One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Do People Really Go To Hell ?
Page <<first <prev 10 of 16 next> last>>
Feb 19, 2019 11:51:37   #
Radiance3
 
=================
Rose42, All claims you've written were the works of the Protestant Apologists who were disgruntled against the head of the Catholic Church established by Christ thru Saint Peter.
Claims they made were falsehoods. None of them were credible from the truth.

This is another false and questionable claims and teachings of a Protestant Apologist named William Webster.

Example:
http://catholicnick.blogspot.com/2010/10/william-websters-astonishing-claims.html

William Webster astonishing claims about Sola Scriptura, and Sola Fide. The Sola Scriptura became operative in the "post apostolic age". Confirmed that Sola Scriptura was NOT operative during the time of the Apostles. When questioned, Did the Bible teach this concept that Sola Scriptura would be "operative" after the Apostolic age? Of course, the answer is "nowhere". Therefore Webster is laying out a foundation not derived from Scriptures but from Men.

More questionable claims of William Webster.

https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/2007/04/03/is-william-webster-telling-the-truth/

http://www.angelfire.com/home/protestantchallenges/WilliamWebstersPickle.html

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2017/06/william-websters-misunderstanding-development-doctrine.html

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2017/06/william-websters-misunderstanding-development-doctrine.html

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/darmstrong/10-point-biblical-refutation-of-sola-scriptura

William Webster was not credible on all his assertions.

Reply
Feb 19, 2019 13:33:30   #
Rose42
 
Radiance3 wrote:
=================
William Webster was not credible on all his assertions.


Guess what Radiance, that was not William Webster. He was quoting someone else. Try reading it. He has put together research from Catholic historians. And he's not the only one who has uncovered this. It goes way back.

You'll have to use someone other than Dave Armstrong. He has not been able to refute this.

Here's another from the same link - not from William Webster - he is citing an orthodox historian.

Dr. Aristeides Papadakis is an Orthodox historian and Professor of Byzantine history at the University of Maryland. He gives the following analysis of the Eastern Church’s attitude towards the claims of the bishops of Rome especially as they were formulated in the 11th century Gregorian reforms. He points out that on the basis of the exegesis of scripture and the facts of history, the Eastern Church has consistently rejected the papal claims of Rome:

What was in fact being implied in the western development was the destruction of the Church’s pluralistic structure of government. Papal claims to supreme spiritual and doctrinal authority quite simply, were threatening to transform the entire Church into a vast centralized diocese…Such innovations were the result of a radical reading of the Church’s conciliar structure of government as revealed in the life of the historic Church. No see, regardless of its spiritual seniority, had ever been placed outside of this structure as if it were a power over or above the Church and its government…Mutual consultation among Churches—episcopal collegiality and conciliarity, in short—had been the quintessential character of Church government from the outset. It was here that the locus of supreme authority in the Church could be found. Christendom indeed was both a diversity and a unity, a family of basically equal sister-Churches, whose unity rested not on any visible juridical authority, but on conciliarity, and on a common declaration of faith and the sacramental life.

The ecclesiology of communion and fraternity of the Orthodox, which was preventing them from following Rome blindly and submissively like slaves, was based on Scripture and not merely on history or tradition. Quite simply, the power to bind and loose mentioned in the New Testament had been granted during Christ’s ministry to every disciple and not just to Peter alone…In sum, no one particular Church could limit the fulness of God’s redeeming grace to itself, at the expense of the others. Insofar as all were essentially identical, the fulness of catholicity was present in all equally. In the event, the Petrine biblical texts, cherished by the Latins, were beside the point as arguments for Roman ecclesiology and superiority. The close logical relationship between the papal monarchy and the New Testament texts, assumed by Rome, was quite simply undocumented. For all bishops, as successors of the apostles, claim the privilege and power granted to Peter. Differently put, the Savior’s words could not be interpreted institutionally, legalistically or territorially, as the foundation of the Roman Church, as if the Roman pontiffs were alone the exclusive heirs to Christ’s commission. It is important to note parenthetically that a similar or at least kindred exegesis of the triad of Matt. 16:18, Luke 22:32 and John 21:15f. was also common in the West before the reformers of the eleventh century chose to invest it with a peculiar ‘Roman’ significance. Until then, the three proof–texts were viewed primarily ‘as the foundation of the Church, in the sense that the power of the keys was conferred on a sacerdotalis ordo in the person of Peter: the power granted to Peter was symbolically granted to the whole episcopate.’ In sum, biblical Latin exegetes before the Gregorian reform did not view the New Testament texts unambiguously as a blueprint for papal sovereignty; their understanding overall was non–primatial.

