A_K_O:

the catholic church might very well continue to grow, so what? that does not mean anything. Everyday the gay and homosexual community grows, violence increases, govt steals and grows stronger, does that mean they're doing the right thing?

WORD!!! LOL

waterworks:

The same questions over and over again. . . . its quite simple really[b] you ask.[/b] we answer. but we just don't say what you want to hear so you ask again. . . . this has gone one for centuries give it a break!

we do A [/b]you want to do [b]B. You break out to do B satisfaction? NEVER! you want to come and cause problems for the doers of A!!

if christianity is all about righteousnesss and the kingdom of heaven shouldnt we all be busy serving God? why leave your faith, prayers and beliefs to go and condemn others? i don't know about you all but this is very clear to me. IT IS THE DEVILS PLAN. so please go to your side and we will stay in our side on the last day we shall see kwo?

stop causing trouble for the fellow children of God. is it too much to ask?

Cassiel:

Another addition to the list- praying to statues!

and the rosary, transubstantiation, apocrypha, salvation by works etc I mean the list is endless!

Matt. 16:16-18. -> "And Simon Peter answered and said, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' Jesus answered and said to him, 'Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it."

Speaking of lists, let us list the Popes we have had so far.

1) St. Peter (42-67)

2) St. Linus (67-76)

3) St. Cletus (76-88)

4) St. Clement 1 (88-97)

5) St. Evaristus (97-105)

6) St. Alexander I (105-1l5)

7) St. Sixtus I (1l5-125)

8/) St. Telesphorus (125-136)

9) St. Hyginus (136-140)

10) St. Pius I (140-155)

11) St. Anicetus (155-166)

12) St. Soter (166-175)

13) St. Eleutherius (175-189)

14) St. Victor I (189-199)

15) St. Zephyrinus (199-217)

16) St. Callistus (217-222)

      Hippolytus St. (217-235)

17) St. Urban I (222-230)

18) St. Pontian (230-235)

19) St. Anterus (235-236)

20) St. Fabian (236-250)

21) St. Cornelius (251-253)

      Novatianus (251)

22) St. Lucius I (253-254)

23) St. Stephen I (254-257)

24) St. Sixtus I1 (257-258)

25) St. Dionysius (256-268)

26) St. Felix I (269-274)

27) St. Eutychian (275-283)

28) St. Caius (283-296)

29) St. Marcellinus (296-304)

30) St. Marcellus I (308-309)

31) St. Eusebius (309)

32) St. Miltiades (31l-314)

      or Melchiades

33) St. Sil Vester I (314-335)

34) St. Mark (336)

35) St. Julius I (337-352)

36) Liberius (352-366)

      Felix II (355-365)

37) St. Damasus I (366-384)

      Ursjnus (366-384)

38) St. Siricius (384-399)

39) St. Anastasius I (399-401)

40) St. Innocent I (401-417)

41) St. Zosimus (417-418)

42) St. Boniface I (418-422)

      Eulallo (418-419)

43) St. Celestine I (422-432)

44) St. Sixtus III (432-440)

45) St. Leo I (440-461)

46) St. Hilarus (461-468)

47) St. Simplicius (468-483)

48) St. Felix III (483-492)

49) St. Gelasius I (492-496)

50) Anastasius II (496-498)

51) St. Symmachus (498-514)

Laurence (498-501-505)

52) St. Hormisdas (514-523)

53) St. John I (523-526)

54) St. Felix IV (526-530)

55) Boniface II (530-532)

Dioscoro (530)

56) John II (533-535)

57) Agapitus I (535-536)

58) St. Silverius (536-537)

59) Vigilius (537.555)

60) Pelagius I (556-561)

61) John III (561-574)

62) Benedict I (575-579)

63) Pelagius II (579-590)

64) St. Gregory I (590-604)

65) Sabinian (604-606)

66) Boniface III (607)

67) St. Boniface IV (608-615)

68) St. Adeodatus (615-618)

      or Deusdeit I

69) Boniface V (619-625)

70) Honorius I (625-638)

71) Severinus (640)

72) John IV (640-642)

73) Theodore I (642-649)

74) St. Martin I (649-655)

75) St. Eugene I (654-657)

76) St. Vitalian (657-672)

77) Adeodatus II (672-676)

78) Donus (676-678)

79) St. Agatho (678-681)

80) St. Leo II (682-683)

81) St. Benedict II (684-685)

82) John V (685-686)

83) Conon (686-687)

      Theodore (687)

      Paschal (687)

84) St. Sergius I (687-701)

85) John VI (701-705)

86) John VII (705-707)

87) Sissinius (708)

88) Constantine (708-715)

89) St. Gregory II (715-731)

90) St. Gregory III (731-741)

91) St. Zacharias (741-752)

92) Stephen II (752-757)

93) St. Paul I (757-767)

      Constantine (767-769)

