Spotlight On The Disasterous RCC "Celibacy" Requirement

[aspen]

LOL, I guess when all you have in response to "thus saith the LORD" is "thus saith the pope", the default is always ad hominem, right?

So says Ellen?

AntiCatholic is not a term I label Protestants unless it is actually part of their doctrine - SDA fits this description and so do your little Millerite brothers and sisters over at Kingdom Hall

 

[Phoneman777]

So says Ellen?

AntiCatholic is not a term I label Protestants unless it is actually part of their doctrine - SDA fits this description and so do your little Millerite brothers and sisters over at Kingdom Hall

Anti-Catholic and Kingdom Hall are terms that have nothing to do with Adventism. Russell was a 33 degree Mason, which doctrine is similar to RCC doctrine in many areas. The Millerite movement can easily be seen as a fulfillment of the "bitter book" in Revelation 10. During a time that the churches insisted Jesus would not return for 1,000 years, the Great Global Religious Awakening saw people all over studying the book of Daniel and coming to believe the "sweet" of all sweetest thoughts that Jesus was soon to return, but when He didn't, it was the most bitter to them. It's too bad you can't see the papal antichrist in prophecy like the millions of Protestants that did so for over 3 centuries before Protestantism began to lose steam and eventually come to a complete stop.

 

[aspen]

Anti-Catholic and Kingdom Hall are terms that have nothing to do with Adventism. Russell was a 33 degree Mason, which doctrine is similar to RCC doctrine in many areas. The Millerite movement can easily be seen as a fulfillment of the "bitter book" in Revelation 10. During a time that the churches insisted Jesus would not return for 1,000 years, the Great Global Religious Awakening saw people all over studying the book of Daniel and coming to believe the "sweet" of all sweetest thoughts that Jesus was soon to return, but when He didn't, it was the most bitter to them. It's too bad you can't see the papal antichrist in prophecy like the millions of Protestants that did so for over 3 centuries before Protestantism began to lose steam and eventually come to a complete stop.

Lol.....where’s my popcorn?

 

[Reggie Belafonte]

Ouch!!
You are probably too young to have ever watched MASH...I LOVED the "priest".
In many wars, when people were on their death beds...they were very happy to have a priest by their side.
God can, and will use anyone to bring them to Himself.

Just saying.

I did not like MASH much at all, it comes across as a offensive show, many cunning deceptions in it's detail that are use too brainwash people.
The show in it's self is ok but oh I see the cunningly done evil played out, hated the priest as a typical good for nothing we always see on TV.

I am watching the old 1966 Batman of late, boy it's good show full with morals, Saints be phrased Batman is said all the time etc.
I have not seen that original Batman show for years when it first came out on TV and I have even use some of the words myself all these years, like at work I would say at the end of the day, same Bat time same Bat channel.

That was before the Satanic Jews took over and worked to corrupt all with their ego driven filth turning people into simple minded parasites that just go along with the flow of deceptions 24/7 metrosexual simpletons every were, not a man among them to bee seen, just babbling on with shallowness, saying crap that so they don't offend the gullible but are truly nasty two faced creeps who run to be seen to look good to all but in their deeds they are truly evil, trying to corrupt all around them with their satanic filth, leading all astray with deranged depraved ego driven madness and rejecting God full on as if they are some sort of authority.

I just went to our ANZAC Day Service and the bastards did not read out the Psalms 23 at the back for fear of offending some moronic nasty fools that have not Grace and this is what it reads on the front page, The price of liberty is eternal vigilance and they fought and died that our lives and freedom might be made secure: Greater love hath no man than this. ?

 

[Phoneman777]

Lol.....where’s my popcorn?

If you can't find it, just grab some butter and a Catholic priest to "transubstantiate" a bag of fish tank pebbles - you'll find him wearing a "fish hat" and sprinkling "holy water" everywhere...like these priests of Dagon:

 

[bbyrd009]

narf

 

[BreadOfLife]

When taken together, the phrases "went up straightway out of the water", "they went down both into the water...they came up out of the water", and even the very oft repeated words "was baptized", demonstrate that a sufficient amount of water to fully immerse the baptismal candidate was needed for the ceremony. There was discovered an ancient RCC with a large baptistry sufficient for performing full immersion baptisms, and also archived writings of church historians which attest to the RCC having practiced full immersion baptism before the convenience of pouring over the head became the preferred method.

