pilgrim
Well-known member
No. I don't consider historical fact as "personal interpretation."
Why we have the perception we do
- Thread starter JohnDeVitoOfOld
- Start date
JohnDeVitoOfOld
Well-known member
Your private interpretation that your analysis of history is fact.
This could go on all day, and it will always come back to personal interpretation.
You are not alone RCs do not believe what their leaders tell us. They use that misunderstand as though we were stupid. I mean I was in confession and the priest said he would go out and tell the whole congregation what I did. Of course we were taught about the seal of confession, but like I was going to say to him that was a no, no. But they say he wouldn't have done that.
It was good that he did it, he cured me of going to confession.
It is not historical fact, not one RC has been able to prove it is a fact. So it is just your personal interpretation of the false claims of your institution.
It is one of the ways they white wash their institution's history and teachings. It is not official, centuries of teaching Judas was in hell, there was a place called Limbo are two examples. It is a joke they play on themselves.
JohnDeVitoOfOld
Well-known member
Like I said, it could go on all day.
When it comes down to it, a catholic ultimately had to exercise his own personal interpretation to come to the conclusion that the catholic church is correct, a thing that they rail vehemently against in others.
Of course, there is something else to consider, but the fact that they never bring it up is telling.
That is a false claim and never proven. Your so called successors do not even meet the scriptural requirements for leaders. They do things Paul said should exclude them from even eating with real brothers and sisters. They teach another gospel, which means they are false teachers.
Didn't know the rubics of the mass?????????Seriously, is that a crime.
Back up that personal interpretation with some evidence. There was no RCC in the new testament at all. The word is not found in scripture. You are lost when it comes down to proving that false claim. There were many churchs around then, you evil institution wasn't one of them.
pilgrim
Well-known member
So everything comes down to personal interpretation?Sounds like relativism.
The truth is the truth whether we like it or not.
Back up that personal interpretation with some evidence. There was no RCC in the new testament at all. The word is not found in scripture. You are lost when it comes down to proving that false claim. There were many churchs around then, you evil institution wasn't one of them.
No it is you who provides nothing but your personal interpretation. So according to you that is relativism and in fact, isn't that what your church does. I mean it is now there is an empty hell and same sex couples can be blessed.
So your institution truth is not so, for centuries Judas was in hell, Limbo was taught, unbaptised babies did not go to heaven but those have all changed and are now not truthful teachings.
Yep but it does not say lean on a false teachers understanding. No the poster is still inside the real church, your institution is not the real church.
lol, prove that claim. What apostle taught the Marian doctrines? What apostle prayed to the dead, other than the Lord? What apostle ran around in funny outfits? What apostle harmed the sheep? What apostle ignored 1 Cor 5:11, James 4:17 among others? There is so many more examples WHICH PROVE they are not their successors and your instituton is just pulling the wool over your eyes.
Lastdaysbeliever
Well-known member
Interesting supposition. Atheists state, as emphatically as you do that history proves RCism, that evolution and the big bang are historical fact. Can't you see how both claims are personal interpretation of presented "historical fact"?
I must say your response shows us the RC love. It is just flowing.
I wonder when they encourage it??????
Nondenom40
Well-known member
Ya, they look it.
Nondenom40
Well-known member
Historical fact like Pseudo-Isidore? The Donation of Constantine? Good stuff huh?
I'd say that the RCC hierarchy are the successors of the apostles Paul writes of in 2Cor.11. They have: another Jesus (their Jesus must go to its Mommy for everything), a different spirit (as seen by their fruits – or rather the lack of — love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control), and a different gospel ("Do what we say, and maybe you will get into 'Heaven' after an indeterminate amount of torture.").
So, yeah, the RCC are the successors of apostles, but that's not something to boast about!