Wondering

[Alimantado]

Have you ever been the victim of a hackneyed apologetics routine?

[1Timothy115]

wow.... a lot has been said. I'm not even sure where to start? I can't even get to all these today, here is what concerns me first (or is the easiest)



No one really knows how/who was the first to call the RCC "catholic", but first/second century christian writings had already proven that the name was in use. Only later, after other religions started up and calling themselves the "catholic church" but who taught VERY different things, did the RCC choose to add the word "Roman" in front of it's name so everyone would know the difference.
It was called the "universal" church because it was not just for the Jews.... but the Gentiles too. And it wasn't just for the wealthy.... but the poor too. In God's church, everyone worshipped God side by side, no matter your station in society.

Correct Julie, the term was in use very early but not by the church at Rome. Rome adopted "catholic" in an attempt to legitimize itself as "the one church" of all believers. The only thing is, by the time they adopted it, people were already grounded in doctrine and rejected this attempt. It's not Roman the papists chose to add, that was already given as with all the churches, by location. Also, in Jesus' catholic church there was no church at Rome. I don't think there is any need to beat this horse further, unless we were to examine the Roman Church in light of John's comments.

[Guest Guest]

It makes me a lier.

Correct, ma'am.

Have you ever stolen anything?
In Christ,
Crushmaster.

[1Timothy115]

That is exactly right. Confessing sins is as old as Christianity. The Bible tells us so:

1John 1:9 - "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

This tells us 2 things, one: that we should confess our sins and two: if we do so, God will forgive us these sins and it will cleanse us.

Since the OT is always fulfilled with the NT, we can see in the OT a tradition already well in place.
In Leviticus 5:6 - "And he shall bring his trespass (sin) offering unto the Lord for his sin which he hath sinned, a female from the flock, a lamb or a kid of the goats, for a sin offering; and the PRIEST shall make an atonement for him concerning his sin.

This tells us that God had already started training his followers that they must DO something when they sin, and that the Priest was an integral part in that.

James 5: 16 - Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed.

This tells us that we should confess to one other (not just God). And that when we do so, we will be healed.

The question is: do we confess our sins to just anyone?? Well, if the believers in the OT, confessed to the Priest, it is logical to still confess to the Priest. Why change that tradition? Besides, have you ever told someone something and later regretted it because they used it against you? or told everyone what you asked want them not to tell? The Priest has taken a vow NEVER to tell another what they hear in our confessions. So they are "safe" to tell. I can be confident that all I say in my confession, will not be told to another soul or be used against me. The bible does suggest we confess our sins to others, so Catholics can not be said to go against the bible here. And the Bible does suggest that confessing to a Priest is tradition, so again, Catholics can not be said to go against the bible here either.

But does the bible say that humans have the ability to loosen sins from another (like Priest do)? yes.

John 20:22-23 - And when he (Jesus) had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whosesoever sins ye remit (release), they are remitted unto them: and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained.

So here we see God giving the apostles the authority to release sins or retain them. Why would Jesus do this UNLESS people are confessing their sins to them?

The Apostles did not live forever, and God new this, so the power to release sin was not just meant for the Apostles, but they were to pass the authority down to their successors. So that every generation and in every land there would be someone you can confess to for the remission of your sins.

There are many snakes here...I'll get back to you on this with corrections to your errors. I wouldn't want to give you anything false.

[1Timothy115]

Here is the story of the Greatest Eucharistic Miracle:

This wondrous Event took place in the 8th century A.D. in the little Church of St. Legontian, as a divine response to a Basilian monk's doubt about Jesus' Real Presence in the Eucharist.

During Holy Mass, after the two-fold consecration, the host was changed into live Flesh and the wine was changed into live Blood, which coagulated into five globules, irregular and differing in shape and size.

The Host-Flesh, as can be very distinctly observed today, has the same dimensions as the large host used today in the Latin church; it is light brown and appears rose-colored when lighted from the back.

The Blood is coagulated and has an earthy color resembling the yellow of ochre.

Various ecclesiastical investigation ("Recognitions") were conducted since 1574.

In 1970-'71 and taken up again partly in 1981 there took place a scientific investigation by the most illustrious scientist Prof. Odoardo Linoli, eminent Professor in Anatomy and Pathological Histology and in Chemistry and Clinical Microscopy. He was assisted by Prof. Ruggero Bertelli of the University of Siena.

The analyses were conducted with absolute and unquestionable scientific precision and they were documented with a series of microscopic photographs.
These analyses sustained the following conclusions:

The Flesh is real Flesh. The Blood is real Blood.

The Flesh and the Blood belong to the human species.

The Flesh consists of the muscular tissue of the heart.

In the Flesh we see present in section: the myocardium, the endocardium, the vagus nerve and also the left ventricle of the heart for the large thickness of the myocardium.

The Flesh is a "HEART" complete in its essential structure.

The Flesh and the Blood have the same blood-type: AB (Blood-type identical to that which Prof. Baima Bollone uncovered in the Holy Shroud of Turin).

In the Blood there were found proteins in the same normal proportions (percentage-wise) as are found in the sero-proteic make-up of the fresh normal blood.

In the Blood there were also found these minerals: chlorides, phosphorus, magnesium, potassium, sodium and calcium.

The preservation of the Flesh and of the Blood, which were left in their natural state for twelve centuries and exposed to the action of atmospheric and biological agents, remains an extraordinary phenomenon.

Julie,
Those "scientists", of what church were they again? Didn't the pope sanction the testing? I let this go before and I was of a mind to allow it to speak for itself again. I'm sure there are plenty of confused people out there but, I hope none of them are here to read the hoax you attempt to perpetuate. Many false spiritist religions should want to flock to such slight of hand. That a true believer in the Word of God with faith in Christ would even tender this as plausible is of the deceived variety.
The only substantiation of these events appear to come from Roman Church. Validation of the ?scientist?s expertness? seem to be lacking. It appears there entire contribution toward their field of ?specialization? was only to assist in this event which can arguably be called a hoax. All the corroborating commentary have nearly the identical text and in most instances are identical, just as in your copy-post.
The most illustrious scientist Prof. Odoardo Linoli, eminent Professor in Anatomy and Pathological Histology and in Chemistry and Clinical Microscopy. Linoli did something to get all the titles added to his name but, none appears anywhere in scientific documentation. So, I?m only guessing how he received the title.
In 1970-'71 and taken up again partly in 1981 there took place a scientific investigation by the most illustrious scientist Prof. Odoardo Linoli, eminent Professor in Anatomy and Pathological Histology and in Chemistry and Clinical Microscopy. He was assisted by Prof. Ruggero Bertelli of the University of Siena.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Lanciano
The following is what Wikipedia has to say about someone providing the same contrivance the Roman Church have asserted and you've perpetuated above:
This article or section has multiple issues. Please help improve the article or discuss these issues on the talk page.
It may contain original research or unverifiable claims.
This article may contain original research or unverified claims. Please improve the article by adding references. See the talk page for details.
This article contains weasel words, vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information. Such statements should be clarified or removed.
This article may contain wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information. Please remove or replace such wording or find sources which back the claims.

If you attempt to click on the link for Prof. Ruggero Bertelli you get a help prompt informing that, ?the page does not exist.?

What does this leave the Christians with as proof? (1) A claim by a biased individual to a miraculous transformation. (2) Some flesh and blood said to have transformed (if in fact it was proved to be flesh and blood). If This evidence was taken to court before God, I doubt a favorable verdict could be found for the Roman plaintiff. However the court of man on earth would most likely swallow it, no pun intended.

Julie, I am compelled to reply to this heresy because there may be people who don't read the Bible, visit here, and take your coments as if God's word.

2 Thessalonians 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

[ptwild]

Julie,
Those "scientists", of what church were they again? Didn't the pope sanction the testing? I let this go before and I was of a mind to allow it to speak for itself again. I'm sure there are plenty of confused people out there but, I hope none of them are here to read the hoax you attempt to perpetuate. Many false spiritist religions should want to flock to such slight of hand. That a true believer in the Word of God with faith in Christ would even tender this as plausible is of the deceived variety.
The only substantiation of these events appear to come from Roman Church. Validation of the ?scientist?s expertness? seem to be lacking. It appears there entire contribution toward their field of ?specialization? was only to assist in this event which can arguably be called a hoax. All the corroborating commentary have nearly the identical text and in most instances are identical, just as in your copy-post.
The most illustrious scientist Prof. Odoardo Linoli, eminent Professor in Anatomy and Pathological Histology and in Chemistry and Clinical Microscopy. Linoli did something to get all the titles added to his name but, none appears anywhere in scientific documentation. So, I?m only guessing how he received the title.
In 1970-'71 and taken up again partly in 1981 there took place a scientific investigation by the most illustrious scientist Prof. Odoardo Linoli, eminent Professor in Anatomy and Pathological Histology and in Chemistry and Clinical Microscopy. He was assisted by Prof. Ruggero Bertelli of the University of Siena.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Lanciano
The following is what Wikipedia has to say about someone providing the same contrivance the Roman Church have asserted and you've perpetuated above:
This article or section has multiple issues. Please help improve the article or discuss these issues on the talk page.
It may contain original research or unverifiable claims.
This article may contain original research or unverified claims. Please improve the article by adding references. See the talk page for details.
This article contains weasel words, vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information. Such statements should be clarified or removed.
This article may contain wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information. Please remove or replace such wording or find sources which back the claims.

