ECT DID THE ROMAN CHURCH FALL INTO APOSTASY?
- Thread starter Cruciform
- Start date
elohiym
Well-known member
Good point.
elohiym
Well-known member
See above.
Cruciform
New member
Post your proof.
Cruciform
New member
I've read Pope St. Clement's writings. What part would you like to discuss? :think:
There doesn't seem much point of doing your homework for you when you cannot even work out what "six days" means.
Augustine Corrupted the Early Church
"By having thus read the books of the Platonists, and having been taught by them to search for the incorporeal Truth, I saw how thy invisible things are understood through the things that are made. And, even when I was thrown back, I still sensed what it was that the dullness of my soul would not allow me to contemplate. I was assured that thou wast, and wast infinite, though not diffused in finite space or infinity; that thou truly art, who art ever the same, varying neither in part nor motion; and that all things are from thee, as is proved by this sure cause alone: that they exist...I now believe that it was thy pleasure that I should fall upon these books before I studied thy Scriptures, that it might be impressed on my memory how I was affected by them." Augustine's Confessions--Book VII:20
http://www.dynamicfreetheism.com/Augustine.html
--Dave
"By having thus read the books of the Platonists, and having been taught by them to search for the incorporeal Truth, I saw how thy invisible things are understood through the things that are made. And, even when I was thrown back, I still sensed what it was that the dullness of my soul would not allow me to contemplate. I was assured that thou wast, and wast infinite, though not diffused in finite space or infinity; that thou truly art, who art ever the same, varying neither in part nor motion; and that all things are from thee, as is proved by this sure cause alone: that they exist...I now believe that it was thy pleasure that I should fall upon these books before I studied thy Scriptures, that it might be impressed on my memory how I was affected by them." Augustine's Confessions--Book VII:20
http://www.dynamicfreetheism.com/Augustine.html
--Dave
Among other posters here, I think you also make a good point, LA. There was part of one church, and the churches of Philadelphia and Smyrna (of the seven churches of Revelation) that Jesus found NO need for repentance. The key qualifiers are found in Revelation 2:9, and Revelation 3:9, with the significance found in Revelation 3:10 KJV. Paul alluded to this distinction in Romans 9:6, 7, with particular notice that those who instigated Jesus' crucifixion were NOT Israelites found in John 8:33 KJV. Jesus affirmed His detractors were "Abraham's seed" in John 8:37 KJV. A couple verses later, Jesus subtly distinguished His detractors were NOT "Abraham's children" in John 8:39 KJV. Please keep this subtle, "seed" v. "children" distinction in mind for a moment.
In Romans 9:6 KJV, Romans 9:7 KJV, Paul preserved Jesus' subtle distinction of John 8:37 KJV, John 8:39 KJV. Taking this distinction farther back that those NON-Israelites instigating Jesus' crucifixion were "Abraham's seed" (John 8:33 KJV, John 8:37 KJV), but NOT "Abraham's children" (John 8:39 KJV, Romans 9:6, 7)... Please take a look at Genesis 25:1, 2, 3, 4 with particular emphasis on the last sentence of v. 4, "All these (Abraham's 'progeny') were the children of Keturah." Furthermore, please take note that Keturah had a son named, Shuah (v. 2).
The father-in-law of Judah (prophesied progenitor of Messiah, Isaiah 65:9 KJV), was Keturah's CANAANITE son, Shuah (Genesis 38:2 KJV, 1Chronicles 2:3). God utterly slew Judah's two elder CANAANITE sons Er, and Onan (Genesis 38:3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9) leaving Keturah's grandson Shelah alive to procreate (Genesis 38:11, 26) among the 'Judahites' (not an official title for Judah's descendants) found in Numbers 26:20 KJV.
Jesus is a descendant of Judah and his daughter-in-law Tamar, via their eldest twin son Pharez (Genesis 38:29 KJV, Matthew 1:3 KJV). Those NON-Israelite instigators of Jesus' crucifixion (John 8:33 KJV) were "Abraham's seed" (John 8:37 KJV), they just weren't "Abraham's children" (John 8:37 KJV, Romans 9:6, 7). "They" were "Abraham's seed" via Judah and his CANAANITESS wife (1Chronicles 2:3) and their third and surviving CANAANITE son, Shelah (Numbers 26:20 KJV). One doesn't need a PhD in psychiatry to imagine the Shelanites, "Abraham's seed" (John 8:37 KJV), who were NOT "Abraham's children" (John 8:39 KJV) had a vested interest in Jesus' crucifixion.
This subtle distinction CANNOT be discerned using the Catholic Bible (and MANY other translations, btw). So much for being an RCC Bible-onlyist explaining their unrelenting RCC disdain for the KJV! The proverbial man on an island as least has a CHANCE with the KJV! Rest assured, 'whoever' instigated Jesus' crucifixion also infiltrated more than the true Jewish synagogue. FEED MY SHEEP exclusively included the meat of the OT, and the aforementioned subtle details testify to the source of spiritual nutrition Jesus insisted upon. Paul defected from that corruption, and Paul would have a bone to pick with the RCC, today... well, with all due respect, I think Paul would have a bone to pick with most churches, if not all, today.
