In Paul’s letter to the Church of Rome, he by the anointing of the Holy Spirit is speaking to the saints. A saint being one who is justified by faith in Jesus Christ name Romans 5:1 Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, When Paul addresses the church he is referring to the called out one. Called out of religious traditions, sin and idolatry as in Rome there is much idol worship. Large man made objects with fine gems and gold, pictures by homosexual artist, so called shrines of saints. Romans 1:23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. God by His Spirit revealed to the saints in Rome that the antichrist spirit had the ignorant and deceived following statues said to be used for glorifying God, scripture reveals that they exchanged Gods glory for these human made images. This false religion had as the case is today that they could work their way to heaven by good works, and seeking God through objects. Gods word reveals that good works nor traditions save the soul in Romans 4:25 He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification Romans 4:16 Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspring--not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all So as Abraham was justified before he was circumcised, so are they who believe in Jesus not needing traditions of man.

Romans 1:5 5Through him and for his name's sake, we received grace and apostleship to call people from among all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith. Shows that Paul was appointed by the Lord to declare the gospel to the Gentiles, as Peter was sent to the Jews. In the end of the letter to the Romans chapter 16 many true Christians are referred to one is not Peter. If Peter was the head of the Romans church as so called Christians, false ones really, would have others believe he would have been acknowledged. Romans 16:17-18 I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. 18For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people Clearly expresses that these traditions are contrary to Jesus Christ and too keep away from them. In the book of Timothy 2 Timothy 1:8So do not be ashamed to testify about our Lord, or ashamed of me his prisoner. But join with me in suffering for the gospel, by the power of God 2 Timothy 1:12 That is why I am suffering as I am. Yet I am not ashamed, because I know whom I have believed, and am convinced that he is able to guard what I have entrusted to him for that day. These scriptures reveal that Paul was in jail for preaching Jesus Christ and him crucified, suffering for his stand in the light exposing traditions. If there was a pope he could have moved his hand of authority and had Paul released. 2 Timothy 1:16 the Lord show mercy to the household of Onesiphorus, because he often refreshed me and was not ashamed of my chains Paul was helped in prison but it wasn’t by a man named Peter. 2 Timothy 2:8-10 Remember Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, descended from David. This is my gospel, 9for which I am suffering even to the point of being chained like a criminal. But God's word is not chained. 10Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they too may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus, with eternal glory. Paul a man in Rome sharing the word of God chained for witnessing Jesus is the way, declares Gods word is not chained. They who love God share His words, they do not dwell in palaces, sitting as kings. Such men are false workers, angels of light, using their position to deceive. If they were true they would as Paul a true Apostle be in jail, or killed. Yet people follow fallible man, who act as gods, excepting worship from others, having their image on coins. At the end of the letter to Timothy, Paul sends greetings well in prison from Rome. 2 Timothy 4 not once is Peter mentioned, clearly because Peter is not in Rome. As Peter like Paul is a servant not the head, as Jesus Christ is the head, but a servant preaching to the Jews appointed by God to do so. So we can see that the Church of Rome, is not the Vatican nor its images and rich king, for the pope is not the head, but we see Jesus and those set free from the bondage of sin and traditions. Clearly the popes are not the successors of Peter who was a poor and uneducated man. The Popes are successors of the devil who come to kill steal and destroy. History reveals the popes father is the devil, as they have robbed the poor and killed the innocent ordering inquisitions of all who see them for who they are, arrayed in expensive clothing. Jesus became poor having no place to lay his head, so that we could become rich spiritually. The popes are blatantly earthly rich well the traditions are spiritually destitute. COME OUT FROM AMONG THEM AND I WILL BE YOUR GOD. JUSTIFYING THROGH FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST.

-- in JESUS NAME FLEE UNCLEAN spirits (truthisfreedom316@yahoo.com), November 23, 2003

Answers

SACRED AND INFALLIBLE :

THE ROCK ~ THE PILLAR AND FOUNDATION OF TRUTH ~

THE MAGISTERIUM OF THE 2000 YEAR OLD MOST HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH SAYS :

THE CHURCH IS ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC, AND APOSTOLIC

"This is the sole Church of Christ, which in the Creed we profess to be One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic." These four characteristics, inseparably linked with each other, indicate essential features of The Church and her mission. The Church does not possess them of herself; it is Christ who, through the Holy Spirit, makes his Church One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic, and it is he who calls her to realize each of these qualities.

Only faith can recognize that the Church possesses these properties from her divine source. But their historical manifestations are signs that also speak clearly to human reason. As the First Vatican Council noted, the "Church herself, with her marvelous propagation, eminent holiness, and inexhaustible fruitfulness in everything good, her catholic unity and invincible stability, is a great and perpetual motive of credibility and an irrefutable witness of her divine mission."

-- james (elgreco1541@hotmail.com), November 25, 2003.

