Proof that the Catholic Church is the one true church and all others are pretenders...

[irosie91]

It is.
Not all Catholics are personally antisemitic, but their religion certainly is.

That's where I'm starting to object to the word "Catholic" --- it's a Greek word, καθολικός --- but at the same time a very vague, stereotypically Italian gesture of something general, universal, and all-encompassing --- and I don't know that the word "unique" even fits so much as "the whole" of something, all of it.

It was the Emperor Constantine who finally permitted a "Catholic" church to exist within the district of his holy empire when the Christians, early followers of Jesus and his disciples including Origen, were killed off, and their descendants, after 300 years of hideous tortures, ceased objecting to Roman circumcisions, crucifixions and other insidious Roman practices of birthing and various abominations of bad medicine.

roman circumcisions? ------what are the insidious roman practices and abominations of bad medicine? Origen did not address
circumcision------he advocated castration

 

[justinacolmena]

Origen did not address
circumcision------he advocated castration

Which is which? Docs have never been that picky or choosy about what they cut off, and even Jesus admitted that they that be whole (with all their body parts) have no need of a physician. The Italians have always been rather vague about all that cutting around with the knife. Even in those days, you're going under the knife on the doctor's orders, and the Emperor wanted his subjects to live in fear and total submission to that ancient Roman medicalism.

 

[irosie91]

Origen did not address
circumcision------he advocated castration

Which is which? Docs have never been that picky or choosy about what they cut off, and even Jesus admitted that they that be whole (with all their body parts) have no need of a physician. The Italians have always been rather vague about all that cutting around with the knife. Even in those days, you're going under the knife on the doctor's orders, and the Emperor wanted his subjects to live in fear and total submission to that ancient Roman medicalism.

they that be "whole" has nothing to do with circumcision----it is a
term for "NOT BEING SICK". Doctors are very choosey about what
they cut off-----always have been........WTF ARE YOU SAYING?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Matthew (13:55-56) mention James, Joseph, Jude and Simon as Brothers of Jesus the children of Joseph and Mary

Strong's Greek: 80. ἀδελφός (adelphos) -- a brother

biblehub.com

STRONGS NT 80: ἀδελφός

ἀδελφός, (οῦ, ὁ (from ἆ copulative and δελφύς, from the same womb; cf. ἀγάστωρ) (from Homer down);
1. a brother (whether born of the same two parents, or only of the same father or the same mother): Matthew 1:2; Matthew 4:18, and often. That 'the brethren of Jesus,' Matthew 12:46, 47 (but WH only in marginal reading); f; Mark 6:3 (in the last two passages also sisters); Luke 8:19; John 2:12; John 7:3; Acts 1:14; Galatians 1:19; 1 Corinthians 9:5, are neither sons of Joseph by a wife married before Mary (which is the account in the Apocryphal Gospels (cf. Thilo, Cod. Apocr. N. T. i. 362f)), nor cousins, the children of Alphaeus or Cleophas (i. e. Clopas) and Mary a sister of the mother of Jesus (the current opinion among the doctors of the church since Jerome and Augustine (cf. Lightfoot's Commentary on Galatians, diss. ii.)), according to that use of language by which ἀδελφός like the Hebrew אָח denotes any blood-relation or kinsman (Genesis 14:16; 1 Samuel 20:29; 2 Kings 10:13; 1 Chronicles 23:2, etc.), but own brothers, born after Jesus, is clear principally from Matthew 1:25 (only in R G); Luke 2:7 — where, had Mary borne no other children after Jesus, instead of υἱόν πρωτότοκον, the expression υἱόν μονογενῆ would have been used, as well as from Acts 1:14, cf. John 7:5, where the Lord's brethren are distinguished from the apostles. See further on this point under Ἰάκωβος, 3. (Cf. B. D. under the word ; Andrews, Life of our Lord, pp. 104-116; Bib. Sacr. for 1864, pp. 855-869; for 1869, pp. 745-758; Laurent, N. T. Studien, pp. 153-193; McClellan, note on Matthew 13:55.)

2. according to a Hebrew use of אָח (Exodus 2:11; Exodus 4:18, etc.), hardly to be met with in secular authors, having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, countryman; so the Jews (as the σπέρμα Ἀβραάμ, υἱοί Ἰσραήλ, cf. Acts 13:26; (in Deuteronomy 15:3 opposed to ὁ ἀλλότριος, cf. Acts 17:15; Acts 15:12; Philo de septen. § 9 at the beginning)) are called ἀδελφοί: Matthew 5:47; Acts 3:22 (Deuteronomy 18:15); ; Romans 9:3; in address, Acts 2:29; Acts 3:17; Acts 23:1; Hebrews 7:5.

3. just as in Leviticus 19:17 the word אָח is used interchangeably with רֵַעַ (but, as Leviticus 19:16, 18 show, in speaking of Israelites), so in the sayings of Christ, Matthew 5:22, 24; Matthew 7:3ff, ἀδελφός is used for ὁ πλησίον to denote (as appears from Luke 10:29ff) any fellow-man — as having one and the same father with others, viz. God (Hebrews 2:11), and as descended from the same first ancestor (Acts 17:26); cf. Epictetus diss. 1, 13, 3.

4. a fellow-believer, united to another by the bond of affection; so most frequently of Christians, constituting as it were but a single family: Matthew 23:8; John 21:23; Acts 6:3 (Lachmann omits); ; Galatians 1:2; 1 Corinthians 5:11; Philippians 1:14, etc.; in courteous address, Romans 1:13; Romans 7:1; 1 Corinthians 1:10; 1 John 2:7 Rec., and often elsewhere; yet in the phraseology of John it has reference to the new life unto which men are begotten again by the efficiency of a common father, even God: 1 John 2:9ff; ; etc., cf. 1 John 5:1.

5. an associate in employment or office: 1 Corinthians 1:1; 2 Corinthians 1:1; 2 Corinthians 2:13(12); Ephesians 6:21; Colossians 1:1.

6. brethren of Christ is used of,

a. his brothers by blood; see 1 above.

b. all men: Matthew 25:40 (Lachmann brackets); Hebrews 2:11f (others refer these examples to d.)

c. apostles: Matthew 28:10; John 20:17.

d. Christians, as those who are destined to be exalted to the same heavenly δόξα (which see, III. 4 b.) which he enjoys: Romans 8:29.

Matthew 13:55-56 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?
56 And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this man get all these things?”

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Yes Jesus had brothers and sisters

Step-brothers maybe.

Matthew (13:55-56) mention James, Joseph, Jude and Simon as Brothers of Jesus the children of Joseph and Mary

Dude, you do realize that you are reading a TRANSLATION of the original ancient Greek, right?

Those words meant 'siblings' as those who grew up in the same household.

It does not necessarily mean actual full sibling as we mean it today in our modern language at all, NOT AT ALL.

You really shouldnt use the stamp of modern thinking on your interpretation of ancient scripture but instead look for what the authors meant to say.

And NO ONE IN THE ANCIENT WORLD CHURCH REGARDED MARY AS EVER BEING ANYTHING OTHER THAN A COMPLETE TEMPLE VIRGIN,

Period.

The NASB is an original translation from the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts, based on the same principles of translation, and wording, as the American Standard Version (ASV) of 1901. ... The Hebrew text used for this translation was the third edition of Rudolf Kittel's Biblia Hebraica as well as the Dead Sea Scrolls.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The NASB is an original translation from the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts, based on the same principles of translation, and wording, as the American Standard Version (ASV) of 1901. ... The Hebrew text used for this translation was the third edition of Rudolf Kittel's Biblia Hebraica as well as the Dead Sea Scrolls.

And the word translated as 'brethren' also included half-siblings and first cousins if they grew up in the same household.

I just proved that to you using Strongs which is a major Protestant reference on the meaning of ancient Greek words.

the translation does not mean what you think it means.

 

[JimBowie1958]

How can any rational Christian be anti-semetic?

Rationally, they can not. They piously have usurped the role of the Jews in the Bible. Here is just one small example:

VATICAN CITY (RNS) A special Vatican meeting on the Middle East ended Saturday (Oct. 23) with a flare-up in Catholic-Jewish tensions, after an American bishop declared the Bible does not give Jews privileged rights to the land of Israel.

