the church

[meshak]

the church tells me Jesus is God
-where do you get the authority to tell me He is not?

What does this doctrine encourage you to do the good deeds?

You are only talking about man-made doctrine. You are no different from protestants in this respect.

Jesus is the authority of salvation. His Father gave Him the authority to be our Lord and Savior.

 

[KingdomRose]

no
-I don't see where it says Jesus will rule for a thousand years over the earth
-and
-since you do
-please tell me why He only rules for that period

Tell me why you don't believe that. I quoted from a Catholic Bible.

You ask why he rules for only a thousand years....It's because that's what the Bible says.

"They will be priests of God and Christ, and will reign with him A THOUSAND YEARS." (Apocalypse 20:6, Holy Trinity Edition of the Catholic Bible)

Saint Paul wrote about what happens at the end of the Millennial Reign:

"24.Then comes the end, when he [Jesus] delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when he does away with all sovereignty, authority and power. 25.For he must reign until 'he has put all his enemies under his feet.' 26.And the last enemy to be destroyed will be death....But when he says 27.all things are subject to him, undoubtedly He is excepted who has subjected all things to him. 28.And when all things are made subject to him, then the Son himself will also be made subject to Him who subjected all things to him, that God may be all in all." (I Corinthians 15:24-28, Holy Trinity Edition of the Catholic Bible)

Did we get the meaning of that? Apparently it will take 1,000 years to repair the damage done by sin and death and to eliminate all of God's enemies, after which the Son hands back the rulership & kingdom to the Father, God. Jehovah's Sovereignty will have been vindicated & all evil vanquished from the earth. Such were the issues from the beginning of the rebellion.

 

[chrysostom]

Tell me why you don't believe that. I quoted from a Catholic Bible.

You ask why he rules for only a thousand years....It's because that's what the Bible says.

no
-the bible doesn't say that
-you say that
-so you need to explain why Jesus would rule only 1000 years

 

[Cruciform]

That the Catholic Church is historically a tyrant in which the pope was declared the unblemished Christ?

No, the point made in Post #745.

 

[Cruciform]

Most of the world doest recognize any kind of Papist authority... its done so much harm, and continues to, to this world. It taught Christians to hate and kill.

Given that none of your comments here in any way refutes a single one of my the statements in Post #742, those statements stand exactly as I made them.

 

[meshak]

no
-the bible doesn't say that
-you say that
-so you need to explain why Jesus would rule only 1000 years

If it is more than 1000 years, it will not say 1000 years.

Some are symbolic and some are not. It seems 1000 years is literal to me.

 

[chrysostom]

If it is more than 1000 years, it will not say 1000 years.

Some are symbolic and some are not. It seems 1000 years is literal to me.

so why would Jesus rule only 1000 years?

-the church teaches Jesus is God

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

so why would Jesus rule only 1000 years?

I will restore unto them the years that the locust have eaten.
Count up the years.

And he doesn't rule only 1000. It is 1000 before the destruction of Satan.

 

[meshak]

so why would Jesus rule only 1000 years?

-the church teaches Jesus is God

All we can do is speculate, your guess is as good as mine.

We will all know when the time comes.

Taht's why I don't get involved with prophesy much. there is no ways to prove either way.

You can argue with until cows comes down.

 

[HisServant]

Given that none of your comments here in any way refutes a single one of my the statements in Post #742, those statements stand exactly as I made them.

Nothing you say ever stands.... lies are lies.

It is better to remain silent than to speak out an show yourself to be a fool.... you do it again and again and again.

Do you not deny that the RCC has used violence and terrorism as a tool historically? (and still continues to do so in remote areas of the world)... and that when taken into context, it has shown itself to be the 'christian' equivalent of ISIS over the centuries?

 

[Cruciform]

Nothing you say ever stands...lies are lies.

Thus you merely prove my statements in Post #825 above.

It is better to remain silent than to speak out an show yourself to be a fool.... you do it again and again and again.

Right back at you, friend.

Do you not deny that the RCC has used violence and terrorism as a tool historically?

What I deny is that any such actions---and they were fairly common for both Catholics and Protestants during the Late Renaissance Period---have anything whatsoever to do with the Church's authoritative teaching of doctrine.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[HisServant]

Thus you merely prove my statements in Post #825 above.


Right back at you, friend.


What I deny is that any such actions---and they were fairly common for both Catholics and Protestants during the Late Renaissance Period---have anything whatsoever to do with the Church's authoritative teaching of doctrine.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Murdering any person is heretical due to their beliefs... and against the original apostles teachings and Jesus teaching.

Yet your church burned supposed heretics at the stake, either directly or by proxy... to many to count.

Hence, any authority (by example) it might have been able to claim has evaporated.

 

[Cruciform]

Murdering any person is heretical due to their beliefs...

More historical ignorance from HS. He is utterly clueless of facts such as that the execution of perceived "heretics" during the Middle Ages---a fairly rare occurrance---was in fact carried out by the State, not the Church. Why? Because formal heresy was considered a capital crime against the State, and therefore sometimes received a capital punishment. HS, however, is almost entirely ignorant of ecclesiastical history, and so knows none of this. That doesn't stop him from spouting off about things he knows nothing about though, does it.

 

[chrysostom]

Murdering any person is heretical due to their beliefs... and against the original apostles teachings and Jesus teaching.

Yet your church burned supposed heretics at the stake, either directly or by proxy... to many to count.

Hence, any authority (by example) it might have been able to claim has evaporated.

the church is controlled by sinners
-just like every other organization
-and
-it has survived
-unlike any other organization

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

the church is controlled by sinners
-just like every other organization
-and
-it has survived
-unlike any other organization

Baal worship has. Is it godly?

 

[HisServant]

the church is controlled by sinners
-just like every other organization
-and
-it has survived
-unlike any other organization

Unfortunately, you have developed a religion where the criminals are not punished... the criminals are worshiped like gods. You have no ability to 'have nothing to do with' with criminals, as the New Testament instructs us.

 

[chrysostom]

Unfortunately, you have developed a religion where the criminals are not punished... the criminals are worshiped like gods. You have no ability to 'have nothing to do with' with criminals, as the New Testament instructs us.

so you can throw the first stone?

 

[Right Divider]

so you can throw the first stone?

Completely OUT of CONTEXT, per your usual fallacious logic.

 

[HisServant]

More historical ignorance from HS. He is utterly clueless of facts such as that the execution of perceived "heretics" during the Middle Ages---a fairly rare occurrance---was in fact carried out by the State, not the Church. Why? Because formal heresy was considered a capital crime against the State, and therefore sometimes received a capital punishment. HS, however, is almost entirely ignorant of ecclesiastical history, and so knows none of this. That doesn't stop him from spouting off about things he knows nothing about though, does it.

And Jesus, never once encouraged Christian dogma to be made civil law... instead he said let the civil law be what it may, we have better things to do.

And it was your Popes that held a knife to the necks of the kings and queens of Europe to make Romanism into the civil law or face excommunication. So the state was only a proxy agent to insure that Romanist's enemies were killed.

Now who is the ignorant one.... YOU of course.

Seriously, are you truly that ignorant?

 

[HisServant]

so you can throw the first stone?

Its not about throwing stones, its about having the ability to turn our backs on people who exhibit un-christian behavior and tenets.

Can you turn your back on your Pope and any other church leadership when they go off the deep end? Nope, because they have you believing that they hold your soul in their hands.