|
|
Post by Cepha on Mar 3, 2009 22:30:49 GMT -5
Oh yeah, you're "full of" the spirit...question is, which one?  No really are you??? If not you do a good job of pretending. Me? Am I full of The Holy Spirit right now? No Siree Bob. The Holy Spirit has nothing to do with what I'm doing here. I am in no way acting in a manner that is in accordance with what I believe to be God's will for me..."but", I'm intelligent enough and honest enough to readily reveal that this is alllllll me and that any of my faults here are "not" God's. I wouldn't dare incriminate The Holy Spirit in my personal works. OH, by the way...did you ever answer Teresa's (and mine) question? Watchan,  |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Mar 3, 2009 22:50:23 GMT -5
The question was are you stupid? and I know you do not have the Holy Spirit everything you say tells me that. I have no clue about the question you asked about Irenaeus, but to answer I have nothing to say about it i do not doubt there was a church on Rome Paul wrote to them remember the epistle to the Romans. However nothing to say will convince me this church is what you know as the RCC. I will give you this though Satan is a crafty guy and he has you hook,line, and sinker.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Mar 3, 2009 23:02:38 GMT -5
...I have nothing to say about it... Yeah...I thought so.  |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Mar 3, 2009 23:13:19 GMT -5
...I have nothing to say about it... Yeah...I thought so. What would you want me to say about it? Do you want me to get on my knees and beg the almighty RCC to please forgive me..lol, hahahaha.... There is nothing that Irenaeus has ever said that would cause me to accept the RCC as the truth. I have but one Savior and His name is Jesus. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Mar 3, 2009 23:39:58 GMT -5
What would you want me to say about it? Doesn't matter now...you already said you have nothing to say about it and for us to continue this exchange is for us to talk more about the question than the answer. But I'm glad that you have nothing to say about it because silence speaks volumes. |
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Mar 4, 2009 18:54:33 GMT -5
Watchman, what does "the Church" mean to you? How do you think Jesus views the Church? Is truth important? Is relativism O.K.? There is only one "Almighty" and that is God. I'm not sure who you are mocking  teresa |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Mar 4, 2009 21:30:18 GMT -5
Watchman, what does "the Church" mean to you? How do you think Jesus views the Church? Is truth important? Is relativism O.K.? There is only one "Almighty" and that is God. I'm not sure who you are mocking teresa When I was speaking of the ''church'' to cepha I was speaking of the RCC, which is a man made organization and not the church of God. Now as far as who the Church really is it is all true believers in Christ regardless of denomination or religious ties |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Mar 4, 2009 22:28:12 GMT -5
Watchman, what does "the Church" mean to you? How do you think Jesus views the Church? Is truth important? Is relativism O.K.? There is only one "Almighty" and that is God. I'm not sure who you are mocking teresa When I was speaking of the ''church'' to cepha I was speaking of the RCC, which is a man made organization and not the church of God. Now as far as who the Church really is it is all true believers in Christ regardless of denomination or religious ties Who started The Catholic Church then if not Peter? Name the person and list the date. And, show me in The Bible where it says that denomination or religious ties don't matter (then be ready for me to stomp those beliefs with tons of Paul's teachings to the contrary stating that if you aren't "with" The Church [the one Church he was talking about], then you are "outside" of The Church and as we all know, only one Church existed at that time historically speaking...The Catholic Church in Rome). |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Mar 4, 2009 22:59:37 GMT -5
Constantine started what we now know as cathoicism, and when Paul was writing the eptistls the church was based in Jerusalem, and Antioch.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Mar 5, 2009 7:44:03 GMT -5
Constantine started what we now know as cathoicism, and when Paul was writing the eptistls the church was based in Jerusalem, and Antioch. How could Constantine have started something that existed since The First Century? His mother was a Catholic. What is your evidence for this belief? And, The Church was based in Rome. That's what history teaches us as put forth by The Church Fathers you said you believe "in". Remember all the posts I put up by Ireneaus who said that The Catholic Church was founded in Rome by Peter and that Paul contributed to it? "But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches,
we shall confound all those who,
in whatever manner,
whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory,
or through blindness and wicked opinion,
assemble other than where it is proper,
by pointing out here the succession of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all,
founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles,
Peter and Paul,
that wchurchhich has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles.