Greetings: In Jesus name I have life, in traditions there is death. For a lack of better words who cares what the Magisterum says, who cares what the pope says? I dont serve them, dont need them, as Jesus is my guide, my saviour, my Lord. Is that all you can do is recite some dead creed, that does nothing for your soul? The catholic traditions and creeds are not in Gods word, nor were they established til hundreds of years after Jesus rose again, the true church has always been and it aint traditions and men in little hats leading the way. The Catholic church is holy with all its ungoldy images and wicked preist and popes? God alone is holy not some building and its traditions.

-- Jesus is the light and the head not a building (truhisfreedom316@yahoo.com), November 26, 2003.

Hi "truthfreedom613".

Do I get the hint that you might have a slight relunctance to the Catholic Church?

rod...

...

..

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 26, 2003.

Greetings Rod: Slight reluctance, man Im abstain the Catholic traditions, they have done nothing but hinder Gods amazing grace in peoples lives. As for the people the sheep, the ones who are truly seeking salvation in Jesus name, I have nothing but love for them and even the enimies of the cross of Christ. In all things I give thanks, though they lie and twist what is true, as a serpant in the grass, I rejoice as God shall make it clear what fools they are in due time, as a matter of fact God has already exposed the folly of traditions.

-- Jesus is my stronghold (truthisfreedom316@yahoo.com), November 27, 2003.

Greetings! Are you the Alex they banned from the Catholic forum?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), November 27, 2003.

Hmmmmm, let me see if I got this straight ... A Church with a 2,000 year history of constant and unchanging doctrine - the Church which compiled the Holy Bible - has "twisted the truth", while a modern tradition made up of thousands of conflicting sects whose teaching contradicts one another at every turn is where I can find the fullness of truth. Is that it ... more or less??

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 30, 2003.

Paul, the Roman organization has flip-flopped on doctrines all the time. They haven't been constant and they are not in unity. Which Romanism is right? Traditional? Post Vatican 2? There's more conflict in Romanism than there is in the War with Iraq.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), November 30, 2003.

"unchanging doctrine"

Let's see if this is true:

Introduction of New doctrines not found in The Bible.

The key-word that describes the doctrine of Roman Catholics is: CHANGE

200 AD - Immersion of infants who are dying, but considered sinless. (Tertullian V.12)

250 AD - North Africa region is first to practice infant baptism and reduced the age of baptism from minors to all newborns. This is opposed by other regions.

257 AD - Baptism by sprinkling for adults instead of immersion first used as an exception for those on sick beds, but it caused great dispute.

300 AD - Prayers for the dead

320 AD - Special dress code of the clergy in worship

325 AD - At the general council of Nice, 325, it was proposed indeed, probably by the Western bishop Hosius, to forbid entirely the marriage of priests; but the motion met with strong opposition, and was rejected.

325 AD - The date for Easter was set.

379 AD - Praying to Mary & Saints. (prayers of Ephraim Syrus)

385 AD - In the West, the first prohibition of clerical marriage, which laid claim to universal ecclesiastical authority, proceeded in 385 from the Roman church in the form of a decretal letter of the bishop Siricius to Himerius, bishop of Tarragona in Spain.

389 AD - Mariolatry begins with Gregory Nazianzen, who mentions in a eulogy, how Justina had besought the virgin Mary to protect her virginity.

400 AD - Impossibility of apostasy or once saved always saved, (Augustine XII.9).

416 AD - Infant baptism by immersion commanded of all infants (Council Of Mela, Austin was the principal director).

430 AD - Exhalation of Virgin Mary: "Mother of God" first applied by the Council of Ephesus.

502 AD - Special dress code of the Clergy all the time.

500 AD - The "Habit" of Nuns (Black gowns with white tunics).

519 AD - Lent.

526 AD - Extreme Unction.

593 AD - The Doctrine of Purgatory popularized from the Apocrypha by Gregory the Great.

600 AD - First use of Latin in worship (Gregory I).

607 AD - First Pope: Boniface III is the first person to take the title of "universal Bishop" by decree of Emperor Phocas.

608 AD - Pope Boniface IV. turns the Pantheon in Rome into a temple of Mary ad martyres: the pagan Olympus into a Christian heaven of gods.

670 AD - Instrumental music: first organ by Pope Vitalian.

709 AD - Kissing of Pope Constantine's feet.

753 AD - Baptism by sprinkling for those on sick beds officially accepted.

787 AD - Worship of icons and statue approved (2nd council of Nicea).

787 AD - Rome (Latin) and Constantinople (Greek) part ways and begin the drift towards complete split, resulting in two denominations emerging in 1054 AD.

965 AD - Baptism of bells instituted by Pope John XIII.

850 AD - Burning of Holy Candles.

995 AD - Canonization of dead saints, first by Pope John XV.

998 AD - Good Friday: fish only and the eating-red meat forbidden.

1009 AD - Holy water.

1022 AD - Penance.

1054 AD - Roman Catholic church breaks away from the Orthodox church.

1054 AD - Roman Catholics officially embrace instrumental music, Orthodox reject instrumental music down to the present time.

