This is simply for informational purposes. Please spare me the h**e filled responses about judging others, and being h**eful. It would be nice to have a rational discussion about this. If you wish to reply, keep it civil. If you cannot back up what you say with Scripture, don't even bother replying.
The Roman Catholic Church claims to have started in Matthew 16:18 when Christ supposedly appointed Peter as the first Pope. However, the honest and objective student of the Scriptures and history soon discovers that the foundation of the Roman church is none other than the pagan mystery religion of ancient Babylon.
While enduring the early persecutions of the Roman government (65-300 A.D.), most of professing Christianity went through a gradual departure from New Testament doctrine concerning church government, worship and practice. Local churches ceased to be autonomous by giving way to the control of "bishops" ruling over hierarchies. The simple form of worship from the heart was replaced with the rituals and splendor of paganism. Ministers became "priests," and pagans became "Christians" by simply being sprinkled with water. This tolerance of an unregenerate membership only made things worse. SPRINKLED PAGANISM is about the best definition for Roman Catholicism.
The Roman Emperor Constantine established himself as the head of the church around 313 A.D., which made this new "Christianity" the official religion of the Roman Empire. The first actual Pope in Rome was probably Leo I (440-461 A.D.), although some claim that Gregory I was the first (590-604 A.D.). This ungodly system eventually ushered in the darkest period of history known to man, properly known as the "Dark Ages" (500-1500 A.D.). Through popes, bishops, and priests, Satan ruled Europe, and Biblical Christianity became illegal.
Throughout all of this, however, there remained individual groups of true Christians, such as the Waldensens and the Anabaptists who would not conform to the Roman system.
The Papacy and Priesthood
In the Bible there are no popes or priests to rule over the church. Jesus Christ is our High Priest (Heb. 3:1; 4:14-15; 5:5; 8:1; 9:11), and all true Christians make up a spiritual priesthood (I Pet. 2:5). Jesus Christ has sanctified all Christians who believe on Him (Heb. 10:10-11), so all priests today are unnecessary and unscriptural. Furthermore, the practice of calling a priest "father" is forbidden by Jesus Christ in Matthew 23:9. There is only ONE mediator between God and men (I Tim. 2:5).
The Catholic church teaches that Peter was the first Pope and the earthly head of the church, but the Bible never says this once. In fact, it was Peter himself who spoke against "being lords over God's heritage" in I Peter 5:3. Popes do not marry, although Peter did (Mat. 8:14; I Cor. 9:5). The Bible never speaks of Peter being in Rome, and it was Paul, not Peter, who wrote the epistle to the Romans. In the New Testament, Paul wrote 100 chapters with 2,325 verses, while Peter wrote only 8 chapters with 166 verses. In Peter's first epistle he stated that he was simply "an apostle of Jesus Christ," not a Pope (I Pet. 1:1). The Roman papacy and priesthood is just a huge fraud to keep members in bondage to a corrupt pagan church.
The Worship of Mary
Roman Catholics believe that Mary, the mother of Jesus, remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus and was sinless all of her life. She is worshiped in the Catholic church as the "Mother of God" and the "Queen of Heaven." St. Bernard stated that she was crowned "Queen of Heaven" by God the Father, and that she currently sits upon a throne in Heaven making intercession for Christians.
The Bible teaches otherwise. In the Bible, Mary was a sinner just like the rest of us. She said herself that she needed a "Saviour" (Lk. 1:47), and she even had to offer a sacrifice for her sins in Luke 2:24. Jesus was only her "firstborn" son, according to Matthew 1:25, because she later had other children as well (Mt. 13:55; Gal. 1:19; Psa. 69:8). There's only ONE mediator between God and men, and it isn't Mary (I Tim. 2:5). The last time we hear from Mary in the Bible she is praying WITH the disciples, not being prayed to BY the disciples (Acts 1:14). The Bible never exalts Mary above anyone else. Neither should we.
Purgatory
The Catholic Church teaches that a Christian's soul must burn in purgatory after death until all of their sins have been purged. To speed up the purging process, money may be paid to a priest so he can pray and have special masses for an earlier release.
This heresy began creeping into the Roman Church during the reign of Pope Gregory around the end of the sixth century, and it has no scriptural support. In fact, Jesus warned us about this pagan practice in Matthew 23:14 when He spoke of those who devoured widows houses and made long prayers for a pretence. Psalm 49:6-7 tells us that a person couldn't redeem a loved one, even if such a place did exist: "They that trust in their wealth, and boast themselves in the multitude of their riches; None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:"
Peter addresses this issue in Acts 8:20 when he says, "Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money." God's word is clearly against the doctrine of purgatory.
