What is the one true Church?

[Brakelite]

You keep saying the Church is, was, or will be destroyed by evil. Paul never said such a thing.

We clearly have a different definition about what constitutes the 'church'. The church I am saying will come under judgement is that church, which I'm the end comprises Babylon the Great and as you pointed out, will be a conglomerate of numerous different religions, sects, faiths, denominations, including your own. Scripture is very clear as to why they will be destined for judgement. Obviously, you don't believe your church is involved, but is your church leading the ecumenical movement or not?

Belief” in Christ is NOT just a “feeling”. It is surrender and obedience.
The woman was no t healed by a “feeling” she had about Jesus.

Where is there any suggestion in the scripture, or in what I said, that gave you the idea I was saying belief was nothing more than a feeling? Or is that merely a distraction from avoiding to actually deal with what I was saying?

 

[BreadOfLife]

Where is there any suggestion in the scripture, or in what I said, that gave you the idea I was saying belief was nothing more than a feeling? Or is that merely a distraction from avoiding to actually deal with what I was saying?

Ummmm, it was YOU who was who was engaging in a distraction, blathering on about the figurative “crumbs” Jesus mentioned. We were talking about the Eucharist – and NOT about the woman’s daughter.

I was ON point . . .

 

[Illuminator]

We clearly have a different definition about what constitutes the 'church'.

A true church doesn't persecute other churches just because they disagree with specific teachings. The SDA is obsessed with portraying Catholicism in the darkest light possible.

The church I am saying will come under judgement is that church, which I'm the end comprises Babylon the Great and as you pointed out, will be a conglomerate of numerous different religions, sects, faiths, denominations, including your own.

You have no evidence of such a conglomeration, other than gross misrepresentation of true ecumenism. Asserting false ecumenism is just another one of your many anti-Catholic lies.

Scripture is very clear as to why they will be destined for judgement. Obviously, you don't believe your church is involved, but is your church leading the ecumenical movement or not?

No, not according to your false definition. You have to ignore Ut Uman Sint and many other documents. We take Jesus' prayer that we may be one seriously. You have to ignore that too. You do that by constantly demonizing the CC with lies and falsehoods. It's built in your doctrines.

Seventh-day Adventism

Most people know little about the Seventh-day Adventists beyond that they worship on Saturdays, not Sundays. But there’s more to this unique sect.

www.catholic.com

here is an excerpt:

White claims that the papacy changed the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday, making this change a mark of its authority. In her view, there will come a time when the United States will establish a “national Sunday law” and compel its citizens to worship on Sunday. It will not compel them to become Catholics, but to join a Protestant state-church that is an “image” of the papacy, and thus, “the image of the beast” (ibid., 382–96).​

​

Seventh-day Adventism cannot change its views on the Catholic Church being the Whore of Babylon without admitting that it was wrong on Sunday worship. It cannot admit that Sunday worship is not the mark of the beast without changing its views on the Jewish Sabbath. Seventh-day Adventism cannot cease to be anti-Catholic without ceasing to be Seventh-day Adventism.​

​

Why don't you go over the article and point out where it is wrong, and explain why it is wrong. You won't do that but some readers might want to know more about the SDA, and why they are so viciously anti-Christian, not just anti-Catholic.

The reason why the Gestapo in WW2 never sent any SDA to the concentration camps was because Hitler liked what they taught about the pope. Every minority in German controlled areas were rounded up, but the SDA got a free pass. The Holocaust Archives doesn't show any SDA members being killed in the concentration camps. Look it up for yourself.

300,000 Catholics in Poland alone were killed. But you say the pope is the anti-Christ.
Hitler killed 13,674,790 people, but you say the pope is the anti-Christ.
Stalin starved 3.9 million Ukrainians to death, known as the Holodomor, but you say the pope is the anti-Christ.
Marx and Lenin are responsible for the deaths of 70 million people, but you say the pope is the anti-Christ, so you make excuses for yourself by claiming it's a series of future a popes, which is equally stupid and absurd.
And the United States will toss the Constitution forcing Sunday observance, which is also stupid and absurd.

You interpret every meaningless line ever written by any Catholic from any era, through the lens of your occult founder, pretending it's binding on all Catholics today which is also stupid and absurd.

