why Christians reject Roman Catholic church

[Red Sky at Morning]

Because we are flawed creations that's why we are doomed to failure...sounds like a scripture right there not? (CHRIST even said if you think upon a woman with impure thoughts...as a guy got to say i have looked at a woman and had an impure thought....well with just that one thought i sinned see where going here...) Every word thought deed are you able to not have a bad thought? Muttered a bad word by accident? etc. suppose you haven't had or do any of this or thought right?

Contrast the KoK teachings with the clear words of Paul to Timothy:

8 Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me His prisoner, but share with me in the sufferings for the gospel according to the power of God,
9 who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began,
10 but has now been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Jesus Christ, who has abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel,
11 to which I was appointed a preacher, an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.
12 For this reason I also suffer these things; nevertheless I am not ashamed, for I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that He is able to keep what I have committed to Him until that Day.

2 Timothy 1:8-12 NKJV

 

[A Freeman]

That kind or argument is standard Muslim fare. The reality is that these recognisably Christian denominations may well preach the truth about John 3 and 1 Corinthians 15 (and as such be congregations of born again people) yet have areas of doctrine about secondary issues where they differ.

As young Christians, “just” to be saved is incredible, but as you go on with the Lord, it is hard to wholeheartedly be a member of a church where interpretations you disagree with are promoted from the front. Rather than become contentious, denominations are often a least bad way of focussing on the Lord and avoiding arguing about theological differences with those within your church. Also, I don’t believe any denomination gets it 100% right on every area.

You may not realise it, but you have dishonestly tried to liken the Truth that has been personally shared to JWs, Catholics and Muslims, as part of your satanic attempts to divert attention from the fact you do NOT do what Christ tells us to do. And you seem to feel the need to repeatedly tell lies, and employ logical fallacies on a regular basis to defend your untenable perspectives.

So-called Muslims don't claim Christ is The Way, as you well know, or should know. And the REALITY is there isn't one single so-called Christian or so-called Muslim denomination/sect/cult that preaches the Truth, because they don't know what the Truth is. That's why they - both "Christians" and "Muslims" - routinely lie/contradict the Scriptures to try to defend their errant beliefs.

The REALITY according to Christ is that not one single "Christian" has EVER been "saved" (John 3:13). No one gets to mark their own report card; that's Christ's job (John 5:22). And everyone on Judgment Day will be judge according to their works (Matt. 16:27). Believing otherwise (the exact opposite of what Christ teaches) is part of the arrogance/ignorance that plagues "Christianity", from its Roman Catholic origins through to every one of its several thousand Protestant denominations/sects/cults.

That is why we were given God's Law, so that we could learn to differentiate between what is actually true, just and good, and all of the lies, injustice and evil that we are presently suffering because we haven't kept The Law.

The REALITY according to Christ is that not one single "Christian" has EVER been "born again" either (John 3:3-7), which is evidenced by their incessant preaching the LIE that we allegedly cannot keep The Law that God gave us, and that we allegedly can't and/or shouldn't follow Christ's Example. The Disciples and Apostles were followers of The Way, NOT "Christians", i.e. part of another evil organised religion that wouldn't be formed until the 4th century AD.

Prince Michael/Christ said, both to Daniel and in His Revelation to John that the Scriptures and their true meaning have been sealed, awaiting His Second Coming, when only He can open them (Dan. 12:1-4, Rev. 5:1-5) and explain them (Rev. 10:7-10). And even then, most will reject the truth because they have no love for it. Here is the truth again about what it means to be born again.

1 John 3:7-9
3:7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he (Christ) is righteous.
3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the Beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for His seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

Doing the same thing over and over (following the blind guides of organised religion) and expecting different results is the Einsteinian definition of insanity. Learn to believe Christ and do what Christ says, or face the consequences (The Fire). That is the free-will choice Father (God) has provided us all.

Peace be upon you.

 

[A Freeman]

Here’s the thing though - the RCC of the first few centuries was not what it became. If you don’t believe me, just look at the development of Mariology through the progressive popes?

I like real orange juice, but I remember in the 90s, after years of various Orange drinks made from concentrate and mixed with other ingredients graced the supermarkets, a product called “Sunny D” hit the shelves. It had an orange colour but . I tried some once and it really wasn’t for me…

The thing is, kids who had never tried real orange juice drank what they were given and for a time, Sunny D made a fortune. Not long after that, you started to get real orange hitting the shelves in the supermarkets and then the difference became obvious.

That would appear to be what incrementally happened to the Catholic Church. Perhaps due to the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, the progressive statements made Ex Cathedra reduced the “juice” of the Gospel and added other ingredients till Luther tasted the truth of the Bible and famously pinned the ingredients of the RCC at the time to that famous door in Wittenberg.

You're still doing it (trying to argue good is evil and right is wrong, etc.) even if you don't "see" it.