      Philip (768)

94) Stephen III (768-772)

95) Hadrian I (772-795)

96) St. Leo III (795-816)

97) Stephen IV (816-817)

98) St. Paschal I (817-824)

99) Eugene II (824-827)

100) Valentine (827)

101) Gregory IV (827-844)

        John (844)

102) Sergius II (844-847)

103) St. Leo IV (847-855)

104) Benedict III (855-858)

       Anastasius (855-880)

105) St. Nicholas (858-867)

106) Hadrian II (867-872)

107) John VIII (872-882)

108) Marinus I (882-884)

109) St. Hadrian III (884-885)

1l0) Stephen V (885-891)

1ll) Formosus (891-896)

1l2) Boniface VI (896)

1l3) Stephen VI (896-897)

1l4) Romanus (897)

115) Theodore II (897)

1l6) John IX (898-900)

117) Benedict IV (900-903)

1l8) Leo V (903)

      Christopher (903-904)

1l9) Sergius III (904-91l)

120) Anastasius III (91l-913)

121) Lando (913-914)

122) John X (914-928)

123) Leo VI (928)

124) Stephen VII (928-931)

125) John XI (931-935)

126) Leo VII (936-939)

127) Stephen VIII (939-942)

128) Marinus II (942-946)

129) Agapitus II (946-955)

130) John XII (955-964)

131) Leo VIII (963-965)

132) Benedict V (964-966)

133) John XIII (965-972)

134) Benedict VI (973-974)

        Boniface VII (974-985)

135) Benedict VII (974-983)

136) John XIV (983-984)

137) John XV (985-996)

138) Gregory V (996-999)

        John XVI (997-998)

139) Silvester II (999-1003)

140) John XVII (1003)

141) John XVIII (1004-1009)

142) Sergius IV (1009-1012)

143) Benedict VIII (1012-1024)

        Gregory (1012)

144) John XIX (1024-1032)

145) Benedict IX (1032-1044)

146) Silvester III (1045)

147) Benedict IX (1045)

148) Gregory VI (1045-1046)

149) Clement II (1046-1047)

150) Benedict IX (1047-1048)

151) Damasus II (1048)

152) St. Leo IX (1049-1054)

153) Victor II (1055-1057)

154) Stephen IX (1057-1058)

        Bened1ct X (1058-1059)

155) Nicholas II (1059-1061)

156) Alexander II (1061-1073)

        Honorius II (1061-1072)

157) St. Gregory VII (1073-1085)

       Clement III (1084-1100)

158) Bl. Victor III (1086-1087)

159) Bl. Urban II (1088-1099)

160) Paschal II (1099-1118)

        Theodoric (1100-1102)

       Albert (1102)

       Sylvester IV (1105-1111)

161) Gelasius II (1118-1119)

        Gregory VII (1118-1121)

162) Callistus II (1119-1124)

163) Honorius II (1124-1130)

       Celestine II (1124)

164) Innocent II (1130-1143)

        Cletus II (1130-1138)

       Victor IV (1138)

165) Celestine II (1143-1144)

166) Lucius II (1144-1145)

167) Bl. Eugene III (1145-1153)

168) Anastasius IV (1153-1154)

169) Hadrian IV (1154-1159)

170) Alexander III (1159-1181)

Victor IV (1159-1164)

Paschal III (1164-1168)

Callistus III (1168-1178)

Innocent III (1179-1180)

17l) Lucius III (1181-1185)

172) Urban III (1185-1187)

173) Gregory VIII (1187)

174) Clement III (1187-1191)

175) Celestine III (1191-1198)

176) Innocent III (1198-1216)

177) Honorius III (1216-1227)

178) Gregory IX (1227-1241)

179) Celestine IV (1241)

180) Innocent IV (1243-1254)

181) Alexander IV (1254-1261)

182) Urban IV (1261-1264)

183) Clement IV (1265-1268)

184) Bl. Gregory X (1272-1276)

185) Bl. Innocent V (1276)

186) Hadrian V (1276)

187) John XXI (1276-1277)

188) Nicholas III (1277-1280)

189) Martin IV (1281-1285)

190) Honorius IV (1285-1287)

191) Nicholas IV (1288-1292)

192) St. Celestine V (1294)

193) Boniface VIII (1294-1303)

194) Bl. Benedict XI (1303-1304)

195) Clement V (1305-1314)

196) John XXII (1316-1334)

       Nicholas V (1328-1333)

197) Benedict XII (1335-1342)

198) Clement VI (1342-1352)

199) Innocent VI (1352-1362)

200) Bl. Urban V (1362-1370)

201) Gregory XI (1371-1378)

202) Urban VI (1378-1389)

203) Boniface IX (1389-1404)

204) Innocent VII (1404-1406)

205) Gregory XII (1406-1415)           Clement VII (1378-1394)