Jesus prayed that we may be one, the basis of true ecumenism. It doesn't mean conglomeration, it doesn't mean Christians of other denominations have to abandon their beliefs, it doesn't mean unity with false religions or ideas, it doesn't mean a "One World Religion". You don't want to know the efforts of the CC to heal the wounds of unity, but you like to make stuff up.
***
The Encyclical Ut Uman Sint looks forward with courage. It indicates dialogue as a priority and as a necessary step toward discovering the riches of others. It reviews all the steps taken towards unity with the various Churches and Christian communities, beginning with the mutual lifting of the excommunications between Rome and Constantinople, and the common Christological Declarations with the ancient Churches of the East.

It outlines a path forward that allows “unexpected possibilities” in the awareness that “legitimate diversity is in no way opposed to the Church's unity”. “Intolerant polemics and controversies”, the text reads, “have made incompatible assertions out of what was really the result of two different ways of looking at the same reality”.

It is a path that can help us “discover the unfathomable riches of the truth” and the presence of elements of sanctification “beyond the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church”.

The expression of truth can take different forms
John Paul II explains that ecumenism is not a matter of “altering the deposit of faith” and “changing the meaning of dogmas”.

Rather, “the expression of truth can take different forms” because “doctrine needs to be presented in a way that makes it understandable to those for whom God himself intends it”, in whatever culture they belong to, avoiding any form of “ethnic exclusivism or racial prejudice, and from any nationalistic arrogance”.

A dialogue of doctrine that is also a dialogue of love
The Encyclical indicates the need for a “manner and method of expounding the Catholic faith” that is not “a hindrance to dialogue with our brothers and sisters”, acknowledging that there is “a hierarchy in the truths” in Catholic teaching.

The Church, John Paul says, is summoned by Christ to “continual reform”, which “might require a review of assertions and attitudes”. Dialogue, he says, “does not extend exclusively to matters of doctrine but engages the whole person” because “it is also a dialogue of love”. It is from love that “the desire for unity is born”. It is a path that demands, “patient and courageous efforts. In this process, one must not impose any burden beyond that which is strictly necessary”.

A prophetic encyclical: 25 years of Ut unum sint - Vatican News

A passionate appeal to all Christians to respond to Jesus’ prayer for the unity of His disciples: Pope John Paul II’s Encyclical helps us to see the ...

www.vaticannews.va

Your claim that the CC is the Whore of Babylon is a spiritual and mental sickness.

 

[Jim B]

Regarding the OP: the one true church is the body of Christ. Denominations claim to be the one true church but Scripture makes no such claim.

 

[quietthinker]

Ummmm, it was YOU who was who was engaging in a distraction, blathering on about the figurative “crumbs” Jesus mentioned. We were talking about the Eucharist – and NOT about the woman’s daughter.

I was ON point . . .

You have spun such a web BOL you have caught yourself in it!

 

[BreadOfLife]

You have spun such a web BOL you have caught yourself in it!

Another impotent attack from yet another anti-Catholic . . .

 

[quietthinker]

Another impotent attack from yet another anti-Catholic . . .

your quote by Chesterton, "Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions." - G.K. Chesterton' .....I suppose this describes the long suffering of God.

 

[BreadOfLife]

your quote by Chesterton, "Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions." - G.K. Chesterton' .....I suppose this describes the long suffering of God.

No - it simply means that tolerance doesn't mean that you acquiesce to every idiotic notion.

 

[quietthinker]

No - it simply means that tolerance doesn't mean that you acquiesce to every idiotic notion.

Your web spinning enables you to interpret anything anyway that takes your fancy. I'm glad gravity is more stable than that!

 

[Illuminator]

Another impotent attack from yet another anti-Catholic . . .

What would one expect from someone who quotes occultist Ellen G. White, but doesn't understand a quote from Chesterson.

 

[BreadOfLife]

What would one expect from someone who quotes occultist Ellen G. White, but doesn't understand a quote from Chesterson.

Amen!

 

[quietthinker]

What would one expect from someone who quotes occultist Ellen G. White, but doesn't understand a quote from Chesterson.

calling black white and white black has ever been the practice of those desirous of self glorification.

 

[Brakelite]

Jesus’ use of the phrase “the spirit gives life” means the disciples need supernatural faith, not logic, to understand His words.

I would suggest something a little different... The "Spirit giving life" means giving understanding of what Jesus was saying... That the bread of life is not literal bread, not His literal body, or as Catholics believe, a combination of both, but rather the word of God. Man lives "by every word of God".
In the OT sanctuary, we see several items of furniture. On the left, the candlestick, representing Jesus being the "light of the world". Immediately ahead before the curtain dividing the Holy Place from the Most Holy, the Altar of incense, representing Jesus as sole Mediator/Intercessor between God and man. To the right is the Table of Showbread. Twelve loaves according to the 12 tribes, and eaten by the priest every Sabbath.

KJV John 1:1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

KJV John 15:7
7 If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.

KJV John 14:23-26
23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.
25 These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you.
26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

KJV Matthew 4:4
4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

The word of God is that which gives life, sanctifies, teaches truth, gives spiritual growth. It is the word of God we are to chew on, suggest, and assimilate into our lives.

Jesus prayed that we may be one, the basis of true ecumenism. It doesn't mean conglomeration, it doesn't mean Christians of other denominations have to abandon their beliefs, it doesn't mean unity with false religions or ideas, it doesn't mean a "One World Religion". You don't want to know the efforts of the CC to heal the wounds of unity, but you like to make stuff up.

If the following does not describe a global religion and the deception of the masses to a form of worship, then what?
KJV Revelation 13:1-9
1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.
2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.
3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.
4 And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?
5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.
6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.
7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.
8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
9 If any man have an ear, let him hear.

Why don't you go over the article and point out where it is wrong, and explain why it is wrong.

I have read the article previously, and found it to be reasonably accurate except in a few minor details, but can't remember what they were.

Hitler killed 13,674,790 people, but you say the pope is the anti-Christ.

No. I do not say the Pope....

so you make excuses for yourself by claiming it's a series of future a popes, which is equally stupid and absurd.

Nor do I claim a series of future popes, is the Antichrist. It is scripture that claims the institution of Catholicism as the Antichrist. Scripture illuminator. And this can be proved only from scripture. The reformers saw it. In fact it was the one thing they all agreed on. That the Papacy itself was the Antichrist... And because people like Luther and Tyndale and Wycliffe were able to translate the Bible into the common language of the people, they could read for themselves that what the reformers were teaching regarding prophecy, regarding the identity of the Antichrist and the true nature of the Papacy was true, and of all teachings of the reformers, the identification of the Papacy, the Catholic Church institution, as the Antichrist was the one teaching that gave Protestantism it's greatest impetus. Your church was saved from extinction by 2 Jesuits who taught 2 opposing thesis/ hermeneutics and along with the counter reformation after Trent, defused somewhat the swelling ranks of those pouring out of Rome. Oh, of course persecution would have helped too I guess.
But suffice to say, the Catholic institution is the only entity that completely fulfills all the criteria required to accurately identify Antichrist. The only one. There is no other. All roads lead to Rome.

 

[Philip James]

to destroy the Celtic church there.

has it been destroyed?

 

[Illuminator]

I would suggest something a little different... The "Spirit giving life" means giving understanding of what Jesus was saying... That the bread of life is not literal bread, not His literal body, or as Catholics believe, a combination of both, but rather the word of God. Man lives "by every word of God".

For the 10th time, "word of God" rarely, if ever, refers to the written word alone. It always refers to the spoken word. Why don't you go through the list and find one to the contrary, and ignore the other 52 usages.

BibleGateway - Keyword Search: "Word of God"

www.biblegateway.com

John 6:27,31,49 – there is a parallel between the manna in the desert which was physically consumed, and this “new” bread which must be consumed.

John 6:51-52- then Jesus says that the bread He is referring to is His flesh. The Jews take Him literally and immediately question such a teaching. How can this man give us His flesh to eat? (same as you)

John 6:53 – 58 – Jesus does not correct their literal interpretation. Instead, Jesus eliminates any metaphorical interpretations by swearing an oath and being even more literal about eating His flesh. In fact, Jesus says four times we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Catholics thus believe that Jesus makes present His body and blood in the sacrifice of the Mass. You can only argue that Jesus was somehow speaking symbolically.

John 6:23-53 – however, a symbolic interpretation is not plausible. Throughout these verses, the Greek text uses the word “phago” nine times. “Phago” literally means “to eat” or “physically consume.” Like you, the disciples take issue with Jesus’ literal usage of “eat.” So Jesus does what?

John 6:54, 56, 57, 58 – He uses an even more literal verb, translated as “trogo,” which means to gnaw or chew or crunch. He increases the literalness and drives his message home. Jesus will literally give us His flesh and blood to eat. The word “trogo” is only used two other times in the New Testament (in Matt. 24:38 and John 13:18) and it always means to literally gnaw or chew meat. While “phago” might also have a spiritual application, “trogo” is never used metaphorically in Greek. So you cannot find one verse in Scripture where “trogo” is used symbolically, and yet this must be your argument if they are going to deny the Catholic understanding of Jesus’ words. Moreover, the Jews already knew Jesus was speaking literally even before Jesus used the word “trogo” when they said “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” (John 6:52).