Roman Catholicism has always been wrong, although it has become even more evil over time, as would be expected of such an evil organization. The Romans were manipulated by the counterfeit Jews into murdering Jesus 2000 years ago, and Peter never went to Gentile Rome (he lived and died in Jerusalem, of old age, NOT on an inverted cross). And yet somehow we are supposed to believe that the world's largest business empire (Matt. 6:24) and arguably the most idolatrous religion on Earth (Exod. 20:3-6), which are the same people who murdered Jesus, are somehow God's emissaries here on Earth? Ridiculous!

"Christianity" is the Sunny D in your analogy, and Christ, the Sun of Righteousness (Mal. 4:2) is the real thing.

The formulators can put whatever chemical poisons they want into the Sunny D, and people will still mindlessly drink it, as long as they like the taste.

The 100% natural (from God), unadulterated orange juice on the other hand is the real thing, and provides all the natural goodness without any of the chemical poisons. It is what it is, and isn't trying to trick anyone into believing that ingesting poisons is somehow good for them, or that such poisons are somehow a substitute for the real thing.

Peace be upon you.

 

[A Freeman]

No.

Your book clearly says, in the screenshot i posted, that churches were built to shelter people from the elements - and children - so they could concentrate on talking to God (prayer). Which is not the same thing as saying that going into same building (and praying) is somehow demonic or babylonian.

If your viewpoint has changed perhaps you should edit your book.

I never claimed your book promotes clergy of any kind.




Find a post where i have said that we should support them. All i have said is that i have no judgment for people attending a Bible-believing church that has correct doctrine (which catholicism is NOT). For the record, as Ive said many times on this forum, I DONT ATTEND CHURCH, a big part which has to do with protecting my children.

And i never denied that children have been s*xually assaulted in churches. I said that a child will not be assaulted if their parents are actually responsibly watching them.

As for people being murdered in public places, including churches, should we all also not go to grocery stores or attend any public events since people get murdered there too?

If you're going to continue to argue against God and Christ, to try to con others into believing the lie that they need to assemble in satanic churches where God said He does NOT dwell and where Christ said that only heathens and hypocrites go, then you are encouraging others to take their children to a place where evil happens, whether you realize it or not.

IF you will honestly read what was written in The Way home or face The Fire, in the very text you took a screenshot of, you will see that it too condemns the practice of going to church (and synagogues, mosques, temples, etc.) just as the rest of Scripture does.

Excerpt below from: The Way home or face The Fire, Chapter 11: Satan’s use of religions to divide; deceive; conquer and rule.

11:47 You are ALL bad, or you would not be here, in prison. God does not keep good people in prison. Be humble and LEARN to be good.
11:48 With organized- religions in between, like a wall, you will NEVER get to have a personal-relationship with God, and get to KNOW and love Him, as the wonderful and loving person that He is, and also be able to feel His love surrounding you, and protecting you from evil.
11:49 You do not need synagogues/churches/mosques, etc.; every human+being is a church. Churches (buildings) were only built, as a place of shelter, from the sun, or the rain, etc., or from screaming children, so that you could go, and be at peace, and be able to concentrate on talking to God, and on listening for His telepathic reply.
11:50 Just look at them now, with locks on the doors, and full of idols and gold, etc. IF the church is REALLY God’s House, WHO has the RIGHT to lock the door, and say that you can not go in, except for one hour, on a certain day?
11:51 You HAVE TO talk to God telepathically, ALL the time, wherever you are, and YOUR church (you) should be open to Him 24 hours a day.
11:52 If someone feels that they need a church-building, to talk to God, and they are distressed in the middle of the night, in the middle of the week; who has the right to lock them out? NO-ONE; that is who.
11:53 The silly priests say that people will steal their silly idols, and worldly treasures, if they don’t lock the doors.
11:54 There should be absolutely nothing in a church worth stealing, and, if there is, it should be sold, and the money given to the poor, or used, to heat the church, in cold climates, so that a church feels warm and welcoming, just like God. Instead of which, they feel cold, uncomfortable and forbidding, like Satan.

God is the God of the living; not of the dead.

