• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Did satan create catholicism?

Somerville said:
Trump does have some interesting supporters



Pastor Jeffress of course is not alone in his attacks upon the Catholic faith.

Still more on the supposed connection between the Babylon of Revelation and the Roman Catholic Church, in this link from a 7th Day Adventist.

It appears that there are a 'few' who do believe the No True Scotsman fallacy applies to all who don't believe in everything they hold to be true.
Click to expand...


Satan had nothing to do with it.It was either Roman pagan religions co-opting Christianity or a sect of Christians co-opting the Roman pagan religions. We can tell its one of these two things because the people in Europe went from worshiping or venerating different gods for different professions,things or events to worshiping or venerating patron saints for different professions, things or events. Because if you look at the Roman deities and the patron saints its might as we be as though someone just scribbled out the word "god" and replaced it with "patron saint".For example the Romans had deity of Childbirth and pregnancy, the Catholics have a patron saint of child birth and pregnancy.The Romans had a god of soldiers and military, the Catholics have a saint of military and soldiers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_deities

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_patron_saints_by_occupation_and_activity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patron_saints_of_ailments,_illness,_and_dangers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patron_saints_of_places
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patron_saints_of_ethnic_groups
 
"CHURCH" according to the NT means the people who belong to Jesus Christ. "His" people. Book of Acts reveals The Church.

A GREAT deception took place in 380ad.

The Roman Emperor empowered a religious group whose binding doctrine was Trinitarianism ....
and
this Trinitarian group claimed to be "The Church"
and
the Roman establishment [bunch of assorted Pagans] claimed this newly empowered CULT was "The Church."

So from 380ad onward, the worldly have been deceived as to who and where and what is "The Church".

All the modern christianish “churches” [“cults, denominations”] evolved from the imitation “church” empowered by the Roman Empire in 380ad.

The foundation the Church rest upon is the confession Peter made …. Not Peter personally.

Much NT scripture shows the one and only head of Jesus’s Church is Jesus.

Papist and Trinitarians don’t believe scripture. They believe various interpretations of scripture … and that is not the same as believing/heeding scripture.

Famous example of putting interpretation of scripture over scripture: “call no man father”

Roman Catholicism will give you scads of interpretive pretext to NOT heed the simple “call no man father”


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_chur...man_Empire

"Nicene "Trinitarian" Christianity became the state church of the Roman Empire with the Edict of Thessalonica in 380 CE,
when Emperor Theodosius I made it the Empire's sole authorized religion"
 
John Prewett said:
"CHURCH" according to the NT means the people who belong to Jesus Christ. "His" people. Book of Acts reveals The Church.

A GREAT deception took place in 380ad.

The Roman Emperor empowered a religious group whose binding doctrine was Trinitarianism ....
and
this Trinitarian group claimed to be "The Church"
and
the Roman establishment [bunch of assorted Pagans] claimed this newly empowered CULT was "The Church."

So from 380ad onward, the worldly have been deceived as to who and where and what is "The Church".

All the modern christianish “churches” [“cults, denominations”] evolved from the imitation “church” empowered by the Roman Empire in 380ad.

The foundation the Church rest upon is the confession Peter made …. Not Peter personally.

Much NT scripture shows the one and only head of Jesus’s Church is Jesus.

Papist and Trinitarians don’t believe scripture. They believe various interpretations of scripture … and that is not the same as believing/heeding scripture.

Famous example of putting interpretation of scripture over scripture: “call no man father”

Roman Catholicism will give you scads of interpretive pretext to NOT heed the simple “call no man father”


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_chur...man_Empire

"Nicene "Trinitarian" Christianity became the state church of the Roman Empire with the Edict of Thessalonica in 380 CE,
when Emperor Theodosius I made it the Empire's sole authorized religion"
Click to expand...

How can a person read scripture without interpreting it?
 
Somerville said:
Did Satan create Catholicism?
Click to expand...

Satan has his fingerprints on all false teachings, or anything that misleads from the Scriptures.
He causes confusions, and doubt.....he is the Father of Lies, the Deceiver of the whole world.
 