The Mass
By perverting the Christian practice of the Lord's Supper (Mat. 26:26-28; I Cor. 11:23-27), the Catholic Church has created the Mass, which they believe to be a continual sacrifice of Jesus Christ:
"Christ...commanded that his bloody sacrifice on the Cross should be daily renewed by an unbloody sacrifice of his body and blood in the Mass under the simple elements of bread and wine." (The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 10, Pg. 13, Article: "Mass, Sacrifice of")
Jesus never made such a command. If you'll check the above references in Matthew 26 and I Corinthians 11, you'll see for yourself that the Lord's Supper is a MEMORIAL and a SHOWING of Christ's death until He comes again. It is not a sacrifice. The Catholic Encyclopedia states the following:
"In the celebration of the Holy Mass, the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ. It is called t***substantiation, for in the Sacrament of the Eucharist the substance of bread and wine do not remain, but the entire substance of bread is changed into the body of Christ, and the entire substance of wine is changed into his blood, the species or outward semblence of bread and wine alone remaining." (Vol. 4, pg. 277, Article: "Consecration")
The Catholic Church teaches that the "Holy Mass" is a LITERAL EATING AND DRINKING OF THE LITERAL FLESH AND BLOOD OF JESUS CHRIST. The priest supposedly has the power to change the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ.
Now, what does God's word say about such practices? If you'll read Genesis 9:4, Leviticus 17:11-12, and Acts 15:29, you will find that God absolutely FORBIDS the drinking of blood all through the Bible.
Rome teaches that the Mass is a continual "sacrifice" of Jesus Christ, but God's word states that Jesus made the FINAL sacrifice on Calvary! This is made perfectly clear in Hebrews 10:10-12:
"By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God."
The mass is unnecessary and unscriptural.
Image Worship
The Catholic religion is filled with all sorts of symbols, images, and relics. The Catechism of the Council of Trent states these words:
"It is lawful to have images in the Church, and to give honor and worship unto them..."
It's lawful to honor and worship images? Not according to God's word. Exodus 20:4-5 says, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that h**e me." Image worship is unscriptural and will end with the eternal damnation of those who practice it (Rev. 14:11).
Salvation by Works
Through infant baptism, keeping sacraments, church membership, going to mass, praying to Mary, and confession (just to mention a few), the Catholic church has developed a system of salvation through WORKS. God's word says that we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, not through works:
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." (Eph. 2:8-9)
"But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." (Romans 4:5)
Jesus Christ came into this world to lay down His sinless life for YOU--to pay for your sins, because you couldn't. Jesus is your only hope for salvation. Only by receiving Him as your Saviour can you enter the gates of Heaven. There is no other way.
"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the t***h, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father but by me." (John 14:6)
The Lord Jesus Christ has come and PAID for your sins by shedding His own Blood on Calvary. By receiving Him as your Saviour, you can be WASHED from all your sins in His precious Blood (Rev. 1:5; Col. 1:14; Acts 20:28; I Pet. 1:18-19). Notice these important words from Romans 5:8-9:
"But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him."
Jesus PAID your way to Heaven for you! By receiving Him as your Saviour, you will be receiving God's ONLY means of Salvation for you. Are you willing to forsake YOUR righteousness and receive Jesus Christ as your Saviour, your ONLY HOPE for Salvation? Romans 10:13 says, "Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." Romans 10:9 says, "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." Are you willing to forsake your own righteousness, and trust Jesus Christ alone? He will save you just as He promised. Why not receive Him today and trust Him to give you a better way of life?
Copyright © 1998 James L. Melton
[quote=Irish]
RWNJ wrote:
This is not a h**e thread
============
Protestants have a saying, walk the talk. They also believe in good works. So, youre not Protestant. No, thats right you said you dont belong to an organized religion. You just read your Bible and post links. Really you just want to use the Word of God to lead people astray don't you. You are a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Your strategy is to divide Catholic, Protestant, and Jew. Now who would benefit from that strategy? Hmmm!
In case you hadn't noticed, Catholic, Protestant, and Jew are already divided. I do not belong to any organized religion. There's a reason for that. I go to a non denominational church. We are encouraged to question everything. To compare wh**ever we hear to the Bible.
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.
The Bible has the final word. Always has, always will.