        Benedict XII1 (1394-1423)         Alexander V (1409-1410)

        John XXI11 (1410-1415)

206) Martin V (1417-1431)

207) Eugene IV (1431-1447)

        Felix V (1440-1449)

208) Nicholas V (1447-1455)

209) Calixtus III (1455-1458)

210) Pius II (1458-1464)

211) Paul II (1464-1471)

212) Sixtus IV (1471-1484)

213) Innocent VIII (1484-1492)

214) Alexander VI (1492-1503)

215) Pius III (1503)

216) Julius II (1503-1513)

217) Leo X (1513-1521)

218) Hadrian VI (1522-1523)

219) Clement VII (1523-1534)

220) Paul III (1534-1549)

221) Jules III (1550-1555)

222) Marcellus II (1555)

223) Paul IV(1555-1559)

224) Pius IV (1560-1565)

225) St. Pius V (1566-1572)

226) Gregory XIII (1572-1585)

227) Sixtus V (1585-1590)

228) Urban VII (1590)

229) Gregory XIV (1590-1591)

230) Innocent IX (1591)

231) Clement VIII (1592-1605)

232) Leo XI (1605)

233) Paul V (1605.1621)

234) Gregory XV (1621-1623)

235) Urban VIII (1623-1644)

236) Innocent X (1644-1655)

237) Alexander VII (1655-1667)

238) Clement IX (1667-1669)

239) Clement X (1669-1676)

240) Bl. Innocent XI (1676-1689)

241) Alexander VIII (1689-1691)

242) Innocent XII (1691-1700)

243) Clement XI (1700-1721)

244) Innocent XIII (1721-1724)

245) Benedict XIII (1724-1730)

246) Clement XII (1730-1740)

247) Benedict XIV (1740-1758)

248) Clement XIII (1758-1769)

249) Clement XIV (1769-1774)

250) Pius VI (1775-1799)

251) Pius VII (1800-1823)

252) Leo XII (1823-1829)

253) Pius VIII (1829-1830)

254) Gregory XVI (1831-1846)

255) Pius IX (1846-1878)

256) Leo XIII (1878-1903)

257) St. Pius X (1903-1914)

258) Benedict XV (1914-1922)

259) Pius XI (1922-1939)

260) Pius XII (1939-1958)

261) Bl. John XXIII (1959-1963)

262) Paul VI (1963-1978)

263) John Paul I (1978)

264) John Paul II (1978- 2005) (The Great)

265) Benedict XVI (2005-



-------------------------------------------------------
Te Deum laudamus, Te Dominum confitemur.

again imhotep, you're quoting only one verse, drawing a conclusion and then ignoring all the other many verses that contradict your conclusion!

Peter is just a mere man! Christ did not build his church on peter and was not insinuating so in Mt 16:
From the people's new test. explanation- which did a great job of breaking it down, I quote:

The Savior does not say, "Thou art a stone, and upon thee I will build," etc., or "Thou art a rock, and upon this rock I will build." He changes the word in the Greek from Petros (Peter, a stone) to Petra, a rock, or ledge of rock--a solid bed-rock. 2. Every saint is a stone (see 1 Pet. 2:5[b]). The Lord declares that Peter is one these living stones, made such by his confession of faith, and ready to be built into the church[/b], the spiritual temple, formed of living stones, and built upon the rock. So is every confessor of Christ.

So much for Peter being the rock the entire church is built upon! Peter himself will be shocked and dismayed to think that a "church" was using his name as justification for twisting the word of God.

1 Cor. 3:11 For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.
This directly excludes Peter or any human from being such a stone/rock that the church will be built upon.

1Pet2:4 As you come to him, the living Stone rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6For in Scripture it says "See, I lay a stone in Zion, a chosen and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame."Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe, The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone

Eph2:19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.

@

imhotep:

Nice pictures!You do have a good archive

JeSoul:

again imhotep, you're quoting only one verse, drawing a conclusion and then ignoring all the other many verses that contradict your conclusion!

Peter is just a mere man! Christ did not build his church on peter and was not insinuating so in Mt 16:
From the people's new test. explanation- which did a great job of breaking it down, I quote:

The Savior does not say, "Thou art a stone, and upon thee I will build," etc., or "Thou art a rock, and upon this rock I will build." He changes the word in the Greek from Petros (Peter, a stone) to Petra, a rock, or ledge of rock--a solid bed-rock. 2. Every saint is a stone (see 1 Pet. 2:5[b]). The Lord declares that Peter is one these living stones, made such by his confession of faith, and ready to be built into the church[/b], the spiritual temple, formed of living stones, and built upon the rock. So is every confessor of Christ.

So much for Peter being the rock the entire church is built upon! Peter himself will be shocked and dismayed to think that a "church" was using his name as justification for twisting the word of God.

1 Cor. 3:11 For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.
This directly excludes Peter or any human from being such a stone/rock that the church will be built upon.