"We Christians cannot speak of the `promised land' as an exclusive right for a privileged Jewish people," said Archbishop Cyril Bustros, a native of Lebanon who is currently a Melkite Greek Catholic bishop in Newton, Mass.
"This promise was nullified by Christ," Bustros said at a Vatican press conference marking the end of a two-week session of the Synod of Bishops. "There is no longer a chosen people -- all men and women of all countries have become the chosen people."

God keeps His promises even if we don't. Not only did Christ NOT nullify God's promise. Christ's Kingdom will be in the Temple in Jerusalem, not Rome...

your father-in-law can excommunicate you for that post.....---
or do the auto de fe thing. Give Cyril a break-----Lebanon is
now run by Iran ------he wants to SURVIVE

He could, if I was Catholic...lol

You guys are so weird. None of that has a shred of Reality to it; you do know that, right?

 

[irosie91]

How can any rational Christian be anti-semetic?

Rationally, they can not. They piously have usurped the role of the Jews in the Bible. Here is just one small example:

VATICAN CITY (RNS) A special Vatican meeting on the Middle East ended Saturday (Oct. 23) with a flare-up in Catholic-Jewish tensions, after an American bishop declared the Bible does not give Jews privileged rights to the land of Israel.

"We Christians cannot speak of the `promised land' as an exclusive right for a privileged Jewish people," said Archbishop Cyril Bustros, a native of Lebanon who is currently a Melkite Greek Catholic bishop in Newton, Mass.
"This promise was nullified by Christ," Bustros said at a Vatican press conference marking the end of a two-week session of the Synod of Bishops. "There is no longer a chosen people -- all men and women of all countries have become the chosen people."

God keeps His promises even if we don't. Not only did Christ NOT nullify God's promise. Christ's Kingdom will be in the Temple in Jerusalem, not Rome...

your father-in-law can excommunicate you for that post.....---
or do the auto de fe thing. Give Cyril a break-----Lebanon is
now run by Iran ------he wants to SURVIVE

He could, if I was Catholic...lol

You guys are so weird. None of that has a shred of Reality to it; you do know that, right?

I missed it-----what lacks "a shred of truth"?

 

[The Irish Ram]

How can any rational Christian be anti-semetic?

Rationally, they can not. They piously have usurped the role of the Jews in the Bible. Here is just one small example:

VATICAN CITY (RNS) A special Vatican meeting on the Middle East ended Saturday (Oct. 23) with a flare-up in Catholic-Jewish tensions, after an American bishop declared the Bible does not give Jews privileged rights to the land of Israel.

"We Christians cannot speak of the `promised land' as an exclusive right for a privileged Jewish people," said Archbishop Cyril Bustros, a native of Lebanon who is currently a Melkite Greek Catholic bishop in Newton, Mass.
"This promise was nullified by Christ," Bustros said at a Vatican press conference marking the end of a two-week session of the Synod of Bishops. "There is no longer a chosen people -- all men and women of all countries have become the chosen people."

God keeps His promises even if we don't. Not only did Christ NOT nullify God's promise. Christ's Kingdom will be in the Temple in Jerusalem, not Rome...

your father-in-law can excommunicate you for that post.....---
or do the auto de fe thing. Give Cyril a break-----Lebanon is
now run by Iran ------he wants to SURVIVE

He could, if I was Catholic...lol

You guys are so weird. None of that has a shred of Reality to it; you do know that, right?

In your face reality.

 

[LittleNipper]

But Roman Catholics do believe Mary was born without sin. It's called the Immaculate Conception. And that, according to Roman Catholic Tradition, refers not to the birth of Christ but that of Mary.

Yes.

what does "born without sin" mean?

I firmly believe that Mary sinned during her lifetime. Her parents both sinned. There is no Christian reason to believe that Mary was not a sinner in need of a personal Savior.

 

[LittleNipper]

"We" hate your worship of her.

Catholics honor Mary, we do not worship her. Do you hate our honoring Mary?