ConnorShields69 wrote:
Oh man, I got to have that picture!
Now that just defines it all ! :lol: :thumbup:
Got to learn to post pictures here myself.Got a few you might enjoy.
I assume you're using windows. Here is a brief tutorial.
First, you have to find the picture you want to post. You can use Google, or any other search engine
Right click on the Image you want, then select "save image as..."
This will bring up a directory. Check the left hand margin to make sure the pictures folder is selected.
Name the image, then click save.
Now, look towards the bottom of this post. You'll see where it says files pictures and attachments. Not this post. You'll only see when you're editing a post.
Click on choose file. That will bring up your pictures folder. Find the picture you just saved, then double click it.
That's it. You're done.
Just hit the send button, or add another picture.
moldyoldy wrote:
The amazing thing is that you can never prove me wrong
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! You are proven wrong on a daily basis, oh moldy one. You're just so full of yourself that you don't hear, let alone understand what others are saying. You are the center of your own universe. No one's opinion matters but your own.
Ricko wrote:
RWNJ-what if there isn't any Hell ? God founded his Holy , Apostolic and Catholic church. All others formed by mortal men. If I am going to, what you call Hell, I will see you there. Good Luck America !!!
The Catholic Church was created by a Pagan emperor, and is responsible for the deaths of millions of Christians. The Plain T***h about The Roman Catholic Church.
http://www.biblebelievers.com/jmelton/Catholic.html
crazylibertarian wrote:
.
You cited some incident from the fifth century to damn the Catholic Church forever. Yes, the Church has wandered off the path just like all organizations run by man but its good has far outweighed any evil it's done. From the fall of the Roman Empire, around the time of that incident, to the Renaissance, the Church was the main governing orgnaization. That was a time of peace marred just two or three times, the various Crusades, the Norman invasion of England in 1066 and the invasion of Europe by the Arabs. That's a pretty good record.
. br br You cited some incident from the fifth ce... (
show quote)
DUDE! You have no idea! Here is the t***h about the Catholic Church. 1,200 years of terror, torture and murder.
http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1676.cfm
Abraham50 wrote:
I agree. but when Jesus tells them to depart,I hope they fall on their knees right then and repent for doing iniquity,lets pray they do. Amen
It is appointed unto a man, once to die. Then the Judgement. There are no second chances. When you meet God, the decision has already been made.
Abraham50 wrote:
2 Peter 3;9 The Lord is not slack concerning his (promise),but is long-suffering to us-ward, not (willing) that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
What about that other verse? "Depart from me, ye workers of iniquity. I never knew you."
Just a guess, but I'm thinking that THEY didn't repent. What do you think?
Pennylynn wrote:
Most s***e owners did not own cotton plantations and after the invention of the cotton gin, b****s were seldom used. However, they were used on sugar and rice plantations. B****s were used for one reason, rice and sugar was grown in some areas of Africa and there was evidence that s***es taken from the Gold Coast by Islamic, Portuguese, and Dutch traders were familiar with the methods of cultivation practiced in their native country.
It is a myth that all white settlers owned s***es and farms could not exist without their labor. In fact, the first documented s***e owner was a black. Another issue with the newly taught history they conveniently leave out facts, such as less than 5 percent of w****s in the south owned black s***es. Did you know, prior to 1654, all Africans in the thirteen colonies were held in indentured servitude and were released after a contracted period with many of the indentured receiving land and equipment after their contracts for work expired? Probably not.
The first official s***e owner in America was an Angolan who adopted the European name of Anthony Johnson. He was sold to s***e traders in 1621 by an enemy tribe in his native Africa, and was registered as Antonio, a Negro in the official records of the Colony of Virginia. He went to work for a white farmer as an indentured servant. By July 1651 Johnson had five indentured servants of his own. In 1664, he brought a case before Virginia courts in which he contested a suit launched by one of his indentured servants, a Negro who adopted the name of John Casor. Johnson won the suit and retained Casor as his servant for life, who thus became the first official and true s***e in America.
In 1830, a fourth of the free Negro s***e masters in South Carolina owned 10 or more s***es; eight owning 30 or more.
Of the b****s residing in the South, 261,988 were not s***es. Of this number, 10,689 lived in New Orleans. Black Duke University professor John Hope Franklin recorded that in New Orleans over 3,000 free Negroes owned s***es, or 28 percent of the free Negroes in that city.
