- Topic
In another thread, fromtheotherside, speaking of the materials presented againt the wmscog, said "none of your evidences speak for itself. if you have such evidence present it without your explanation."
I presented several 'evidences without explanation' there, but I think it would be a good idea to take each one separately into its own thread. Here's the first one:
Regarding the teaching of the Catholic Church being the Antichrist: the Ostrogoths were not destroyed in 538, the '10 kingdoms' from the Roman empire were not as the WMSCOG presents, 5 were destroyed not 3, and the destruction or survival of these 'kingdoms' did not depend on their following the Catholic Church. These are historical, textbook facts.
I originally did not link to my research about it, because fromtheotherside did not want explanation, but if you'd like to see the research, I've collected it here:
http://encountering-ahnsahnghong.blogspot.com/2011/11/daniels-prophecy.html
http://encountering-ahnsahnghong.blogspot.com/2011/08/is-666-pope-part-3.html
fromtheotherside tried to answer this point but so far was unsuccessful. I'll copy those pieces of the conversation here from the other thread, just to keep everything together.
I just gave two examples of the early Church Fathers using Catholic as a title. I can't force you to see that, but its as plain as day. I don't know why you think St. Polycarp wouldn't recognize the Catholic Church, he was part of it. According to Eusebius the Historian, St. Irenaeus of Lyon was a 'hearer' or 'disciple' of Polycarp. St. Irenaeus wrote that;
“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the Apostolic Tradition has been preserved continuously by those who are everywhere.”
-Saint Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 189 AD
Also, Simon, the Catholic Church acknowledges the *possibilty* of salvation of non-formal members, but that salvation is still through Christ and the grace that is proper to the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church still claims to be the one true Church.
"This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him,(13*) although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity."
"In any community of the altar, under the sacred ministry of the bishop, there is exhibited a symbol of that charity and "unity of the mystical Body, without which there can be no salvation."
Vatican II, Lumen Gentium
Blessed Pope Pius IX explained it this way;
"Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments." -Pope Pius IX, QUANTO CONFICIAMUR MOERORE
you gave no examples.
and no one example Polycarp believed in Quartodecimanism
I gave the examples of Augustine and Paciam.
You are correct he was a Quartodecimian,<font face=”Trebuchet MS, Lucida Grande, Verdana, Tahoma, Arial”> but he would have recognized the Church, with its liturgy, bishops, eucharist, etc. The issue of </font>Quartodecimianism was settled after the life of Polycarp, so that is an anacrhonstic argument. The Church still has different dates used for Easter. I believe the Ethiopian Catholics can still use the Hebrew date for calculating Easter, but I'm not 100% so don't quote me on that.
genny wrote:
This is an interesting conversation about the early church fathers, but it deserves its own thread. Let's keep this one focused more on the historical inaccuracies concerning the fall of the Roman Empire, the 10 kingdoms and the 1260 years.
Agreed, my bad.
no its not anachronistic he wouldn't have accepted the "settlement" because it was blasphemous
Hey guys, my promised post on Daniel/Revelation will have to wait for tomorrow. Tornado watch where I live. I'm going to unplug everything shortly.
Peace! I'm out for the day!
Kim wrote:
Jesus did not create religions, man did. Jesus only spoke of One Father and the kingdom of heaven. This is why I don't like religion, it's like politics, everyone wants to be right, (by mans word) but we need to concentrate on what Jesus said and not man.
1 John 4:4
Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.
There is only ONE GOD so why so many different religions, because everyone wants to put things their way, and not GOD'S way. Wake up people forget about what you were taught and search and study the scriptures yourself, and depend on GOD for the understanding and wisdom, not man. GOD BLESS!
While I completely understand and agree with what you are saying to an extent, I think people have been trying to do just that all along. I feel that the majority of Christian denominations came about from truly sincere people wanting to understand and worship God correctly. Unfortunately, the couldn't all agree, and the
Catholics and all the denominations of Protestantism feel they are searching the scriptures for themselves and relying on God's word. However, what people think that is can be different. I believe that is the reason for all the denominations. I don't believe the intention was for them to deceive at all- but rather have people truly worship God in the way they felt the Bible explained to do so.
