Defending the Truth

garysher · 02-25-2008, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by waitingtables

Gary, yes, Isabella was a woman. A Catholic queen with a Catholic king husband.

My point was that the Inquisition wasn't targetting women only, infact a woman started the process.

But that Spanish inquisition was not the only time the Roman Church cleansed the countryside from "heresy".

But let's not get started on the IRA

waitingtables · 02-26-2008, 06:59 AM

It is the Roman church that is heretical IMO.

knot_e_lady · 02-26-2008, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ralph

Of course, I am using the KJ version. Ralph

Well, that's your first mistake.

The KJ version is fraught with mistranslations. It was translated from the Latin in 1611, which, as everyone knows, the original texts weren't written in Latin, but Hebrew and Greek.

So, what you have with the KJ version is something similar to the old children's game, telephone.

Today's versions of Bibles are translated directly from the original Greek and Hebrew texts, and are much more accurate.

CrazyFlamingos · 02-26-2008, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by waitingtables

It is the Roman church that is heretical IMO.

Church history is not my forte but, if memory serves me correctly, the leaders of the early Irish church and of the Greek Orthodox church would certainly agree with you.

waitingtables · 02-26-2008, 09:49 AM

And maybe some more would too, if they hadn't been wiped out by the Roman church before their versions gained popularity. Or been forced underground and became inaccessible to most. History has been written by the victors.

Ralph · 02-27-2008, 01:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by waitingtables

Gary, yes, Isabella was a woman. A Catholic queen with a Catholic king husband. But that Spanish inquisition was not the only time the Roman Church cleansed the countryside from "heresy".

And Ralph, you can qoute the Bible to me til the end of time, but I don't recognize the Roman Church as the true church. Peter even had a problem with it. He and most everyone else at the time knew that it was James the Just who was the true heir to the title of the first Bishop, as he was the leader of the true first church, the Church Of Jerusalem. And so while I might be willilng to accept the fact that there were no women running the church, and that the culture of that time did not allow for women to be "leaders", it isn't your reasoning that sways me. Your version of Christianity, if you are a Catholic or of a denomination that came after the Protestant reformation, is based on the man who never knew the one called Jesus. Paul, or the Spouter of Lies as he was referred to by the Essene community and James the Just, is the constructor of the manufactured version of Christianity. Jesus was not the messiah to the world, he was a strict conservative Jew, who wanted to radically change the plight of his community, under Roman occupation and corrupt religious leadership.

The Roman Catholic Church is not the the church of the first century, as evidenced by their use of the Doctrines of man, they claim that the holy scriptures are not the only authority by which to draw doctrine, and as such they use historical "customs" and "traditions" of man to worship.

The Bible, clearly and forcefully condemns their doctrine. Here are but a few practices that the Bible clearly speaks directly against.

The Bible condemns "Clerical Dress" (Matthew 23:24-25). The Bible teaches against the adoration, or worship of MARY (Luke 11:27-2

. The Bible teaches that ALL MEN of the Christian faith are priests, not only select chosen ones ( l Peter 2:5, 9). The Bible condemns the observance of "special days", a common practice of the Catholic faith (Gal. 4:9-11). The Bible teaches that ALL Christians are considered "saints" ( l Cor. 1:2). The Bible teaches that baptism is "immersion", not sprinkling or pouring (Romans 6:4, Col 2:1-2). The Bible forbids addressing religious leaders as "Father" (Matthew 23:9) The Bible opposes "unmarried Bishops" ( l Tim 3:2-5). The Bible address God only as the "HOLY FATHER" (John 17:11). The Bible shows that the "GREAT APOSTASY"(renunciation of faith) would forbid marriage ( l Tim 4:1-3). The Bible reveals that the great apostasy would have one who is said to take the place of God, here on earth (aka the POPE) ( ll Thess. 2:3-4).

Read the above passages presented and it will be abundantly clear why Catholics endeavor to destroy the Bible as the only source of authority today.

What I presented to you are the "inspired words" of the Holy Scriptures. These words did not come from the customs, nor the traditions of men. They come directly from the passages of the revealed word of God. I did not inject "my opinion" into them, I presented them "exactly" as written in clear and comprehensible English. Thus "YOU" as does the Catholic faith, must first try to invalidate the Holy Scriptures to present your "chosen" practices of worship in declaring that the scriptures are "wrong" and the Apostle Paul is a liar. For this is the only way to validate your faith, by destroying the faith that was once delivered to the saints in the first century.( Jude 3). Good luck in pointing out "your" choice to God. Just whom do I choose to believe, YOU or the revealed word of God? I choose door number 2, the inspired word of God. For that is how we are directed to cut away "false doctrine" (Hebrews 4:12). Ralph

Ralph · 02-27-2008, 02:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by knot_e_lady

Well, that's your first mistake.

The KJ version is fraught with mistranslations. It was translated from the Latin in 1611, which, as everyone knows, the original texts weren't written in Latin, but Hebrew and Greek.

So, what you have with the KJ version is something similar to the old children's game, telephone.

Today's versions of Bibles are translated directly from the original Greek Hebrew texts, and are much more accurate.

I also use the American Standard version, and reference everything into the original Greek or Hebrew text (depending upon which Testament is being used and what translation is used) by use of the W.E. Wine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Thayer's Greek English Lexicon. I have found, not a hill of beans difference in any of the confirmed translations, as far as the truth which is presented in the texts. For a true "translation" is verbatim in words presented. There may be a few "cultural" inconsistencies such as in the KJV, earth can be presented as meaning dirt, or the entirety of the land. But all can be overcome by simply keeping with the whole contextual message that is presented in the whole content of the chapter. But this still does provide me with the answer to my question. Just where does one find Isaiah Chapter 33:1.56? As the Book of Isaiah, Chapter 33, no matter which translation one wishes to use has only 24 verses. Just where does one go to find the "point 56" that I was directed to read from? As I pointed out, it must be a typo. Ralph

waitingtables · 02-27-2008, 08:31 AM

Your scriptural arguments don't mean squat when you are using scripture that became canon on the basis of what some guys decided belonged in it in 391. What of the supressed gospels? They aren't valid because the Council of Nicaea said so? The first Christian communities had more knowledge on the subject than a person named Paul who had a problem with the group led by James, and James himself. It was a highjacking of the true teachings, leading up to a total misrepresentation of the doctrines of the early Christian church. And how you find these passages to be the revealed word of God, is beyond my comprehension.