1079 AD - Celibacy enforced for priests, bishops, presbyters (Pope Gregory VII).

1090 AD - Rosary beads: invented by Peter the Hermit.

1095 AD - Instrumental music.

1190 AD - Sale of Indulgences or "tickets to sin" (punishment of sin removed).

1215 AD - Transubstantiation by Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council.

1215 AD - Auricular Confession of sins to priests instituted by Pope Innocent III, (Lateran Council).

1215 AD - Mass a Sacrifice of Christ.

1217 AD - Adoration and Elevation of Host: ie. communion bread (Pope Honrius III).

1230 AD - Ringing bells at Mass.

1251 AD - The Scapular, the brown cloak worn by monks invented by Simon Stock.

1268 AD - Priestly power of absolution.

1311 AD - Baptism by sprinkling accepted as the universal standard instead of immersion for all, not just the sick. (Council of Ravenna).

1414 AD - Laity no longer offered Lord's cup at communion (Council of Constance).

1439 AD - Purgatory a dogma by the Council of Florence (see 593 AD).

1439 AD - Doctrine of Seven Sacraments affirmed.

1480 AD - The Inquisition (of Spain).

1495 AD - Papal control of marriage rights.

1534 AD - Order of Jesuits founded by Loyola.

1545 AD - Man-made tradition of church made equal to Bible (Council of Trent).

1545 AD - Apocryphal books added to Bible (Council of Trent).

1546 AD - Justification by human works of merit.

1546 AD - Mass universally said in Latin (see 600 AD).

1547 AD - Confirmation.

1560 AD - Personal opinions of Pope Pius IV imposed as the official creed.

1845 AD - Immaculate conception of Mary proclaimed by Pope Pius IX.

1864 AD - Syllabus Errorum [Syllabus of Errors] proclaimed that "Catholic countries" could not tolerate other religions, (no freedom of religion), conscience, separation of church and State condemned, asserted the Pope's temporal authority over all civil rulers (Ratified by Pope Pius IX and Vatican Council) condemned.

1870 AD - Infallibility of Pope (Vatican council).

1908 AD - All Catholics should be christened into the church.

1930 AD - Public Schools condemned by Pope Pius XI (see 1864 AD).

1950 AD - Sinners prayer, invented by Billy Sunday and made popular by Billy Graham. (Some Catholics now use this).

1950 AD - Assumption of the body of the Virgin Mary into heaven shortly after her death. (Pope Pius XII).

1995 AD - The use of girls in the traditional alter boy duties.

1996 AD - Catholics can believe in Evolution (Pope John Paul II).

"unchanging doctrine", HARDLY...!!!

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), December 01, 2003.

Kevin's post of 1 Dec is much like the post that began this thread -- designed to mislead the gullible. by posting a series of "events" spaced through time, Kev is luring you an I to believe that he has some point. he doesn't.

i could aspend the next 6 months simply trying to identify the "changes" that Kev is leading us to believe exist; but that would be pointless. instead, i think that i will look at his (imho) biggest fib, wherein he tries to lead us to believe that Real Presence is some kind if invention.

i see this subtle Goebbels-esque propaganda in the "events" listed at 1215 AD.

there is an account by St Justin Martyr, First Apology (A.D. 148- 155), wherein St Justin wrote to the pagan emperor Antoninus Pius explaining the practices and beliefs of Christians:

"And this food is called among us ukaristia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh."

this leads to the second point, Kev's 21st century rejection of Tradition. now i wonder, how exactly do we bridge the chasm that lies between us and the time Our Lord spent in human form on this earth. oh yes, the scriptures,......, that keep apart far more protestants that Castholics, because protestants only believe in their own bespoke, biased interpretations of the Scriptures.

Tradition is an objective yardstick.

The Catholics Church is a similarly objective yardstick. you protestants think God is playing with us -- you msut do or you would not insist on personal views.

there is nothing in Kev's post that has any import in this debate. do you want to debate celibacy and the priesthood -- wel, sorry, but this is a disciplinary matter, it is not a question of Scriptural interpretation.

of course, when you are throwing out propaganda, these essenital details don't really matter.

you guys need to look "doctrine" up in the dictionary; but before you do that, you need to ask why there are 30,000 protestant denominations in the world. do you believe that the Bible supports theological chaos. if not, then why do you do it?

i think i can guess the answer. this is a one-size-fits-all approach to Christianity; and that's just man-made. not good enough.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 02, 2003.

Ian wrote, "Kevin's post of 1 Dec is much like the post that began this thread -- designed to mislead the gullible. by posting a series of "events" spaced through time, Kev is luring you an I to believe that he has some point. he doesn't."

Ian doesn't bother to refute what has been written, please notice that he merely "dismisses" them as "misleading". This is TYPICAL false Catholic reasoning.

He doesn't bother to tell you that these doctrines CANNOT be found in the Bible except to say:

"i could aspend the next 6 months simply trying to identify the "changes" that Kev is leading us to believe exist; but that would be pointless. instead, i think that i will look at his (imho) biggest fib, wherein he tries to lead us to believe that Real Presence is some kind if invention."

