WHY I COULD NEVER CHOOSE TO BE A PROTESTANT. (one stupid thread title is as good as another)

[twinc]

Y'know, Jesuits are supposed to be the "best and the brightest" among all Catholics, but you are definitely the exception, friend. The Biblical definition for Anathema is "cursed", but it seems necessary to clarify for your confused, deluded, misguided, Catholic self that nothing "cursed" is allowed in heaven.

Perhaps your blind devotion to the RCC - the Roman Child-raping Church - has blinded you to the idea of "conservative" and "liberal" estimates. It is extremely difficult to know just how many innocent victims there were of the almost thirteen century slaughter that was the Roman Child-raping Church rampage, who were murdered simply because they either refused to or were suspected of refusing to believe what the Satanic Papal Antichrist commanded them to believe. Only time and eternity will reveal just how severe the slaughter actually was.

Why are you incapable of understanding the extremely simplistic idea that Bloody Mary, motivated by her devotion to the RCC (which was equally as blind as yours is) ordered the execution of non-Catholics as part of a campaign to bring England back to subservience to the Papal Antichrist, while Queen Elizabeth was fighting to stop this campaign? The fact remains that if the RCC would have just given up her Satanic Control Freakism, much bloodshed would have been avoided.

are you sure you have your facts right for imho Jesus was cursed[Gal 3:14] - so we are as lost as He is - twinc

 

[epostle1]

The Holy Spirit is then according to you Not infallible?

I didn't say that. You said: "I do believe that Jesus started a Church but the thing that is infallible is the Holy Spirit in a believer." That is not infallibility. It is a charism that Jesus gives to the Church to prevent the teaching of error, IT IS NOT GIVEN TO INDIVIDUAL BELIEVERS.

I have no names because I follow the Holy Spirit, rather than man's history according no matter who the historian. It is not my job to say who is or who is not following the Spirit. You have a list made up by men and say they followed the Holy Spirit but God is the only One who always knows who is or is not... following.

People should not study history because it's not following the Holy Spirit? Do you have any idea how absurd that is? How about medicine. Should medical students drop out of med school
so they can follow what you say is the Holy Spirit?[/quote]

A theory? A theory is a label that men assign to a conclusion after so much experimentation in science. Additional and later experimentation may disallow a previously established theory. But are to live by faith in God not in a theory. Faith as you know is the "substance of things hoped, the evidence of things not seen". No, experimentation or science is required to have faith in God. All we have to do is ask of God and follow as He directs us. Knowledge of history even the history of faithful men is not a requirement.

Let's get back to the subject. Your theory is: a remnant of true believers existed from the beginning, yet you are resistant to history. You have no names of this "remnant" because history is your enemy. So you say "man's history" as an excuse to dispense with history. This forces you to dispense with the writings of the earliest Christians before the canon of scripture was finally realized. There is not a shred of evidence of this "remnant" group apart from the Historic Church. Nice dodge.
It's actually a Baptist Secessionist theory.

I was not discussing just pre-reformation quenching, but all quenching of the Spirit from that first Pentecost after the resurrection of Jesus until now.

No, you brought up prevalent teaching that quenches the spirit and now you are changing the goal posts.

It is not nonsense that men have been teaching men to ignore the Way of God in favor of the ways of men since the first man Adam. Jesus opened up a new Way, but the ways of men remain the same even for many men who have joined themselves to organized churches. No organization, Catholic or Protestant, saves any man.

The discussion is not salvation. How can you make such judgments when you dismiss history? How do you think we got the full doctrine of the Trinity? A committee??? And only Jesus saves people, that has always been the Church's prevalent teaching that you borrowed from us. Your bitterness is without foundation.

Men in organizations have set rules and ways, but while at times they may touch on the things of God, they as an organized group do not and cannot lead a person the right Way. Only God can do that.

I'm waiting for God to tell you what prevalent teaching quenches the Holy Spirit. Let me know what He says, please.