My problem is that no one is here to specifically tell us right and wrong, and I think that no one is "right." I've met many genuine people who swear they are connected with the Holy Spirit and rely solely on God & the scriptures, yet they can all say and believe different things.
Kim wrote:
Yes notice* I said God did not create Religion(s) man did. There is only one GOD, therefore there should be only one way.
I also believe that there should only be one way. The problem is that no one knows the one way anymore.
That's my whole dilemma. How can I base my foundation on something that no one knows? How can we be condemed for what we don't know and have no way of knowing?
Liberty wrote:
I also believe that there should only be one way. The problem is that no one knows the one way anymore.
That's my whole dilemma. How can I base my foundation on something that no one knows? How can we be condemed for what we don't know and have no way of knowing?
Are you sure that nobody knows? Christ made us promises.
He said that He would not leave us orphans. John 14:18
He said that the Holy Spirit would lead us into all truth. John 16:13
He said the gates of Hell would never prevail against HIS Church. Matt 16:18-19.
I've never understood how churches with no origins in ancient/apostolic times could claim to have the truth. If the first Christians, that is the Church Fathers, got it wrong, we'll never get it right.
Peter is buried under the altar of Saint Peter's Basilica. Christ founded His Church on Peter figuratively and literally.
Liberty,
Certainly no one can base a foundation upon what is only known with uncertainty (especially when one's soul is at stake!). If we have no way to definitively know the truth God has revealed then we are left with skepticism, uncertainty, and error. Inevitably we will fall into erroreous understandings of Scripture and become suseptible to every wind of error and false teaching.
If God desired to reveal his truth wouldn't it make sense that he would provide a recognizable guide to definitiely and authoritatively teach and interpret this truth?
I hope I'm not getting off topic.
IrenaeusFTW wrote:
Liberty wrote:
I also believe that there should only be one way. The problem is that no one knows the one way anymore.
That's my whole dilemma. How can I base my foundation on something that no one knows? How can we be condemed for what we don't know and have no way of knowing?
Are you sure that nobody knows? Christ made us promises.
He said that He would not leave us orphans. John 14:18
He said that the Holy Spirit would lead us into all truth. John 16:13
He said the gates of Hell would never prevail against HIS Church. Matt 16:18-19.
I've never understood how churches with no origins in ancient/apostolic times could claim to have the truth. If the first Christians, that is the Church Fathers, got it wrong, we'll never get it right.
Peter is buried under the altar of Saint Peter's Basilica. Christ founded His Church on Peter figuratively and literally.
Irenaeus, are you saying that God's true church is in Vatican City ??
Yes, the Catholic Church is the one truth Church founded by Christ.
That's why the WMS hates it so much.
I don’t think that is really the reason. My view on Wmscog is beyond what they think of the Catholic Church. More$$$$$.
That was obviously a little joke, but there's grain of truth with jokes.
I don't know much about the scriptures, but according to the bible and Jesus words, his church was to be built in the district of Caesarea Philippi .,
ha! well what do I know, it so happens to be that the district of Caesarea Philippi was
was an ancient Roman City located at the southwestern base of Mount Hermon,
Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?”And they said, “Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.”He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.“I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”Then He warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ.
this is what it looks like today, there is enough water there to baptise thousands in one shot.
http://www.bibleplaces.com/banias.htm
here is an article http://www.padfield.com/1996/caesphil.html
Kim,
Christ changed Peter's name from Simon to Peter. Peter means rock.Whenever God changes someone's name, like Abram to Abraham, it comes with a new mission or covenant being made.
So Christ said to Peter, "Thou art rock and upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it." Christ is the true rock, but he was associating Peter with himself.
There is no church in all of history claiming to preside from Caesarea Philippi. However there was a giant rock with a pagan temple dedicated to the Emperor worship as a backdrop in Caesarea Philippi when Christ spoke these words to Peter. I think he brought them out here to give Peter his mission, so that Peter and the apostles would later recognize their mission to convert the pagan Roman Empire, which if you read my post on Daniel chapter 2, you'll see the Church eventually did that. And Peter, the rock on which the Church was founded, presided over the Church from Rome.
I have to do my research, I can't agree that the RCC is Christ true church, Or any other church out there that claims to be no matter what the religion.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.