The Byzantine indictment against Rome also had a strong historical component. A major reason why Orthodox writers were unsympathetic to the Roman restatement of primacy was precisely because it was so totally lacking in historical precedent. Granted that by the twelfth century papal theorists had become experts in their ability to circumvent the inconvenient facts of history. And yet, the Byzantines were ever ready to hammer home the theme that the historical evidence was quite different. Although the Orthodox may not have known that Gregorian teaching was in part drawn from the forged decretals of pseudo–Isidore (850’s), they were quite certain that it was not based on catholic tradition in either its historical or canonical form. On this score, significantly, modern scholarship agrees with the Byzantine analysis. As it happens, contemporary historians have repeatedly argued that the universal episcopacy claimed by the eleventh–century reformers would have been rejected by earlier papal incumbents as obscenely blasphemous (to borrow the phrase of a recent scholar). The title ‘universal’ which was advanced formally at the time was actually explicitly rejected by earlier papal giants such as Gregory I. To be brief, modern impartial scholarship is reasonably certain that the conventional conclusion which views the Gregorians as defenders of a consistently uniform tradition is largely fiction. ‘The emergence of a papal monarchy from the eleventh century onwards cannot be represented as the realization of a homogenous development, even within the relatively closed circle of the western, Latin, Church’ (R.A. Marcus, From Augustine to Gregory the Great (London: Variorum Reprints, 1983), p. 355). It has been suggested that the conviction that papatus (a new term constructed on the analogy of episcopatus in the eleventh century) actually represented a rank or an order higher than that of bishop, was a radical revision of Church structure and government. The discontinuity was there and to dismiss it would be a serious oversight (Aristeides Papadakis, The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy (Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s, 1994), pp. 158-160, 166-167).

Reply
Feb 19, 2019 13:46:30   #
Radiance3
 
Rose42 wrote:
Guess what Radiance, that was not William Webster. He was quoting someone else. Try reading it. He has put together research from Catholic historians. And he's not the only one who has uncovered this. It goes way back.

You'll have to use someone other than Dave Armstrong. He has not been able to refute this.

Here's another from the same link - not from William Webster - he is citing an orthodox historian.

Dr. Aristeides Papadakis is an Orthodox historian and Professor of Byzantine history at the University of Maryland. He gives the following analysis of the Eastern Church’s attitude towards the claims of the bishops of Rome especially as they were formulated in the 11th century Gregorian reforms. He points out that on the basis of the exegesis of scripture and the facts of history, the Eastern Church has consistently rejected the papal claims of Rome:

What was in fact being implied in the western development was the destruction of the Church’s pluralistic structure of government. Papal claims to supreme spiritual and doctrinal authority quite simply, were threatening to transform the entire Church into a vast centralized diocese…Such innovations were the result of a radical reading of the Church’s conciliar structure of government as revealed in the life of the historic Church. No see, regardless of its spiritual seniority, had ever been placed outside of this structure as if it were a power over or above the Church and its government…Mutual consultation among Churches—episcopal collegiality and conciliarity, in short—had been the quintessential character of Church government from the outset. It was here that the locus of supreme authority in the Church could be found. Christendom indeed was both a diversity and a unity, a family of basically equal sister-Churches, whose unity rested not on any visible juridical authority, but on conciliarity, and on a common declaration of faith and the sacramental life.

The ecclesiology of communion and fraternity of the Orthodox, which was preventing them from following Rome blindly and submissively like slaves, was based on Scripture and not merely on history or tradition. Quite simply, the power to bind and loose mentioned in the New Testament had been granted during Christ’s ministry to every disciple and not just to Peter alone…In sum, no one particular Church could limit the fulness of God’s redeeming grace to itself, at the expense of the others. Insofar as all were essentially identical, the fulness of catholicity was present in all equally. In the event, the Petrine biblical texts, cherished by the Latins, were beside the point as arguments for Roman ecclesiology and superiority. The close logical relationship between the papal monarchy and the New Testament texts, assumed by Rome, was quite simply undocumented. For all bishops, as successors of the apostles, claim the privilege and power granted to Peter. Differently put, the Savior’s words could not be interpreted institutionally, legalistically or territorially, as the foundation of the Roman Church, as if the Roman pontiffs were alone the exclusive heirs to Christ’s commission. It is important to note parenthetically that a similar or at least kindred exegesis of the triad of Matt. 16:18, Luke 22:32 and John 21:15f. was also common in the West before the reformers of the eleventh century chose to invest it with a peculiar ‘Roman’ significance. Until then, the three proof–texts were viewed primarily ‘as the foundation of the Church, in the sense that the power of the keys was conferred on a sacerdotalis ordo in the person of Peter: the power granted to Peter was symbolically granted to the whole episcopate.’ In sum, biblical Latin exegetes before the Gregorian reform did not view the New Testament texts unambiguously as a blueprint for papal sovereignty; their understanding overall was non–primatial.

The Byzantine indictment against Rome also had a strong historical component. A major reason why Orthodox writers were unsympathetic to the Roman restatement of primacy was precisely because it was so totally lacking in historical precedent. Granted that by the twelfth century papal theorists had become experts in their ability to circumvent the inconvenient facts of history. And yet, the Byzantines were ever ready to hammer home the theme that the historical evidence was quite different. Although the Orthodox may not have known that Gregorian teaching was in part drawn from the forged decretals of pseudo–Isidore (850’s), they were quite certain that it was not based on catholic tradition in either its historical or canonical form. On this score, significantly, modern scholarship agrees with the Byzantine analysis. As it happens, contemporary historians have repeatedly argued that the universal episcopacy claimed by the eleventh–century reformers would have been rejected by earlier papal incumbents as obscenely blasphemous (to borrow the phrase of a recent scholar). The title ‘universal’ which was advanced formally at the time was actually explicitly rejected by earlier papal giants such as Gregory I. To be brief, modern impartial scholarship is reasonably certain that the conventional conclusion which views the Gregorians as defenders of a consistently uniform tradition is largely fiction. ‘The emergence of a papal monarchy from the eleventh century onwards cannot be represented as the realization of a homogenous development, even within the relatively closed circle of the western, Latin, Church’ (R.A. Marcus, From Augustine to Gregory the Great (London: Variorum Reprints, 1983), p. 355). It has been suggested that the conviction that papatus (a new term constructed on the analogy of episcopatus in the eleventh century) actually represented a rank or an order higher than that of bishop, was a radical revision of Church structure and government. The discontinuity was there and to dismiss it would be a serious oversight (Aristeides Papadakis, The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy (Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s, 1994), pp. 158-160, 166-167).
Guess what Radiance, that was not William Webster.... (show quote)


==================
I DON'T BELIEVE on any of your claims. You can copy and paste a book there, but facts do not change.

They were all written by Protestants on line for financial gains, ambitions, and Protestant Apologetics.
Very lucrative business is the Sola Scriptura. All of them become multi-billionaire or multi-millionaire for a brief period of time.

But the fact of the matter is, It was Man-Made. Not from God but from MEN.
Try again your claim for Matt Slick. He is the latest a multi-billionaire for a short period of time.

Reply
 
 
Feb 19, 2019 13:52:23   #
Rose42
 
Radiance3 wrote:
==================
I DON'T BELIEVE on any of your claims. You can copy and paste a book there, but facts do not change.

They were all written by Protestants on line for financial gains, ambitions and Protestant Apologetics.
Very lucrative business is the Sola Scriptura. All of them become multi-billionaire or multi-millionaire for a brief period of time.