1Pet2:4 As you come to him, the living Stone rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6For in Scripture it says "See, I lay a stone in Zion, a chosen and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame."Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe, The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone

Eph2:19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.

Are you trying to use the words of the servant (Paul) to counter the words of the Master (Jesus) This is bad biblical scholarship/exegesis. Small wonder there are 33,000 protestant sects that are in perpetual disagreement.

Again, there is NOTHING allegorical or figurative about ->

Matt. 16:16-18. -> "And Simon Peter answered and said, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' Jesus answered and said to him, 'Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it."

History has shown us the REAL meaning of these words. 'Viva il Papa'

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND COMMUNISM

Beginning with a bloody Russian revolution in 1917, communism eventually spread to China, Vietnam (which eventually led to the bloody Vietnam war), Korea (led to division into North/South Korea, after a bloody war), Cuba (well, Castro just resigned), East Germany , Poland (John Paul II country suffered terribly under communism) etc etc. At least 30 million people were murdered in Russia during the reign of the communists.

Communists states are atheistic and violently BANISH ALL FORMS OF RELIGION. Atheism is enforced on the citizens.

Popes Benedict XV, Pius XI, Pius XII, John XIII, Paul VI and John Paul II fought tooth and nail with the communists, trying to dialog with them to change their ways.

This eventually led to the attempt to assassinate John Paul II.



After 70 years, communism fell in Russia (1989), Poland and many other parts of the world. Thanks to the anti-communist stance of the Catholic church.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where were the protestants all the while Ah, yes ---> Communism is not in their bible (which Catholic bishops compiled and approved in the year 393 AD) , neither is it condemned in the bible.
And so the evil of communism raged around them - while they labeled the Pope (who ultimately saved their faith from the communists) the anti-Christ. So much for 'sola scriptura'.

Matt 16: 18-19
18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."



Against the many heresies that threatened the faith of the Church in the middle ages, The Council of Trent (1545 - 1563), exercising the Church's Divine power to bind and loose, declared -->

[quote author=Council_of_Trent]
1) FOURTH SESSION: DECREE CONCERNING THE CANONICAL SCRIPTURES: "If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts [the 66 books of the Bible plus 12 apocryphal books, being two of Paralipomenon, two of Esdras, Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, Sophonias, two of Macabees], as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA."

2) SIXTH SESSION, CANONS CONCERNING JUSTIFICATION: "If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine mercy, which remits sins for Christ's sake, or that it is this confidence alone that justifies us, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Canons Concerning Justification, Canon 12).

3) SIXTH SESSION, CANONS CONCERNING JUSTIFICATION: "If anyone says that the justice received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works, but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the cause of its increase, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Canons Concerning Justification, Canon 24).


4) SIXTH SESSION, CANONS CONCERNING JUSTIFICATION: "If anyone says that the Catholic doctrine of justification as set forth by the holy council in the present decree, derogates in some respect from the glory of God or the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ, and does not rather illustrate the truth of our faith and no less the glory of God and of Christ Jesus, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Canons Concerning Justification, Canon 33).

5) SEVENTH SESSION, CANONS ON BAPTISM: "If anyone says that in the Roman Church, which is the mother and mistress of all churches, there is not the true doctrine concerning the sacrament of baptism, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Canons on Baptism, Canon 3).

6) SEVENTH SESSION, CANONS ON BAPTISM: "If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Canons on Baptism, Canon 5).

7) SEVENTH SESSION, CANONS ON BAPTISM: "If anyone says that children, because they have not the act of believing, are not after having received baptism to be numbered among the faithful, and that for this reason are to be rebaptized when they have reached the years of discretion; or that it is better that the baptism of such be omitted than that, while not believing by their own act, they should be baptized in the faith of the Church alone, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Canons on Baptism, Canon 13).

SEVENTH SESSION, CANONS ON CONFIRMATON: "If anyone says that the confirmation of those baptized is an empty ceremony and not a true and proper sacrament; or that of old it was nothing more than a sort of instruction, whereby those approaching adolescence gave an account of their faith to the Church, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Canons on Confirmation, Canon 1).

9) THIRTEENTH SESSION, CANONS ON THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST: "If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist are contained truly, really and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ, but says that He is in it only as in a sign, or figure or force, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Canons on the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, Canon 1).

10) THIRTEENTH SESSION, CANONS ON THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST: "If anyone says that Christ received in the Eucharist is received spiritually only and not also sacramentally and really, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Canons on the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, Canon .

11) FOURTEENTH SESSION, CANONS CONCERNING THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF PENANCE: "If anyone says that in the Catholic Church penance is not truly and properly a sacrament instituted by Christ the Lord for reconciling the faithful of God as often as they fall into sin after baptism, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Canons Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of Penance, Canon 1).

12) FOURTEENTH SESSION, CANONS CONCERNING THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF PENANCE: "If anyone denies that sacramental confession was instituted by divine law or is necessary to salvation; or says that the manner of confessing secretly to a priest alone, which the Catholic Church has always observed from the beginning and still observes, is at variance with the institution and command of Christ and is a human contrivance, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Canons Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of Penance, Canon 7).

13) FOURTEENTH SESSION, CANONS CONCERNING THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF PENANCE: "If anyone says that the confession of all sins as it is observed in the Church is impossible and is a human tradition to be abolished by pious people; or that each and all of the faithful of Christ or either sex are not bound thereto once a year in accordance with the constitution of the great Lateran Council, and that for this reason the faithful of Christ are to be persuaded not to confess during Lent, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Canons Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of Penance, Canon .

14) FOURTEENTH SESSION, CANONS CONCERNING THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF PENANCE: "If anyone says that God always pardons the whole penalty together with the guilt and that the satisfaction of penitents is nothing else than the faith by which they perceive that Christ has satisfied for them, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Canons Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of Penance, Canon .

15) TWENTY-SECOND SESSION, CANONS ON THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS: "If anyone says that in the mass a true and real sacrifice is not offered to God; or that to be offered is nothing else than that Christ is given to us to eat, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Canons on the Sacrifice of the Mass, Canon 1).

16) TWENTY-SECOND SESSION, CANONS ON THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS: "If anyone says that by those words, Do this for a commemoration of me, Christ did not institute the Apostles priests; or did not ordain that they and other priests should offer His own body and blood, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Canons on the Sacrifice of the Mass, Canon 2).

17) TWENTY-SECOND SESSION, CANONS ON THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS: "If anyone says that the sacrifice of the mass is one only of praise and thanksgiving; or that it is a mere commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross but not a propitiatory one; or that it profits him only who receives, and ought not to be offered for the living and the dead, for sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Canons on the Sacrifice of the Mass, Canon 3).

18) TWENTY-SECOND SESSION, CANONS ON THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS: "If anyone says that it is a deception to celebrate masses in honor of the saints and in order to obtain their intercession with God, as the Church intends, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Canons on the Sacrifice of the Mass, Canon 5).

19) TWENTY-THIRD SESSION, CANONS ON THE SACRAMENT OF ORDER: "If anyone says that there is not in the New Testament a visible and external priesthood, or that there is no power of consecrating and offering the true body and blood of the Lord and of forgiving and retaining sins, but only the office and bare ministry of preaching the Gospel; or that those who do not preach are not priests at all, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Canons on the Sacrifice of the Mass, Canon 1).

20) TWENTY-THIRD SESSION, CANONS ON THE SACRAMENT OF ORDER: "If anyone says that the bishops who are chosen by the authority of the Roman pontiff are not true and legitimate bishops, but merely human deception, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Canons on the Sacrifice of the Mass, Canon .

[quote][/quote]

imhotep:

Are you trying to use the words of the servant (Paul) to counter the words of the Master (Jesus) This is bad biblical scholarship/exegesis.

   Seeing you completely ignored my previous post where I corrected you on this twisted point you're trying to make, I'll repeat:
I have news for you: ALL the word of God is equally important and relevant and potent and EQUAL!
  Paul's writings vs Peter's writings vs. Isiah's writing vs. Jesus words are ALL THE WORDS OF GOD!!! neither is less important than the other because they all come from God himself. You cannot just quote John 20 and ignore the other verses that contradict your conclusion! whether they come isiah or Moses- it is all the word of God.

  Now, I'm not trying to "counter Jesus words with that of Paul" it is all the word of God and all equal. And since the word of God cannot contradict each other your 'conclusion' is fatally flawed because it directly contradicts other parts of the bible written by not only Paul but Isiah, several other prophets etc.

 

Small wonder there are 33,000 protestant sects that are in perpetual disagreement.

again nobody is talking about protestant denominations here, that has nuthin to do with the fact the catholic church preaches doctrines that directly contradict the bible.

History has shown us the REAL meaning of these words. 'Viva il Papa'

   lol. . . did you say history? you mean the twisted, unscriptural/anti-scriptural and heretical history of the catholic church?

This is an example of what the catholic church is saying:
   I write a book about myself claiming to have descended from Queen Elizabeth, and I use this book to prove to anyone who questions me that I am indeed her ancestor. Hence I have rights to the throne and to make laws and decrees.
  Meanwhile all the other evidence shows that my parents are nigerians and my brothers and sisters are nigerian.
How ridiculous for anyone to quote catholic canon and documents to use as proof that the catholic church is who they say they are? when all the other existing evidence says otherwise? 

Continue to quote and hide behind Mt 16, when there's a million other scripture verses that contradict the misguided conclusion you've reached

@JeSoul,

Bleep your smelling ass hole - why dishing all the time? Bloody fucker!

