why Christians reject Roman Catholic church

A Freeman

Superstar
Joined
Nov 11, 2019
Messages
8,338
It's amazing how many times Christ can warn us to steer clear of all of the spiritually blind guides of organized religion, all of whom are misleading their spiritually blind followers into The Fire, and yet the very first place Satan has most people turn is to those very same blind guides, proving that they too are among the spiritually blind (Matt. 15:13-14).

According to Christ, no "Christian" has ever correctly understood the Bible, nor has any "Muslim" ever understood the Koran/Quran, because their true message has been sealed up until these end-times, awaiting Christ to return and explain them both, settling all differences (Dan. 12:1-4, Rev. 5:1-5, Sura 3:55).

ALL organized religion was created by Lucifer/Satan/Iblis to put up a barrier between God and men. All Scripture is inspired by our Creator. Until people learn the difference between the two, they will continue to repeat the same mistake over and over of putting their trust in the opinions of the blind guides of organized religions instead of putting their trust in God and His Word. The classic definition of insanity.
 

DavidSon

Star
Joined
Jan 10, 2019
Messages
2,152
Sacraments in the Catholic Church are efficacious signs, perceptible to the senses, of grace. According to the Church's theology, they have been instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, and through them divine life is bestowed on us. They are means by which Christ gives the particular grace indicated by the sign aspect of the sacrament in question, helping the individual to advance in holiness, and contributing to the Church' s growth in charity and in giving witness. Not every individual receives every sacrament, but the Catholic Church sees the sacraments as necessary means of salvation for the faithful, conferring each sacrament's particular grace, whether forgiveness of sins, adoption as children of God, confirmation to Christ and the Church. The effect of the sacraments comes ex opere operato (by the very fact of being administered). Regardless of the personal holiness of the minister administering the sacraments, Christ provides the graces of which they are signs. However, a recipient's own lack of proper disposition to receive the grace conveyed can block their effectiveness in that person. The sacraments presuppose faith and, in addition, their words and ritual elements nourish, strengthen and give expression to faith.

There are seven Sacraments:
Baptism
Eucharist
Confirmation
Penance, also called Confession and Reconciliation
Anointing of the Sick, formerly called Extreme Unction and Last Sacraments
Holy Orders
Matrimony


This seems like a pretty solid doctrine on salvation as a Christian. I still can't get over how hurtful it is to claim you're somehow more holy than other believers especially when they number in the hundreds of millions. Is the Methodist path toward God so much greater than Coptic Christianity or any of the other 50,000 denominations? It's not. More than ever those of a similar faith should be setting their differences aside to fight our common enemy. Instead of fanning the flames of division, stoking false biases, people should be looking for common ground they can build upon.
 

monkeylove

Rookie
Joined
Nov 14, 2019
Messages
90
I fail to remember how we moved to the topic of evangelism, but since you brought it up... How should one evangelize?
Work on your reading comprehension: "In your interpretation what is the purpose of Christ's Church?"

If you even need others to answer your next question, then you have a problem.
 

monkeylove

Rookie
Joined
Nov 14, 2019
Messages
90
That same question occurs to me…




I am indebted to you for making my ears prick up to the name Bart Ehrman @monkeylove as it led me to one of the best talks I have heard in a long time.

It turns out Nabeel had Bart as one of his professors, and he had some very interesting insights into his thought.

As for the claims of @A Freeman I found it very interesting hearing the perspective of an ex-Muslim on the key claims of Christianity. Rather than the Bible and the Qur’an being in convergence (when correctly understood) they actually diverge on the key doctrines of salvation.

My point is that scholars would reject the ridiculous idea of Biblical Christianty, on which this thread is based, for commonsensical reasons.
 

monkeylove

Rookie
Joined
Nov 14, 2019
Messages
90
It's amazing how many times Christ can warn us to steer clear of all of the spiritually blind guides of organized religion, all of whom are misleading their spiritually blind followers into The Fire, and yet the very first place Satan has most people turn is to those very same blind guides, proving that they too are among the spiritually blind (Matt. 15:13-14).

According to Christ, no "Christian" has ever correctly understood the Bible, nor has any "Muslim" ever understood the Koran/Quran, because their true message has been sealed up until these end-times, awaiting Christ to return and explain them both, settling all differences (Dan. 12:1-4, Rev. 5:1-5, Sura 3:55).