In 1860 there were at least six Negroes in Louisiana who owned 65 or more s***es. The largest number, 152 s***es, were owned by the widow C. Richards and her son P.C. Richards, who owned a large sugar cane plantation.
Another Negro s***e magnate in Louisiana, with over 100 s***es, was Antoine Dubuclet, a sugar planter whose estate was valued at (in 1860 dollars) $264,000.
In Charleston, South Carolina in 1860, 125 free Negroes owned s***es; six of them owning 10 or more. Of the $1.5 million in taxable property owned by free Negroes in Charleston, more than $300,000 represented s***e holdings. In North Carolina 69 free Negroes were s***e owners.
If you love history and digging through old records, you may know this, but in 1860 only a small minority of w****s owned s***es. According to the US census report for that last year before the Civil War, there were nearly 27 million w****s in the country. Some eight million of them lived in the s***eholding states. The same records has an eye-opening set of records. There were fewer than 385,000 individuals who owned s***es. Even if all s***eholders had been white, that would amount to only 1.4 percent of w****s in the country.
The figures show conclusively that, when free, b****s disproportionately became s***e masters in pre-Civil War America. The statistics outlined above show that about 28 percent of free b****s owned s***esas opposed to less than 4.8 percent of southern w****s, and dramatically more than the 1.4 percent of all w***e A******ns who owned s***es.
And Georgia, often thought of as a large s***e state, actually placed a ban on s***e ownership. James Oglethorpe (16961785) was a British general who founded the colony of Georgia in 1732. From the very beginning, Oglethorpe ensured that s***ery was banned in the colony, and that Africans were barred from entering the territory.
So.... who picked cotton? Better question, who owned those farms? Another thing that is often overlooked, the white settlers had no prior experience with s***e ownership. However, s***ery in Africa was practiced from the time they began raid neighboring tribes.
The t***satlantic s***e trade was dwarfed by the Arab or Muslim s***e trade, which lasted from 650 AD to 1900 AD. It is estimated that a minimum of 18 million Africans were ens***ed by Arab s***e traders, and that over one million Europeans were ens***ed by the Muslim world during the same period. But, that is for a future discussion.
Most s***e owners did not own cotton plantations a... (
show quote)
That was sarcasm. If we'd picked our own cotton, B****s would be the curse on our country that they are today.
Jerry A wrote:
Cool Breeze: Stupidities in "One Political Plaza" are like t***smitted diseases, don't use the name of GOD for your own convenience, the 2sd. Amendment is obsolete now in 2016, buying military weapons to k**l innocent people in movies, schools, and shopping centers by crazy people is criminal and the majority in U.S. Congress are legally, and morally responsibly for the lousy GUN control we have in U.S.A.
Didn't you get the news flash? Gun control laws have no deterrent effect on crime. Look at Chicago, and other cities with tough gun laws. How's that working out?
AProudNavyVeteran69 wrote:
The Founders Would V**e to Impeach Barack Obama
Joy Overbeck | Jan 16, 2016
Joy Overbeck
The American Founders and signers of the Constitution, despite their brilliance, failed to anticipate a president who would take the law-making powers they had given solely to the peoples Congress into his own hands. After a brutal 11-year war to win a new nation from a tyrannical king, they couldnt imagine a future leader who would don metaphorical crown and ermine robes to impose his imperial will upon a people conceived in liberty. Also, they believed that by separating government into three branches, each with its own clearly defined roles, no one branch could usurp the power of the others. They were wrong.
As Thomas Jefferson said, An elective despotism was not the government we fought for
but (one) . in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among several bodies as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others
But Jefferson never met constitutional expert Barack Obama. This president has seized powers light-years beyond his designated role to take care that the laws be faithfully executed (Article II section 3.) This president regularly proves that the Founders careful construction of the founding document is no match for a determined autocrat bent on breaching its firewall of checks and balances.
Having just struggled through a long and bloody battle won against the most powerful nation on earth and finally secured the blessings of liberty for the people, the Framers would never have fathomed a president could have such contempt for those who died for that liberty as to systematically violate it.
A president whose Democrat minions in Congress force-passed a bill without one Republican v**e that deprived the people of their freedom to make their own decisions on doctors and health care and required them to buy a government-imposed product. Unheard of. This takeover of one-sixth of the nations economy would have been simply beyond belief to the Founders.
They would be furious that the same overweening government would shred the Constitutions pledge of the free exercise of religion by hounding a group of altruistic, care-giving nuns and many others into court to force them into supplying a******n drugs to employees in violation of their faith. Thomas Jefferson would be especially livid, having assured the worried Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut that a wall of separation between church and newly created state would protect them from such malicious government interference. Yes, that wall of separation a phrase originated ironically by the founder of the Baptist Church in America, Roger Williams, who wrote of a wall being erected around the garden of the church to protect it. How perverse that today this Baptist phrase is viciously wielded against believers instead of in support of their rights to free expression.
Likewise the Founders would be appalled at a president who uses the cynical subterfuge of executive orders and unelected agencies like the EPA to actually make laws, a function the Constitution assigns solely to the peoples elected representatives in Congress. Even more outrageous; he makes new laws that the Congress has specifically rejected or refused to pass. He calls it his We Cant Wait campaign.
The peoples representatives refuse to pass Obamas comprehensive immigration reform so his arrogant response is to declare 5 million i*****l a***ns temporarily legal. Twenty-six states sued, and last February federal Judge Andrew Hanen ordered the government to immediately stop issuing work permits to these i******s. But this slap-down didnt stop Obama. His Department of Homeland Security passed out 2,000 green cards to i******s (about 100,000 had already been issued) after Hanens injunction in direct disobedience to the judges court order. An outraged Judge Hanen declared he was shocked and surprised at the cavalier attitude the Government has taken and demanded to know why Homeland Security chief Jeh Johnson and other immigration officials shouldnt be held in contempt of court. Well judge, Attorney General Holder was held in contempt of Congress; big deal.
Then last November the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld Hanens decision, ruling that the president had exceeded his authority, essentially rewriting the nations Immigration and Nationality Act. In fact, the plaintiffs noted: The President candidly admitted that, in so doing, he unilaterally rewrote the law: What youre not paying attention to is, I just took an action to change the law. But two decisions against him only emboldened the president further and his Justice Department now plans to take the case to the Supreme Court.
This president also circumvents the Constitution in the arena of foreign affairs. By the slick ploy of calling the disastrous Iran nuclear treaty a deal not a treaty, the chief executive has dishonesty dodged the constitutional requirement that 2/3 of the Senate must consent to such agreements. Obama knew that would never happen; thus the deal lingo. This non-treaty treaty has several important provisions: it doesnt legally restrain Iran because it hasnt been signed by that nations president nor approved by its parliament; it rewards Iran with $150 billion to fund Irans terrorist campaigns against us and the rest of the world; and it forbids us to inspect Irans nuclear facilities. Iran celebrated by firing off a couple test missiles designed to carry nukes, festivities banned by the U.N. and the Deal.
Same ruse with the Paris C*****e C****e con. While the world is waking up to the bogus statistics that prove man-caused c*****e c****e an elaborate h**x, Mr. Obama swaggers out of a Paris confab with yet another deal, this one servicing his pet jihad against dirty, nasty, but essential to survival, f****l f**ls. Still what a triumph: China, the polluter champ of the world, pledged to start reducing carbon emissions in 15 years! Though nobody really agreed to anything but unicorn-cupcake promises, Obama can be trusted to try using the pact to further decimate the coal industry and put tens of thousands of Americans out of work. Thatll show a Congress unwilling to pass his precious cap and trade regs whos boss.
All of these unconstitutional maneuvers have obvious catastrophic effects on Americans. But the most profoundly malevolent, at least in clearly revealing Obamas distaste for this nation, is his steady release from Gitmo of jihadis sworn to murder Americans. We know that about one-third of them go back to the battlefield as highly esteemed commanders. Yet our commander-in-chief persists in inflicting these k**lers on his own troops. Imagine George Washington capturing the British top generals decimating the rag-tag American troops in the Revolutionary War, and then releasing them knowing many would k**l his own soldiers. Imagination fails.
The signers of the Constitution gave us but one recourse for a rogue chief executive whose destructive actions imperil the American peoples liberty: impeachment. According to Article 2, section 4, The president
shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. In their fervent patriotic naiveté, the Founders provided us no other remedy. Of course the color of his skin has inoculated Barack Obama against any thought of impeachment. Meanwhile, he rends our beloved America sinew and bone and nothing seemingly can stop him.
http://www.townhall.com
:thumbup: and i would back our Founders !!!100% No Questions Asked. This is my Country and i will fight tooth and Nail, to safe her, and help sink the Obama Ship!!To the very depths of Hell, just like the Titanic!!. Are Y'all with me?
The Founders Would V**e to Impeach Barack Obama br... (
show quote)
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
John Adams