He says that he could spend the "next 6 months simply trying to identify the "changes" that Kev is leading us to believe exist" and as is TYPICAL of Catholics, he does NOT prove his assertions that I am wrong. There is NO real presence in the Lord's Supper as Ian would have you believe, NOR does the word of God even HINT at such false doctrine.

Ian continues with: "this leads to the second point, Kev's 21st century rejection of Tradition. now i wonder, how exactly do we bridge the chasm that lies between us and the time Our Lord spent in human form on this earth. oh yes, the scriptures,......, that keep apart far more protestants that Castholics, because protestants only believe in their own bespoke, biased interpretations of the Scriptures."

The ONLY thing that keeps Catholics and their Protestant counterparts "apart" is the fact that Catholics have a "catechism" and Protestants have "creeds" and both of them are NOT in accordance with the word of God. Catholics CLAIM that they have the "sole right of interpretation" of Scripture, but this is NOTHING more than an ASSERTION that they could NOT prove if their lives depended on it.

Then Ian says, "Tradition is an objective yardstick."

This is NOT true. You CANNOT nail down what Catholic "tradition" is to begin with...LOL!!! I have repeatedly asked for Catholics to give me a listing of what "oral tradition" was handed down that was "independent" of Scripture and have received NOTHING in return.

Ian continues with: "The Catholics Church is a similarly objective yardstick. you protestants think God is playing with us -- you msut do or you would not insist on personal views."

The Catholic Church is NOT the Lord's church and NEVER has been the Lord's church. The doctrine of this FALSE church has NO basis in the word of God and is to be REJECTED.

Ian continued with: "there is nothing in Kev's post that has any import in this debate. do you want to debate celibacy and the priesthood -- wel, sorry, but this is a disciplinary matter, it is not a question of Scriptural interpretation."

As I have shown, there is also NOTHING in Ian's post that REFUTES what was written in my post.

None of these doctrines have any basis in God's word.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), December 03, 2003.

Kev

this is minor-league tit-for-tat.

i will respond to you tomorrow (famuily commitments now). however, i expect that you will actually STICK TO A GIVEN POINT --- rather than engaging in your customary protestant obfuscation.

your post is grossly misleading - and i think that this is deliberate. that is the tactic of the propagandist.

*****maybe in the short term, you might find at least one (1) protestant with whose views you actualy agree.*****

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 05, 2003.

Ian,

Why don't you enlighten us. Give us a list of these 'oral traditions'.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), December 05, 2003.

OK D.O.

On the one hand, there are many parts of Scripture which show the consecrated Eucharist to be much more than a symbol: it is transubstantiated. It is the Body and Blood of Our Lord.

---- St John 6:25-71: esp (53-56)

---- St Mark 14:17-26

---- 1 Corinthians 10:16-17

---- 1 Corinthians 11:23-30

On the other hand, you are living proof that you can misuse the Bible so as to "prove" anything.

If it makes it easier for you, think of it as Tradition being the flesh that clothes Scripture. So silly little girls like you and I that think, blimey, is this Real Presence, then ask the Church. The Church says Tradition.

Here is the account that I have posted several times on this website from St Justin, a great Catholic, who suffered martyrdom about the year 165.

“And this food is called among us Eu0xaristi/a [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body; "and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood; "and gave it to them alone.”

Now, the tradition is that there is Real Presence. So we are apostates if we deny the same.

As for tradition, people like you presume that every little last thing thing Jesus said and did is recorded in the Bible. You miss the point that Jesus didn't make His graces dependent upon the capacity to read/ own a Bible, nor did He command the Apostles to write down everything He had said. They relied upon the spoken word – not least because this was well before the invention of printing presses!!!!

Read these:

--- "Jesus performed many other signs as well--signs not recorded here--in the presence of his disciples." (St John 20:30)

--- "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, and which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written." (St John 21:25)

--- "hold fast to the traditions you received from us, either by our word or by letter." (2 Thessalonians 2:15)

--- "I have much to write to you, but I do not want to use paper and ink. Instead, I hope to visit you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete." (2 John 1:12)

--- "I had many things to write, but I will not with ink and pen write unto thee: But I trust I shall shortly see thee, and we shall speak face to face." (3 John 13-14)

---- 2 Timothy 3:16 : this states that all scripture is useful; it doesn't say or even imply that it is the exclusive source.

----- "the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth." (1 Timothy 3:15)

bingo, D.O. game set & match to me.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 06, 2003.

I'm not even going to try to answer that trash because if you look in other threads you have been given an answer.

--- "Jesus performed many other signs as well--signs not recorded here--in the presence of his disciples." (St John 20:30)

But that main stuff is recorded so we can know, and So people like you can't claim "oral" this, or that. YOU cannot prove oral tradition unless you have it recorded, simple as that. No one can trust that man with the funny hat because he is a liar and Satan's pal. --- "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, and which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written." (St John 21:25)

Read above.

--- "hold fast to the traditions you received from us, either by our word or by letter." (2 Thessalonians 2:15)

Traditions that don't go against the Word of God. Romanist traditions go against every Word of God. You will be better off if you just get rid of the bible in your organization.