JeSoul:

Seeing you completely ignored my previous post where I corrected you on this twisted point you're trying to make, I'll repeat:
I have news for you: ALL the word of God is equally important and relevant and potent and EQUAL!
Paul's writings vs Peter's writings vs. Isiah's writing vs. Jesus words are ALL THE WORDS OF GOD!!! neither is less important than the other because they all come from God himself. You cannot just quote John 20 and ignore the other verses that contradict your conclusion! whether they come isiah or Moses- it is all the word of God.

Now, I'm not trying to "counter Jesus words with that of Paul" it is all the word of God and all equal. And since the word of God cannot contradict each other your 'conclusion' is fatally flawed because it directly contradicts other parts of the bible written by not only Paul but Isiah, several other prophets etc.

again nobody is talking about protestant denominations here, that has nuthin to do with the fact the catholic church preaches doctrines that directly contradict the bible.

lol. . . did you say history? you mean the twisted, unscriptural/anti-scriptural and heretical history of the catholic church?

This is an example of what the catholic church is saying:
I write a book about myself claiming to have descended from Queen Elizabeth, and I use this book to prove to anyone who questions me that I am indeed her ancestor. Hence I have rights to the throne and to make laws and decrees.
Meanwhile all the other evidence shows that my parents are nigerians and my brothers and sisters are nigerian.
How ridiculous for anyone to quote catholic canon and documents to use as proof that the catholic church is who they say they are? when all the other existing evidence says otherwise?

Continue to quote and hide behind Mt 16, when there's a million other scripture verses that contradict the misguided conclusion you've reached

@Jesoul
This is exactly how the protestants spent all their time bashing Catholics while the great evil of Communism spread throughout the world for 70 years. I can see their methods have not changed much.

BTW, when do you plan on starting the latest protestant sect that will fiercely contradict and disagree with the ALL of the existing 33,000 protestant sects - all quoting from the SAME bible

imhotep:

@Jesoul
When do you plan on starting the latest protestant sect that will fiercely contradict and disagree with the ALL of the existing 33,000 protestant sects - all quoting from the SAME bible

  lol . . .sweetie, I'm on the side of truth. I do not plan on starting any new sect or religion - I already have one which is based solely and completely on the bible. You wan try?

Now since you've been harping on protestant religions and refuse to face the facts on the catholic contradictions, I'll indulge you.
  Most protestant disagreements are minor and do not strike at the core of christianity.

Sure we're all human and there'll be disagreements - heck Paul had beef with Peter once, and Paul also disagreed fiercely with Barnabas! infact it was such a sharp disagreement they seperated! Disagreements among believers is not a new thing, BUT these disagreements do not stike at the foundation of the faith.
For instance tongues or gifts of the spirit or divorce or types of music or sabbath day sat/sun etc. . .
  most of their disagreements are minor not against the CORE beliefs of the christian faith which include
    1. salvation by grace - not works
    2. forgiveness of sins by God only
the catholic church contradicts these basics and is in a world of their own - outside the holy scriptures

@JeSoul,

Fucking your ashewo smelling ass hole. Religion is not by force, so leave others alone- what a nuisance you are!

plc
okay I have noticed you. happy?
your responses are not even worthy of a reply. While I disagree mightly with imhotep he has conducted himself well and not descended into name-calling or insults - like mature people do and I applaud him.
You on the other hand need to clean up your vocab & speech - might i suggest merriam-webster's online dictionary and thesaraus?

As for grammar aspect - I will lecture you. Bloody fucker!

JeSoul:

lol . . .sweetie, I'm on the side of truth. I do not plan on starting any new sect or religion - I already have one which is based solely and completely on the bible. You wan try?

Now since you've been harping on protestant religions and refuse to face the facts on the catholic contradictions, I'll indulge you.
Most protestant disagreements are minor and do not strike at the core of christianity.

Sure we're all human and there'll be disagreements - heck Paul had beef with Peter once, and Paul also disagreed fiercely with Barnabas! infact it was such a sharp disagreement they seperated! Disagreements among believers is not a new thing, BUT these disagreements do not stike at the foundation of the faith.
For instance tongues or gifts of the spirit or divorce or types of music or sabbath day sat/sun etc. . .
most of their disagreements are minor not against the CORE beliefs of the christian faith which include
1. salvation by grace - not works
2. forgiveness of sins by God only
the catholic church contradicts these basics and is in a world of their own - outside the holy scriptures

@Jesoul
Whenever I see protestants using Paul to counter Jesus (and disintegrating into countless denominations that loathe one another) , this is what I think of ->

2 Peter 3: 15-16 -->

And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you, speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures.

@PLC
Jesoul is still our dear sister - even if we disagree with her on certain issues.