But Roman Catholics do believe Mary was born without sin. It's called the Immaculate Conception. And that, according to Roman Catholic Tradition, refers not to the birth of Christ but that of Mary.

The Ark of Gods Redeemer cannot bear sin any more than the Holy of Holies could be so allowed to be corrupted with sin.

Yet the Holy of Holies was entirely built entirely by the hands of sinful men and not perfect and yet the glory of GOD then filled the space. Jesus surrounded HIMSELF with sinful men. It is one's faith in GOD which emanates from GOD (the Holy Spirit) that removes one's sin and places it entirely upon CHRIST. Mary certainly wasn't an individual with evil intentions, and yet even Mary could lose sight of what Jesus was about and on several occasions needed to be reminded...

 

[Newtonian]

Yes Jesus had brothers and sisters

Step-brothers maybe.

Matthew (13:55-56) mention James, Joseph, Jude and Simon as Brothers of Jesus the children of Joseph and Mary

Dude, you do realize that you are reading a TRANSLATION of the original ancient Greek, right?

Those words meant 'siblings' as those who grew up in the same household.

It does not necessarily mean actual full sibling as we mean it today in our modern language at all, NOT AT ALL.

You really shouldnt use the stamp of modern thinking on your interpretation of ancient scripture but instead look for what the authors meant to say.

And NO ONE IN THE ANCIENT WORLD CHURCH REGARDED MARY AS EVER BEING ANYTHING OTHER THAN A COMPLETE TEMPLE VIRGIN,

Period.

The NASB is an original translation from the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts, based on the same principles of translation, and wording, as the American Standard Version (ASV) of 1901. ... The Hebrew text used for this translation was the third edition of Rudolf Kittel's Biblia Hebraica as well as the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Yet NASB removes the Divine Name in its nearly 7,000 occurrences in the Hebrew Scriptures (aka OT) while AS retains the Divine Name in these occurrences. For example:

Psalms 83:18
New American Standard Bible
That they may know that You alone, whose name is the LORD, Are the Most High over all the earth.
American Standard Version
That they may know that thou alone, whose name is Jehovah, Art the Most High over all the earth.

Most Catholic Bible translations also remove the Divine Name. but the Jerusalem Bible retains the Divine Name as Yahweh:

Jerusalem Bible (JB) [Psalms 83:18
83:18 and let them know this: you alone bear the name Yahweh, Most High over the whole world.

 

[Newtonian]

But Roman Catholics do believe Mary was born without sin. It's called the Immaculate Conception. And that, according to Roman Catholic Tradition, refers not to the birth of Christ but that of Mary.

Yes.

what does "born without sin" mean?

I firmly believe that Mary sinned during her lifetime. Her parents both sinned. There is no Christian reason to believe that Mary was not a sinner in need of a personal Savior.

The Catholic doctrine of the immaculate conception of Mary was not always taught in the Catholic Church. From one of our articles on the history of this doctrine:

Was Mary Immaculately Conceived? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

"Why did a church that claims to have existed for nearly 2,000 years wait until 1854 before making the Immaculate Conception a required belief for all Catholics?

The Catholic Encyclopedia states: “In regard to the sinlessness of Mary the older Fathers are very cautious. . . . The Greek Fathers never formally or explicitly discussed the question of the Immaculate Conception.” The fact is that several of the earliest Greek church fathers, such as Origen (185-254 C.E.), Basil the Great (330-379 C.E.) and Chrysostom (345-407 C.E.), expressed views that were contrary to the belief that Mary was immaculately conceived, that is, was free from the stain of original sin. And Augustine (354-430 C.E.), said to be the greatest of the old Latin “Fathers,” expressed similar views.

In his book Christian Worship: Its Origin and Evolution, French Catholic historian Louis Duchesne writes: “The Church of Rome seems to have celebrated no festival of the Virgin before the seventh century.” True, during the fifth century C.E., the Greek-speaking church began keeping a Feast of the Conception of John the Baptist, and, sometime later, a Feast of the Conception of Mary. But The Catholic Encyclopedia admits: “In celebrating the feast of Mary’s Conception the [“Christian”] Greeks of old . . . did not think it absurd to celebrate a conception which was not immaculate, as we see from the Feast of the Conception of St. John . . . To the Orthodox Greeks of our days, however, the feast means very little; they continue to call it ‘Conception of St. Anne’ [Anna, traditionally held to be Mary’s mother], indicating unintentionally, perhaps, the active [sexual] conception which was certainly not immaculate.”