This is a really silly argument.
FIRST of all - the Catholic Church has NEVER rejected the idea of full immersion baptism.

Secondly - you must "go down into" EVERY river in the world because they are ALL lower that their banks.
You must "Come up" out of every river for the SAME reason. Simple physics . . .

Although RCC apologists like yourself deny it, the encouraged use of the term "father" by RCC leadership is meant to blasphemously invest those to whom it is directed with more than the mere paternal or genealogical references found throughout the Bible - equality with/superiority to the heavenly Father. Dignities and Duties of the Priest claims that the Eucharistic transubstantiation makes the priest "the creator of his Creator", which is so disgustingly blasphemous words can't describe, and also that forgiveness which the Bible says comes from God alone is sourced by the pope and obtained through RCC priestly intercession, which the Bible also calls blasphemy.

This is ignorant nonsense.
The term "Father", referring to a Catholic priest, is used in the SAME way that Paul considered himself a "Father" to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 4:14–15) and to Timothy (1 Tim. 1:2, 1 Tim. 1:18). It is as a spiritual father in faith.

Good grief - READ your Bible . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

If you can't find it, just grab some butter and a Catholic priest to "transubstantiate" a bag of fish tank pebbles - you'll find him wearing a "fish hat" and sprinkling "holy water" everywhere...like these priests of Dagon:

View attachment 2259

Another historically-bankrupt statement from our historically-ignorant friend, Phenomenon777 . . .

Are you honestly telling us that you are that ignorant of the fact that the Early Church sign for Christianity was a Fish??
You DON'T know this?? The symbol was referred to as the "ichthus".

Crack open a history book - this is getting embarrassing . . .

 

[Phoneman777]

Another historically-bankrupt statement from our historically-ignorant friend, Phenomenon777 . . .

Are you honestly telling us that you are that ignorant of the fact that the Early Church sign for Christianity was a Fish??
You DON'T know this?? The symbol was referred to as the "ichthus".

Crack open a history book - this is getting embarrassing . . .

What is embarrassing is the constant attempt by RCC apologists like yourself to legitimize RCC "baptized paganism". The claim the "Christian Fish" was used by early Christians is based purely on "fishers of men" speculation. Early century Rome filled her pantheon with so many gods and goddesses they lost count, and it is a fact that the "womb" of pagan goddesses, the "yoni", was represented by two crescents arranged to form the shape of a womb - an identical symbol of the "ichthus". It should not surprise anyone that this pagan symbol was, along with so many other pagan symbols and practices like what is depicted below, dragged into the Christian church by the very people Paul warned would come into the church and steer it into the great apostasy that we now know to be the Antichrist papacy in Rome.

 

[Phoneman777]

This is a really silly argument.
FIRST of all - the Catholic Church has NEVER rejected the idea of full immersion baptism.

Secondly - you must "go down into" EVERY river in the world because they are ALL lower that their banks.
You must "Come up" out of every river for the SAME reason. Simple physics . . .

This is ignorant nonsense.
The term "Father", referring to a Catholic priest, is used in the SAME way that Paul considered himself a "Father" to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 4:14–15) and to Timothy (1 Tim. 1:2, 1 Tim. 1:18). It is as a spiritual father in faith.

Good grief - READ your Bible . . .

1) Yes, the RCC fully supports immersion as evidenced by all those baptistries in your churches, right?

2) Why would any person in Scripture bother with "down in" and "up out" of the water if sprinkling or pouring were acceptable for baptism? Philip could've baptized the Ethiopian on the fly with whatever water was carried along with him in his chariot.

3) One claiming a wafer of bread and a cup of putrefied juice is magically "transubstantiated" into the body and blood of Jesus, while yet remaining by all accounts of physics just dead bread and putrefied juice, invites far more skepticism to that one's grasp of science.

