|
|
Post by Cepha on May 6, 2009 11:07:40 GMT -5
I don't think most Catholics are being honest about historical facts, but I shouldn't get upset over it because they are acountable before God if they don't tell the truth. It's like the Japanese they deny what they did to China during WW11.Also they don't teach their children the truth in school so they are ignorant of their history. I agree they deny the history they do not like (or deflect it to others) and create history to support the false teaching of the RCC being the Apostolic church and Peter being the pope ect.... and then act like it is crazy when people do not accept what they claim to be true. Ok, so "provide" the proof that The Catholic Church "created" the history to prove it's authenticity. That would go much farther than just alledging it.  Remember? That's what this thread is for...if there is anyone that can disprove Chritian history regarding The Catholic Church, provide the secular evidence. That way, it cannot be denied that your allegations and/or personal beliefs are truthful. I think that evidence is the best way to prove allegations. Otherwise, it remains slander. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 6, 2009 11:18:32 GMT -5
I agree they deny the history they do not like (or deflect it to others) and create history to support the false teaching of the RCC being the Apostolic church and Peter being the pope ect.... and then act like it is crazy when people do not accept what they claim to be true. Please educate me on the Factual History of The Church. With reliable sources. Im open minded to most things. As you can tell, cepha and i disagree on politics badly. Yeah, me and th overwhelming majority of The American People! LOL! (like well over 60%) |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 6, 2009 11:20:55 GMT -5
Of course it does. Hell is real and if you do not believe it is real then you simply do not believe the Bible and for some reason must think Jesus is a liar. Jesus tells us the goats will burn with the demons. There is no reason to doubt that He meant exactly what He said. Matthew 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:This is obviously referring to the lake of fire but I assume this is what you meant by Hell. Of course I believe in Hell. But you missing the point. The problem is that one cannot arrive at a figurative interpretation unless one make non-biblical arguments. Interpreting a passage figuratively would have to go against the above logic because Scriptures itself would not be able to tell if you should take "Scripture A" figuratively. Let's take the topic of hell. Scriptures picture it at a place (or state?) of fire and brimstone, where worms dieth not, a "outer darkness". But how does one decide whether or not these passages are figuratively or literally? You can't just say "Let Scriptures interpret Scriptures" because Scriptures doesn't tell you whether or not to take these passages in a figurative manner or literally. Ultimately, the decision depends on the person reading these passages. That person would have to interpret these passages! The underlining problem is that Scriptures can not read itself. People interpret Scriptures. One could easily interpret the above passages as figuratively instead of literally. You do not interpret figuratively because that is your choice, but the option is open. Taking a passage figuratively is your personal interpretation of the text. Scriptures doesn't tell you to take "Text A" figuratively and not literally, any less than it tell you that one must take every Scripture literally until it tell you otherwise. There is no reason to doubt that He meant exactly what He said. Jesus also made other statements, such as unless one eats the the flesh and blood of the Son of Man, he has no life in them (John 6). When he instituted the Holy Eucharist, he told the disciples, "This IS my Body", "This IS Blood". Who are we to say that he didn't mean what he said? You don't, but the Early Church (1st-10th Century) did. There is no reason to doubt that he meant exactly what he said. They believe exactly what the Holy Apostles (1 Cor 10:16) taught, that the Bread and Wine, after the invocation becomes the Body and Blood of Christ, in a unexplained manner. So you say Jesus meant exactly what he said (on issues that agree with your view) but then say he was speaking figuratively when it doesn't agree with your view. Why is that? The bottom line is that you DO interpret Scriptures. You have interpreted the above sayings of Jesus figuratively, even though Scriptures doesn't tell you to take those words figuratively. In IC.XC, Ramon Hey! No fair Watchman! When are you going to answer me if you believe that consecrated bread is literally turned into muschle and skin because that's what Jesus called it (His "flesh")! And, The Bible doesn't state that it was said "figuratively", so if you "don't" beleive that it is literal human flesh without the statement of it being figurative, you are relying on your own personal interpretation of John 6, right?  |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 6, 2009 11:22:03 GMT -5
There are 1500 church fathers and they don't agree on everthing so how do you decide which of their doctrines you should follow? When the Fathers agree, this is what we follow. When the Fathers disagree, the Church decides, through the Holy Spirit, which way to go. The Fathers did agree on many issues that Protestants today disagree on (Such as the Eucharist, Baptism, and the other Holy Sacraments, etc). Occasionally, the Fathers may have a opinion that is not shared by the whole Church, but the Church decides if those opinions are pious opinions that can be believed by her members. In IC.XC, Ramon And...that's the exact same example that The Apostles gave at the various Councils they held in The Bible. |
|
|
|
Post by alfie on May 6, 2009 11:28:49 GMT -5
I agree they deny the history they do not like (or deflect it to others) and create history to support the false teaching of the RCC being the Apostolic church and Peter being the pope ect.... and then act like it is crazy when people do not accept what they claim to be true. Ok, so "provide" the proof that The Catholic Church "created" the history to prove it's authenticity. That would go much farther than just alledging it. Remember? That's what this thread is for...if there is anyone that can disprove Chritian history regarding The Catholic Church, provide the secular evidence. That way, it cannot be denied that your allegations and/or personal beliefs are truthful. I think that evidence is the best way to prove allegations. Otherwise, it remains slander. You said in another thread that Catholic leaders on EWTN are lying about Obama so how can you trust church history? By the way I think the Catholic Church has done a lot of good in the world but at times it has also done some evil acts. The same can be said for both the Protestant and Orthodox churches. The problem here is that you think the church has been perfect (except where Obama is concerned) and it hasn't been, especially during the Renaissance. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 6, 2009 11:59:27 GMT -5
You said in another thread that Catholic leaders on EWTN are lying about Obama so how can you trust church history? Simple...they weren't talking about Church teachings, but about personal beliefs. See, just like The Real Apostles, a Church Leader can be wrong "personally" (for example, when Peter wouldn't eat with Gentiles), but still be infallible when teaching. I'd rephrase that like this...The Church has always done good, but there have been Catholics that have done evil in The Church's name. Which is undeniably true. To say that The Church has done evil would be to condemn everys single Catholic (which is completely wrong to do for the acts of a group of individuals). The Church "is" perfect (even where Obama is concerned). But, what I was pointing out was the unChristianlike behavior of individuals (not The Church). Big difference Alfie. Am to condemn all Protestants because of Benny Hinn or Jim Jones? Of course not, so that same reasoning should be extended to The Catholic Church and to all religions when it comes to their followers. Being a member of any specific group does not automatically make a man holy or perfect. |
|
