dominant form of Christianity apostatizing from the true gospel of Jesus Christ and the true proclamation of God’s Word.



Second Timothy 4:3–4 declares, “For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.
Pope is mentioned in the Bible. Pope is an Italian word that means father. When Jesus tells Peter in Matthew 16 that upon this rock he will build his church.....Jesus is referencing the OT passage of Isaiah 22. In Isaiah 22 God is talking about the Prime Minister of the kingdom and that he is going to make him a father.

If anyone does thorough research on this you will find out that Jesus is establishing the office of Prime Minister for his kingdom and Peter is going to be the first one to hold that office. And just like in the OT the Prime Minister is going to be a father. Father in Italian is the word Pope.
 
Pope is mentioned in the Bible.
Nope. Not in the Bible.
Pope is an Italian word that means father.
And ojciec is a Polish word that means father...soooo?
When Jesus tells Peter in Matthew 16 that upon this rock he will build his church
Matt 16:18
.....Jesus is referencing the OT passage of Isaiah 22.
No He is not.
In Isaiah 22 God is talking about the Prime Minister of the kingdom and that he is going to make him a father.
Wrong. I know you are really trying to make the puzzle pieces fit.
If anyone does thorough research on this you will find out that Jesus is establishing the office of Prime Minister for his kingdom
I have. And no He is not.
and Peter is going to be the first one to hold that office.
Prime Minister? SMH. Nope
And just like in the OT the Prime Minister is going to be a father.
Wow. You are really trying.
Father in Italian is the word Pope.
And Father in Polish is Ojciec.

The lengths/twists/turns that the rc denomination has to go to try and justify their false teachings/doctrine/beliefs etc. is very entertaining, but sad.

Instead of trying to change the thread, will you now try to address the facts made in the article?

Again, if not, 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.
 
Yep and we could debate whether you bad tree is Christian. Christian means follower of Jesus and your institution has failed to follow Jesus and His teachings.
That would be a short debate since the "bad tree" is the none other than the Roman Catholic Church, and it's Supreme Lord on earth is none other than the Roman Catholic pope who preaches and presides over all the teachings of their man-made religon, recognized primarily as "Roman Catholicism."
 
Nope. Not in the Bible.

And ojciec is a Polish word that means father...soooo?

Matt 16:18

No He is not.

Wrong. I know you are really trying to make the puzzle pieces fit.

I have. And no He is not.

Prime Minister? SMH. Nope

Wow. You are really trying.

And Father in Polish is Ojciec.

The lengths/twists/turns that the rc denomination has to go to try and justify their false teachings/doctrine/beliefs etc. is very entertaining, but sad.

Instead of trying to change the thread, will you now try to address the facts made in the article?

Again, if not, 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.
Well you are in disagreement with not only Catholic scholars but also nCCs scholars. Even nCCs scholars say that Matthew 16 is a reference to Isaiah 22.
 
Pope is mentioned in the Bible. Pope is an Italian word that means father. When Jesus tells Peter in Matthew 16 that upon this rock he will build his church.....Jesus is referencing the OT passage of Isaiah 22. In Isaiah 22 God is talking about the Prime Minister of the kingdom and that he is going to make him a father.

If anyone does thorough research on this you will find out that Jesus is establishing the office of Prime Minister for his kingdom and Peter is going to be the first one to hold that office. And just like in the OT the Prime Minister is going to be a father. Father in Italian is the word Pope.
The NT was first written in Italian??
 
Well you are in disagreement with not only Catholic scholars but also nCCs scholars. Even nCCs scholars say that Matthew 16 is a reference to Isaiah 22.
You quoted Matt 16:18. Not a reference to Isaiah 22.

I noticed you ignored the rest of my response and still have not refuted anything in the article in this 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.
 
You quoted Matt 16:18. Not a reference to Isaiah 22.

I noticed you ignored the rest of my response and still have not refuted anything in the article in this 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.
I did reference Isaiah 22 and it does refute your post.

So Jesus established the office of Prime Minister for his kingdom and what we expect is what we actually see in history - a lineage of Prime Ministers holding that office. A simple search will show a lineage of Popes from the current one all the way back to Peter.

Your post has been easily refuted.
 
Back
Top