 

[BreadOfLife]

What is embarrassing is the constant attempt by RCC apologists like yourself to legitimize RCC "baptized paganism". The claim the "Christian Fish" was used by early Christians is based purely on "fishers of men" speculation. Early century Rome filled her pantheon with so many gods and goddesses they lost count, and it is a fact that the "womb" of pagan goddesses, the "yoni", was represented by two crescents arranged to form the shape of a womb - an identical symbol of the "ichthus". It should not surprise anyone that this pagan symbol was, along with so many other pagan symbols and practices like what is depicted below, dragged into the Christian church by the very people Paul warned would come into the church and steer it into the great apostasy that we now know to be the Antichrist papacy in Rome.

WOW - you're even more ignorant than I thought.

From Christianity Today - NOT a Catholic publication:
When did the cross supplant the ichthus (fish) as a symbol of the Christian faith?
Early Christians used a wide variety of symbols to express their faith. The second-century Christian teacher Clement of Alexandria identified a dove, a fish, a ship, a lyre, and an anchor as suitable images to be engraved on Christians' signet-rings (or seals). Archaeologists have discovered a gold finger-ring from the third or fourth century that depicts an anchor, cross, lamb, shepherd, dove, and the abbreviation for Christ.

One of the best known early Christian symbols, because of its modern revival, is the fish. Some early Christians made the Greek word for fish, ichthus, into an acronym for "Jesus Christ, God's Son, Savior." Tertullian, a theologian writing at beginning of the third century, interpreted this practice as a symbol of baptism: "But we small fishes, named after our great ICHTHUS, Jesus Christ, are born in water and only by remaining in water can we live."

Do your homework . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

1) Yes, the RCC fully supports immersion as evidenced by all those baptistries in your churches, right?

2) Why would any person in Scripture bother with "down in" and "up out" of the water if sprinkling or pouring were acceptable for baptism? Philip could've baptized the Ethiopian on the fly with whatever water was carried along with him in his chariot.

3) One claiming a wafer of bread and a cup of putrefied juice is magically "transubstantiated" into the body and blood of Jesus, while yet remaining by all accounts of physics just dead bread and putrefied juice, invites far more skepticism to that one's grasp of science.

As I stated before - the Bible NEVER describes ho an actual Baptism is done. HOWEVER - the 1st century document, The Didache (Teachings of the Twelve Apostles) DOES describe it. This document was written while most of the apostles were STILL alive:
Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism
And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, (Matthew 28:19) in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit.

Gee - this sounds AWFULLY Catholic.
Oh, by the way, Einstein - we DO baptize by full immersion as well as by pouring. As for Philip baptizing the Eunuch - they were near LIVING WATER. The term "living water" refers to a river, stream or lake.

As to your comments about the Eucharist - why would you call the wine "putrefied juice"?? You never heard of wine??

Again - do some research before you respond.
This is getting embarrassing . . .

 

[Reggie Belafonte]

I see Baptism as just the union of one coming into the church, water etc is just symbolic of what is represented, it's much like the welcoming into the tribe of Judah (people of God) some people make out that this saves them ? it does not save them at all, but is on the path that can lead to salvation.
Being born again is the hole point of the true Baptism and becoming an Israel (servant of God)
Some claim that the water baptism is some big deal and that it's up to you to do it of your own will, not your parents (shock horror), well Christians live in a community of Christ and it's such a persons responsibility is to baptise their own children or you would be a total fool if you did not because that means you must not be a Christian at all, if you did not do such for your children. like who does not baptise their own children ? Pagans !
I get sick of hearing some idiot claiming that one must take that baptism on his own accord or make out claims of the biblical account back in the day, fact is we are a Christian community now for 2000 years and if one makes claims of having to do as they did before Christ went to Heaven, you have lost the plot and are in fact rejecting Jesus.
If a person had no Christian up bringing well that's fine and that person has the right to do such if they want, but big deal it's the same thing as any other Christian has, such a one is no more a Christian than another.
The Christian community is here ! it's established, I hate the foolish Naming ceremony's that's totally Pagan rubbish and to hear the dribble of that a parent has no right to Baptise their child.
Their is not such a big deal in water baptism as some will try to make out, sure it's all great but as John the Baptist pointed out about Jesus that John and his Baptism is nothing compared to the Baptism of the Holy Spirit that Jesus was in fact.