11:55 Catholic churches are full of idols, and graven-images, teaching the breaking of the COMMANDMENTS: - You shall NOT make a graven -image, of ANYTHING in heaven or on Earth, or under the sea. You shall not worship idols and graven-images.
11:56 They also have statues of Mary’s body, and BLASPHEME, by saying that she is “the holy mother of God”. Christ himself, said that Mary was NOT his mother (Matt. 12:47-50 & Mark 3:31-35 & Luke 8:19-21). Mary was no-one special (Luke 11:27-28), except that she was a good mother, and had good qualities, that God wanted Jesus to learn, to help prepare him for His work.
11:57 The Roman Catholics also bow down to graven-images of the “son of Mary”, which was only a human-animal that I used, and was NOT me, and worship it as God. Jesus himself said that people MUST NOT worship him, but JUST worship ONLY GOD (Matt. 19:16-17 & Mark 10:17-18).
How can you all be so dis-obedient, and stupid, when you are ALL under the death-sentence, and your time is running-out (John 3:18 & 5:24)?
11:58 All the Prophets have spoken directly to God, and have done His Will, and have been against religions, and have lived apart with God.
11:59 This does not mean living in a monastery, or commune, it just means getting away from religions. Hiding from temptation, in a monastery, will do you no good, because you have to face temptation, and overcome it (to win favour with God, by facing temptation and overcoming it - James 1:2-4. You are, thereby, also setting a good example, to others, and can help the weaker ones to overcome their temptations, by giving them moral [spiritual] support - Sura 57:27).
11:60 Hiding in a commune, or monastery, is the cowards’ way out, but they are only cheating themselves, because the more temptation you overcome, the nearer you get to going home (James 1:2-4).
11:61 Avoiding temptation is wasting what precious little time you have left, and is like running-on-the-spot, on a conveyor-belt rolling towards The Fire, where you are going nowhere fast, except The Fire.
11:62 These communes only create fear, and do more harm than good, for the former reason, and the following ones.
11:63 The bigger they become, the greater the number of people that are wasting their time, and, because people without faith always fear what they do not understand, public-opinion is set against them. If they become really big, the people outside get frightened, and eventually they will attack it. Religious wars start in the same way (John 16:2).
11:64 These people should go home, to teach their families, and fight for God. Jesus said that he came, not to bring peace, but a sword (the Word of Truth - Heb. 4:12), and that a man’s enemies would be the members of his own household (Luke 12:51-53). This is because they will be used by Satan, to try to pull you away from your belief (Micah 7:6) . If they don’t , then you are not doing it right, because Jesus has told you, it WILL happen, IF you ARE doing it right (Matthew 10:34-40).
11:65 Don’t run away and HIDE in communes. Get on home, and fight to convince the people that love you, that they are wrong (love your enemies).
11:66 Fight with the Sword of Truth, not your fists. Truth and Light conquer all darkness and evil. Light destroys darkness painlessly, and easily, and so does the Light of Truth, when combined and delivered with love.
11:67 Stop being such cowards! Put on God’s Armour (Ephesians 6:11-19), and show people The Way. You once fought against God, and that got you sent here. The only way out, is to fight the Devil, to PROVE to God that you have changed sides, and are fit to come home.
11:68 Your REAL families, in heaven, are waiting for you to come home, and they are hoping that you don’t die, on the Last-Day, in The Fire.
11:69 The Devil’s greatest weapon has always been religions, and with them, he has divided; deceived and conquered the world. You must avoid organized-religions, like the plague (Rev. 18:4)!
11:70 To make religions even more effective, Satan divided the beliefs even further, into little sects, each with their own customs and beliefs. He is so sneaky, that you must be on your guard, 24 hours a day, and NEVER under-estimate him.
11:71 Cling to God, like a drowning man clings to anything that floats (or you will drown in “The Lake of Fire”). Always make sure, before you do anything, that the devil is not deceiving you into doing something wrong, by talking to you with his SEDUCTIVE voice. He is VERY sneaky! If in doubt, do nothing, until you are absolutely sure that you are following God’s orders, and not Satan’s (Sura 2:256).
11:72 Religious wars are one of Satan’s favourite games. After Mohammed’s enlightenment, and the spreading of his teachings, the Devil set the Christians and the Moslems against each other, in the Crusades, in an attempt; through his use of religions (his invention); to stop people from uniting themselves, and their Books, and thereby having a chance of knowing the Truth.

Anyone in their right-mind who honestly reads the above passage could never take away from it that it somehow advocates going to church or following the practices of organized religions, which teach people to do the exact opposite of what God COMMANDS us to do.

Please stop lying to others, both for your sake and for the sake of those you might deceive. Instead, please take the time to read through what has been shared with you, and the Scriptures, and see for yourself how the world REALLY is.

The church buildings themselves could and should be turned into places to provide shelter from the rain and sun for whomever may need that shelter. They should NOT however be used to conduct heathen rites, rituals, and the traditions of men, which make the Commandments of God of no effect. Turning them into housing for the poor, or into places to feed the poor, so that they can be put to good use 24 hours a day 7 days a week would be a good start.

We don't need church buildings, temples, etc. to talk to God. WE carry a temple with us every where we go and can and should be communicating with God from that temple telepathically all the time.

1 Corinthians 3:16-18
3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and [that] the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
3:17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for The Temple of God is holy, which [temple] ye are.
3:18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.

Peace be upon you.

 

[Padre_Neo]

Here’s the thing though - the RCC of the first few centuries was not what it became. If you don’t believe me, just look at the development of Mariology through the progressive popes?

I like real orange juice, but I remember in the 90s, after years of various Orange drinks made from concentrate and mixed with other ingredients graced the supermarkets, a product called “Sunny D” hit the shelves. It had an orange colour but . I tried some once and it really wasn’t for me…

The thing is, kids who had never tried real orange juice drank what they were given and for a time, Sunny D made a fortune. Not long after that, you started to get real orange hitting the shelves in the supermarkets and then the difference became obvious.