We note, then, that Mary festivals originated in the Eastern, or Greek, Church and that they were not adopted by the Roman, or Latin, Church before the seventh century C.E. And although celebrating a feast of Mary’s conception, the Greek Orthodox Church does not consider her conception to have been immaculate."

 

[JimBowie1958]

How can any rational Christian be anti-semetic?

Rationally, they can not. They piously have usurped the role of the Jews in the Bible. Here is just one small example:

VATICAN CITY (RNS) A special Vatican meeting on the Middle East ended Saturday (Oct. 23) with a flare-up in Catholic-Jewish tensions, after an American bishop declared the Bible does not give Jews privileged rights to the land of Israel.

"We Christians cannot speak of the `promised land' as an exclusive right for a privileged Jewish people," said Archbishop Cyril Bustros, a native of Lebanon who is currently a Melkite Greek Catholic bishop in Newton, Mass.
"This promise was nullified by Christ," Bustros said at a Vatican press conference marking the end of a two-week session of the Synod of Bishops. "There is no longer a chosen people -- all men and women of all countries have become the chosen people."

God keeps His promises even if we don't. Not only did Christ NOT nullify God's promise. Christ's Kingdom will be in the Temple in Jerusalem, not Rome...

your father-in-law can excommunicate you for that post.....---
or do the auto de fe thing. Give Cyril a break-----Lebanon is
now run by Iran ------he wants to SURVIVE

He could, if I was Catholic...lol

You guys are so weird. None of that has a shred of Reality to it; you do know that, right?

View attachment 322795

View attachment 322796
View attachment 322802

In your face reality.

And that is published by the Catholic Church?

I dont think so, it is just a random antisemitic pile of crap.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The NASB is an original translation from the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts, based on the same principles of translation, and wording, as the American Standard Version (ASV) of 1901. ... The Hebrew text used for this translation was the third edition of Rudolf Kittel's Biblia Hebraica as well as the Dead Sea Scrolls.

And the word translated as 'brethren' also included half-siblings and first cousins if they grew up in the same household.

I just proved that to you using Strongs which is a major Protestant reference on the meaning of ancient Greek words.

the translation does not mean what you think it means.

You're over looking one thing. The question was did Joseph and Mary have children God's word says they did. You're calling God a liar.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Proof that the Catholic Church is the one true church and all others are pretenders...
⁜→ Hossfly, et al,
(OPEN RESPONSE ON THE OP)

The Catholic Church is not the only religion that is a bit draconian and holds itself in such high esteem.

Of course, you realize that any theological construct that believes in such things as the "burning bush," or "reanimating the dead," the "transmutation of one compound into another," the "ability to change the gravitational constant (levitation)," or in a "Supreme Being" is, in fact, a "devotion and belief in the supernatural." (Magic) And to denounce that the "Guardians of the Watch Towers," "witches sorcerers," (practitioners of supernatural powers) is no less than condemning themselves. When a priest (or equivalent) of any Abrahamic Religions instantaneously communicates with the Supreme Being (through prayer and contemplation) using prayers in the Bible, or the Koran, or the Torah, is exactly analogous to what King Solomon did through the Orations from the Ars Notoria (The Notary Arts of Solomon), or the Book of Shadows, the various Grimoires of Witches, or the Book of Keys. Even expressing the supernatural powers of say, The Book of Azazel (Grimoire of the Damned) is no less the threat of Hell.

2 Peter 2:4 4For if God did not spare angels when they sinned,​

but sent them to hell, putting them in chains of darkness to be​

held for judgment;​

Actually, the theology of the Druids, most Witches, Warlocks, the craftsmen that forge, enchant, and charm Amulets, Talismen, and Ruins, are much more forgiving of wrongs committed.