If you attempt to click on the link for Prof. Ruggero Bertelli you get a help prompt informing that, ?the page does not exist.?

What does this leave the Christians with as proof? (1) A claim by a biased individual to a miraculous transformation. (2) Some flesh and blood said to have transformed (if in fact it was proved to be flesh and blood). If This evidence was taken to court before God, I doubt a favorable verdict could be found for the Roman plaintiff. However the court of man on earth would most likely swallow it, no pun intended.

Julie, I am compelled to reply to this heresy because there may be people who don't read the Bible, visit here, and take your coments as if God's word.

2 Thessalonians 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

Not that I agree with Julie, but anyone looking for the truth is badly misguided by relying on wikipedia. It is a major faux pas to reference that website in academic debate.

[Alimantado]

Not that I agree with Julie' date=' but anyone looking for the truth is badly misguided by relying on wikipedia. It is a major faux pas to reference that website in academic debate.[/quote']
Indeed. Here's the proof:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia

[Julie L]

Correct Julie, the term was in use very early but not by the church at Rome. Rome adopted "catholic" in an attempt to legitimize itself as "the one church" of all believers. The only thing is, by the time they adopted it, people were already grounded in doctrine and rejected this attempt. It's not Roman the papists chose to add, that was already given as with all the churches, by location. Also, in Jesus' catholic church there was no church at Rome. I don't think there is any need to beat this horse further, unless we were to examine the Roman Church in light of John's comments.

you lost me here.... are you saying that the Early christian churches are separate from the church of Rome?

What church of Rome are you talking about?

[Julie L]

Correct, ma'am.

Have you ever stolen anything?
In Christ,
Crushmaster.

I just Googled the "Good person test", it is good... long, too long to do on this forum, we'd be at this for weeks.
Let's just get to the point. This test is done for 4 reasons:
1. to teach the person what sin REALY is in God's eyes
2. to teach the person that they are a sinner
3. to teach the person that they must repent for these sins
4. to teach that we must accept that Jesus so loved us, he died in our place for these sins. And to except him as our savior and to follow Him.

I'm surprised after all this time you take me for someone that does not believe in these 4 truths!

[Julie L]

Thanks!

[Guest Guest]

I just Googled the "Good person test", it is good... long, too long to do on this forum, we'd be at this for weeks.
Let's just get to the point. This test is done for 4 reasons:
1. to teach the person what sin REALY is in God's eyes
2. to teach the person that they are a sinner
3. to teach the person that they must repent for these sins
4. to teach that we must accept that Jesus so loved us, he died in our place for these sins. And to except him as our savior and to follow Him.

I'm surprised after all this time you take me for someone that does not believe in these 4 truths!

Please forgive me, ma'am, if I am making assumptions. If you are not one of the things listed below, merely disregard them:
According to God's Standard, the Ten Commandments, you are a lying, thieving, blasphemous, murdering adulterer at heart, and you're going to have to face a righteous God on Judgment Day. Based on these answers, what do you think your destiny is going to be? Heaven, or Hell, then the Lake of Fire?
In Christ,
Crushmaster.

[Alimantado]

Hi Julie

Actually, I was trying to make a joke by agreeing that Wikipedia isn't trustworthy and then referencing a Wikipedia article as evidence.

Anyway....I actually think Ptwild is wrong in saying that Wikipedia articles shouldn't be referenced. To say that a Wikipedia article is unreliable because it is Wikipedia is a genetic fallacy. Maybe the article being referenced is dodgy, but the way to find out is to look at the article itself, just as if it were a book or paper.

[ptwild]

Now I would agree with this. If the person referencing the wiki article also makes citations to the cites referenced in the article (and of course has read them and their references), then it is ok to quote the language used in the wiki article. But as a basic rule of thumb, you wikipedia should be used to find citations, but one should never cite a wiki article.

[Julie L]

Please forgive me, ma'am, if I am making assumptions. If you are not one of the things listed below, merely disregard them:
According to God's Standard, the Ten Commandments, you are a lying, thieving, blasphemous, murdering adulterer at heart, and you're going to have to face a righteous God on Judgment Day. Based on these answers, what do you think your destiny is going to be? Heaven, or Hell, then the Lake of Fire?
In Christ,
Crushmaster.

Right... well, since I am all those things... than I deserve Hell! then of course the Lake of Fire is next!

[trc123]

Right... well' date=' since I am all those things... than I deserve Hell! then of course the Lake of Fire is next![/quote']

Agreed, as I do. Praise God the Lord Jesus Christ took that punishment upon himself at the cross on my behalf! He is the only Savior! He is the only way, the truth and the life!