As to scriptures which tell us not to follow leaders who are either false and/or who quench the Holy Spirit and teach others to do the same, if you know your Bible you know that there are many. But if I were to take time to list even a few of them you would still read them only according to the CC without checking with in with God via the Holy Spirit. Therefore you would miss God's Word. Probably you don't how to do this for which I am saddened on your behalf. I will provide you with one verse written by Apostle Paul but likely you will also not understand what message it sends to men.
"Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ." I Cor 11:1

There was no Bible for 350 years. Was every Christian lost before then? The bottom line is pride. You have too much pride to submit to any authority other than what you think the Holy Spirit tells you privately. Keep it to yourself.

Jesus brought the reality of God and the things of God to replace the types and shadows that many men today, both Catholic and Protestant, continue to hold and even to add to...

Why accept the type of shadow when we can have the reality? I could name many specific rituals and programs that men practice which quench the Holy Spirit and which teach other to quench the Holy Spirit. I have already mentioned more than one but you shrug them off when they go against your man made traditions. Therein do you follow the example of the Pharisees.

I don't follow any man made traditions, except Thanksgiving dinner. Infallibility and tradition are two topics that sola scripturists cannot learn, even with spoonfed scripture.

The saints of God, that is the ones set apart by God, are supposed to learn, yes, moving from the milk of the Word to the meat. It is the job of the ministers of God to help them get there, but for the most part among Catholics and among many Protestants they cannot get away from the milk... they are not moving toward perfection, the perfection which is found as said in Jesus:
"For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;" Eph 4:12-14
How many believers who sit in the pews where you attend no longer require the help of the ministry because they have moved beyond spiritual childhood? Sounds to me like ministers are not doing their job.
Yet, what are we to be?
"Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is." I John 3:2
How many where you worship God are now ready to see him as he is? Only those who are ready will see Him.
What are you talking about? No where in my conversation with you on this thread did I mention tongues nor did I mention having any pain in high school.

You can jump all over the map and I can't?

I am still waiting for that prevalent teaching that quenches the Holy Spirit. You've changed the topic 5 times since.

God's order is called "baptism"? Your second sentence appears to be a fragment. I am not responding to it because I don't know what you are saying.[/quote]
Baptism is the beginning. It was an answer to your question.

It makes no difference to me. I was talking to you not any historian regardless of bias. As you may have noticed I am not in accord with any mainline Protestant group. I have never belonged to any mainline church group since leaving Catholicism. I belong to God and I follow the Holy Spirit rather than any man or men.

You are trying to justify your independence from the Historic Church; you have constructed a false cardboard caricature that isn't real. You refuse to learn any history. You are your own authority, your own pope.

BIG SHOCKING NEWS!!!
Jesus builds His institutional Church ON MEN!!!

​

 

[amadeus]

that is all according to you and imagination and lies according to Christ via the Bible where He informs us that you walk no more with Him - it seems you are really anti and not really pro Christ and His Church or His bible - twinc

Sorry you see it that way twinc. I am keeping us both in prayer.

 

[amadeus]

I didn't say that. You said: "I do believe that Jesus started a Church but the thing that is infallible is the Holy Spirit in a believer." That is not infallibility. It is a charism that Jesus gives to the Church to prevent the teaching of error, IT IS NOT GIVEN TO INDIVIDUAL BELIEVERS.

We are too far apart for you see me.

People should not study history because it's not following the Holy Spirit? Do you have any idea how absurd that is? How about medicine. Should medical students drop out of med school
so they can follow what you say is the Holy Spirit?

I guess this is the last one on this thread. You misunderstand or twist even the literal meaning of my words. We are both wasting our time here.

Let's get back to the subject. Your theory is a remnant of true believers existed from the beginning, yet you are resistant to history. You have no names of this "remnant" because history is your enemy. So you say "man's history" as an excuse to dispense with history. This forces you to dispense with the writings of the earliest Christians before the canon of scripture was finally realized. Nice dodge.

Only a fool accepts all that men have written in history without reservations for reasons obvious to any good historian. Of course, not all historians are good ones.

No, you brought up prevalent teaching that quenches the spirit and now you are changing the goal posts.

I have not changed a thing. I already explained what I meant by prevalent teaching. You simply never understood what I said as we are speaking two different languages...

The discussion is not salvation. How can you make such judgments when you dismiss history? And only Jesus saves people, that has always been the Church's prevalent teaching that you borrowed from us. Your bitterness is without foundation.

I do not as you say, 'dismiss history'. I simply take it with a grain of salt. The 'prevalent teaching' has little to do with your specific doctrines. It has to do with teaching people to quench the Holy Spirit, but I'll not explain that again.

I am not at all bitter but just a little frustrated by your inability to even understand my viewpoint. I did not expect you to agree, but understanding would have been good. Delusion must of course be the reason for your lack of understanding.

I'm waiting for God to tell you what prevalent teaching quenches the Holy Spirit. Let me know what He says, please.

I have already told you and I am sorry you were unable to understand:

"Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand." Matt 13:13

The bottom line is pride. You have too much pride to submit to any authority other than what you think the Holy Spirit tells you privately. That makes you dangerous.

You really know nothing at all about God!

I don't follow any man made traditions, except Thanksgiving dinner. Infallibility and tradition are two topics that sola scripturists cannot learn, even with spoonfed scripture.

If it were funny I would laugh, but... Jesus wept.

Baptism is the beginning.

You are trying to justify your independence from the Historic Church; you have constructed a false cardboard caricature that isn't real. You refuse to learn any history. You are your own authority, your own pope.

Your delusions are simply too deeply rooted and you refuse to open the door.
We are done now.

 

[epostle1]

I understand you, I just disagree with your Montanism.

In the 4th century, a heretical group known as the Pneumatomachi or Macedonians accepted the divinity of Christ (against Arianism) but denied the full divinity of the Holy Spirit. This belief was refuted by St. Basil the Great in his De Spiritu Sancto ("On the Holy Spirit") and the Pneumatomachi were condemned by Pope Damasus in 374 and by the Council of Constantinople (canon 1) in 381. It was also at the Council of Constantinople that the divinity of the Holy Spirit was formalized. The doctrine of the Spirit was further elaborated by Saint Augustine in his work De Trinitate ("On the Trinity"), in which the Holy Spirit is seen as the bond of union and love between the Father and Son.

 

[Triumph1300]

 

[Truth7t7]

I didn't say that. You said: "I do believe that Jesus started a Church but the thing that is infallible is the Holy Spirit in a believer." That is not infallibility. It is a charism that Jesus gives to the Church to prevent the teaching of error, IT IS NOT GIVEN TO INDIVIDUAL BELIEVERS.

People should not study history because it's not following the Holy Spirit? Do you have any idea how absurd that is? How about medicine. Should medical students drop out of med school
so they can follow what you say is the Holy Spirit?
Let's get back to the subject. Your theory is: a remnant of true believers existed from the beginning, yet you are resistant to history. You have no names of this "remnant" because history is your enemy. So you say "man's history" as an excuse to dispense with history. This forces you to dispense with the writings of the earliest Christians before the canon of scripture was finally realized. There is not a shred of evidence of this "remnant" group apart from the Historic Church. Nice dodge.
It's actually a Baptist Secessionist theory.
No, you brought up prevalent teaching that quenches the spirit and now you are changing the goal posts.

The discussion is not salvation. How can you make such judgments when you dismiss history? How do you think we got the full doctrine of the Trinity? A committee??? And only Jesus saves people, that has always been the Church's prevalent teaching that you borrowed from us. Your bitterness is without foundation.
I'm waiting for God to tell you what prevalent teaching quenches the Holy Spirit. Let me know what He says, please.
There was no Bible for 350 years. Was every Christian lost before then? The bottom line is pride. You have too much pride to submit to any authority other than what you think the Holy Spirit tells you privately. Keep it to yourself.

I don't follow any man made traditions, except Thanksgiving dinner. Infallibility and tradition are two topics that sola scripturists cannot learn, even with spoonfed scripture.


God's order is called "baptism"? Your second sentence appears to be a fragment. I am not responding to it because I don't know what you are saying.

​

The Roman Catholic State Church finds it's beginnings in Constatine 325AD, and the Council of Nicea, as the secular government wed the religious body in persecution and banishments of those desired by the religions leading powers.

Eusebius the Arian Heritic was the first Pope and persecuted the true Christian church that opposed him.

You will closely see 1800 bishops were invited by Constatine's State Church Meeting, free plane ticket, room and board on the Roman Emperor, you will closely note 1400+ didn't attend the Papal Meeting!

The true lineage of christianity can be traced back to those that opposed Constatines State Church And The Roman Emperors, The Martyr's!