But the fact of the matter is, It was Man-Made. Not from God but from MEN.



Let's sum up.

- You won't do your own research
- When shown facts even from your own church you still deny them
- You keep repeating the same articles
- After being told countless times what Sola Scriptura means you show you still have no understanding of it (Catholic apologists know what it basically is)
- You claim all protestants who write things online are ambitious and do it to become rich

I think I've about covered them all.

Reply
Feb 19, 2019 14:21:43   #
Radiance3
 
Rose42 wrote:
Let's sum up.

- You won't do your own research
- When shown facts even from your own church you still deny them
- You keep repeating the same articles
- After being told countless times what Sola Scriptura means you show you still have no understanding of it (Catholic apologists know what it basically is)
- You claim all protestants who write things online are ambitious and do it to become rich

I think I've about covered them all.


================
I won't believe any of your posts. All deceptive!!
Research on IT. 97% of the articles published at the IT are coming from Protestant attacks on Catholics. The reason for that is the more they destroy the true church of Christ, they can attract more people to pay them the "SEED MONEY" disguised as given to God. But the money goes to the bank account of these greedy bastards, proceeds for selling the Scriptures of Christ to the people.

99% of the motives of these Protestants are for FINANCIAL GAINS, and power to get more followers.
They are all deceptive. Appears being lured by Satan to follow him.
https://biblehub.com/matthew/4-9.htm

Reply
Feb 19, 2019 20:48:45   #
TexaCan Loc: Homeward Bound!
 
Radiance3 wrote:
==================
I DON'T BELIEVE on any of your claims. You can copy and paste a book there, but facts do not change.

They were all written by Protestants on line for financial gains, ambitions, and Protestant Apologetics.
Very lucrative business is the Sola Scriptura. All of them become multi-billionaire or multi-millionaire for a brief period of time.

But the fact of the matter is, It was Man-Made. Not from God but from MEN.
Try again your claim for Matt Slick. He is the latest a multi-billionaire for a short period of time.
================== br I DON'T BELIEVE on any of yo... (show quote)


You never did answer my question! If we stole the Sola Scriptura from your Catholic Church and it is Man-Made as you claim........... then your Catholic Bible is Man-Made! EXPLAIN this! These are your words, your accusations!

Reply
Feb 19, 2019 20:54:58   #
TexaCan Loc: Homeward Bound!
 
Radiance3 wrote:
==================
I DON'T BELIEVE on any of your claims. You can copy and paste a book there, but facts do not change.

They were all written by Protestants on line for financial gains, ambitions, and Protestant Apologetics.
Very lucrative business is the Sola Scriptura. All of them become multi-billionaire or multi-millionaire for a brief period of time.

But the fact of the matter is, It was Man-Made. Not from God but from MEN.
Try again your claim for Matt Slick. He is the latest a multi-billionaire for a short period of time.
================== br I DON'T BELIEVE on any of yo... (show quote)


So! You never answered my question! You accuse the Protestants of stealing the Sola Scriptura from the Catholic Bible, but you also insist that our Sola Scriptura is Man Made! If it was stolen from the Catholic Bible, then it was Man Made by the Catholic Church! So! Is your Bible FAKE?

Reply
 
 
Feb 19, 2019 20:56:08   #
TexaCan Loc: Homeward Bound!
 
TexaCan wrote:
So! You never answered my question! You accuse the Protestants of stealing the Sola Scriptura from the Catholic Bible, but you also insist that our Sola Scriptura is Man Made! If it was stolen from the Catholic Bible, then it was Man Made by the Catholic Church! So! Is your Bible FAKE?


Double post! OPPS!

Reply
Feb 19, 2019 20:58:05   #
TexaCan Loc: Homeward Bound!
 
Radiance3 wrote:
================
I won't believe any of your posts. All deceptive!!
Research on IT. 97% of the articles published at the IT are coming from Protestant attacks on Catholics. The reason for that is the more they destroy the true church of Christ, they can attract more people to pay them the "SEED MONEY" disguised as given to God. But the money goes to the bank account of these greedy bastards, proceeds for selling the Scriptures of Christ to the people.

