Divisions

[Enoch111]

You disagree with Scripture and 2,000 years of Christian teaching from The Church.

What you claim to be 2000 years of *Christian* teaching was actually a mishmash of (1) Scripture (wrongly interpreted mostly), (2) the traditions of men (and many erroneous teachings), and (3) paganism parading as Christianity. Thus you now have a renegade pope, and clergy that are unable to hide their perversions any longer, while Catholics don't know whether souls are more important than climate change.

 

[brakelite]

And, as I have corrected you before - Patrick was SENT to Ireland by Pope St. Celestine I, having been referred by St. Germain, circa, 433 AD. This is attested to by St. Germain's 9th century biographer, Heric of Auxerre:

"Since the glory of the father shines in the training of the children, of the many sons in Christ whom St. Germain is believed to have had as disciples in religion, let it suffice to make mention here, very briefly, of one most famous, Patrick, the special Apostle of the Irish nation, as the record of his work proves. Subject to that most holy discipleship for 18 years, he drank in no little knowledge in Holy Scripture from the stream of so great a well-spring. Germain sent him, accompanied by Segetius, his priest, to Celestine, Pope of Rome, approved of by whose judgement, supported by whose authority, and strengthened by whose blessing, he went on his way to Ireland."

Any SDA source you have would be about as "trustworthy" as the many false prophecies of your founders, William Miller and Ellen G. White. Remember - ALL it takes is ONE false prophecy to make a false prophet . . .

That story is so full of holes I could drive an articulated bus through them without touching the sides. More myth, and more legend, which your church desperately cleaves to because they hate to admit the truth...that God established a Celtic church in Britain without the help of any Roman agent.

• In none of Patrick's own writings, nor of any of those who were educated in the mission schools he established, ever mention any connection to Rome...to a French saint...nor to the Pope.
• Patrick grandfather was a Christian...a married equivalent to bishop...thus the Celtic church began even earlier.
• Patrick himself began his work earlier that the 433AD you claim. In his own letter and confession he says he was captive in what he terms as the "Britains". This Roman term was not in use after the turn of the century, thus Patrick's ministry can be dated to around 390AD at least.
• Rome took 200 years to decide whether Patrick was worth claiming as their own. No-one prior to the 6th century even mentioned him...not even that well known historian Bede, who had access to all documents with regard those times.
• The Celtic church which Patrick played a major part in establishing, grew from his time to England, Wales, and Scotland, and the Roman branch of the mystery of iniquity warred against that church for centuries. Catholic historians themselves admitting that the Celtic church taught different doctrines from Rome, Boniface at one stage railing against the Celts for allowing their clergy to marry.

All the above does not originate from Adventist sources. Historians such as Bede, Mingana, and others could be cited. But I know such would be a waste of time because your prejudice blinds you to any other view of history that contradicts your church's revised mythological fairy tales.

 

[BreadOfLife]

That story is so full of holes I could drive an articulated bus through them without touching the sides. More myth, and more legend, which your church desperately cleaves to because they hate to admit the truth...that God established a Celtic church in Britain without the help of any Roman agent.

• In none of Patrick's own writings, nor of any of those who were educated in the mission schools he established, ever mention any connection to Rome...to a French saint...nor to the Pope.
• Patrick grandfather was a Christian...a married equivalent to bishop...thus the Celtic church began even earlier.
• Patrick himself began his work earlier that the 433AD you claim. In his own letter and confession he says he was captive in what he terms as the "Britains". This Roman term was not in use after the turn of the century, thus Patrick's ministry can be dated to around 390AD at least.
• Rome took 200 years to decide whether Patrick was worth claiming as their own. No-one prior to the 6th century even mentioned him...not even that well known historian Bede, who had access to all documents with regard those times.
• The Celtic church which Patrick played a major part in establishing, grew from his time to England, Wales, and Scotland, and the Roman branch of the mystery of iniquity warred against that church for centuries. Catholic historians themselves admitting that the Celtic church taught different doctrines from Rome, Boniface at one stage railing against the Celts for allowing their clergy to marry.

All the above does not originate from Adventist sources. Historians such as Bede, Mingana, and others could be cited. But I know such would be a waste of time because your prejudice blinds you to any other view of history that contradicts your church's revised mythological fairy tales.

Now I know you're lying because Patrick was only about 3 years-old in 390 AD - seeing as how he was born in Scotland around 387 AD.
NOT quite old enough to have started a "mission" . . .

If you're going to attempt to debate in fairy tales - at least give me fair warning . . .

 

[brakelite]

Now I know you're lying

The ONLY way you could possibly know I am lying is that you lived as a contemporary to Patrick, met him, and He told you of his birthday. Did that happen BoL? Were you alive 1600 years ago and living in Scotland and met Patrick either there or in Ireland and celebrated his birthday with him? Huh? Because I can tell you I wasn't. Which means if you were not living then, you and I are relying on historians to inform us as best they can, of the facts, and if not facts, at best educated opinions. Now for you to be calling me a liar, is to suggest that I am taking that figure out of thin air and not bothering to use historians who have studied chroniclers and archives to ascertain to the best of their ability, the truth.
So BoL, do you know for certain that I dredged that figure up out of my imagination, or are you the one in fact guessing and clutching at straws?
You see, it depends on who one uses as his source. Now I grew up in the Catholic church. I am only too familiar with the wild stories and myths and surround the saints and are used to instill fear, wonder, and devotion in young minds to the Catholic way of life. Patrick was no exception, from ridding Ireland of snakes, to stealing relics from the pope, and few others besides. So your historians BoL, your Catholic sources I am sorry simply cannot be trusted, particularly when they have been known, nay, renowned , for forgeries and lies to uphold false teachings and falsified histories in support of Catholic dogma. Does the Donation of Constantine ring a bell BoL?
The source I have used to verify my dates of Patricks ministry and birth, certainly may not be exact, for there are no copies of birth certificates from the local maternity ward or council confirming them, nevertheless, Henry Wace in his exhaustive tome, A Dictionary of Christian Biographies, page 1305 describes the times of Patricks life using the best sources he could ascertain, and placed his birth no earlier than 372AD, because it is written in Irish annals that his slave owning druid priest master Michu began his reign in 388AD, and Patrick was 16 years old when taken captive. As for his ministry, there are no records anywhere, apart from dubious Catholic legends, that Patrick went any where near Gaul to be taught, and certainly no evidence anywhere of his having a conversation with the pope and being blessed and ordained a priest. So upon his arrival back home after escaping, it is quite possible that he learned his Christian faith from his father and grandfather, who were both well established pastors in the local church, and Patrick beginning his ministry a few years later, when around 20 years of age...anywhere between 390 and 400AD.
Palladius who was sent there by Celestine in 430, found the Celtic church in Ireland already very well established, and when he demanded the church to surrender to Roman authority, was sent packing. So for the Celtic church to be well established, means Patrick must have begun his ministry there in Ireland well before Palladian ever set foot on Irish soil...at least a couple of decades.
When Patrick speaks of the island from which he was carried captive, he calls it “the Britains.” This was the title given the island by the Romans many years before they left it. After the Goths sacked the city of Rome in 410, the imperial legions were recalled from England in order to protect territory nearer home. Upon their departure, savage invaders from the north and from the Continent, sweeping in, upon the island, devastated it and erased its diversified features, so that it could no longer be called “the Britains.” Following the withdrawal of the Roman legions in 410, the title “the Britains” ceased to be used. Therefore from this evidence it would seem logical to reach the conclusion that Patrick wrote his letters and documents before that date.
This date agrees with the time when Columba, the renowned graduate of Patrick's school who brought Christianity to Scotland, began his ministry. Columba graduated when the schools founded by Patrick had grown to sizable proportions. The time which elapsed between the founding of the schools by Patrick and their growth in the days of Columba would indicate that Patrick began his ministry in Ireland about 390.
So BoL...lies? Or just different and eminently more reliable sources? I think the latter. But then you do have this childish penchant for calling people liars simply because you disagree with them.