Wikipedia: First Council of Nicaea (/naɪˈsiːə/; Greek: Νίκαια [ˈnikεa]) was a council of Christian bishops convened in the Bithynian city of Nicaea (now İznik, Bursa province, Turkey) by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in AD 325. Constantine I organized the council along the lines of the Roman Senate and presided over it, but did not cast any official vote.

Constantine had invited all 1,800 bishops of the Christian church within the Roman Empire (about 1,000 in the east and 800 in the west), but a smaller and unknown number attended. Eusebius of Caesarea counted more than 250,[20] Athanasius of Alexandria counted 318,[11] and Eustathius of Antioch estimated "about 270"[21] (all three were present at the council).

Constantine assisted in assembling the council by arranging that travel expenses to and from the bishops' episcopal sees, as well as lodging at Nicaea, be covered out of public funds.[74] He also provided and furnished a "great hall ... in the palace" as a place for discussion so that the attendees "should be treated with becoming dignity"

Thereupon, the debate about Arius and church doctrine began. "The emperor gave patient attention to the speeches of both parties" and "deferred" to the decision of the bishops.[75]The bishops first pronounced Arius' teachings to be anathema, formulating the creed as a statement of correct doctrine. When Arius and two followers refused to agree, the bishops pronounced clerical judgement by excommunicating them from the Church. Respecting the clerical decision, and seeing the threat of continued unrest, Constantine also pronounced civil judgement, banishing them into exile. This was the beginning of the practice of using secular power to establish doctrinal orthodoxy within Christianity, an example followed by all later Christian emperors, which led to a circle of Christian violence, and of Christian resistance couched in terms of martyrdom.[76]

 

[epostle1]

Several evangelical scholars have noted that the problem with Protestant ecclesiology is that there is no Protestant ecclesiology. In many denominations—and especially in non-denominational churches—there is no hierarchy of churches responsible to a central head, no accountability beyond the local congregation, no fellowship beyond the local assembly, no missional emphasis that gains support from hundreds of congregations, and no superiors to whom a local pastor must submit for doctrinal or ethical fidelity.

Daniel B. Wallace
Executive Director of CSNTM & Senior Research Professor of NT Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary

 

[BreadOfLife]

Jesus prayer was on behalf of the church. That hell should not prevail against His church. It did not apply to any apostate pagan/pseudo Christian enterprise that ascended from the ruins of emperor worship.

Sooooo, I guess the REAL question for you is: When did the Catholic Church originate?

Apparently, YOU believe it was NOT established by Jesus and the Apostles - even though the evidence oif historical documentation favors the Catholic position.

The onus is now on YOU to provide evidence for the origins of the Catholic Church if it was NOT established by Jesus and the Apostles.

I eagerly await your response . . .

 

[Truth7t7]

Sooooo, I guess the REAL question for you is: When did the Catholic Church originate?

Apparently, YOU believe it was NOT established by Jesus and the Apostles - even though the evidence oif historical documentation favors the Catholic position.

The onus is now on YOU to provide evidence for the origins of the Catholic Church if it was NOT established by Jesus and the Apostles.

I eagerly await your response . . .

The Roman Catholic Church started with Constatine in 325 AD, As Civil Power Was Introduced Into creating the Roman Catholic Church State.

The Roman Catholic State Church finds it's beginnings in Constatine 325AD, and the Council of Nicea, as the secular government wed the religious body in persecution and banishments of those desired by the religions leading powers.

Eusebius the Arian Heritic was the first Pope and persecuted the true Christian church that opposed him.

You will closely see 1800 bishops were invited by Constatine's State Church Meeting, free plane ticket, room and board on the Roman Emperor, you will closely note 1400+ didn't attend the Papal Meeting!

The true lineage of christianity can be traced back to those that opposed Constatines State Church And The Roman Emperors, The Martyr's!

Wikipedia: First Council of Nicaea (/naɪˈsiːə/; Greek: Νίκαια [ˈnikεa]) was a council of Christian bishops convened in the Bithynian city of Nicaea (now İznik, Bursa province, Turkey) by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in AD 325. Constantine I organized the council along the lines of the Roman Senate and presided over it, but did not cast any official vote.