99% of the motives of these Protestants are for FINANCIAL GAINS, and power to get more followers.
They are all deceptive. Appears being lured by Satan to follow him.
https://biblehub.com/matthew/4-9.htm
================ br I won't believe any of your po... (show quote)


That is not what seed money is? Go back and do a little more research!

Reply
Feb 19, 2019 22:25:30   #
Radiance3
 
TexaCan wrote:
You never did answer my question! If we stole the Sola Scriptura from your Catholic Church and it is Man-Made as you claim........... then your Catholic Bible is Man-Made! EXPLAIN this! These are your words, your accusations!


===============
Why don't you answer your own question? Did you steal the Man-Made Sola Scriptura?
Prove your claim!!

"The Reformers selectively copied the Scriptures from the Catholic Church during the 16th century.
The Catholic Church started by Christ 1,987 years ago, thru Saint Peter, has the complete Scriptures,
Apostles Traditions, and the infallible Magisterium. Matthew 16:18-19.

I must tell you TexaCan, I believe you are not worth my time. You make-up words and keep on repeating issues I've previously discussed. Get lost please!! Not worth of my time!

Reply
Feb 19, 2019 22:37:01   #
Radiance3
 
TexaCan wrote:
That is not what seed money is? Go back and do a little more research!


==================
Google all your fat pastors worldwide from Africa to the US, and every corner of the world. They raise their bible, each one of them speaking different interpretations of the word. Most are geared to lure people put more "Seed Money" to the basket.

http://pleasuresmagazine.com.ng/2016/09/top-50-ludicrously-wealthy-pastors/
What is the name of the richest pastor in the world?

http://www.blessthislist.com/the-15-richest-pastors-in-america/

Who is the richest pastor in South Africa?

Is oyedepo the richest pastor in the world?

How much do mega church pastors make?

https://edaily.co.ke/entertainment/list-of-richest-pastors-in-africa-and-their-net-worth-124725/enews/eafrican/

Note: These are the countries with the poorest population. The poorest people are mostly blindfolded and become the victims of these greedy bastards.

https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/net-worth-richest-pastors-will-blow-your-mind.html/


https://biblehub.com/matthew/4-8.htm

Reply
 
 
Feb 19, 2019 22:42:11   #
TexaCan Loc: Homeward Bound!
 
Radiance3 wrote:
===============
Why don't you answer your own question? Did you steal the Man-Made Sola Scriptura?
Prove your claim!!

"The Reformers selectively copied the Scriptures from the Catholic Church during the 16th century.
The Catholic Church started by Christ 1,987 years ago, thru Saint Peter, has the complete Scriptures,
Apostles Traditions, and the infallible Magisterium. Matthew 16:18-19.

I must tell you TexaCan, I believe you are not worth my time. You make-up words and keep on repeating issues I've previously discussed. Get lost please!! Not worth of my time!
=============== br Why don't you answer your own q... (show quote)


That is a wonderful idea! You are not intelligent enough to even understand what I asked you!

Peter is not the rock, Jesus Christ is! We have gone over this for over a year, no use to do again! No one stole scriptures from the Catholic Church! The Catholic Church never owned them to start with!

47,000 preachers don't sale scriptures, they are free, always have been!

Maybe someday you will come up with something new other than your Sola Scriptura or your 47,000 preachers that sale scriptures for seed money, LOL! I'm bored with your same statements over and over again!

Good Luck!

Reply
Feb 19, 2019 22:48:04   #
Radiance3
 
TexaCan wrote:
That is not what seed money is? Go back and do a little more research!


===========
You can deny and defend all of them, but the fact of the matter is the "seed money" has been oftenly used at the pulpit by these bastards.