I have even had a idiot claim that you get born again and then you go get Baptised if you want to, that's total rubbish, you are like coming into 'The people of God' (Judah) as was Saul in fact and then he got the Holy Spirit and became Paul.
No one came to Christ through just nothing a pagan never has ever been born again directly, he learns first and then he may get it, but never was it done the other way around.
Jews don't have to be baptised because they already are in a way if they are true to God well then they truly are Judah a person of God anyway, just as John the Baptist was, but he was doing this and the Jews were coming to him in good faith of who he was.

I have had clowns come to me and claim that they can tell a pagan or anyone how to get saved, by just saying repeating what they say after them and bingo that person is born again and that they claim they have just saved that person and get a reward for doing so, not to mention that that person can now go be as evil as he wants, he is still saved, they claim, what total nonsense !

 

[Phoneman777]

5:00 appointment Al Bensabat

82213 five lakes road
Bush,

1.1 miles goes to swamp first drivesayi coue to which is one my left. mailbox on right

WOW - you're even more ignorant than I thought.

From Christianity Today - NOT a Catholic publication:
When did the cross supplant the ichthus (fish) as a symbol of the Christian faith?
Early Christians used a wide variety of symbols to express their faith. The second-century Christian teacher Clement of Alexandria identified a dove, a fish, a ship, a lyre, and an anchor as suitable images to be engraved on Christians' signet-rings (or seals). Archaeologists have discovered a gold finger-ring from the third or fourth century that depicts an anchor, cross, lamb, shepherd, dove, and the abbreviation for Christ.

One of the best known early Christian symbols, because of its modern revival, is the fish. Some early Christians made the Greek word for fish, ichthus, into an acronym for "Jesus Christ, God's Son, Savior." Tertullian, a theologian writing at beginning of the third century, interpreted this practice as a symbol of baptism: "But we small fishes, named after our great ICHTHUS, Jesus Christ, are born in water and only by remaining in water can we live."

Do your homework . . .

Will you go by Christianity Today, or the Bible which commands that Christians are not to represent the Creator with idols and symbols? And will you believe that early century Christians went around advertising their illegal faith with Fishes and Crosses? Paganism, not Christianity, popularized the fish symbol and Catholicism dragged it into the church, plain and simple, just like those ridiculous "fish hats" which symbolize priests of the Dagon, one of Satan's many false gods.

 

[Phoneman777]

As I stated before - the Bible NEVER describes ho an actual Baptism is done. HOWEVER - the 1st century document, The Didache (Teachings of the Twelve Apostles) DOES describe it. This document was written while most of the apostles were STILL alive:
Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism
And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, (Matthew 28:19) in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit.

Gee - this sounds AWFULLY Catholic.
Oh, by the way, Einstein - we DO baptize by full immersion as well as by pouring. As for Philip baptizing the Eunuch - they were near LIVING WATER. The term "living water" refers to a river, stream or lake.

As to your comments about the Eucharist - why would you call the wine "putrefied juice"?? You never heard of wine??

Again - do some research before you respond.
This is getting embarrassing . . .

You are embarrassing yourself by continuing to look to everything but Scripture as authoritative. Didache? Do you not understand that the Gr. "baptizo" means "to immerse", which is exactly why they "went down to" and "up out of" water?

And, yes, fermented grape juice remains just that regardless of what some priest utters in Latin, and its highly offensive to suggest that God would represent the pure, sinless blood of Jesus with fermented, putrefied juice whose intoxicating effects are responsible for so much misery in the world.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Will you go by Christianity Today, or the Bible which commands that Christians are not to represent the Creator with idols and symbols? And will you believe that early century Christians went around advertising their illegal faith with Fishes and Crosses? Paganism, not Christianity, popularized the fish symbol and Catholicism dragged it into the church, plain and simple, just like those ridiculous "fish hats" which symbolize priests of the Dagon, one of Satan's many false gods.

Really??
Where does the Bible "command" what you are claiming in RED above.

As for the rest - I can't MAKE you believe in history when your eyes and ears are glued shut.
The plain fact of the matter is that the Fish symbol (ICHTHUS) is an early Christian symbol depicting Christ.

Only the Holy Spirit can remove the scales from your eyes.