That would appear to be what incrementally happened to the Catholic Church. Perhaps due to the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, the progressive statements made Ex Cathedra reduced the “juice” of the Gospel and added other ingredients till Luther tasted the truth of the Bible and famously pinned the ingredients of the RCC at the time to that famous door in Wittenberg.

Id certainly agree with that assessment, problem is in a Catholics mind I guess they believe in a certain progressive revelation of events, and hold onto new aspects of God being revealed, which again reflects there propensity to disfavour scripture, and embrace other writings that contradict it. Mary's apparitions seem to fill this sort of gap in human hearts giving end time event interpretations that really contradict any sort of standard exegesis on the book of revelation. If one is looking for the Holy Spirit we would have to conclude the same spirit that guided the writ of the Bible and its finalised canon, is the same spirit that is also guiding the discernment of it's exegesis that a collective seem to for the majority hold in common, which is in direct opposition to RCC, Islam etc. The concept that Gods revelation of scripture and humanity's destination, ended with the book of revelation, doesn't seem to sit right with many, the same temptation to indulge this will dupe the world into the belief in one final deception about the nature of reality and who is God and there will be much more credence given this time.

 

[Lyfe]

It amazes me that the same people who try and bring others under the law can't even see that no matter their very best efforts to keep the law it only condemns them. The law demands perfect obedience without fail and if you stumble just once in one little thing you break the entirety of it. Imagine how demoralizing it must be for a self righteous person to learn that if he sins only once in a day that he has ultimately broken the whole law and is regarded as a law breaker just like everyone else. Don't think that's possible? It only took one sin for Adam and Eve to be banished from Eden and reap the wages of sin which is death. They died because of ONE sin. This is why our righteousness is in Christ and him alone or we don't have any, at all. The law can't bring any righteousness. It can only incur guilt.

I haven't met a single person who insists we need to keep the law that keeps it themselves. They answer honestly and admit they don't keep the law. Most aren't even willing to admit they went their whole day without being guilty of some manner of sin. One sin is enough to break the law. If you stand before God on judgment day and he judges without impartiality according to The Law you will be found guilty. It's that simple. The law works wrath that's why it's called the ministration of condemnation and death. It was given that transgression may increase. Your not minimizing sin by being a minister of The Law you are setting people up in a way that they incur more guilt. The law says you MUST do this or that and you are obligated to keep ALL of it. If you don't then you are a law breaker, period. Israel was given The Law and look at their history.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

It amazes me that the same people who try and bring others under the law can't even see that no matter their very best efforts to keep the law it only condemns them. The law demands perfect obedience without fail and if you stumble just once in one little thing you break the entirety of it. Imagine how demoralizing it must be for a self righteous person to learn that if he sins only once in a day that he has ultimately broken the whole law and is regarded as a law breaker just like everyone else. Don't think that's possible? It only took one sin for Adam and Eve to be banished from Eden and reap the wages of sin which is death. They died because of ONE sin. This is why our righteousness is in Christ and him alone or we don't have any, at all. The law can't bring any righteousness. It can only incur guilt.

I haven't met a single person who insists we need to keep the law that keeps it themselves. They answer honestly and admit they don't keep the law. Most aren't even willing to admit they went their whole day without being guilty of some manner of sin. One sin is enough to break the law. If you stand before God on judgment day and he judges without impartiality according to The Law you will be found guilty. It's that simple. The law works wrath that's why it's called the ministration of condemnation and death. It was given that transgression may increase. Your not minimizing sin by being a minister of The Law you are setting people up in a way that they incur more guilt. The law says you MUST do this or that and you are obligated to keep ALL of it. If you don't then you are a law breaker, period. Israel was given The Law and look at their history.

I was listening to my audio Bible this morning because I would up too early. This section of 1 Timothy stood out to me…

The Word of Promise® NKJV Audio Bible

5 Now the purpose of the commandment is love from a pure heart, from a good conscience, and from sincere faith,
6 from which some, having strayed, have turned aside to idle talk,
7 desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor the things which they affirm.
8 But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully,
9 knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
10 for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine,
11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust.
12 And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord who has enabled me, because He counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry,
13 although I was formerly a blasphemer, a persecutor, and an insolent man; but I obtained mercy because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.
14 And the grace of our Lord was exceedingly abundant, with faith and love which are in Christ Jesus.
15 This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief.
16 However, for this reason I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, as a pattern to those who are going to believe on Him for everlasting life.
17 Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, to God who alone is wise, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.
1 Timothy 1:5-17 NKJV

 

[Lyfe]

I was listening to my audio Bible this morning because I would up too early. This section of 1 Timothy stood out to me…