So, agreeing with you LA... the RCC never got off the ground... consider the RCC Bible of the 'one historic church.'
kayaker
republicanchick
New member
I can tell the Catholic Church is the true Church just by this one thing alone:
the way humans who are not IN that Church ACT, the way they interact w/ others..
Sure, they can be nice, sometimes even nicer (4 lack of a better word) than Catholics.. but sooner or later, they.. act demonically some way or another.
OK, Catholics, ditto..
fair enough. But those who REALLY practice the Faith... well, they are the real Catholics and they do not... uh... How do I say it?
well, there are some things that absolutely NO Christian will ever do.. no person committed to Christ will do those things..
problem is, there are so so few real ones
don't believe me? the saints say the same thing
don't believe the saints?
Jesus said the same thing
+
+++
oatmeal
Well-known member
Read scripture only and you will find that the RCC has had little use for scripture for its entire history.
Cruciform
New member
In fact, by the end of the 1st century, the entire Christian Church founded by Jesus Christ was already commonly know as "the Catholic Church." The "Roman" part came a bit later, but only refers to one of several liturgical rites that make up the Catholic Church. Failing to distinguish between the two---that is, between the Catholic Church, and the Roman Catholic Rite---is a common mistake often made by non-Catholics.
That's okay, since neither is there any biblical text which states that "Christians can only use words that appear explicitly in the Bible to explain their beliefs." The New Testament does, however, contain Christian teachings on both the papacy and the Magisterium as a whole (see this and this).
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
Cruciform
New member
Your glaring Red Herring Fallacy is noted.There doesn't seem much point of doing your homework for you when you cannot even work out what "six days" means.
republicanchick
New member
ha ha ha... What a JOKE!
If I read just the Bible, there is NO way I would be a Christian!
I know.. I have read the Bible (outside the Church)
and the Old T just makes me NOT believe.. (OK, scratch that... PARTS of it cause me to disbelieve... just parts of it... but you know how it goes..)
It is only the CHURCH that made me a Christian.
I had a conversion experience (big one) when I was very young and had never even been inside a non-Catholic Church.. Then I had another conversion experience later, after backsliding and etc... etc... and again, it was the CHURCH that made me a practicing Christian.. not perfect, of course, but...
+++
Cruciform
New member
No "corruption" whatsoever:
ST. AUGUSTINE ON INCORPORATING INTO CHRISTIANITY THAT WHICH IS GOOD IN PAGANISM
This is another historic Catholic principle that many Protestants completely misunderstand and often reject on principle. Paul used the same approach on Mars Hill in Athens---even to the extent of directly citing two pagan poets/philosophers in his discourse (Acts 17).
Consider St. Augustine’s own words on the matter:
This is another historic Catholic principle that many Protestants completely misunderstand and often reject on principle. Paul used the same approach on Mars Hill in Athens---even to the extent of directly citing two pagan poets/philosophers in his discourse (Acts 17).
Consider St. Augustine’s own words on the matter:
“For we ought not to refuse to learn letters because they say that Mercury discovered them; nor because they have dedicated temples to Justice and Virtue, and prefer to worship in the form of stones things that ought to have their place in the heart, ought we on that account to forsake justice and virtue. Nay, but let every good and true Christian understand that wherever truth may be found, it belongs to his Master; and while he recognizes and acknowledges the truth, even in their religious literature, let him reject the figments of superstition…” (On Christian Doctrine, ii, 28).
“Moreover, if those who are called philosophers, and especially the Platonists, have said anything that is true and in harmony with our faith, we are not only not to shrink from it, but to claim it for our own use from those who have unlawful possession of it… These, therefore, the Christian, when he separates himself in spirit from the miserable fellowship of these men, ought to take away from them, and to devote to their proper use in preaching the gospel. Their garments, also—that is, human institutions such as are adapted to that intercourse with men which is indispensable in this life—we must take and turn to a Christian use” (On Christian Doctrine, ii, 60).
“Moreover, if those who are called philosophers, and especially the Platonists, have said anything that is true and in harmony with our faith, we are not only not to shrink from it, but to claim it for our own use from those who have unlawful possession of it… These, therefore, the Christian, when he separates himself in spirit from the miserable fellowship of these men, ought to take away from them, and to devote to their proper use in preaching the gospel. Their garments, also—that is, human institutions such as are adapted to that intercourse with men which is indispensable in this life—we must take and turn to a Christian use” (On Christian Doctrine, ii, 60).
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
Cruciform
New member
Why would anyone do that?---after all, the Bible itself nowhere requires any such thing. Rather, the Scriptures themselves teach that other things are needed as well. Indeed, no Christian believed or taught anything even approaching sola scriptura until fifteen hundred years after the Christian Church began. Try again.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
Nope. The Bible says "six days." You say "billions of years." When you come to terms with simple English, perhaps it will be worth discussing more complex issues with you.
Cruciform
New member
So you said. And so I already answered (Post #54).
everready
New member
The bible is Gods word in it God tells you how to to be saved. The church doesn't teach you how to be a practicing Christian the Holy Spirit does.
John 16:12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
16 A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father.
everready