 

[BreadOfLife]

The ONLY way you could possibly know I am lying is that you lived as a contemporary to Patrick, met him, and He told you of his birthday. Did that happen BoL? Were you alive 1600 years ago and living in Scotland and met Patrick either there or in Ireland and celebrated his birthday with him? Huh? Because I can tell you I wasn't. Which means if you were not living then, you and I are relying on historians to inform us as best they can, of the facts, and if not facts, at best educated opinions. Now for you to be calling me a liar, is to suggest that I am taking that figure out of thin air and not bothering to use historians who have studied chroniclers and archives to ascertain to the best of their ability, the truth.
So BoL, do you know for certain that I dredged that figure up out of my imagination, or are you the one in fact guessing and clutching at straws?
You see, it depends on who one uses as his source. Now I grew up in the Catholic church. I am only too familiar with the wild stories and myths and surround the saints and are used to instill fear, wonder, and devotion in young minds to the Catholic way of life. Patrick was no exception, from ridding Ireland of snakes, to stealing relics from the pope, and few others besides. So your historians BoL, your Catholic sources I am sorry simply cannot be trusted, particularly when they have been known, nay, renowned , for forgeries and lies to uphold false teachings and falsified histories in support of Catholic dogma. Does the Donation of Constantine ring a bell BoL?
The source I have used to verify my dates of Patricks ministry and birth, certainly may not be exact, for there are no copies of birth certificates from the local maternity ward or council confirming them, nevertheless, Henry Wace in his exhaustive tome, A Dictionary of Christian Biographies, page 1305 describes the times of Patricks life using the best sources he could ascertain, and placed his birth no earlier than 372AD, because it is written in Irish annals that his slave owning druid priest master Michu began his reign in 388AD, and Patrick was 16 years old when taken captive. As for his ministry, there are no records anywhere, apart from dubious Catholic legends, that Patrick went any where near Gaul to be taught, and certainly no evidence anywhere of his having a conversation with the pope and being blessed and ordained a priest. So upon his arrival back home after escaping, it is quite possible that he learned his Christian faith from his father and grandfather, who were both well established pastors in the local church, and Patrick beginning his ministry a few years later, when around 20 years of age...anywhere between 390 and 400AD.
Palladius who was sent there by Celestine in 430, found the Celtic church in Ireland already very well established, and when he demanded the church to surrender to Roman authority, was sent packing. So for the Celtic church to be well established, means Patrick must have begun his ministry there in Ireland well before Palladian ever set foot on Irish soil...at least a couple of decades.
When Patrick speaks of the island from which he was carried captive, he calls it “the Britains.” This was the title given the island by the Romans many years before they left it. After the Goths sacked the city of Rome in 410, the imperial legions were recalled from England in order to protect territory nearer home. Upon their departure, savage invaders from the north and from the Continent, sweeping in, upon the island, devastated it and erased its diversified features, so that it could no longer be called “the Britains.” Following the withdrawal of the Roman legions in 410, the title “the Britains” ceased to be used. Therefore from this evidence it would seem logical to reach the conclusion that Patrick wrote his letters and documents before that date.
This date agrees with the time when Columba, the renowned graduate of Patrick's school who brought Christianity to Scotland, began his ministry. Columba graduated when the schools founded by Patrick had grown to sizable proportions. The time which elapsed between the founding of the schools by Patrick and their growth in the days of Columba would indicate that Patrick began his ministry in Ireland about 390.
So BoL...lies? Or just different and eminently more reliable sources? I think the latter. But then you do have this childish penchant for calling people liars simply because you disagree with them.

Sooooooo - you want us to believe that Patrick WASN'T born around 387 AD because YOU say so??
And YOU say that MY sources are wrong and YOURS are right based o YOUR opinions of them??