John 6:55 – to clarify further, Jesus says “For My Flesh is food indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed.” This phrase can only be understood as being responsive to those who do not believe that Jesus’ flesh is food indeed, and His blood is drink indeed. Further, Jesus uses the word which is translated as “sarx.” “Sarx” means flesh (not “soma” which means body). See, for example, John 1:13,14; 3:6; 8:15; 17:2; Matt. 16:17; 19:5; 24:22; 26:41; Mark 10:8; 13:20; 14:38; and Luke 3:6; 24:39 which provides other examples in Scripture where “sarx” means flesh. It is always literal.

John 6:55 – further, the phrases “real” food and “real” drink use the word “alethes.” “Alethes” means “really” or “truly,” and would only be used if there were doubts concerning the reality of Jesus’ flesh and blood as being food and drink. Thus, Jesus is emphasizing the miracle of His body and blood being actual food and drink.

John 6:60 – as are many anti-Catholics today, Jesus’ disciples are scandalized by these words. They even ask, “Who can ‘listen’ to it (much less understand it)?” To the unillumined mind, it seems grotesque.

John 6:61-63 – Jesus acknowledges their disgust. Jesus’ use of the phrase “the spirit gives life” means the disciples need supernatural faith, not logic, to understand His words.

John 3:6 – Jesus often used the comparison of “spirit versus flesh” to teach about the necessity of possessing supernatural faith versus a natural understanding. In Mark 14:38 Jesus also uses the “spirit/flesh” comparison. The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. We must go beyond the natural to understand the supernatural. In 1 Cor. 2:14,3:3; Rom 8:5; and Gal. 5:17, Paul also uses the “spirit/flesh” comparison to teach that unspiritual people are not receiving the gift of faith. They are still “in the flesh.”

In the OT sanctuary, we see several items of furniture. On the left, the candlestick, representing Jesus being the "light of the world". Immediately ahead before the curtain dividing the Holy Place from the Most Holy, the Altar of incense, representing Jesus as sole Mediator/Intercessor between God and man. To the right is the Table of Showbread. Twelve loaves according to the 12 tribes, and eaten by the priest every Sabbath.

KJV John 1:1


KJV John 15:7


KJV John 14:23-26


KJV Matthew 4:4
4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

"Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, 'Take, eat; this is my body.' And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, 'Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.'" (Matthew 26:26-28)
This is how you read it:
"Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, 'Take, eat; this is not really my body.' And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, 'Drink of it, all of you; for this is not really my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.'"
You make void His words that proceedeth out of the mouth of God with your tradition.

The word of God is that which gives life, sanctifies, teaches truth, gives spiritual growth. It is the word of God we are to chew on, suggest, and assimilate into our lives.

We agree with the material sufficiency of scripture, we don't agree with the man made illogical formal sufficiency, which hasn't worked since it was conjured up by a man who was mentally ill.

KJV Revelation 13:1-9

I have read the article previously, and found it to be reasonably accurate except in a few minor details, but can't remember what they were.

Everybody who is exposed to SDA lies should read it.

Seventh-day Adventism

Most people know little about the Seventh-day Adventists beyond that they worship on Saturdays, not Sundays. But there’s more to this unique sect.

www.catholic.com

 

[Illuminator]

It is scripture that claims the institution of Catholicism as the Antichrist. Scripture illuminator. And this can be proved only from scripture. The reformers saw it. In fact it was the one thing they all agreed on. That the Papacy itself was the Antichrist...

That no one noticed for 15 centuries because all Christians before that time were stupid?
"The Papacy is not in the Bible"
"The Papacy is the anti-Christ"
Make up your mind.

And because people like Luther and Tyndale and Wycliffe were able to translate the Bible into the common language of the people, they could read for themselves

That myth has been debunked a million times. Luther's Protestant Bible came out 1520 and before his Bible the Catholic Bible had been translated into Spanish, Italian, Danish, French, Norwegian, Polish, Bohemian, Hungarian and English, there was exactly 104 editions in Latin; 38 editions in German language, 25 editions in Italian language, 18 in French. In all 626 editions of the Bible with 198 in the language of the laity, had been edited before the fist Protestant Bible was sent forth into the world.

Not only that, the preface of the original 1611 KJV states that there were already English translations of the Bible, so the preface is embarrassing, that's why publishers delete it. This Baptist source explains it well, so you can't complain of Catholic bias.

that what the reformers were teaching regarding prophecy, regarding the identity of the Antichrist and the true nature of the Papacy was true, and of all teachings of the reformers, the identification of the Papacy, the Catholic Church institution, as the Antichrist was the one teaching that gave Protestantism it's greatest impetus. Your church was saved from extinction by 2 Jesuits who taught 2 opposing thesis/ hermeneutics and along with the counter reformation after Trent, defused somewhat the swelling ranks of those pouring out of Rome. Oh, of course persecution would have helped too I guess.

Oh, you mean Protestantism are daughters of the whore according to your cult, so you talk our of both sides of your mouth. This is where you like to pit Protestants against Catholics, and sit back and watch the show. Manipulation like this is typical behavior of a narcissist. "Your church was saved from extinction by 2 Jesuits" Scholarly documentation please, that is available on line, using primary and secondary documentation.
Hate speech doesn't cut it.

But suffice to say, the Catholic institution is the only entity that completely fulfills all the criteria required to accurately identify Antichrist. The only one. There is no other. All roads lead to Rome.

According to your psychotic interpretation of scripture, parts that Alexander Hislop and E.G. White agree on. Funny how they both popped up in the same time frame in the same country.

Catechism of the Catholic Church:
The Church's ultimate trial

675 Before Christ's second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers.574 The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth575 will unveil the "mystery of iniquity" in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh.576

676 The Antichrist's deception already begins to take shape in the world every time the claim is made to realize within history that messianic hope which can only be realized beyond history through the eschatological judgment. The Church has rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism,577 especially the "intrinsically perverse" political form of a secular messianism.578

677 The Church will enter the glory of the kingdom only through this final Passover, when she will follow her Lord in his death and Resurrection.579 The kingdom will be fulfilled, then, not by a historic triumph of the Church through a progressive ascendancy, but only by God's victory over the final unleashing of evil, which will cause his Bride to come down from heaven.580 God's triumph over the revolt of evil will take the form of the Last Judgment after the final cosmic upheaval of this passing world.581

footnotes:
574 Cf. Lk 18:8; Mt 24:12.
575 Cf. Lk 21:12; Jn 15:19-20.
576 Cf. 2 Thess 2:4-12; 1 Thess 5:2-3; 2 Jn 7; 1 Jn 2:18,22.
577 Cf. DS 3839.
578 Pius XI, Divini Redemptoris, condemning the "false mysticism" of this "counterfeit of the redemption of the lowly"; cf. GS 20-21.
579 Cf. Rev 19:1-9.
580 Cf Rev 13:8; 20:7-10; 21:2-4.
581 Cf. Rev 20:12 2 Pet 3:12-13.

Catechism of the Catholic Church - PART 1 SECTION 2 CHAPTER 2 ARTICLE 7

 

[Brakelite]

psychotic

I claim to be able to prove from scripture the identity of Antichrist, which ought not be that surprising seeing God gave us so many clues in order that we may do exactly that... Identify him. I don't see anyone else using those clues and criteria to identify anyone else... At least not without gross distortions to logic and biblical historicity.
That said, I'm sure there are forum rules deeming it unacceptable to call another Christian psychotic without some clinical evidence. Didn't Jesus counsel us to judge by fruit, not doctrine or mental or physical health or rumors and second hand gossip, hate speech, innuendo, and anti SDA porn sites?

 

[Brakelite]

That myth has been debunked a million times. Luther's Protestant Bible came out 1520 and before his Bible the Catholic Bible had been translated into Spanish, Italian, Danish, French, Norwegian, Polish, Bohemian, Hungarian and English, there was exactly 104 editions in Latin; 38 editions in German language, 25 editions in Italian language, 18 in French. In all 626 editions of the Bible with 198 in the language of the laity, had been edited before the fist Protestant Bible was sent forth into the world.