I cannot say who the "pretenders" are between the many religions and theologies. But when the Priests of the Catholic Church, any relief you might feel is no less dramatic that the use of the words of power, spells, wards, incantations, and the felling from serious contemplation.

King Solomon was renown for his knowledge and wisdom. The very first "Oration" starts out like this:

"In the Name of the Holy and undivided Trinity, beginneth this most Holy Art of
Knowledge, revealed to Solomon, which the Most High Creator by his Holy Angels
ministered to Solomon upon the Alter of the Temple; that thereby in short time he
knew all Arts and Sciences, both Liberal and Mechanick, with all the Faculties and
Properties thereof:​

And is has very illuminating passages.

"Alpha and Omega! Oh Almighty God, the Beginning of all things, without
Beginning, and without End: Graciously this day hear my Prayers; neither do thou
render unto me according to my sins, nor after mine iniquities, O Lord my God, but
according to thy mercy, which is greater then all things visible and invisible. Have
mercy upon me, O Christ, the Wisdom of the Father, The Light of the Angels, The
Glory of the Saints, The Hope, Refuge, and Support of Sinners,"​

"
O God my God, who in the Beginning hast created the Heaven and the
Earth, and all things out of nothing; who reformest, and makest all things by thy
own Spirit; compleat, fulfil, restore, and implant a sound understanding in me, that I
may glorify thee and all thy Works, in all my Thoughts, Words, and Deeds.​

These are not so different thoughts expressed in their practice and ritual than that of a Catholic Priest.

This is just part of the incantations and magic materials, and keys to that which comes before the ritualistic drive Abrahamic followings.

OK, I'll get off the podium. But I could talk about this variation of belief structures for days. You might have noticed that I close with a Sigil each posting. It is a "protection ward" that says: "no evil or virus may enter this network."

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[ninja007]

the RCC is so corrupt, evil and satanic its not even debatable.

 

[ninja007]

Massive list of Roman Catholic False doctrines

 

[Votto]

The Catholic Church is the only church that has held the line on artificial forms of birth control.

The Catholic Church is the only church that has held the line on Jesus' teaching that one should not divorce and remarry.

The Catholic Church is the only church that has held the line on women being excluded from the priesthood.

You may disagree with these positions, the whole world may disagree, but the Catholic Church's holding to unpopular positions is proof that the Catholic Church is not a creature of popular opinion but something more powerful and permanent.

The Catholic Church is the only church preserved from error by the Holy Spirit.

All other churches' holding of any doctrine can be changed by a vote of its leadership and/or membership.

Only the Pope can change a Catholic doctrine, but because the Holy Spirit guides him, doctrines that were true yesterday remain true today.

Before casting stones, you may want to do some thinking first.

Why did Martin Luther break from the church? Was his grievance justified in your opinion?

Secondly, the official church position on genocide is that it is wrong, but they did not publically condemn it when the Nazis held power in Europe, nor are they really saying much about the current genocide of the unborn which in the US, to date, has been some 50 million.

Instead, we are given a Left wing Pope who gives sermons on the evils of building walls instead, something Nehemiah was told to do by God in the Bible.

As for the child molestation issues, the Catholics have either played politics by protecting their own and/or have put too much faith in the repentance of such priests making things right again. Either way, this has been a death blow to public respect for the entire organization.

 

[Meriweather]

Why did Martin Luther break from the church? Was his grievance justified in your opinion?

Historically, delve deeper. There was a political faction that used Martin Luther. While researching it can also be noted that some Catholics had some of the same complaints as Martin Luther, but worked within the Church to correct them. Reading on, we find that once further splintering occurred within his own ranks, Martin Luther had second thoughts about his actions. Then, look into some of Martin Luther's personal issues which took root in childhood. I feel great compassion for Martin Luther. What needs to be remembered today is that Martin Luther was not a single-handed reformer. He simply lived in a time where citizens looked at who had the wealth and power (State and Church which were very well joined in those days) and decided (probably rightfully so) that they wanted that wealth and that power in their own hands.

Corporations and government today would be wise to learn from that time. If they dismiss what happened at the time of Martin Luther as one man upending things, we will see history repeating itself all over again.