--- "I have much to write to you, but I do not want to use paper and ink. Instead, I hope to visit you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete." (2 John 1:12)

--- "I had many things to write, but I will not with ink and pen write unto thee: But I trust I shall shortly see thee, and we shall speak face to face." (3 John 13-14)

---- 2 Timothy 3:16 : this states that all scripture is useful; it doesn't say or even imply that it is the exclusive source.

It says it is sufficiant. God said that. Your calling God a liar so you must be a false prophet.

----- "the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth." (1 Timothy 3:15)

Yes, the church, the body of Christ, the true believers (elect). We are the temple of the living God, not some MAN MAD Romish organization.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), December 06, 2003.

Ian, you did not give me one oral tradition. You just went on blabing on how Christians are wrong,.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), December 06, 2003.

D.O.!!

pls can you too "STICK TO A GIVEN POINT"?!?!?!

(1) you aked me a question -- (2) i gave you a direct, 100% on the point response. (3) now you can obfuscate, as you have done, or you can debate the point. (4) which is it to be? [ i feel like i am talking to a little child]

SO, either:

there is Real Presence in the consecrated Bread and Wine;

OR

St Justin was talking a load of old baloney.

AND THEREFORE as you believe the latter, pls substantiate your beliefs. otherwise, accept that the tradition of the Church drives the interpretation of the events at the Last Supper, and that you are an apostate.

please note also -- and i am telling you this as a matter of courtesy -- that i intend to dedicate a thread to yourself and the villanous way in which you propagandise without ever addressing any specifics in the anti-Catholic tripe that you keep posting.

i am not doing this to be nasty but to try to ensure that the lurkers see you and your posts for what they are. baseless propaganda.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 06, 2003.

Dear Kev, i have resonded to you below. my bits in "++++"'s.

i think that both yopu and DO are barking up the wrong tree here. in fact, it might not even be a tree.

Ian wrote, "Kevin's post of 1 Dec is much like the post that began this thread -- designed to mislead the gullible. by posting a series of "events" spaced through time, Kev is luring you an I to believe that he has some point. he doesn't." Ian doesn't bother to refute what has been written, please notice that he merely "dismisses" them as "misleading". This is TYPICAL false Catholic reasoning.

++++++++++++++ Kev posted a list of events and then concludes with “"unchanging doctrine", HARDLY...!!!” now, what has changed. I demonstrated that Kev was propagandizing by picking on a concrete example. See further posts above with DO on the subject. Kev needs to specify what is “changing”. Nothing is. Kev is trying to impress people by posting lists that he may have compiled or that may have come from propagandist website. He does not impress me if he cannot get concrete.+++++++++++

He doesn't bother to tell you that these doctrines CANNOT be found in the Bible except to say: "i could aspend the next 6 months simply trying to identify the "changes" that Kev is leading us to believe exist; but that would be pointless. instead, i think that i will look at his (imho) biggest fib, wherein he tries to lead us to believe that Real Presence is some kind if invention."

+++++++++++ read my post to D.O. before Scripture was written down, what was there? Mmmmm. I quote from my post to DO: “As for tradition, people like you presume that every little last thing thing Jesus said and did is recorded in the Bible. You miss the point that Jesus didn't make His graces dependent upon the capacity to read/ own a Bible, nor did He command the Apostles to write down everything He had said. They relied upon the spoken word – not least because this was well before the invention of printing presses!!!! Read these: --- "Jesus performed many other signs as well--signs not recorded here--in the presence of his disciples." (St John 20:30) --- "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, and which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written." (St John 21:25) --- "hold fast to the traditions you received from us, either by our word or by letter." (2 Thessalonians 2:15) --- "I have much to write to you, but I do not want to use paper and ink. Instead, I hope to visit you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete." (2 John 1:12) --- "I had many things to write, but I will not with ink and pen write unto thee: But I trust I shall shortly see thee, and we shall speak face to face." (3 John 13-14) ---- 2 Timothy 3:16 : this states that all scripture is useful; it doesn't say or even imply that it is the exclusive source. ----- "the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth." (1 Timothy 3:15)” ++++++++++++++++ He says that he could spend the "next 6 months simply trying to identify the "changes" that Kev is leading us to believe exist" and as is TYPICAL of Catholics, he does NOT prove his assertions that I am wrong. There is NO real presence in the Lord's Supper as Ian would have you believe, NOR does the word of God even HINT at such false doctrine.

++++++++++see my post to DO. Its is both Scriptural and backed by Tradition. Can Kev prove that St Justin was talking baloney. Maybe I should find other historical sources.+++++++++++++++++++++++ Ian continues with: "this leads to the second point, Kev's 21st century rejection of Tradition. now i wonder, how exactly do we bridge the chasm that lies between us and the time Our Lord spent in human form on this earth. oh yes, the scriptures,......, that keep apart far more protestants that Castholics, because protestants only believe in their own bespoke, biased interpretations of the Scriptures." The ONLY thing that keeps Catholics and their Protestant counterparts "apart" is the fact that Catholics have a "catechism" and Protestants have "creeds" and both of them are NOT in accordance with the word of God. Catholics CLAIM that they have the "sole right of interpretation" of Scripture, but this is NOTHING more than an ASSERTION that they could NOT prove if their lives depended on it.