Making Money Off Miracles: The Gospel of Televangelists - Gawker
http://gawker.com/making-money-off-miracles-the-gospel-of-televangelists-1725330875

Aug 25, 2015 - Oliver said he would begin accepting “seed money” to build his new evangelical Protestant leaders saying that they believe in ... amassed a large amount of wealth, power, and huge audiences to beg for donations. ... Joel Osteen, pastor of megachurch Lakewood

A few weeks ago on Last Week Tonight, John Oliver exposed televangelists—evangelical preachers whose sole purpose is to get on TV and ask for funds for their ministries—who prey on the sick, poor, and desperate in order to line their own pockets, funding lavish lifestyles that include mansions, airplanes, cars, vacations, and more.

Toward the end of the segment, which quickly went viral, Oliver revealed that he had incorporated his own church without any restrictions. Called “Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption,” it worships the deity of the powerful and lenient IRS. Oliver said he would begin accepting “seed money” to build his new church, which would help him to cure people’s ailments.

If that seems like a comedic bit, perhaps the most terrifying thing should be how little John Oliver had to act for the sketch. He merely repeated things that real televangelists, such as Creflo Dollar, Robert Tilton, T.D. Jakes, Joel Osteen, and Kenneth Copeland, have actually said.

Those televangelists follow the model of“prosperity gospel” in which they believe that wealth is a sign of God’s favor, and that by simply believing and praying for money—in addition to donating copious amounts of money to various Christian ministries—is what will take you there. This is actually a rare belief among fundamentalists, with only 7 percent of evangelical Protestant leaders saying that they believe in the concepts of prosperity theology. The 7 percent who do, however, have amassed a large amount of wealth, power, and huge audiences to beg for donations.

Not surprisingly, most of the victims of this harmful prosperity doctrine are those in the poor and working class—it’s like a monstrous pyramid scam of religions. They see prosperity theology as a supernatural lottery, which isn’t shocking, considering that 61 percent of people who play the lottery are from the poorest one-fifths of the population. But these televangelists claim that your faith, your very soul, is tied into giving “positive confessions.” And the fact that you are poor isn’t just bad luck: it’s not having enough faith, not praying enough, and, of course, not giving a big enough donation to their ministry.

Reply
Feb 19, 2019 22:52:50   #
TexaCan Loc: Homeward Bound!
 
Radiance3 wrote:
==================
Google all your fat pastors worldwide from Africa to the US, and every corner of the world. They raise their bible, each one of them speaking different interpretations of the word. Most are geared to lure people put more "Seed Money" to the basket.

http://pleasuresmagazine.com.ng/2016/09/top-50-ludicrously-wealthy-pastors/
What is the name of the richest pastor in the world?

http://www.blessthislist.com/the-15-richest-pastors-in-america/

Who is the richest pastor in South Africa?

Is oyedepo the richest pastor in the world?

How much do mega church pastors make?

https://edaily.co.ke/entertainment/list-of-richest-pastors-in-africa-and-their-net-worth-124725/enews/eafrican/

Note: These are the countries with the poorest population. The poorest people are mostly blindfolded and become the victims of these greedy bastards.

https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/net-worth-richest-pastors-will-blow-your-mind.html/


https://biblehub.com/matthew/4-8.htm
================== br Google all your fat pastors ... (show quote)


Bless your little heart ❤️! Now that you've got all that off your chest, I do hope you can get a good nights rest!

Reply
Feb 19, 2019 22:56:59   #
TexaCan Loc: Homeward Bound!
 
Radiance3 wrote:
===========
You can deny and defend all of them, but the fact of the matter is the "seed money" has been oftenly used at the pulpit by these bastards.

Making Money Off Miracles: The Gospel of Televangelists - Gawker
http://gawker.com/making-money-off-miracles-the-gospel-of-televangelists-1725330875

Aug 25, 2015 - Oliver said he would begin accepting “seed money” to build his new ... with only 7 percent of evangelical Protestant leaders saying that they believe in ... amassed a large amount of wealth, power, and huge audiences to beg for donations. ... Joel Osteen, pastor of megachurch Lakewood
=========== br You can deny and defend all of them... (show quote)


Not a one of us have ever defended or denied them, AND you know it! But I have no doubt that you will lie and say that we have! That's just what you do!

Reply
Page <<first <prev 10 of 16 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.