The Word of Promise® NKJV Audio Bible

5 Now the purpose of the commandment is love from a pure heart, from a good conscience, and from sincere faith,
6 from which some, having strayed, have turned aside to idle talk,
7 desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor the things which they affirm.
8 But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully,
9 knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
10 for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine,
11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust.
12 And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord who has enabled me, because He counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry,
13 although I was formerly a blasphemer, a persecutor, and an insolent man; but I obtained mercy because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.
14 And the grace of our Lord was exceedingly abundant, with faith and love which are in Christ Jesus.
15 This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief.
16 However, for this reason I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, as a pattern to those who are going to believe on Him for everlasting life.
17 Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, to God who alone is wise, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.
1 Timothy 1:5-17 NKJV

Yes The Law gives us the knowledge of sin, but it is not a means to righteousness. God declares someone as righteous. All righteousness comes from him.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

Yes The Law gives us the knowledge of sin, but it is not a means to righteousness. God declares someone as righteous. All righteousness comes from him.

To use an analogy, painting by numbers can stop you looking like a bad artist…

but until you transition to painting for the love of it, you will never be a good one.



Jeremiah 31

A New Covenant​

​

31Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 32Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: 33But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.​

I would suggest that until you are born again, this “New Covenant” will not happen.

 

[Lyfe]

To use an analogy, painting by numbers can stop you looking like a bad artist…
View attachment 83197
but until you transition to painting for the love of it, you will never be a good one.

View attachment 83198

Jeremiah 31

A New Covenant​

​

31Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 32Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: 33But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.​

I would suggest that until you are born again, this “New Covenant” will not happen.

That's precisely it. The answer to the condition of the churches isn't to put their flocks back under the law. Most people who go to church need to get born again and regenerated by the holy spirit. They need a heart of flesh. There are many who just simply don't understand this.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

Yes, but that's not my point. Rather, Biblical Christianity is illogical because the same RCC that BC attacks was responsible for selecting the works that would make up the Bible that BC it attempts to use to attack RCC. Get it?

Further to my previous response, I found this information interesting:


There is an unbroken line of biblical scholars, apologists, historians, and plain old believers who provide continuity from the earliest days. ..Irenaeus, Athanasius, Polycarp, and many others, going back to the original disciples. There is a mountain of work from these writers, who quoted nearly all the NT documents, even before they were canonized. The validity and historicity of the NT texts is beyond reproach, with more validity and evidence than most contemporaries. The fragments and manuscripts date back to the first and second centuries, but the quotes from the early apologists confirm their veracity even more.

 

[Lyfe]

Yes the world will always view biblical Christianity to be illogical. The natural man receiving NOT the things of the spirit of God. They are foolishness to him. What does God reveal about himself? He chose the foolish and low things to confound those who are wise in their own eyes. This is part of who God is and speaks to his ways. God uses foolish things. It pleased God to use the "foolishness" of preaching to save them that believe.

If you are looking for logic and equations to find God you will search and never find. The world looks for science and formulas to find out their creator but God chose the cross and a book.

 

[monkeylove]

The 'selected' books were already in circulation and known to be scripture long before the RCC came into existence. God inspired them and God selected them. The RCC chose to add books that should never have been included.

Again, my point isn't whether or not they existed but who selected them to become part of the Bible. That selection involved the Catholic Church at the Council of Rome!

Biblical Christianity emerged only much later and then was used to attack the same selectors.

In addition, even Paul wasn't part of that because his letters were likely written before some of the Gospels were completed.

 

[monkeylove]

Here’s the thing though - the RCC of the first few centuries was not what it became. If you don’t believe me, just look at the development of Mariology through the progressive popes?

I like real orange juice, but I remember in the 90s, after years of various Orange drinks made from concentrate and mixed with other ingredients graced the supermarkets, a product called “Sunny D” hit the shelves. It had an orange colour but . I tried some once and it really wasn’t for me…

The thing is, kids who had never tried real orange juice drank what they were given and for a time, Sunny D made a fortune. Not long after that, you started to get real orange hitting the shelves in the supermarkets and then the difference became obvious.

That would appear to be what incrementally happened to the Catholic Church. Perhaps due to the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, the progressive statements made Ex Cathedra reduced the “juice” of the Gospel and added other ingredients till Luther tasted the truth of the Bible and famously pinned the ingredients of the RCC at the time to that famous door in Wittenberg.

That argument is pointless because this whole thread is about Biblical Christianity, and the latter is illogical because it attacks Tradition, but it was the same Tradition that was involved in coming up with the Biblical canon.

 

[monkeylove]

Further to my previous response, I found this information interesting:


There is an unbroken line of biblical scholars, apologists, historians, and plain old believers who provide continuity from the earliest days. ..Irenaeus, Athanasius, Polycarp, and many others, going back to the original disciples. There is a mountain of work from these writers, who quoted nearly all the NT documents, even before they were canonized. The validity and historicity of the NT texts is beyond reproach, with more validity and evidence than most contemporaries. The fragments and manuscripts date back to the first and second centuries, but the quotes from the early apologists confirm their veracity even more.

That makes no sense whatsoever. How can the "original disciples" quote from NT documents like Paul's epistles? Many of the pronouncements in this thread come from the latter, and they make up what is essentially Pauline Christianity.

 

[monkeylove]

Yes the world will always view biblical Christianity to be illogical. The natural man receiving NOT the things of the spirit of God. They are foolishness to him. What does God reveal about himself? He chose the foolish and low things to confound those who are wise in their own eyes. This is part of who God is and speaks to his ways. God uses foolish things. It pleased God to use the "foolishness" of preaching to save them that believe.

If you are looking for logic and equations to find God you will search and never find. The world looks for science and formulas to find out their creator but God chose the cross and a book.

This is not a matter of opinion. The last work of the Bible was produced around a hundred years after the Church was formed. The selection of not only which Gospels to include but how many involve Tradition and beyond, e.g., four gospels because there are four wind directions. The Epistles were written before all of the Gospels were distributed. Each Gospel was written for specific audiences, e.g., Jewish Christians who didn't like gentiles, Romans who weren't Jews. etc. And so on.

Biblical Christianity assumes that none of these things took place and that the Bible essentially created itself.

 

[Lyfe]

This is not a matter of opinion. The last work of the Bible was produced around a hundred years after the Church was formed. The selection of not only which Gospels to include but how many involve Tradition and beyond, e.g., four gospels because there are four wind directions. The Epistles were written before all of the Gospels were distributed. Each Gospel was written for specific audiences, e.g., Jewish Christians who didn't like gentiles, Romans who weren't Jews. etc. And so on.

Biblical Christianity assumes that none of these things took place and that the Bible essentially created itself.

I will continue to believe that we have been given The Bible by an act of God.

 

[DavidSon]

You are assuming the RCC put the Bible together, which is a fallacy. There was no RCC during the time of Christ and the apostles. The NT scriptures were written and distributed among believers long before the RCC came along.

A quick search shows your statements are false. It may not have been called the RCC but by already the 2nd century (100CE) there was a network of "orthodox", establishment type Churches centered in Rome who were authorizing what was supposedly the correct dogma. As you must know the array of heterodox bands in the first centuries were either censored or chased away by the Roman affiliated power structures most Christians today align themselves with. It's strange how little most Christians care about their origins:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope

During the 1st century of the Church (c. 30–130), the Roman capital became recognized as a Christian center of exceptional importance.

In the Ravenna Document of 13 October 2007, theologians chosen by the Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox Churches stated: "Both sides agree ... that Rome, as the Church that 'presides in love' according to the phrase of St Ignatius of Antioch, occupied the first place in the taxis, and that the bishop of Rome was therefore the protos among the patriarchs. Translated into English, the statement means "first among equals".

It's true there were various canons put together by different groups before the 4th century but clearly shills for the Roman power structure held sway among the masses of their cities:

A four-gospel canon (the Tetramorph) was asserted by Irenaeus (130-202)...

By the early 3rd century, Christian theologians like Origen of Alexandria(184-253) may have been using—or at least were familiar with—the same 27 books found in modern New Testament editions, though there were still disputes over the canonicity of some of the writings...

The first Council that accepted the present Catholic canon (the Canon of Trent of 1546) may have been the Synod of Hippo Regius, held in North Africa in 393. A brief summary of the acts was read at and accepted by the Council of Carthage (397) and also the Council of Carthage (419). These Councils took place under the authority of St. Augustine (354–430), who regarded the canon as already closed.

As @monkeylove is pointing out it's preposterous to denounce the very source of your Holy Scriptures when so many other writings were cast away for obvious political reasons. The title of this thread is mockery on it's own, why "Christians" reject the Catholic Church... while half the world's Christians are RC lol. How fucking stupid and arrogant can you be?

People should take a look at their own history, it's actually dense in revelation and wisdom:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

 

[A Freeman]

Reality v. Propaganda

Excerpt below from: The Top 10 Myths that Dominate Christianity -


8. Peter the Roman?

The foundation for both the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) and her daughters, i.e. ALL the Protestant religions to which she gave birth, is built on the LIE that Peter was the first pope of Rome. Simon Peter was NEVER in Rome, much less the first pope of the Babylonian mystery religion (Rev. 17:5).

The RCC claims Peter served in Rome in the capacity of pope from 41-66 A.D. (some historians differ on these dates, but not on the location) and that the papacy derives its authority by apostolic succession from Peter, whom they claim is buried under St. Peter's Basilica. But even a cursory examination of the Scriptures (The Rock-solid Truth) proves this is a complete fabrication.

Matthew 10:5-6
10:5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go NOT into the way of the Gentiles, and into [any] city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
10:6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the "House of Israel".

Are we to believe that Peter directly disobeyed The Master (Christ-Jesus) and went to Gentile Rome anyway?

Galatians 2:7-9
2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as [the gospel] of the circumcision [was] unto Peter;
2:8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:
2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we [should go] unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

Peter's Assignment: Circumcision = Jews/Judah (Jerusalem, Joppa, etc.)

Paul's Assignment: Uncircumcision = Gentiles (e.g. Rome)

In the letter to the Romans we are told that those assignments would NOT be intermingled.

Romans 15:20 Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was known about, lest I should build upon another man's foundation.

That same letter goes on to send greetings and salutations to no less than 28 people who were in Rome at the very time Peter was supposedly pope (Rom. 16:1-15), and yet it never mentions Peter, which would be very strange and extremely rude if Peter had actually been there. It would also have been completely unnecessary to send a letter to instruct the community in Rome if Peter had been there leading them at that time.

Clearly Peter wasn't in Rome. He was exactly where he was supposed to be: in Jerusalem and the surrounding area. In fact Peter died (of old age, NOT on a satanic inverted cross – John 21:17-19) in Jerusalem and was buried there, where his tomb was discovered in 1953 at a Franciscan monastery site called "Dominus Flevit" (see next post).

The first pope of the RCC was not until the 4th century A.D., when the Roman Emperor Constantine took the title “bishop of bishops” for himself. He presided over the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. in that capacity, which is when and where the "Creed of Nicaea", now known as the "Nicene Creed" was incorporated, which introduced the concept of the pagan trinity into Christianity, mixing it together with the true teachings of Christ.

The entire “apostolic succession” from Peter through to Constantine was then fabricated and back-filled to try to legitimize the church's worldly authority. ALL based on LIES, because Simon Peter was NEVER in Rome.

 

[A Freeman]

The Discovery of Peter's Tomb in Jerusalem
1953​

While visiting a friend in Switzerland, I heard of what seemed to me, one of the greatest discoveries since the time of Christ—that Peter was buried in Jerusalem and not in Rome. The source of this rumor, written in Italian, was not clear; it left considerable room for doubt or rather wonder. Rome was the place where I could investigate the matter, and if such proved encouraging, a trip to Jerusalem might be necessary in order to gather valuable first hand information on the subject. I therefore went to Rome. After talking to many priests and investigating various sources of information, I finally was greatly rewarded by learning where I could buy the only known book on the subject, which was also written in Italian. It is called, "Gli Scavi del Dominus Flevit", printed in 1958 at the Tipografia del PP. Francescani, in Jerusalem. It was written by P. B. Bagatti and J. T. Milik, both Roman Catholic priests. The story of the discovery was there, but it seemed to be purposely hidden for much was lacking. I consequently determined to go to Jerusalem to see for myself, if possible, that which appeared to be almost unbelievable, especially since it came from priests, who naturally because of the existing tradition that Peter was buried in Rome, would be the last ones to welcome such a discovery or to bring it to the attention of the world.

In Jerusalem I spoke to many Franciscan priests who all read, finally, though reluctantly, that the bones of Simon Bar Jona (St. Peter) were found in Jerusalem, on the Franciscan monastery site called, "Dominus Flevit" (where Jesus was supposed to have wept over Jerusalem), on the Mount of Olives. The pictures show the story. The first show an excavation where the names of Christian Biblical characters were found on the ossuaries (bone boxes). The names of Mary and Martha were found on one box and right next to it was one with the name of Lazarus, their brother. Other names of early Christians were found on other boxes. Of greatest interest, however, was that which was found within twelve feet from the place where the remains of Mary, Martha and Lazarus were found—the remains of St. Peter. They were found in an ossuary, on the outside of which was clearly and beautifully written in Aramaic, "Simon Bar Jona".

I talked to a Yale professor, who is an archaeologist, and was director of the American School of Oriental Research in Jerusalem. He told me that it would be very improbable that a name with three words, and one so complete, could refer to any other than St. Peter.

​

But what makes the possibility of error more remote is that the remains were found in a Christian burial ground, and more yet, of the first century, the very time in which Peter lived. In fact, I have a letter from a noted scientist stating that he can tell by the writing that it was written just before the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus in 70 A.D.

I talked to priest Milik, the co-writer of this Italian book, in the presence of my friend, a Christian Arab, Mr. S. J. Mattar, who now is the warden of the Garden Tomb, where Jesus was buried and rose again. This priest, Milik, admitted that he knew that the bones of St. Peter are not in Rome. I was very much surprised that he would admit that, so to confirm his admittance, I said, to which he also agreed, "There is a hundred times more evidence that Peter was buried in Jerusalem than in Rome." This was something of an understatement, for he knew as I know that there is absolutely no evidence at all that Peter was buried in Rome.