Constantine had invited all 1,800 bishops of the Christian church within the Roman Empire (about 1,000 in the east and 800 in the west), but a smaller and unknown number attended. Eusebius of Caesarea counted more than 250,[20] Athanasius of Alexandria counted 318,[11] and Eustathius of Antioch estimated "about 270"[21] (all three were present at the council).

Constantine assisted in assembling the council by arranging that travel expenses to and from the bishops' episcopal sees, as well as lodging at Nicaea, be covered out of public funds.[74]He also provided and furnished a "great hall ... in the palace" as a place for discussion so that the attendees "should be treated with becoming dignity"

Thereupon, the debate about Arius and church doctrine began. "The emperor gave patient attention to the speeches of both parties" and "deferred" to the decision of the bishops.[75]The bishops first pronounced Arius' teachings to be anathema, formulating the creed as a statement of correct doctrine. When Arius and two followers refused to agree, the bishops pronounced clerical judgement by excommunicating them from the Church. Respecting the clerical decision, and seeing the threat of continued unrest, Constantine also pronounced civil judgement, banishing them into exile. This was the beginning of the practice of using secular power to establish doctrinal orthodoxy within Christianity, an example followed by all later Christian emperors, which led to a circle of Christian violence, and of Christian resistance couched in terms of martyrdom.[76]

 

[BreadOfLife]

The Roman Catholic church started with Constatine in 325 AD.

The Roman Catholic State Church finds it's beginnings in Constatine 325AD, and the Council of Nicea, as the secular government wed the religious body in persecution and banishments of those desired by the religions leading powers.

Eusebius the Arian Heritic was the first Pope and persecuted the true Christian church that opposed him.

You will closely see 1800 bishops were invited by Constatine's State Church Meeting, free plane ticket, room and board on the Roman Emperor, you will closely note 1400+ didn't attend the Papal Meeting!

The true lineage of christianity can be traced back to those that opposed Constatines State Church And The Roman Emperors, The Martyr's!

Wikipedia: First Council of Nicaea (/naɪˈsiːə/; Greek: Νίκαια [ˈnikεa]) was a council of Christian bishops convened in the Bithynian city of Nicaea (now İznik, Bursa province, Turkey) by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in AD 325. Constantine I organized the council along the lines of the Roman Senate and presided over it, but did not cast any official vote.

Constantine had invited all 1,800 bishops of the Christian church within the Roman Empire (about 1,000 in the east and 800 in the west), but a smaller and unknown number attended. Eusebius of Caesarea counted more than 250,[20] Athanasius of Alexandria counted 318,[11] and Eustathius of Antioch estimated "about 270"[21] (all three were present at the council).

Constantine assisted in assembling the council by arranging that travel expenses to and from the bishops' episcopal sees, as well as lodging at Nicaea, be covered out of public funds.[74]He also provided and furnished a "great hall ... in the palace" as a place for discussion so that the attendees "should be treated with becoming dignity"

Thereupon, the debate about Arius and church doctrine began. "The emperor gave patient attention to the speeches of both parties" and "deferred" to the decision of the bishops.[75]The bishops first pronounced Arius' teachings to be anathema, formulating the creed as a statement of correct doctrine. When Arius and two followers refused to agree, the bishops pronounced clerical judgement by excommunicating them from the Church. Respecting the clerical decision, and seeing the threat of continued unrest, Constantine also pronounced civil judgement, banishing them into exile. This was the beginning of the practice of using secular power to establish doctrinal orthodoxy within Christianity, an example followed by all later Christian emperors, which led to a circle of Christian violence, and of Christian resistance couched in terms of martyrdom.[76]

And ALL of this would be laughable - if it weren't so tragically ignorant . . .

For starters - there is no such thing as "The roman Catholic Church". This is an ignorant fallacy - but you're not alone. MANY anti-Catholics like yourself believe in this garbage because you've chosen to swallow the lies instead of the facts.

Secondly - Constantine had NOTHING to do with the formation of the Catholic Church. He simply legalized Christianity in His Edict of Milan. One of the reasons for this is that his mother (St. Helena) was a Catholic.

Thirdly - Sylvester was Pope during the Council of Nicaea - NOT Eusebius.
Pope Eusebius was dead 3 years BEFORE the Edict of Milan, and 15 years before the Council of Nicaea, Einstein. So, referring to him as the first "Roman Catholic" Pope is pretty stupid . . .