What an asinine argument laced with your usual SDA arrogance . . .

 

[brakelite]

Sooooooo - you want us to believe that Patrick WASN'T born around 387 AD because YOU say so??
And YOU say that MY sources are wrong and YOURS are right based o YOUR opinions of them??

What an asinine argument laced with your usual SDA arrogance . . .

Because I say so? No, because my historical sources say so. SDA arrogance? At least I am not calling you a liar. But based on history, I would suggest my sources are more reliable than your mythological fairy tales. And my sources aren't EGW. You didn't mention the Donation of Constantine. Any comments? What reason should I trust your sources who are known to be biased and prejudiced for the sole purpose of upholding a false religion?

 

[BreadOfLife]

Because I say so? No, because my historical sources say so. SDA arrogance? At least I am not calling you a liar. But based on history, I would suggest my sources are more reliable than your mythological fairy tales. And my sources aren't EGW. You didn't mention the Donation of Constantine. Any comments? What reason should I trust your sources who are known to be biased and prejudiced for the sole purpose of upholding a false religion?

The fact that YOU decree the Catholic faith to be a "false" religion is as irrelevant as your false prophet foiundress Ellen G. White calling the Pope the "Antichrist".
False prophets don't get to be accusers . . .

 

[brakelite]

The fact that YOU decree the Catholic faith to be a "false" religion is as irrelevant as your false prophet foiundress Ellen G. White calling the Pope the "Antichrist".
False prophets don't get to be accusers . . .

And the Donation? The very "donation" used for centuries to "prove" the legitimacy of Papal political supremacy and without which your church's right to lay claim to any sort of leadership falls flat on its proverbial backside?

 

[marksman]

The problem with your "simple" theory is that that the word means to dip OR submerge.

The earliest writings from your Christian brothers (The Didache) who walked and talked with the Apostles shows that they did NOT practice immersion ONLY even though it was the preferable method. Sooooo the people who lived the NT disagree with you by their actions and their words.

If one practices immersion only they are practicing the traditions of the Reformation. Besides that according to Protestant tradition baptism does NOTHING to or for the person being baptized........soooooo what does it matter if one is immersed or sprinkled or dipped? If it does nothing then why do it at all? If it does nothing why do you care if one is sprinkled or dipped?

Mary

PS....Love and agree with the "EVERY abortion kills a baby" statement!!!

As I come from the protestant tradition I can assure you that we do not think baptism does nothing for you.

And thank you for your comment about my signature as it is a passion of mine seeing as I have 11 grandchildren.

 

[marksman]

The CATHOLIC CHURCH is the final authority on matters of faith and morals for Catholics, NOT PROTESTANTS OR OTHER. "Having worked in the Catholic education system" does not qualify you as an informed critic. I agree with BofL. You use the prefix "Roman" in the derogatory sense, not in the sense of universality. You are an anti-Catholic. The Church has always had problems, but is in a constant state of renewal and reform. That's what anti-Catholics are blind to.

I am speaking from experience first of all and find that Catholics I have engaged with on forums give the impression that they are right and protestants are wrong which means they are the final authority for everyone.

As for the Catholic church being in a state of renewal, don't make me laugh. I have seen enough and read enough to know that the Catholic church avoids change like the plague.

And I saw enough in the Catholic education system to know how they treat people.

 

[marksman]

Not always.
Only in matters of faith.

If that is the case they don't seem to have much faith as you have to earn your salvation in the Catholic church.

 

[marksman]

Why don't you just go to the source??
In your ignorance, you have named the RITE - not the Church.

The Catholic Church is comprised of 20 Rites. Among these are the Melkite, Byzantine, Maronite, Coptic, and Latin (Roman).
The official name of the Catholic Church is . . . "The Catholic Church".

Melkite Catholics are not Roman Catholic.
Byzantine Catholics are not Roman Catholic.
Coptic Catholics are not Roman Catholic.
Maronite Catholics are not Roman Catholic.