++++++++++++if there is no sole right of interpretation, there must be multiple rights: but we know that is wrong because we have gay American protestant bishops purporting to ordain others into the Church. We see the chaos that sola scriptura brings. There is a sole right and that was given to the Lord’s Church. +++++++++++++++++++

Then Ian says, "Tradition is an objective yardstick." This is NOT true. You CANNOT nail down what Catholic "tradition" is to begin with...LOL!!! I have repeatedly asked for Catholics to give me a listing of what "oral tradition" was handed down that was "independent" of Scripture and have received NOTHING in return.

+++++ see my post to DO. Tradition is tradition. Its such a simple concept. Its hard not to understand it.+++++++++ Ian continues with: "The Catholics Church is a similarly objective yardstick. you protestants think God is playing with us -- you msut do or you would not insist on personal views." The Catholic Church is NOT the Lord's church and NEVER has been the Lord's church. The doctrine of this FALSE church has NO basis in the word of God and is to be REJECTED.

++++++++++++wrong, as you, in your heart of heart, know. There was one church, the One Church. The rest are pretenders.+++++++ Ian continued with: "there is nothing in Kev's post that has any import in this debate. do you want to debate celibacy and the priesthood -- wel, sorry, but this is a disciplinary matter, it is not a question of Scriptural interpretation." As I have shown, there is also NOTHING in Ian's post that REFUTES what was written in my post.

+++++game set & match in a very similar style to my decimation of D.O’s anti-Catholic vitriol. Pls be advised that, as with DO I intend to strat a thread warning lurkers of the falsity and baseleness of your posts. I mean you know offence but I do not intend to allow propaganda to steal souls.+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 06, 2003.

finally, i am STILL waitimg for DO, the self-appointed Pope of the Great Church of DO to de-bunk St Justin.

in the alternative, i am waiting for an admission that he (sorry, He) is an apostate.

Dave -- c'mon.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 06, 2003.

Ian wrote: "game set & match in a very similar style to my decimation of D.O?s anti-Catholic vitriol."

Please notice readers that Ian still DOES NOT GIVE ONE BIT OF SCRIPTURE to justify ANY of those FALSE DOCTRINES that the Catholic Church has implemented throughout the centuries, NO NOT ONE...

Where is your Scriptural JUSTIFICATION of those doctrines Ian??? If oral tradition is something that was to be CONTINUED to be handed down, please show me book, chapter and verse where this is the case???

Ian wrote: "Pls be advised that, as with DO I intend to strat a thread warning lurkers of the falsity and baseleness of your posts."

If they are indeed false as you have ASSERTED, I have NOT seen you try to PROVE them wrong, except to go on with the standard Catholic diatribe of "sola scriptura" etc... and NO Scriptural justification your FALSE DOCTRINES. This doesn't surprise me as most of your Catholic doctrines have NO BASIS in God's word.

Ian wrote, "I mean you know offence but I do not intend to allow propaganda to steal souls"

First, there hasn't been anything from you to PROVE that I have been writing "propaganda" and second, how can someone "steal souls" from a Church that is NOT the Lord's church to begin with???

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), December 06, 2003.

"Can Kev prove that St Justin was talking baloney."

Justin was ONLY a man, and was NOT inspired when he made that comment on the Lord's Supper.

There is NO such thing as a "real presence" in the bread and fruit of the vine of the Lord's Supper. This is NOTHING more than Catholic "hocus-pocus" where they get someone to believe this FAKE miracle which has NO basis in the truth of God's word. The words that Jesus spoke concerning the "Eucharist" (as Catholics call it) were FIGURATIVE and NOT literal as Catholics falsely assert.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), December 06, 2003.

in his last post, Kev nearly actually addressed a specific point.

now, for the benefit of Kevin:

St Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew [dates around 428 A.D.]: "Christ said indicating (the bread and wine): 'This is My Body,' and "This is My Blood," in order that you might not judge what you see to be a mere figure. The offerings, by the hidden power of God Almighty, are changed into Christ's Body and Blood, and by receiving these we come to share in the life-giving and sanctifying efficacy of Christ."

St. Cyril, "Catecheses" [dates ditto]: "We have been instructed in these matters and filled with an unshakable faith, that that which seems to be bread, is not bread, though it tastes like it, but the Body of Christ, and that which seems to be wine, is not wine, though it too tastes as such, but the Blood of Christ . . . draw inner strength by receiving this bread as spiritual food and your soul will rejoice."