I suggest you do your homework before responding . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Y'know, Jesuits are supposed to be the "best and the brightest" among all Catholics, but you are definitely the exception, friend. The Biblical definition for Anathema is "cursed", but it seems necessary to clarify for your confused, deluded, misguided, Catholic self that nothing "cursed" is allowed in heaven.

An "Anathema" is only for Catholics. They don't apply to Protestants.
You cannot be anathematized if you are NOT a Catholic. It is an excommunication - and you can't be excommunicated from the Catholic Church is you are NOT a Catholic

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
Anathema - Placed on high, suspended, set aside
Excommunication - Exclusion from the communion, the principal and severest censure, is a medicinal, spiritual penalty that deprives the guilty Christian of all participation in the common blessings of ecclesiastical society

Perhaps your blind devotion to the RCC - the Roman Child-raping Church - has blinded you to the idea of "conservative" and "liberal" estimates. It is extremely difficult to know just how many innocent victims there were of the almost thirteen century slaughter that was the Roman Child-raping Church rampage, who were murdered simply because they either refused to or were suspected of refusing to believe what the Satanic Papal Antichrist commanded them to believe. Only time and eternity will reveal just how severe the slaughter actually was.

What about all of your Protestant "Child-Raping" churches?
Any "blindness" there??

Why are you incapable of understanding the extremely simplistic idea that Bloody Mary, motivated by her devotion to the RCC (which was equally as blind as yours is) ordered the execution of non-Catholics as part of a campaign to bring England back to subservience to the Papal Antichrist, while Queen Elizabeth was fighting to stop this campaign? The fact remains that if the RCC would have just given up her Satanic Control Freakism, much bloodshed would have been avoided.

And why are YOU incapable of understanding that Elizabeth I murdered tens of thousands, of Catholics while her half-sister Mary is responsible for only a couple of hundred - yet SHE has the title of "Bloody Mary"??
Their father, Henry VIII is responsible for upwards of 72,000 Catholic murders.

Gee - no anti-Catholic bias there . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Y'know, Jesuits are supposed to be the "best and the brightest" among all Catholics, but you are definitely the exception, friend.

Ummmmm, WHY would you call me a "Jesuit"??
That is a priestly order - and I'm NOT an ordained priest.

 

[Marymog]

Games and judging, no... Rather when I say blocked, I mean your own spirit blocking the Holy Spirit. All of us do this. Before we had the Holy Spirit working for us all we could do was wrong. If we follow our own spirit we cannot be increased. We are blocking God.
"He must increase, but I must decrease." John 3:30
There is no your truth or my truth. That is man's truth which is not truth at all. Truth is Jesus which is God.

Dear sir,

Once again you play word games. I have never denied that "Truth is Jesus which is God". For you to make that statement means NOTHING in this conversation and it has NOTHING to do with "your truth or my truth". So I say/ask once again and I hope to get an answer instead of a twisting of words that mean NOTHING: You rely on the Holy Spirit to give YOU the truth. I rely on the Holy Spirit to give The Church the truth. Why does your truth invalidate my Truth???

Mary

 

[Marymog]

Good Gravy, you mean to tell me you've never heard of Rome's persecution of those who would possess a Bible? Look, thank you for your thoughts, but I'm not interested in engaging Catholic apologists who have drunk the Catholic Coolaid and stubbornly deny or remain willfully ignorant of the history of Satanic darkness that is the RCC.

TRANSLATION:

I am unable to back up what I have just stated and I have no answer for you Marymog therefor I will go into attack mode.

Mary

 

[Truth7t7]

And ALL of this would be laughable - if it weren't so tragically ignorant . . .

For starters - there is no such thing as "The roman Catholic Church". This is an ignorant fallacy - but you're not alone. MANY anti-Catholics like yourself believe in this garbage because you've chosen to swallow the lies instead of the facts.

Secondly - Constantine had NOTHING to do with the formation of the Catholic Church. He simply legalized Christianity in His Edict of Milan. One of the reasons for this is that his mother (St. Helena) was a Catholic.

Thirdly - Sylvester was Pope during the Council of Nicaea - NOT Eusebius.
Pope Eusebius was dead 3 years BEFORE the Edict of Milan, and 15 years before the Council of Nicaea, Einstein. So, referring to him as the first "Roman Catholic" Pope is pretty stupid . . .

I suggest you do your homework before responding . . .

Who do you think donated the Popes seat and Roman Catholic Cathedrals on the very ground that exist today in Italy, Roman Emperor Constatine!

Constatine Is The Father Of The Very Ground The Pope Lives In And Lays His Head Down, And The Roman Catholic Church Calls It's Headquarters, Saint Peters Basilica.

You need to do your research, Constatine is the Father Of Roman Catholocism, And Funded It's Buildings And Enforced Banishment On Christians That Opposed The Roman Catholic State Church.

The True Christian Church Was Persecuted By This Roman Catholic State Church In Italy Headquarted In Rome, Built By It's Emperor.

The Persecuted Church Didn't Recognize Rome As It's Central Authority, What World Do You Live In.

Wikipedia: Old Saint Peters Basilica
Construction began by orders of the Roman Emperor Constantine I between 318 and 322,[2] and took about 30 years to complete. Over the next twelve centuries, the church gradually gained importance, eventually becoming a major place of pilgrimage in Rome.

Wikipedia: Archbasilica of St. John Lateran
Saints John the Baptist and [John] the Evangelist".[5] The inscription indicates, along with its full title (see below), that the archbasilica was originally dedicated to Christ the Savior and, centuries later, co-dedicated to St. John the Baptist and St. John the Evangelist. As the Cathedral of the Pope qua Bishop of Rome, it ranks superior to all other churches of the Roman Catholic Church, including St. Peter's Basilica, and therefore it alone is titled "Archbasilica" among all other basilicas.

The Lateran Palace fell into the hands of the Emperor when Constantine I married his second wife Fausta, sister of Maxentius. Known by that time as the "Domus Faustae" or "House of Fausta," the Lateran Palace was eventually given to the Bishop of Rome by Constantine I.

 

[Marymog]

Someone thought that you were. Were you? You do seem to often come at people too abrasively or with too much of an accusing attitude. Is that an attack? If it is then, yes.

Examples? Check out any of your conversations with anyone here who is not Catholic? If you cannot see it then you should talk to God about it. I won't pick one for you as it is not just one. I have not read one that was not in that wrong spirit as I see it.

Hi,

Being abrasive is not an attack on someone. It is a reflection of someone's demeanor or personality. It has NOTHING to do with the person on the receiving end of the person with the abrasive personality it only has to do with the person that is abrasive.

PLEASE show me, by cutting and pasting, where I made an accusation that YOU consider an attack instead of telling me to check out my own conversations and that I should talk to God about it. God didn't make the accusation.... You made/agreed with the accusation, now back it up..... (holding my breath )

What this really comes down to is you don't have any examples of Marymog "attacking" you. Neither did the other trolls that have teamed up with you because they couldn't provide any example either. Out of three of you I hoped that at least one of you wouldn't make a false accusation.

I asked you for an example of when I lost control of my keyboard and tongue. That was YOUR accusation.

You FAILED to give an example. Instead of answering the question you ask questions which is common for you to do (it's called dodge ball). Sooo what's the chance of you apologizing for that false accusation????

The cherry on top of the cake......You then throw out another accusation that my responses to you are in the wrong spirit......

Hmmmmm........

Mary

 

[BreadOfLife]

The True Christian Church Was Persecuted By This Roman Catholic State Church In Italy Headquarted In Rome, Built By It's Emperor.

The Persecuted Church Didn't Recognize Rome As It's Central Authority, What World Do You Live In.

Instead of going to wikipedia for your theology - try reading the actual writings of the Early Church on the matter.

While you're at at - tell me the name and/Or the whereabouts of this "true Christian church" that was persecuted by the Catholic Church. Finally - tell me why Jesus LIED when he said that His church would NOT succumb to the gates of Hell (Matt. 16:18).

The Early Church on the Primacy of the Church and Bishop of Rome:
Clement of Rome
Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1[A.D. 95]).
***Pope Clement was called to intervene (from Rome) in the Church at Corinth when there was a rebellion against the ordained clergy there.

Ignatius of Antioch
You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).

Irenaeus
But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [inter A.D. 180-190]).