I have spoken on the subject to many Franciscan priests who either were or had been in Jerusalem, and they all agree that the tomb and remains of St. Peter are in Jerusalem. There was just one exception which is interesting and which only proves the point. The Franciscan priest, Augusto Spykerman, who was in charge of the semi-private museum inside the walls of old Jerusalem, by the site of the Franciscan Church of the Flagellation, was that exception. When I asked to see the museum, he showed it to the three of us, Mr. Mattar, who in addition to being warden of the Tomb of Christ, had been the manager of an English bank in Jerusalem, a professional photographer and myself. But he told us nothing of the discovery. I knew that the evidence of Peter’s burial was there, for priests had told me that relics from the Christian burial ground were preserved within this museum. People who lived in Jerusalem all their lives and official guides who are supposed to know every inch of the city, however, knew nothing of this discovery, so well was it withheld from the public. I had asked an elderly official guide where the tomb of St. Peter was. He responded in a very profound and majestic tone of voice, "The Tomb of St. Peter has never been found in Jerusalem." "Oh," I said, "but I have seen the burial place of Peter with my own eyes." He turned on me with a fierceness that is so common among Arabs. "What," he replied, "you a foreigner mean to tell me that you know where the tomb of St. Peter is when I have been an official guide for thirty-five years and know every inch of ground in Jerusalem?" I was afraid that he would jump at my throat. I managed to calm him as I said, "But sir, here are the pictures and you can see the ossuary, among others, with Peter’s name in Aramaic. You can also see this for yourself on the Mount of Olives on the Franciscan Convent site called, "Dominus Flevit". When I finished he slowly turned away in stunned amazement. A person who has seen this Christian burial ground and knows the circumstances surrounding the case could never doubt that this truly is the burial place of St. Peter and of other Christians. I, too, walked around in a dreamy amazement for about a week for I could hardly believe what I had seen and heard. Since the circulation of this article, they do not allow anyone to see this burial place.

Before things had gone very far, I had been quite discouraged for I could get no information from the many priests with whom I had talked. However, I continued questioning priests wherever I would find them. Finally one priest dropped some information. With that knowledge I approached another priest who warily asked me where I had acquired that information. I told him that a priest had told me. Then he admitted the point and dropped a little more information. It went on like that for some time until I got the whole picture, and I was finally directed to where I could see the evidence for myself. To get the story, it made me feel as though I had a bull by the tail and were trying to pull him through a key hole. But when I had gathered all the facts in the case, the priests could not deny the discovery of the tomb, but even confirmed it, though reluctantly. In fact, I have the statement from a Spanish priest on the Mount of Olives on a tape recorder, to that effect.

But here we were talking to this Franciscan priest in charge of the museum, asking him questions which he tried to evade but could not because of the information I had already gathered from the many priests with whom I had spoken. Finally after the pictures of the evidence were taken, which was nothing short of a miracle that he allowed us to do so, I complimented him on the marvelous discovery of the tomb of St. Peter in Jerusalem that the Franciscans had made. He was clearly nervous as he said, "Oh no, the tomb of St. Peter is in Rome." But as he said that, his voice faltered, a fact which even my friend, Mr. Mattar, had noticed. Then I looked him squarely in the eyes and firmly said, "No, the tomb of St. Peter is in Jerusalem." He looked at me like a guilty school boy and held his peace. He was, no doubt, placed there to hide the facts, but his actions and words, spoke more convincingly about the discovery than those priests who finally admitted the truth.

I also spoke to a Franciscan priest in authority at the priest’s printing plant within the walls of old Jerusalem, where their book on the subject was printed. He also admitted that the tomb of St. Peter is in Jerusalem. Then when I visited the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, I encountered a Franciscan monk. After telling him what I thought of the wonderful discovery the Franciscans had made, I asked him plainly, "Do you folks really believe that those are the remains of St. Peter?" He responded, "Yes we do, we have no choice in the matter. The clear evidence is there." I did not doubt the evidence, but what surprised me was that these priests and monks believed that which was against their own religion and on top of that, to admit it to others was something out of this world. Usually a Catholic, either because he is brainwashed or stubbornly doesn’t want to see anything only that which he has been taught, will not allow himself to believe anything against his religion, much less to admit it to others. But there is a growing, healthy attitude among many Catholics, to "prove all things, hold fast to that which is good" as the Master admonished us all.

Then I asked, "Does Father Bagatti (co-writer of the book in Italian on the subject, and archaeologist) really believe that those are the bones of St. Peter?" "Yes, he does," was the reply. Then I asked, "But what does the Pope think of all this?" That was a thousand dollar question and he gave me a million dollar answer. "Well," he confidentially answered in a hushed voice, "Father Bagatti told me personally that three years ago he went to the Pope (Pius XII) in Rome and showed him the evidence and the Pope said to him, ‘Well, we will have to make some changes, but for the time being, keep this thing quiet’." In awe I asked also in a subdued voice, "So the Pope really believes that those are the bones of St. Peter?" "Yes," was his answer. "The documentary evidence is there…

(for the full article with illustrations, see: https://documents.pub/document/peters-jerusalem-tomb.html?page=1)