With that church [of Rome], because of its superior origin,
all the churches must agree,
that is,
all the faithful in the whole world,
and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition"
(ibid., 3, 3, 2). You "do" believe in Ireneaus' teachings, right? I do. The overwhelming majority of Christians (85%) do. Do you still believe in Ireneaus' teachings? Or are you now going to retract that statement? Or possibly modify it to "I believe in "some" of their teachings (cafetirially), but not all of them." |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Mar 5, 2009 7:55:09 GMT -5
When I was speaking of the ''church'' to cepha I was speaking of the RCC, which is a man made organization and not the church of God. That's funny...The Church "at" Rome that Ireneaus calls "Catholic" (The Roman Catholic Church) was started by The Apostles and based on the teachings given to "men" by The Apostles, remember? You can't say that the Catholic Church that Ireneaus speaks of is allowed to have different denominations...he speaks against this in his "Against Heresies". According to Ireneaus, you are a heretic if you believe this, that denominational Christianity is allowable in The Catholic Church Ireneaus spoke of. Irenaeus"[N]or does it consist in this, that he should again falsely imagine, as being above this [fancied being], a Pleroma at one time supposed to contain thirty, and at another time an innumerable tribe of Aeons, as these teachers who are destitute of truly divine wisdom maintain; while the Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said."
"With that church [of Rome], because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition." |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Mar 5, 2009 12:29:28 GMT -5
When I was speaking of the ''church'' to cepha I was speaking of the RCC, which is a man made organization and not the church of God. That's funny...The Church "at" Rome that Ireneaus calls "Catholic" (The Roman Catholic Church) was started by The Apostles and based on the teachings given to "men" by The Apostles, remember? You can't say that the Catholic Church that Ireneaus speaks of is allowed to have different denominations...he speaks against this in his "Against Heresies". According to Ireneaus, you are a heretic if you believe this, that denominational Christianity is allowable in The Catholic Church Ireneaus spoke of. Irenaeus"[N]or does it consist in this, that he should again falsely imagine, as being above this [fancied being], a Pleroma at one time supposed to contain thirty, and at another time an innumerable tribe of Aeons, as these teachers who are destitute of truly divine wisdom maintain; while the Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said."
"With that church [of Rome], because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition." I am not only anti RCC, I am anti Protestantism, and anti Denominationalism. However if we could ever get back to the teachings of the Apostles and the Church of Acts, I would be all for it, but the RCC aint it. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Mar 5, 2009 17:49:22 GMT -5
That's funny...The Church "at" Rome that Ireneaus calls "Catholic" (The Roman Catholic Church) was started by The Apostles and based on the teachings given to "men" by The Apostles, remember? You can't say that the Catholic Church that Ireneaus speaks of is allowed to have different denominations...he speaks against this in his "Against Heresies". According to Ireneaus, you are a heretic if you believe this, that denominational Christianity is allowable in The Catholic Church Ireneaus spoke of. Irenaeus"[N]or does it consist in this, that he should again falsely imagine, as being above this [fancied being], a Pleroma at one time supposed to contain thirty, and at another time an innumerable tribe of Aeons, as these teachers who are destitute of truly divine wisdom maintain; while the Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said."
"With that church [of Rome], because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition." I am not only anti RCC, I am anti Protestantism, and anti Denominationalism. However if we could ever get back to the teachings of the Apostles and the Church of Acts, I would be all for it, but the RCC aint it. What, Ireneaus' "Apostolic" teachings aren't good enough for you to discuss? He was taught by The Apostles...right? But, ok, let's talk about Paul and his stances on anti-denominationalism that you state is okay in God's Church... |
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Mar 5, 2009 18:57:43 GMT -5
But you never give reasons for your anti-ness of the Catholic Church. The only reason that I can think of that you gave is "the Millenium"
What day do you go to church? (this is not a trick question)
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Mar 5, 2009 21:09:37 GMT -5
But you never give reasons for your anti-ness of the Catholic Church. The only reason that I can think of that you gave is "the Millenium" What day do you go to church? (this is not a trick question) LOL He makes claims then tries to tie a scripture to it and when he's challenged, he all of a sudden doesn't want to talk about it or he won't answer any requests to explain his beliefs. It must be stomach wrenching for him to log on here. LOL What was his answer to you regarding Ireneaus' defense of The Catholic Church? (crickets chirping) |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Mar 6, 2009 0:29:50 GMT -5
But you never give reasons for your anti-ness of the Catholic Church. The only reason that I can think of that you gave is "the Millenium" What day do you go to church? (this is not a trick question) Priest forgiving sins is another, there are many, but I brought this up one earlier but the subject never changed. We can go boldly before the throne of God for ourselves because Jesus is our high priest and only moderator between God and men confession to priest and pentence is not biblical. I go to church on Sunday, and I know that Catholics changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday but I do not observe the Sabbath on Sunday but on Saturday, I go to church on Sunday as a first fruits offering to God. |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Mar 6, 2009 0:38:45 GMT -5