Actually, I believe it was the catholics who created Satan.
 
nota bene said:
Satan is referenced in the Old Testament.
Click to expand...

The concept of Satan in the Jewish religion is different than the concept of Satan in the Christian religion.
 
RAMOSS said:
The concept of Satan in the Jewish religion is different than the concept of Satan in the Christian religion.
Click to expand...

I understand that. My only point was as I stated it.
 
zyzygy said:
How can a person read scripture without interpreting it?
Click to expand...

I (and many like me) read "call no man father" .... and we determine to "call no man father" END OF SUBJECT.

Whereas the interpretation believer comes up with a dozen interpretive pretexts to ignore Jesus directive to "call no man father"

Scribes and Pharisees and all cults do the same .... invent pretext to ignore scripture:


15 Then scribes and Pharisees who were from Jerusalem came to Jesus, saying,
2 “Why do Your disciples violate the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.”

3 But He answered them, “Why do you also violate the commandment of God by your tradition?
4 For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him be put to death.’
5 But you say, ‘Whoever shall say to his father or his mother, “What you would have profited from me is a gift to God,”
6 will be free from honoring his father or his mother.’ So you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition.
 
John Prewett said:
I (and many like me) read "call no man father" .... and we determine to "call no man father" END OF SUBJECT.

Whereas the interpretation believer comes up with a dozen interpretive pretexts to ignore Jesus directive to "call no man father"

Scribes and Pharisees and all cults do the same .... invent pretext to ignore scripture:


15 Then scribes and Pharisees who were from Jerusalem came to Jesus, saying,
2 “Why do Your disciples violate the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.”

3 But He answered them, “Why do you also violate the commandment of God by your tradition?
4 For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him be put to death.’
5 But you say, ‘Whoever shall say to his father or his mother, “What you would have profited from me is a gift to God,”
6 will be free from honoring his father or his mother.’ So you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition.
Click to expand...

That is, of course, an aviodance of his question, and an example of interpretation.
 
RAMOSS said:
That is, of course, an aviodance of his question, and an example of interpretation.
Click to expand...

I directly answered his question. One can believe and heed scripture without looking for interpretive pretext to ignore scripture. That does not deny that some SYMBOLISM must be understood by interpretation.

However, there is no reason to think "call no man father" cannot be plain and literal and means exactly what it says.

Fact is, many want to be thought of as Christian, when in fact they refuse to heed Christ. Roman Catholics being the prime examples of this reality. "call no man father"
 
John Prewett said:
I directly answered his question. One can believe and heed scripture without looking for interpretive pretext to ignore scripture. That does not deny that some SYMBOLISM must be understood by interpretation.

However, there is no reason to think "call no man father" cannot be plain and literal and means exactly what it says.

Fact is, many want to be thought of as Christian, when in fact they refuse to heed Christ. Roman Catholics being the prime examples of this reality. "call no man father"
Click to expand...

The fact you interpret it as other than symbolism is in fact an interpretation. You do know that, don't you?
 
Reading Matthew 23:9 within context, it is clear to determine Jesus was referring to having leaders seeking prominence within the congregation...of putting one person above others, of being more important...on a pedestal, so to speak...much like some clergy are known to do today...

Jesus makes it clear the Christian congregation has but one Father, Jehovah God, and one leader, Jesus Christ...all others are brothers...
 
John Prewett said:
I directly answered his question. One can believe and heed scripture without looking for interpretive pretext to ignore scripture. That does not deny that some SYMBOLISM must be understood by interpretation.

However, there is no reason to think "call no man father" cannot be plain and literal and means exactly what it says.

Fact is, many want to be thought of as Christian, when in fact they refuse to heed Christ. Roman Catholics being the prime examples of this reality. "call no man father"
Click to expand...

And yet one of the Commandments is to honor your father and mother. And John refers to church leaders as fathers, while Paul call himself a "father" even though we don't know that he had any biological children.
 
Man created the myth of Satan.
 
I think y'all are missing the whole point Jesus was making..it is not about the name or the title...it's all about the attitude of looking to an earthly man for guidance instead of God and Jesus Christ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom