Science Talk
Science Talk
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Forums
Science Forums
Biology
Math
Astronomy
Physics
Technology
Chemistry
Social Sciences
History
Psychology
Philosophy
Sociology
Linguistics
Religious Studies
Economics
Man Woman Ethno
Ask an Expert
World Records
Society Issues
Education
People
Alternative Science
The Catholics don't even believe their own ' Saints '... the

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Science Talk Forum Index -> Creationism
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
old man joe
Guest





PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 11:02 am    Post subject: The Catholics don't even believe their own ' Saints '... the Reply with quote

" Simon Peter therefore also *came, following him, and entered the
tomb; and he *beheld the linen wrappings lying there,
and the face-cloth, which had been on His head, not lying with the
linen wrappings, but rolled up in a place by itself. " Joh. 20:6,7


*******************************************************************

here was have the eye witnesses to the fact that Jesus was buried in
2 clothes, not one, which makes the Catholic relic of the Holy Shroud
a phony.

how is it that they call their most renowned church father a liar ?

simple, they are not of the truth and hold dear the things of this
world since they are without faith.

" believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved "
Acts 16:31

" and as many as had been appointed to eternal life, believed."
Acts 13:48
Back to top
  Ads
Advertising
Sponsor


Sayid Abu Khamr al-Murtad
Guest





PostPosted: Sat Aug 04, 2007 2:02 am    Post subject: Re: The Catholics don't even believe their own ' Saints '... Reply with quote

On Aug 1, 6:33 pm, "Zadok" <nob...@accesswave.ca> wrote:
Quote:

"duck" <continuing to show his abject ignorance of scripture

Interesting. Actually, Duke was asking a question about what the Bible
is, when it appeared, where it came from. You allude to "scripture,"
but it is far from clear what is and is not scripture in your mind.
For example, all Christian groups recognize the writings of Paul as
inspired, but you don't seem to... so what is your authority for
determining what is and is not in the canon? Is your own personal
understanding and private interpretations the final authority? Are YOU
the pillar and foundation of truth, with the power to bind and loose,
in place of the Church?

Quote:
Actually, much to Duck's surprise, there were written instructions from the
beginning. All you have to do is read Acts 15. Concentrate on verses 23-31.
And when the young churches got the letters they rejoiced. The letters were
written by the first head of the Jerusalem church, James the Lord's brother.

Cath0-licks of course try and deny that the head of the Jerusalem Church
wrote instructions, as they wanted to follow Paul the apostate

Huh? First of all, Duke, nor any other Catholic, has denied that at
the Council of Jerusalem (recorded in Acts 15), written instructions
were disseminated to the other congregations. Duke's point was that
the New Testament did not exist at the time.

As for Paul, I notice you are quoting Acts. Do you consider Acts
canonical? Do you consider it scriptural? Do you consider it reliable?
If you do consider Acts such, how do you explain Acts 7, where Paul
meets Jesus? In fact, how do you explain Acts 15 itself, which has
Paul taking part in the Council? Do you know what Peter said about
Paul and his writings?

Quote:
Amazing is it not, that a church that screams apostolic succession cannot
show apostolic succession to their first pope Saulus the apostate!!

If I am not mistaken, doesn't the Church hold that the first Pope was
Peter, not Paul?

Quote:
Or, Matthew 23: 9 - And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have
one Father, and he is in heaven.

So you reject Paul, which means you reject his writings and
practices... but do you also reject Stephen? If not, how do you
explain Stephen calling others father?

Quote:
Cath0_licks have to be able to deny what Jesus said, and run off to Saulus
the apostate, thus the need for some kind of tradition!!

Which again raises the question of what you consider to be scripture,
and how you reached that conclusion. All Christians are in agreement
that the writings are part of the Bible. So, how do you determine what
is and is not scriptural and/or canonical?
Back to top
  Ads
Advertising
Sponsor


Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Science Talk Forum Index -> Creationism All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Australian Debt Consolidation Experts
medical insurance
Wedding Website
Escort e accompagnatrice in Rimini, Reggio Emilia, in Riviera Adriatica, in Modena...
Swinger Kontakt Klub
Free Forum hosting
Make Your Own Website
Free phone calls to Poland
Cleaning Service
toxic mold
UK Swingers Genuine Contacts Site
Janitorial Supplies
bissell Parts


Board Security

189 Attacks blocked

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group