What, Ireneaus' "Apostolic" teachings aren't good enough for you to discuss? He was taught by The Apostles...right? But, ok, let's talk about Paul and his stances on anti-denominationalism that you state is okay in God's Church... He makes claims then tries to tie a scripture to it and when he's challenged, he all of a sudden doesn't want to talk about it or he won't answer any requests to explain his beliefs. It must be stomach wrenching for him to log on here. LOL What was his answer to you regarding Ireneaus' defense of The Catholic Church? (crickets chirping) You either do not read people posts or are just stupid, I guess the latter, I told you I am anti denominationalsim, why you would continue I claim to be pro denominationalism is beyond me. Further more I told you when Irenaeus made the statements about the universal chuch ''catholicism'' didn't even exist as it does now in the form of the RCC. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Mar 6, 2009 6:53:06 GMT -5
Priest forgiving sins is another, there are many, but I brought this up one earlier but the subject never changed. We can go boldly before the throne of God for ourselves because Jesus is our high priest and only moderator between God and men confession to priest and pentence is not biblical. I go to church on Sunday, and I know that Catholics changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday but I do not observe the Sabbath on Sunday but on Saturday, I go to church on Sunday as a first fruits offering to God. Actually, The Christian Sabbath is celebrated from Saturday Evening on (I think you should study The Bible and see why...it has to do with "when" Jesus was ressurected and when The Apostles gathered together to celebrate the Last Supper). You choose to celebrate the "Pharisees" Sabbath. Christians are not Jews (much less Pharisees). Read the Bible and see when was it that The Apostles gathered (It was on Saturday evenings) to "mass" together and to partake in the Thanksgiving (Eucharist) meal. As for confessing our sins to a Priest, Jesus instituted that when He sent a man to go see a Priest after He healed him and the person that He healed was to do whatever the Priest told him to do in form of penance. And, you're incorrect about Jesus being the only "moderator". That is nowhere in The Bible. The only thing that Jesus is "only" in is as our "mediator". But anybody can be an "intercessor" and not only can anybody intercede on our behalf towards God (Priests, laymen, etc...), this pleases God. So, it The Bible says that it pleases God, I'm happy with doing what pleases God. You should read The Bible Watchman. Would you like for me to point out where every Catholic practice I just pointed out to you is literally "in" scripture?  |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Mar 6, 2009 7:13:57 GMT -5
What, Ireneaus' "Apostolic" teachings aren't good enough for you to discuss? He was taught by The Apostles...right? But, ok, let's talk about Paul and his stances on anti-denominationalism that you state is okay in God's Church... He makes claims then tries to tie a scripture to it and when he's challenged, he all of a sudden doesn't want to talk about it or he won't answer any requests to explain his beliefs. It must be stomach wrenching for him to log on here. LOL What was his answer to you regarding Ireneaus' defense of The Catholic Church? (crickets chirping) You either do not read people posts or are just stupid, I guess the latter, I told you I am anti denominationalsim, why you would continue I claim to be pro denominationalism is beyond me. Further more I told you when Irenaeus made the statements about the universal chuch ''catholicism'' didn't even exist as it does now in the form of the RCC. Here is what is wrong with your statements: 1. You said that the real catholic church is made up of people of all denominations. The Bible says that you are wrong. 2. You claim that when Ireneaus made those statements, The Church then was different than what it is now. This is really lacking in knowledge because guess what? The Church then was different from The Church in the Book of Acts. So, does that exclude The Church at the time of Ireneaus? Or, is only The Church up until The 2nd Century to be considered The True Church and if so, why? What made the Universal (Catholic) Christian Church "die" before 199 A.D.? This would mean that The Church failed (which it never did). The Church is a living evolving entity. It's not a thing that never grows. I could argue based on your standards that because there was no Bible at the time that it is not supposed to be used. Besides, we know "what" Ireneaus said about The Church (which you said you don't want to talk about). He described things that were being done back then that today only one Church does and that Church is The Catholic Church and no other meets Ireneaus' standards of what The Church back then was except The Catholic Church. And that's why you refuse to talk about all of Ireneaus' words that I posted and "his" description of what he called "The Catholic Church".  |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Mar 6, 2009 7:18:33 GMT -5
And please stop calling me stupid.
If you cannot have a civil discussion, perhaps you shouldn't post here.
I'm all for you making fun of me and pointing out what you believe to be my personal errors, but your insults are not allowed here. Not towards anybody (including myself).
Watchman, try to express yourself without insulting me.
|
|