ALL organized religion was created by Lucifer/Satan/Iblis to put up a barrier between God and men. All Scripture is inspired by our Creator. Until people learn the difference between the two, they will continue to repeat the same mistake over and over of putting their trust in the opinions of the blind guides of organized religions instead of putting their trust in God and His Word. The classic definition of insanity.
Christians were the ones who selected the books that would make up Scriptures. They are also the ones who argue that the latter are inspired by God.
 

monkeylove

Rookie
Joined
Nov 14, 2019
Messages
90
It's like people who've heard about the Catechism for the first time, which explains why they ask even basic questions like the meaning of evangelization!

Good grief. Do some basic readings in religion and theology classes before posting. You're only wasting your time.
 

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
14,664
My point is that scholars would reject the ridiculous idea of Biblical Christianty, on which this thread is based, for commonsensical reasons.
The above is certainly a claim you have restated in various forms but it doesn’t really mesh with what wider scholarship suggests.

Bart Ehrman and the Jesus Seminar (and scholars going back to Griesbach etc) were not without an agenda. There are plenty of scholars who support early dating of the gospels, early consensus of canonical works etc.

I understand that Bible + Tradition is an axiomatic foundation of Catholic teaching, but it is one that many (including myself) reject.
 

A Freeman

Superstar
Joined
Nov 11, 2019
Messages
8,338
The fact that Christ repeatedly condemned the traditions of men should be enough for anyone to recognize those traditions are satanic and thus unlawful.

Matthew 15:3-9
15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the COMMANDment of God by your Tradition?
15:4 For God Commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
15:5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to [his] father or [his] mother, [It is] a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;
15:6 And honour not his father or his mother, [he shall be free]. Thus have ye made the Commandment of God of none effect by your Tradition (Talmud, Catechism, Hadith, etc.).
15:7 [Ye] hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying,
15:8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with [their] lips; but their heart is FAR from me.
15:9 But in vain they do worship Me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men (man-made doctrines, legislation, etc.).

It is an overt LIE promoted by Roman Catholicism that they chose the books that became the Bible, particularly given ALL of those books were written before the Roman Catholic church even existed, and the Old Covenant had already been assembled as part of the Greek Septuagint hundreds of years before the birth of Jesus.

Deuteronomy 32:1-9

32:1 Give ear, O ye heavens, and I will speak; and hear, O earth, the Words from my mouth.
32:2 My doctrine shall drop as the rain, my speech shall distil as the dew, as the small rain upon the tender herb, and as the showers upon the grass:
32:3 Because I will publish the name of the "I AM": ascribe ye greatness unto our God.
32:4 [He is] the Rock, (not Peter/Cephas) His work [is] Perfect: for all His Ways [are] Judgment: a God of Truth and without inequity, just and right [is] He.
32:5 They have corrupted themselves, their mark (Rev. 14:9) [is] not [the mark] of His children: [they are] a perverse and crooked generation.
32:6 Do ye thus requite the "I AM", O foolish people and unwise? [is] not He thy Father [that] hath bought [and adopted] thee? hath He not made thee, and established thee?
32:7 Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations: ask thy father, and he will show thee; thy elders, and they will tell thee.
32:8 When The Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when He separated the sons of Adam, He set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.
32:9 For the "I AM"'s portion [is] His people; Jacob/Israel [is] the cord [the binding tie] of His inheritance.

The Bible is the story of Israel, which means "Champion of God"; it is NOT the story of Roman Catholicism, which God refers to as "the Great Whore".

The Message/Scripture of Truth is what is relevant, NOT the messenger delivering it.
 

monkeylove

Rookie
Joined
Nov 14, 2019
Messages
90
The above is certainly a claim you have restated in various forms but it doesn’t really mesh with what wider scholarship suggests.

Bart Ehrman and the Jesus Seminar (and scholars going back to Griesbach etc) were not without an agenda. There are plenty of scholars who support early dating of the gospels, early consensus of canonical works etc.

I understand that Bible + Tradition is an axiomatic foundation of Catholic teaching, but it is one that many (including myself) reject.
You must be joking! They study the context of the Biblical canon, which is shaped by Tradition and more. If any, that is the main base of scholarship and even of exegesis.

In contrast, Biblical Christianity is some crude form of formalism, where everything outside the Bible is rejected, including what what led to the selection of books that would make the same.
 

monkeylove

Rookie
Joined
Nov 14, 2019
Messages
90
The fact that Christ repeatedly condemned the traditions of men should be enough for anyone to recognize those traditions are satanic and thus unlawful.

Matthew 15:3-9
15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the COMMANDment of God by your Tradition?
15:4 For God Commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
15:5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to [his] father or [his] mother, [It is] a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;
15:6 And honour not his father or his mother, [he shall be free]. Thus have ye made the Commandment of God of none effect by your Tradition (Talmud, Catechism, Hadith, etc.).
15:7 [Ye] hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying,
15:8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with [their] lips; but their heart is FAR from me.
15:9 But in vain they do worship Me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men (man-made doctrines, legislation, etc.).

It is an overt LIE promoted by Roman Catholicism that they chose the books that became the Bible, particularly given ALL of those books were written before the Roman Catholic church even existed, and the Old Covenant had already been assembled as part of the Greek Septuagint hundreds of years before the birth of Jesus.

Deuteronomy 32:1-9

32:1 Give ear, O ye heavens, and I will speak; and hear, O earth, the Words from my mouth.
32:2 My doctrine shall drop as the rain, my speech shall distil as the dew, as the small rain upon the tender herb, and as the showers upon the grass:
32:3 Because I will publish the name of the "I AM": ascribe ye greatness unto our God.
32:4 [He is] the Rock, (not Peter/Cephas) His work [is] Perfect: for all His Ways [are] Judgment: a God of Truth and without inequity, just and right [is] He.
32:5 They have corrupted themselves, their mark (Rev. 14:9) [is] not [the mark] of His children: [they are] a perverse and crooked generation.
32:6 Do ye thus requite the "I AM", O foolish people and unwise? [is] not He thy Father [that] hath bought [and adopted] thee? hath He not made thee, and established thee?
32:7 Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations: ask thy father, and he will show thee; thy elders, and they will tell thee.
32:8 When The Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when He separated the sons of Adam, He set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.
32:9 For the "I AM"'s portion [is] His people; Jacob/Israel [is] the cord [the binding tie] of His inheritance.

The Bible is the story of Israel, which means "Champion of God"; it is NOT the story of Roman Catholicism, which God refers to as "the Great Whore".

The Message/Scripture of Truth is what is relevant, NOT the messenger delivering it.
It's the same Tradition that led to the Biblical canon! Who are you guys kidding?
 

DavidSon

Star
Joined
Jan 10, 2019
Messages
2,152
There's no hair-splitting. Only an ignoramus will think that Catholics worship Mary.

Significant aspects of mainstream religions come from, encounter, and counter others, if not pagan views. Examples include the story of the Great Flood, the idea of a savior, Satan (which is actually a common noun meaning "advocate"), psalms which resemble prayers to Ra, a virgin birth, blood sacrifice, angels, demons, and more.

The Bible itself is an impressive combination of writings in different genres across multiple cultures (Hebrew, Egyptian, Sumerian, Greek, and Roman) and spanning over a thousand years, and Christianity itself involving combinations of Hebrew beliefs and Greek philosophies.

What some don't notice is that this forum involves especially that: studying the origins of various phenomena. Biblical Christianity, in contrast, puts all that aside in favor of a fundamentalist view of the world.
Beautifully said my friend.

Looking at one "origin of various phenomena" is the ridiculous memes Protestants have used to demonize Catholics. The false representation as anti-Christ, whore of Babylon (which is comical as @AspiringSoul has shown many times these were Jewish prophesies against their own corrupt elites), etc. All the conspiracy talk about Catholics taking over the world while the 98% Protestant/Freemason led US and British empires are who've dominated the last 300 years. For as much technological progress they've initiated there's a dark, sinister side to the trajectory as well. This wiki is a good overview of the hypocritical demonization of Catholic Christians by their own (supposed) brothers and sisters:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Catholicism

Historian Arthur Schlesinger Sr. has called anti-Catholicism "the deepest-held bias in the history of the American people".

...John Higham described anti-Catholicism as "the most luxuriant, tenacious tradition of paranoiac agitation in American history."

...Furthermore, English and Scottish identity to a large extent was based on opposition to Catholicism. "To be English was to be anti-Catholic," writes Robert Curran.
 

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
14,664
You must be joking! They study the context of the Biblical canon, which is shaped by Tradition and more. If any, that is the main base of scholarship and even of exegesis.

In contrast, Biblical Christianity is some crude form of formalism, where everything outside the Bible is rejected, including what what led to the selection of books that would make the same.
I suspect this is likely to turn into a “tug of war” where the conclusion you wish to draw is of greater importance than the means by which you draw it.

If you want to believe that there is a divine hand in the papal succession from Peter and the tradition that gave the church the Decretals of Isadore and the Donation of Constantine, I cannot stop you.

I don’t think that either the early church or the Protestant reformers got everything right either. The wider context of the letters to the Churches of Asia Minor is very interesting.

 
Last edited:

A Freeman

Superstar
Joined
Nov 11, 2019
Messages
8,338
Beautifully said my friend.

Looking at one "origin of various phenomena" is the ridiculous memes Protestants have used to demonize Catholics. The false representation as anti-Christ, whore of Babylon (which is comical as @AspiringSoul has shown many times these were Jewish prophesies against their own corrupt elites), etc. All the conspiracy talk about Catholics taking over the world while the 98% Protestant/Freemason led US and British empires are who've dominated the last 300 years. For as much technological progress they've initiated there's a dark, sinister side to the trajectory as well. This wiki is a good overview of the hypocritical demonization of Catholic Christians by their own (supposed) brothers and sisters:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Catholicism

Historian Arthur Schlesinger Sr. has called anti-Catholicism "the deepest-held bias in the history of the American people".

...John Higham described anti-Catholicism as "the most luxuriant, tenacious tradition of paranoiac agitation in American history."

...Furthermore, English and Scottish identity to a large extent was based on opposition to Catholicism. "To be English was to be anti-Catholic," writes Robert Curran.
Beautifully said lies? One liar admiring the work of another?

Perhaps it shouldn't be surprising to find a so-called Muslim going to bat for a fellow sect, given the RCC created Islam in their vain efforts to try to use the Ishmaelites to capture Jerusalem, which the RCC wanted, according to a former Jesuit priest by the name of Alberto Rivera.


It isn't a "conspiracy" that the Roman Catholic church is the largest business empire on planet Earth, owning more stock, real estate, precious metals, artefacts, paintings, etc.; it's an irrefutable fact, just as it's an irrefutable fact it is IMPOSSIBLE to serve both God and materialism.

The two organized religions (Roman Catholicism and "Islam") unsurprisingly have a lot in common, given they both place their emphasis on their totally fabricated texts, e.g. the catechism, hadith, sirah, prayer rituals, etc. instead of on the Word of God, the latter of which both organized religions use and abuse.


Prayer/holy communion is telepathic communication with our Creator, which people should be striving to do 24/7/52, i.e. ALL the time (see: 1 Thess. 5:17, Eph. 6:18 and Sura 2:277, 4:77, 4:162, 5:13, 5:58, 6:72, 6:92, 7:170, 8:3, 9:5, 9:11, 9:18, 9:71, 10:87, 11:114, 13:22, 14:31, 14:37, 14:40, 17:78, 20:14, 20:132, 21:73, 22:35, 22:41, 22:78, 24:37, 24:56, 27:3, 29:45, 30:31, 31:4, 31:17, 33:33, 35:18, 35:29, 42:38, 58:13, 73:20, 98:5).

Instead, both organized religions have invented their made-up prayer rituals, which God has said He will NOT hear, until the people approach Him in the manner that He has specified, i.e. in privacy and humility (see Matt. 6:5-8, Sura 4:142, 7:55, 33:33).

People that are looking for a sect/cult/denomination can find those anywhere. Talmudic Judaism, "Christianity" (in all of its forms), "Islam" and its sects, and all of the Eastern religions (Buddhism, Hunduism, Taoism, etc.) offer their followers ample opportunity to be misled down the path of man-made traditions, rites, rituals and superstitions, to their destruction. That's why organized religion and its teachers/leaders are repeatedly condemned throughout the Old Covenant, New Covenant and the Koran/Quran, to warn all true believers of their satanic agenda and the consequences of following these spiritually blind guides.

Of course those spiritually blind guides post their satanic nonsense here too, defending their errant and nonsensical beliefs, because it's all they know and their egos won't allow them to do otherwise.

A simple, amazing fact about the Bible is that over two-thirds of it is prophecy, over 99.9% has already been fulfilled in exact and minute detail, proving its extraterrestrial origin. Only a complete fool would look at that track record of fulfilled prophecies made sometimes hundreds or thousands of years in advance and not believe the Bible is of extraterrestrial origin or that the remaining <1% won't similarly be fulfilled in exact and minute detail. And that includes the repeated warnings to STAY AWAY FROM PRIESTS, PASTORS, RABBIS, IMAMS, ETC. AND THEIR EVIL PLACES OF BUSINESS, AKA CHURCHES, SYNAGOGUES, MOSQUES, TEMPLES, ETC.

These so-called religious leaders are the spiritually blind leading the blind, a fact again proven by the Scriptures, the meaning of which these spiritually blind guides are absolutely clueless about. IF the so-called religious leaders understood the Old Covenant, New Covenant and the Koran/Quran, they would be deathly afraid to be a so-called religious leader, since the Scriptures warn us they will be among the first to go into The Fire on Judgment Day.

This won't stop the scoffers and naysayers from babbling on about that which they know nothing about, but it does stand as a testimony against them and their evil ways.
 
Last edited:

monkeylove

Rookie
Joined
Nov 14, 2019
Messages
90
I suspect this is likely to turn into a “tug of war” where the conclusion you wish to draw is of greater importance than the means by which you draw it.

If you want to believe that there is a divine hand in the papal succession from Peter and the tradition that gave the church the Decretals of Isadore and the Donation of Constantine, I cannot stop you.

I don’t think that either the early church or the Protestant reformers got everything right either. The wider context of the letters to the Churches of Asia Minor is very interesting.

What I said is that the selection of the books that would make up the Bible don't involve the Bible.
 

monkeylove

Rookie
Joined
Nov 14, 2019
Messages
90
Beautifully said lies? One liar admiring the work of another?

Perhaps it shouldn't be surprising to find a so-called Muslim going to bat for a fellow sect, given the RCC created Islam in their vain efforts to try to use the Ishmaelites to capture Jerusalem, which the RCC wanted, according to a former Jesuit priest by the name of Alberto Rivera.


It isn't a "conspiracy" that the Roman Catholic church is the largest business empire on planet Earth, owning more stock, real estate, precious metals, artefacts, paintings, etc.; it's an irrefutable fact, just as it's an irrefutable fact it is IMPOSSIBLE to serve both God and materialism.

The two organized religions (Roman Catholicism and "Islam") unsurprisingly have a lot in common, given they both place their emphasis on their totally fabricated texts, e.g. the catechism, hadith, sirah, prayer rituals, etc. instead of on the Word of God, the latter of which both organized religions use and abuse.


Prayer/holy communion is telepathic communication with our Creator, which people should be striving to do 24/7/52, i.e. ALL the time (see: 1 Thess. 5:17, Eph. 6:18 and Sura 2:277, 4:77, 4:162, 5:13, 5:58, 6:72, 6:92, 7:170, 8:3, 9:5, 9:11, 9:18, 9:71, 10:87, 11:114, 13:22, 14:31, 14:37, 14:40, 17:78, 20:14, 20:132, 21:73, 22:35, 22:41, 22:78, 24:37, 24:56, 27:3, 29:45, 30:31, 31:4, 31:17, 33:33, 35:18, 35:29, 42:38, 58:13, 73:20, 98:5).

Instead, both organized religions have invented their made-up prayer rituals, which God has said He will NOT hear, until the people approach Him in the manner that He has specified, i.e. in privacy and humility (see Matt. 6:5-8, Sura 4:142, 7:55, 33:33).

People that are looking for a sect/cult/denomination can find those anywhere. Talmudic Judaism, "Christianity" (in all of its forms), "Islam" and its sects, and all of the Eastern religions (Buddhism, Hunduism, Taoism, etc.) offer their followers ample opportunity to be misled down the path of man-made traditions, rites, rituals and superstitions, to their destruction. That's why organized religion and its teachers/leaders are repeatedly condemned throughout the Old Covenant, New Covenant and the Koran/Quran, to warn all true believers of their satanic agenda and the consequences of following these spiritually blind guides.

Of course those spiritually blind guides post their satanic nonsense here too, defending their errant and nonsensical beliefs, because it's all they know and their egos won't allow them to do otherwise.

A simple, amazing fact about the Bible is that over two-thirds of it is prophecy, over 99.9% has already been fulfilled in exact and minute detail, proving its extraterrestrial origin. Only a complete fool would look at that track record of fulfilled prophecies made sometimes hundreds or thousands of years in advance and not believe the Bible is of extraterrestrial origin or that the remaining <1% won't similarly be fulfilled in exact and minute detail. And that includes the repeated warnings to STAY AWAY FROM PRIESTS, PASTORS, RABBIS, IMAMS, ETC. AND THEIR EVIL PLACES OF BUSINESS, AKA CHURCHES, SYNAGOGUES, MOSQUES, TEMPLES, ETC.

These so-called religious leaders are the spiritually blind leading the blind, a fact again proven by the Scriptures, the meaning of which these spiritually blind guides are absolutely clueless about. IF the so-called religious leaders understood the Old Covenant, New Covenant and the Koran/Quran, they would be deathly afraid to be a so-called religious leader, since the Scriptures warn us they will be among the first to go into The Fire on Judgment Day.

This won't stop the scoffers and naysayers from babbling on about that which they know nothing about, but it does stand as a testimony against them and their evil ways.
The same priests, etc., were the ones that selected the books that would make up the Bible.
 

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
14,664
What I said is that the selection of the books that would make up the Bible don't involve the Bible.
Clearly there is a sense in which the Bible doesn’t choose itself. Think perhaps instead of biographies of Winston Churchill. Those closest to the man would be relied on more as authorities after the event, but unauthorised hacks would still try to make a quick profit on shocking new exposees. If this had got out of hand, in the interests of true history, a working group might have eventually convened to sift out the inaccurate accounts.
 

A Freeman

Superstar
Joined
Nov 11, 2019
Messages
8,338
The same priests, etc., were the ones that selected the books that would make up the Bible.
You keep repeating that same lie over and over, as if your incessant repeating of it will somehow make it true.

It won't.

What repeating that obvious lie will do is earn you a place in The Fire on Judgment Day (Rev. 21:8), which is exactly where the pope and ALL of his followers WILL find themselves unless they repent of their evil ways (Rev. 18:4) and return to God and His Law (Mal. 4).

Per Revelation 5, please see: The King of kings' Bible
- the only Bible that will survive the apocalypse, edited by the King of kings and Lord of lords (Rev. 19:11-16), as should be self-evident from its title.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 26, 2022
Messages
2,264
Something i meant to post days earlier but forgot, is that the fact that some of the stories from the book of Genesis (like the Flood) appear in "mythology" from other cultures is not proof the Bible is false - if anything, they prove the Bible RIGHT. Yes, even if these stories from other cultures date "earlier" than the Bible.

The books of Moses (Genesis thru Deutoronomy) were not written until millennia after the events from the early part of Genesis took place. Creation was not contemporary to the writing of scripture. Neither was the Flood and Noah's ark, or the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah during Abraham's time. If these other cultures have stories that echo these stories from the Bible it would be because their own ancestors lived them. Abraham himself came from Mesopotamia (Ur of the Chaldees).

However, once God established the seed of Abraham (through Isaac and Jacob/Israel) He did NOT say for God's people to go mingle with the pagans and adopt their customs and worship their gods and goddesses.
 

DavidSon

Star
Joined
Jan 10, 2019
Messages
2,152
This is a follow up to Jay Dyer's video on why he's not a Protestant. While Catholicism may be closer to his beliefs as an Orthodox Christian there are fundamental doctrinal issues he finds unacceptable. One is the dogma of papal infallibility established as the first Vatican council, which as he says was never implied by Church history. Dyer (along with many others) sees major problems with the edicts of the Vatican II council (1962-65) and their attempt to "modernize" the Catholic doctrine.

 
Top