 

[BreadOfLife]

You are embarrassing yourself by continuing to look to everything but Scripture as authoritative. Didache? Do you not understand that the Gr. "baptizo" means "to immerse", which is exactly why they "went down to" and "up out of" water?

I defy YOU to walk into a lake or a river by going UP. It is physically impossible to do so.
EVERYBODY who enters these bodies of water goes DOWN into the water.

Here's another dilemma for you:
It is written that on the day of Pentecost - about 3,000 people were baptized in Jerusalem.
There is NO river in Jerusalem - and the Jewish leaders would NEVER have allowed them to use the Temple pools.
Now here's the question:
HOW were these people baptized?? By immersion or by pouring like the Didache claims??

PS - Before you star knocking the Christian document (The Didache) - find me ONE example in the NT that describes the Baptism process . . .

And, yes, fermented grape juice remains just that regardless of what some priest utters in Latin, and its highly offensive to suggest that God would represent the pure, sinless blood of Jesus with fermented, putrefied juice whose intoxicating effects are responsible for so much misery in the world.

Why?? Jesus MADE wine at the Wedding at Cana.
He DRANK wine - and we KNOW this because of what HE said:
Matt. 11:19
The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.'

Tell me something - why would Jesus say that He was being accused of being a "drunkard" if he wasn't drinking wine? Nothing wrong with wine - just drunkenness . . .

 

[Frank Lee]

There are many diversions to take people from the Bible and guide them onto paths away from the cross. Diversions of religions and in the cultures.

Just one for example. SUPERMAN. Superman? Yes.

1.He was the only son of his father
2.He came to earth to help, protect and save men from evil.
3.He was all powerful and no weapons were effective against him.
4. He was directed at children through comic books. Suddenly they had another choice than Jesus to fight evil. Get them to have doubts while they are young.

This is one of multitudes of sly diversions in our culture. The Greeks have their mythology and every nation has legends and superstitions to get them away from God.

Religions are equally deceptive in their practices. God chose to save me outside of church walls or influence. The Bible is my doctrine and I owe allegiance to none except the Lord Himself. Ezekiel 34th chapter is my testimony.

Just a simple question. What do you believe and why. Is your belief biblical or from a denomination or the seminary DOCTOR?

Which parts of the Bible to denominationalists are NOT FOR TODAY? How much of the word of God has been set aside to match religious dogma? Let us all look carefully at the Bible and compare what it says to what is bring taught... Or not taught.

 

[Phoneman777]

Really??
Where does the Bible "command" what you are claiming in RED above.

As for the rest - I can't MAKE you believe in history when your eyes and ears are glued shut.
The plain fact of the matter is that the Fish symbol (ICHTHUS) is an early Christian symbol depicting Christ.

Only the Holy Spirit can remove the scales from your eyes.

"Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device. And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent..." -Acts 17:29-30

"All nations before him are as nothing; and they are counted to him less than nothing, and vanity. To whom then will ye liken God? or what likeness will ye compare unto him? The workman melteth a graven image, and the goldsmith spreadeth it over with gold, and casteth silver chains. He that is so impoverished that he hath no oblation chooseth a tree that will not rot; he seeketh unto him a cunning workman to prepare a graven image, that shall not be moved."
-Isaiah 40:17-20

Pagans ate fish on Friday, named for the pagan fertility goddess, to pay homage to the goddesses' life giving womb.
The RCC for centuries taught for the consumption of fish on Friday.

The omniscient, omnipresent God of the Bible cannot be represented by symbols, so when church-goers make symbols for that purpose, they are attempting to bring the Lord Jesus Christ down to the level of these imaginary pagan gods and man's lowered conception of God.


It's a shame that you are so blind you can't see how the Papal Antichrist has baptized so much paganism and that the fish symbol was used to represent pagan goddesses' womb. Equally shameful is your belief that Christians went around advertising their ILLEGAL FAITH to Christian/Jew hating Roman authorities with a silly pagan womb symbol just bc some Catholic revisionist historian says so.

 

[TammyinWI]

And suddenly, it all makes sense....

Another slave of Ellen White

My God have mercy on your soul

Wow, I have to add that you are not even in left field, but way out of bounds. That was a cheap shot, and grasping at straws.
How sad.