St. John Chrysostom, circa 370 A.D.: "When the word says, 'This is My Body,' be convinced of it and believe it, and look at it with the eyes of the mind. For Christ did not give us something tangible, but even in His tangible things all is intellectual. So too with Baptism: the gift is bestowed through what is a tangible thing, water; but what is accomplished is intellectually perceived: the birth and the renewal. If you were incorporeal He would have given you those incorporeal gifts naked; but since the soul is intertwined with the body, He hands over to you in tangible things that which is perceived intellectually. How many now say, 'I wish I could see His shape, His appearance, His garments, His sandals.' Only look! You see Him! You touch Him! You eat Him!"

i can provide more. these are the understandings of people who live a good 1,800 years closer to the time Our Lord declared the New Covenant.

you are honestly telling me that some guy who is a further 1,800 yearsd removed from that time has a better understanding of the meaning of the Bible.

you say: "Justin was ONLY a man, and was NOT inspired when he made that comment on the Lord's Supper."

poppycock & laughable. these are HISTORICAL accounts of the beliefs of the day, beliefs that are simply 100% more likely to be true to Scripture than your 21st century man-made beliefs.

you eyes are wide shut buddy.

HEY, maybe you can show me some 1st century protestant accounts?!?!?!

you are WRONG Keva nd you know it; but you have a large chip on yr shoulder and you just won't let go. however, as i have said before, i feel compelled to protect others that might actually confuse the rubbish you post here with truth.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 06, 2003.

btw you have just accused St Justin, a martyr, of talking "baloney".

make you feel good, does it?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 06, 2003.

Ian posted more of his CUT AND PASTE Catholic history to try and prove his point, but as in his earlier post, he still does not prove that these people are INSPIRED in their writing on any given subject.

The apostle Paul warned of wicked men who would speak "perverse things" and this is EXACTLY what happened as Paul prophesied in Acts 20:29-30 for he said: "For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves."

That IS the TRUTH!!!

You can either believe what God has already said IN HIS WORD, or you can believe some man who was NOT inspired and could have been one of those "saveage wolves".

The choice is YOURS to make.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), December 07, 2003.

oops, my last post should have read "savage wolves"...

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), December 07, 2003.

kev

are you similarly inspired when you read Scripture? how do you account for the lack of inspiration on the other devotees os sola scriptura? gene robinson, D.O., .........

ie if St Justin had to be inspired to get it right, don't you? you get my point, don't you?

what about St Augustine? is there anything of his that you would accept as true? or is that all baloney too?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 09, 2003.

kev, btw, how do i know that you are not a "savage wolf" speaking perverse things?

because you say so?!?

at some point youwill realise that all your arguments are circular and fail unless injected with a 100% personal prejudice.

i prefer the 100% objective Truth of the Catholic Church, taught as it ws 2,000 years ago. that way my fickle and sinful nature is kept in check. i may sin, but at least you know that i am sinning.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 09, 2003.

sooooooooooo many questions Kev.

pray tell me; how do you know the Bible is Divinely Inspired? who told you? were you there to check that the writers were not con men? surely it was the Catholic Church that taught you this?

please tell me.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 09, 2003.

Ian, there are many ways to tell that the bible is inspired and is the Word of God. A perfect God will keep his perfect Word

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), December 09, 2003.

"Ian, there are many ways to tell that the bible is inspired and is the Word of God. A perfect God will keep his perfect Word"

the questions are addressed to Kev.

but as you have answered, name BUT ONE of the MANY WAYS.

yes, all i need to hear is ONE

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 09, 2003.

The Bible (God's Perfect Word, a collection of 66 books) was written by 30 different men, in different time periods, over a span of 2000 years. There are no contradictions in it (the Dead Sea Scrolls prove that the same Bible we hold today is the same hundreds of years ago). It has perfect unity and consistency. Christians know it is the True Word of God because of it's fulfilled prophecies, historical and scientific accuracy. It is also the World's all time best seller; the most loved and hated book.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), December 09, 2003.

David

how do YOU know that it is Divinely Inspired.

War and Peace is a great best-seller and it is completely coherent and consistent.

but the Bible -- it it is so consistent why do so few sola scripturists agree on its meaning.

what is it that convinces YOU. is it wishful thinking?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 09, 2003.

First of all, I do not believe we got here by mere chance. I believe we were created. I believe a Perfect God created us (it takes more faith to believe that we got here by chance). I believe that if that Perfect God wanted to communicate with his creation, his communication would be Perfect and without error. I do not believe that a perfect God would shun us out in the darkness with out knowing what he wants.

"how do YOU know that it is Divinely Inspired."

By it's prophecies, historical and scientic accuarcy.

"War and Peace is a great best-seller and it is completely coherent and consistent."

Was 'War and Peace' written by over 30 different authors? Without each one knowing that their writing would some day come together in perfect unity and consistency?

"but the Bible -- it it is so consistent why do so few sola scripturists agree on its meaning."

Because of pride. We humans are fallible. Only the Holy Spirit can guide a believer into truth.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), December 09, 2003.

Ian wrote, "kev are you similarly inspired when you read Scripture? how do you account for the lack of inspiration on the other devotees os sola scriptura? gene robinson, D.O., ......... "

First, my name is Kevin and NOT Kev. Second, I did NOT claim that I was INSPIRED when I read Scripture now did I??? I can READ and UNDERSTAND the word of God WITHOUT someone there to lead me by the hand and tell me what Scripture says. You on the other hand CANNOT understand Scripture without someone to INTERPRET it for you. Ian wrote, "ie if St Justin had to be inspired to get it right, don't you? you get my point, don't you? "

No, I did not say that Justin had to be INSPIRED to get it right, I said that he was NOT inspired, and that is ALL. Men are FALLIBLE and can make mistakes as this man most certainly did because there is NO such thing as a "real presence" in the Eucharist.