Clement of Alexandria
The blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? "Behold, we have left all and have followed you" [Matt. 19:2 7, Mark 10:28] (Who is the Rich Man That is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]).

Tertullian
The Lord said to Peter, "On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven" [Matt. 16:18-19]. ... Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).

Letter of Clement to James
Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon Peter, who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D, 221]).

Cyprian
With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [A.D. 252]).

The Lord says to Peter: "I say to you," he says, "that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church" . . . On him he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but ONE CHURCH and ONE CHAIR.

So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he should desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 [A.D. 251]).

Optatus
In the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head — that is why he is also called Cephas — of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would presume to set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [circa A.D. 367]).

 

[amadeus]

I understand you, I just disagree with your Montanism.

In the 4th century, a heretical group known as the Pneumatomachi or Macedonians accepted the divinity of Christ (against Arianism) but denied the full divinity of the Holy Spirit. This belief was refuted by St. Basil the Great in his De Spiritu Sancto ("On the Holy Spirit") and the Pneumatomachi were condemned by Pope Damasus in 374 and by the Council of Constantinople (canon 1) in 381. It was also at the Council of Constantinople that the divinity of the Holy Spirit was formalized. The doctrine of the Spirit was further elaborated by Saint Augustine in his work De Trinitate ("On the Trinity"), in which the Holy Spirit is seen as the bond of union and love between the Father and Son.

"The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us." Ecc 1:9-10

 

[Truth7t7]

Instead of going to wikipedia for your theology - try reading the actual writings of the Early Church on the matter.

While you're at at - tell me the name and/Or the whereabouts of this "true Christian church" that was persecuted by the Catholic Church. Finally - tell me why Jesus LIED when he said that His church would NOT succumb to the gates of Hell (Matt. 16:18).

The Early Church on the Primacy of the Church and Bishop of Rome:
Clement of Rome
Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1[A.D. 95]).
***Pope Clement was called to intervene (from Rome) in the Church at Corinth when there was a rebellion against the ordained clergy there.

Ignatius of Antioch
You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).

Irenaeus
But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [inter A.D. 180-190]).

Clement of Alexandria
The blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? "Behold, we have left all and have followed you" [Matt. 19:2 7, Mark 10:28] (Who is the Rich Man That is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]).

Tertullian
The Lord said to Peter, "On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven" [Matt. 16:18-19]. ... Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).

Letter of Clement to James
Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon Peter, who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D, 221]).

Cyprian
With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [A.D. 252]).

The Lord says to Peter: "I say to you," he says, "that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church" . . . On him he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but ONE CHURCH and ONE CHAIR.

So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he should desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 [A.D. 251]).

Optatus
In the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head — that is why he is also called Cephas — of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would presume to set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [circa A.D. 367]).

Who do you think donated the Popes Throne and The Roman Catholic Cathedrals, on the very ground that exist today in Italy, "Roman Emperor Constatine"!

Constatine Is The Father Of The Very Ground The Pope Calls His Cathedral, Constatines Old House, The Laternn Palace, And The Cathedral The Roman Catholic Church Calls It's Headquarters, Saint Peters Basilica.

Constatine Is The Father Of Roman Catholicism, And It's Founding Headquarters In Buildings.

Wikipedia: Old Saint Peters Basilica
Construction began by orders of the Roman Emperor Constantine I between 318 and 322,[2] and took about 30 years to complete. Over the next twelve centuries, the church gradually gained importance, eventually becoming a major place of pilgrimage in Rome.

Wikipedia: Archbasilica of St. John Lateran
Saints John the Baptist and [John] the Evangelist".[5] The inscription indicates, along with its full title (see below), that the archbasilica was originally dedicated to Christ the Savior and, centuries later, co-dedicated to St. John the Baptist and St. John the Evangelist. As the Cathedral of the Pope qua Bishop of Rome, it ranks superior to all other churches of the Roman Catholic Church, including St. Peter's Basilica, and therefore it alone is titled "Archbasilica" among all other basilicas.

The Lateran Palace fell into the hands of the Emperor when Constantine I married his second wife Fausta, sister of Maxentius. Known by that time as the "Domus Faustae" or "House of Fausta," the Lateran Palace was eventually given to the Bishop of Rome by Constantine I.