HOWEVER - we are ALL in full communion with each other.
"RCC" simply refers to ONE of TWENTY Rites - not the entire Church.

I did go to the source.

 

[BreadOfLife]

If that is the case they don't seem to have much faith as you have to earn your salvation in the Catholic church.

We don't "earn" our salvation.
We simply understand that TRUE faith = Belief + Obedience (works).

You cannot have true faith without either component . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

I did go to the source.

No, you didn't.
Otherwise - you would have seen just how woefully-wrong you were.

 

[marksman]

No, you didn't.
Otherwise - you would have seen just how woefully-wrong you were.

Yes I did and I found out how right I was.

 

[marksman]

We don't "earn" our salvation.
We simply understand that TRUE faith = Belief + Obedience (works).

You cannot have true faith without either component . . .

Yes you do. I worked with a Catholic a few years ago and he went to mass every day before work because he said the more times he goes the more brownie points he earn towards salvation.

 

[Marymog]

The church may have been the pillar and foundation of truth then, but the church you trust in now is a completely different kettle of smelly rotten fish.

And the one you belong to is sinless???

You don't need to reply....we already know the answer.

Mary

 

[Marymog]

What you claim to be 2000 years of *Christian* teaching was actually a mishmash of (1) Scripture (wrongly interpreted mostly), (2) the traditions of men (and many erroneous teachings), and (3) paganism parading as Christianity. Thus you now have a renegade pope, and clergy that are unable to hide their perversions any longer, while Catholics don't know whether souls are more important than climate change.

Hi Enoch,

The mishmash of wrongly interpreted Scripture became prevalent in the 1500's when men began leaving The Church by starting their own denominations based on their interpretation of Scripture which was opposite of 1500 years of Church teaching. The Church was One with One voice One teaching and One belief just like Jesus and the Apostles wanted.

Satan successfully divided The Church and the Reformation (Revolution) began. There were then some men who initially followed those Reformers but then they disagreed with them and they started teaching their own mishmash of wrongly interpreted Scripture which gave us Reformation 2.0 which led to the Reformation 3.0 etc. etc until we get to today and your bizarre beliefs. The Reformers 10.0 of today say abortion and gay marriage is acceptable to God and you can sit in your basement eating Doritos and properly interpret Scripture yourself and whatever YOU interpret has been interpreted correctly because you were personally guided by the Holy Spirit. I am scared to see what the Reformers 20.0 are going to teach!!!

Sooooo what YOU claim to be Christian teaching is actually opposite of 2,000 years of true Christian teaching and is actually a 500 year tradition of men with MANY erroneous teachings that have been mish mashed together with all of them disagreeing with each other but all claiming to have the Truth. You and your ilk make the claim that 2,000 years of CONSISTANT teaching is wrong but your 500 years of mish mashed that teaches OPPOSITE of each other is right.......Truly Bizarre.

Mary

 

[Marymog]

As I come from the protestant tradition I can assure you that we do not think baptism does nothing for you.

And thank you for your comment about my signature as it is a passion of mine seeing as I have 11 grandchildren.

I look forward to having grandchildren....Makes me all giddy inside just thinking of it.

Maybe the church you attend believes baptism is not symbolic however a large portion of Protestant denominations teach that baptism is symbolic. Baptism being symbolic is a Protestant tradition started by Protestant men.

I should not have made the blanket statement "according to Protestant tradition baptism does NOTHING to or for the person being baptized..". That statement was to general and vague.

Mary

 

[CoreIssue]

I look forward to having grandchildren....Makes me all giddy inside just thinking of it.

Maybe the church you attend believes baptism is not symbolic however a large portion of Protestant denominations teach that baptism is symbolic. Baptism being symbolic is a Protestant tradition started by Protestant men.

I should not have made the blanket statement "according to Protestant tradition baptism does NOTHING to or for the person being baptized..". That statement was to general and vague.

Mary

Baptism tells the world you along to Christ, not the world. This from someone who is neither catholic or protestant.