Believing JESUS CHRIST THRO GOD is the only sure way to forgive your sins.Only confess and forsake them,you are free.what was the duty of JESUS sent by GOD to die on the cross.

imhotep you're still not answering my query, so how about we break this down into a series of easily answerable questions?

1. Can scripture contradict another scripture?

2. Is all of scripture equally the word of God?


answer those questions then we'll take it from there.

PLC:

@JeSoul,

Fucking your ashewo smelling ass hole. Religion is not by force, so leave others alone- what a nuisance you are!

PLC:

As for grammar aspect - I will lecture you. Bloody fucker!

I can see that you enjoy going around like a senseless kid who does not know how to potray himself and you yet flaunt the fact that you are so aged!I am appalled that on a religious thread that has been going on smoothly without any exchange of vulgar words you could show your level of immaturity and be engaging in what senseless kids do!You are most celebrated hypocrite I have met on this forum!
In short you really need an overhauling of your psyche!

JeSoul:

imhotep you're still not answering my query, so how about we break this down into a series of easily answerable questions?

1. Can scripture contradict another scripture?

2. Is all of scripture equally the word of God?

answer those questions then we'll take it from there.

@Jesoul
First of all, what is scripture You have to define this first.

No one person (or group) sat down one day and decided to write books in the bible from Genesis to Revelation. Each book was written at its own time and under specific cultural contexts that must be understood very well before interpretation. There are many many such books flying around, till this day.

This is part of why the Synod of Hippo (393 AD) was held and examined many of these books in detail - thereafter select those that were considered to be Divinely inspired. For over 2000 years our bibles have been standing on the authority of this Synod (a synod is just a meeting).

Question -> why should we accept the authority of this Synod to decide which book is Divinely inspired and which is not

Question -> how was the Church operating up until the year 393 AD when the bible was approved

imhotep:

@Jesoul
First of all, what is scripture You have to define this first.

lol. . . trust a nigerian to answer a question with a question

Scripture is the 66books of the bible that we currently have. I'll explain more in response to ur other question below.

No one person (or group) sat down one day and decided to write books in the bible from Genesis to Revelation. Each book was written at its own time and under specific cultural contexts that must be understood very well before interpretation. There are many many such books flying around, till this day.

True all these books were written at very different times, thousands of yrs apart. During Jesus time it is pretty clear there already existed a set of scriptures (which Jesus himself quoted and refered to many many times). So I don't think the validity of the old testament should be under any question.
So obviously the catholic church did not give us the OT, since Jesus himself referred and quoted it many time while He was on earth. 1 mistruth already refuted by Jesus himself.

And yes there are a couple books flying around today as anyone who could read and write could make up whatever mumbo jumbo they wanted and call it holy. But as long as these books are not part of the bible, there are not holy or inspired by God.

This is part of why the Synod of Hippo (393 AD) was held and examined many of these books in detail - thereafter select those that were considered to be Divinely inspired. For over 2000 years our bibles have been standing on the authority of this Synod (a synod is just a meeting).

We need to make something very clear here. Scripture was written by the apostles - as they were inspired by the Holy Spirit. The early church saw and recognized these writings from the apostles as inspired of God and accepted them as scripture. The early church did not establish scripture, they merely recognized and accepted it - very important point.

The catholic church came along couple hundred yrs later - after the church had already been in existence and operation and made their own claims as to what was scripture, thereby giving themselves the power to include or exclude whatever they want. When there was already a church of Jesus Christ established and what was known and accepted as scripture.

Now back to my original questions:
Since scripture are the 66 books of the bible alone,
1. Can scripture contradict another scripture?

2. Is all of scripture equally the word of God?

ty4real:

I can see that you enjoy going around like a senseless kid who does not know how to potray himself and you yet flaunt the fact that you are so aged!I am appalled that on a religious thread that has been going on smoothly without any exchange of vulgar words you could show your level of immaturity and be engaging in what senseless kids do!You are most celebrated hypocrite I have met on this forum!
In short you really need an overhauling of your psyche!

my brotha ignore him jare. There'll always be people like this prowling round looking for trouble.

Jesoul:
Scripture is the 66 books of the bible that we currently have.

Did you work out this number biblically, prophetically or mathematically? Or are you dropping a dogma for me?
If it is a dogma, then on whose authority is it defined? And why should I accept this authority?

Jesoul:
And yes there are a couple books flying around today as anyone who could read and write could make up whatever mumbo jumbo they wanted and call it holy. But as long as these books are not part of the bible, there are not holy or inspired by God.

Who decides which one should be included in the bible and which one should be excluded? Why should we believe/disbelieve this person(s)

Jesoul:
The catholic church came along couple hundred years later - after the church had already been in existence and operation and made their own claims as to what was scripture, thereby giving themselves the power to include or exclude whatever they want.