Ian wrote, "what about St Augustine? is there anything of his that you would accept as true? or is that all baloney too?"

This man also did NOT know what he was talking about.

Ian wrote, "kev, btw, how do i know that you are not a "savage wolf" speaking perverse things? because you say so?!?"

Am I a "savage wolf" Ian??? If so, please show everyone here how I fit the description of this very thing in which you accuse me??? I have asked you to PROVE these doctrines that have come down through the centuries from the Catholic Church which have NO basis in the word of God and this you still have NOT done to date. Talk about someone who CANNOT stay on the subject being discussed!!!

I CHALLENGE you to show me where ANY of these Catholic doctrines have ANY basis in Scripture!!!

Ian wrote, "at some point youwill realise that all your arguments are circular and fail unless injected with a 100% personal prejudice."

Really now Ian??? You have YET to prove that ANY of your Catholic doctrines on this thread have ANY basis in the TRUTH of the Bible, so who is the one using CIRCLE ARGUMENTS???

Ian wrote, "i prefer the 100% objective Truth of the Catholic Church, taught as it ws 2,000 years ago. that way my fickle and sinful nature is kept in check. i may sin, but at least you know that i am sinning."

The ONLY TRUTH is the TRUTH that comes from the word of God and I CHALLENGE you to prove otherwise.

Ian wrote, "sooooooooooo many questions Kev. pray tell me; how do you know the Bible is Divinely Inspired? who told you? were you there to check that the writers were not con men? surely it was the Catholic Church that taught you this? please tell me."

How about answering my questions IAN instead of running and hiding which is what you have been very adept at on this thread??? I KNOW the Bible is DIVINELY INSPIRED because of one little word---FAITH. Go back and re-read Hebrews chapter 11.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), December 10, 2003.

Kev

its up to you, i will respond to you or we can try debate this over on the "Sola Scriptura -- 1.01" thread.

just let me know.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 11, 2003.

Ian,

For the SECOND time, my name is Kevin, NOT Kev and I would appreciate it if you would address me by my correct name. If you choose not to do this, then I see no point in continuing any type of dialog.

If you choose to abide by my wishes, then this thread is where you need to answer the charges that I have made against you.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), December 11, 2003.

Kev

you have levelled no "charges". you have just provided a series of incoherent, unconnected soundbites.

i threw you a life line by offering to debate these issues in an orgnised manner under the correct structural umbrella. i thought tis would help organise your mind and get your point across. you have refused.

i will post again tomorrow or soon afer the weekend. at that point, i will try to make sense of your ramblings on this thead. i will also respond to said ramblings.

in the meantime, might i remind you that we have started a discussion on S.S.

to my amazement, no protestant has bothered to follow the analysis of the MOST FUNDAMENTAL part of your doctrine.

THE BITS THAT SAYA THAT THE BIBLE MEANS WHAT YOU WANT IT TO MEAN.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 11, 2003.

That's because I do not have time right now to answer you. And there are only 3 "protestants" as you call us on this forum. And one of them doesn't want to talk to you. I do not have time and I don't know what Kevin is up too.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), December 11, 2003.

David,

that thread will keep coming at you. you can delete it all you want. but i will keep it here.

i am amazed that you cannot substantiate sola scriptura, the human foolishness that means that so-called Christians like yourself ploay a part in the "consecration" of actively gay "bishops".

c'mon Dave. that's exactly how Gene Robinson justifies his acts. he uses sola scriptura. all those people that seek to "update" the message of Christ -- well, you can't complain, because you live by the same man-made rule that facilitates all this nonsense.

you should come in from the cold, Dave.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 13, 2003.

Does Gene Robinsion represent Christians? No. If you think he does, then your whoremongers you have as priests represent Roman Catholicism. Those priest justify their views with Romish Tradition, so therefore the Roman organization is wrong.

Hebrews 13 4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

Gene Robinson is a lost man, and does not want to read what God has said. All Homosexuals are going to hell, plain and simple. That is not hate, That is the truth. Not because I said it, but God did.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), December 13, 2003.

i repeat "i am amazed that you cannot substantiate sola scriptura, the human foolishness that means that so-called Christians like yourself ploay a part in the "consecration" of actively gay "bishops"."

you are deliberately sneaking off-point because you cannot defend SS.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 14, 2003.

A Protestant cannot logically defend sola scriptura. When you have thousands of churches defining the bible, each minister giving it his own interpretation. If they admit that the apostles were given the power to forgive sins, they then say that it died with the apostles. What then happens to the future generations?

They are almost as bad as the novus ordo defenders on the other forum. that group always comes back with personal attacks, instead of facts.

-- Larry (Lawrence@34.com), December 14, 2003.