I am fully aware of the various translations made throughout history, by eminent Christian leaders who set up schools and colleges for that very purpose. It is also a sad fact of history that the Catholic Church so often attacked such people, destroyed their colleges, persecuted those found with scriptures in Catholic territories. It is a sad fact also that the Catholic church forbade Luther, Tyndale, and Wickliffe from their translating work, the Pope writing bulls of excommunication against them, and going so far in their hateful vindictive resentful behavior as to digging up bones to burn them to ash.
Your church waged war against the Goths and destroyed them, and they had Bibles as you mentioned above, translated by Ulfilas. The Waldenses had Bibles centuries before Luther, but your church waged crusades against them because they dared to actually teach from those Bibles contrary to the traditions and superstitions of Rome. The Celtic church had Bibles since before the time of Patrick, who was never a Catholic, and his legacy continued meticulously to copy the scriptures... Leaders such as Columba, Columbanus, ,(who had mission interests in northern Europe the being no other gospel outreach endeavors there) and Aiden and Dinooth, all of whom established mission schools quite some time before Rome had any influence or authority over those churches. I would also mention Lucian of Antioch, who translated the scriptures into itala, and copies of those spread throughout the ancient East. Yet he was hated by Jerome, and the Catholic Church never tolerated him nor celebrated his work.

 

[Brakelite]

@Illuminator . Re your quote from the Catechism. We are living in very interesting times aren't we? There are two denominations laying claim to be the final days identifier of the Antichrist. Two denominations laying claim to be the conduit for the 3 angels messages of
KJV Revelation 14:6-12
6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,
7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.
8 And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.
9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,
10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.
12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.
There's only 2 denominations teaching these messages. Catholicism and Adventism. God's final warning for mankind, a call to worship the Creator of heaven, earth, and all that is in them, and call out the false harlot counterfeiting the truth, replacing Christ with a false mediator, replacing the everlasting gospel with a hoax, and warning of judgement that is even now in progress. Soon there will only be 2 cities. Everyone will soon have to decide for one or the other. 2 rivers. 2 very different hermeneutics interpreting scripture very differently. 2 opposing spiritual bodies that have been at war with each other since before Abraham. Babylon and Jerusalem. 2 brothers even, like Cain and Abel. And the final battle is over worship. Just like it was in the beginning. Satan behind one, Jesus behind the other. And the core debate, the bottom line absolute Truth being decided on this great controversy, is not about doctrine, it's not about who is right and wrong, it's not about who has the most brownie points when it comes to helping communities and the people next door, is not even about the histories of both sides in the war, that enmity between the Seed of the woman and Satan first spoken of in Genesis 3. All those things have their place, they are important, but what everything boils down to is, what is God like? Of what character is He? And can we, as a people, be worthy representations of that character we claim? Does Babylon truly represent God, or Jerusalem? Whose people are the true witnesses? Whose testimony will stand in the judgement? To whom will Jesus say, I never knew you? Which side are you on? Which side are the readers on? Which side am I on? Who do I truly represent as I go about my day? Whose character am I assimilating in my life? Who is my Lord? I say this because our denominational affiliation won't count for diddly squat in the judgement. It isn't the church we belong to that decides our destiny, although I would strongly suggest it does help. Because there are genuine Christians in every denomination... In every branch of Christianity there are people who genuinely live their lives fully according to the light they have.
Because by beholding we become changed. And we all need to change. Only by seeing Jesus, by beholding the lovely, merciful gracious Jesus, as He truly is, will we be converted, be born again, and receive the new nature born from above. If we are constantly sowing to the flesh however, feeding the carnal nature, and have a completely wrong apprehension as to who God is and what He is, His true nature, then we will reflect the nature we believe Him to be. If we reflect Satan in our conversations, our thoughts, and our actions, it will soon be apparent who our lord is. That will be the difference between us. But I pray that in the end there shall be no difference, that we wil, by the grace of God reflect Jesus, and that it is the true Savior we all know, love and obey when He comes. And this bickering between us now will be seen for what it is. An ego driven argument disguised as a quest for truth. I do pray and hope that everyone here will, in that great day of the Lord's return, be found on one side of the controversy... The right side.
I want to apologize now if anyone here has found my posting offensive, confrontational, and lacking in sympathy, empathy, or love. I'm sorry.
The subject of who is the true church I think, I trust, I answered above. The true church are those who know Jesus. The true church are those who by patience and well doing, reflect a God of love, grace, mercy and demonstrate this through their obedience to His commandments, and having the faith of Jesus. (Revelation 14:12) It is my prayer that all members of this forum will one day meet together under the tree of life, drink from the water of life, and share the glorious promises of eternity together.

 

[Jack]

Well we have thousands of churches who call themselves "Christian", who have drastically different doctrines. Satan has been busy! So who is right? I will stick with Literalist!