That's an interesting allegation. Interestingly, this is the list of Popes (bishops of Rome) up till the year 393AD that the Synod of Hippo approved the bible ->

1) St. Peter (42-67)

2) St. Linus (67-76)

3) St. Cletus (76-88)

4) St. Clement 1 (88-97)

5) St. Evaristus (97-105)

6) St. Alexander I (105-1l5)

7) St. Sixtus I (1l5-125)

8/) St. Telesphorus (125-136)

9) St. Hyginus (136-140)

10) St. Pius I (140-155)

11) St. Anicetus (155-166)

12) St. Soter (166-175)

13) St. Eleutherius (175-189)

14) St. Victor I (189-199)

15) St. Zephyrinus (199-217)

16) St. Callistus (217-222)

Hippolytus St. (217-235)

17) St. Urban I (222-230)

18) St. Pontian (230-235)

19) St. Anterus (235-236)

20) St. Fabian (236-250)

21) St. Cornelius (251-253)

Novatianus (251)

22) St. Lucius I (253-254)

23) St. Stephen I (254-257)

24) St. Sixtus I1 (257-258)

25) St. Dionysius (256-268)

26) St. Felix I (269-274)

27) St. Eutychian (275-283)

28) St. Caius (283-296)

29) St. Marcellinus (296-304)

30) St. Marcellus I (308-309)

31) St. Eusebius (309)

32) St. Miltiades (31l-314)

or Melchiades

33) St. Sil Vester I (314-335)

34) St. Mark (336)

35) St. Julius I (337-352)

36) Liberius (352-366)

Felix II (355-365)

37) St. Damasus I (366-384)

Ursjnus (366-384)

38) St. Siricius (384-399)

Why are you guys beating the air here?

imhotep:

Did you work out this number biblically, prophetically or mathematically? Or are you dropping a dogma for me?

Nope, it wasn't me. Blame it on the early church. and 66 is not a magic number, it just happened the books added up to it.

If it is a dogma, then on whose authority is it defined? And why should I accept this authority?

on the authority of the early church, which was established after Jesus left. Not by a grp of men hundreds of yrs later.

Who decides which one should be included in the bible and which one should be excluded? Why should we believe/disbelieve this person(s)

And you can ask this exact question to ur leaders in the catholic church. Who said they were the chosen ones that could jump up and take this power for themselves and make decrees that they had no power to do so in the first place!

We can believe the bible becos it came from the early church led by the apostles of Jesus Christ. Not by some fellas who got together hundreds of yrs later and instilled on themselves the power.

Jesoul:
on the authority of the early church, which was established after Jesus left. Not by a grp of men hundreds of years later.

This early church never saw the BIBLE as you have it today. They must have heard of a number of books either in the process of writing or already written and flying around somewhere.

Jesoul:
And you can ask this exact question to your leaders in the catholic church.

Curious, because your 66 books were approved by them - you implicitly accepted their authority to approve the very foundation of your faith.

Jesoul:
Who said they were the chosen ones that could jump up and take this power for themselves and make decrees that they had no power to do so in the first place!

Then, suddenly, you reject their authority. Consistency demands you also reject the 66 books which they approved.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Are you not being inconsistent and dogmatic??

you know what imhotep, I don't want to get into who gave us the bible becos that will not help this discussion right now. Becos we can go on and on on that topic.

If you can just give me a simple answer to these, it'll be a whole lot more productive.

1. Can scripture contradict scripture? whether it is the catholic bible or the protestant 66 books?

2. Is all of scripture equally the word of God?

thanks.

JeSoul:

you know what imhotep, I don't want to get into who gave us the bible because that will not help this discussion right now. Becos we can go on and on on that topic.

If you can just give me a simple answer to these, it'll be a whole lot more productive.

1. Can scripture contradict scripture? whether it is the catholic bible or the protestant 66 books?

2. Is all of scripture equally the word of God?

thanks.

Good. But if we do not define what we mean by scripture, we cannot adequately address these questions.

@Jesoul
Let me just introduce the issue of exegesis.

Exegesis : In its simplest meaning, it means finding out what the Spirit originally said in the Bible passage through its author. It's what comes out of the Bible, as against what gets read into it.

In a more theological setting, exegesis means what comes from the use of certain methods of studying the Bible. [/b]Just about every imaginable method already has a name, and there are all sorts of mixes, but the [b]main types are :

1) Historical (using the form, word choices, editing work, historical context, main themes, and so on, to find what it meant back when it was written or when it happened),

2) Canonical (treating the Bible as an whole document designed to be what a specific community lives by),

3) Symbolic/allegorical (figuring out what each character and event represents),

4) Rational (thinking it through using logic and deductive technique).


-------------------------------
Any attempt to interpret the scriptures (whatever we define them to be) must in the least apply these four methods.

  You on the other hand need to clean up your vocab & speech - might i suggest merriam-webster's online dictionary and thesaraus?

Yeah, www.m-w.com, that's the link. Hope it helps you a great deal!!!