Saint Rupertorious Gluttonosus

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Contendah, if you're so dead set against my Church, you could set me straight

with the Biblical proof that the Church you call Catholic is Not, the same Church

Jesus created as stated in your Bible. Thanks.

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

I didn't think so...............................

___

Any argument from me against the legitimacy of the Catholic Church would be based on Biblical concepts.  You, in turn, would reject that, since you cleave to the notion that "scripture plus tradition" provides Divine guidance in ecclesiastical matters. When look down through the halls of history and see what shipwreck the various popes and councils have made of things, including torture and killing of dissenters, waging and supporting unjust wars based on greed and the lust for power, abetting the murderous conquest of aboriginal peoples and much more, I find no grounds whatsoever for any of that da mnable activity in Scripture; thus it must be based on "tradition."

Thus tradition sucks when it generates such consequences over centuries of time and thus any "church" that relies on such ungodly "tradition" can not be the church that Jesus bought with His own blood.

There's no tradition involved, it's all Scripture from what you have left of the

Bible. Spoken from Jesus himself, in a way you can't deny. But do.

Let's not forget the thousands of Catholics murdered by your CoC. We can

go down that road again.

Let me know the next time you take your little trip down the faux communion

trail. Ocean Spray and Cheez-It crackers. What a way to spend a boring

sunday morning.

___

Then just kindly show me one scripture that justifies the unconscionable torture and mass murder perpetrated by the Catholic Church in the Dark Ages and later in Europe and in the New World.

Where does scripture--even including the Apocrypha--give authority for the criminal excesses of the Inquisition?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

If you want to change the subject why don't you reply to the fact that there

is No Biblical scripture to give king henry viii all the divorces he wants or is

it OK to just kill the wives and where does your bible justify the unconscionable

torture and mass murder perpetrated by the thousands of your CoC cult to the

Catholics. I can ask you the same thing(s)

I don't know why you aren't somewhere killing Japs because pearl harbor

isn't in the bible. You and billie love to ask those questions about the bible

and it's been closed about 1600 years, well not your 400 year old bible, so

why do you ask the question anyway?

INVICTUS babbles:

"If you want to change the subject why don't you reply to the fact that there

is No Biblical scripture to give king henry viii all the divorces he wants or is

it OK to just kill the wives and where does your bible justify the unconscionable

torture and mass murder perpetrated by the thousands of your CoC cult to the

Catholics. I can ask you the same thing(s)

I don't know why you aren't somewhere killing Japs because pearl harbor

isn't in the bible. You and billie love to ask those questions about the bible

and it's been closed about 1600 years, well not your 400 year old bible, so

why do you ask the question anyway?"

_________________________

There is no history in my church of anything remotely like the sordid history of such atrocities in the history of Roman Catholicism.  Do you just MAKE THIS STUFF UP? 

That 400-year old translation, the King James Version, has long and consistently been heralded by language scholars, historians, and theologians alike as one of the greatest literary works in the world, apart from its Divine origins.  The KJV, as a translation, is about 400 years old, having been completed in 1611, but that does not mean that the BIBLE is only that old.  Consider the history of YOUR Bible:

<<<The Douay–Rheims Bible (pronounced /ˌduːeɪ/ or /ˌdaʊ.eɪ ˈriːmz/^[1]) (also known as the Rheims–Douai Bible or Douai Bible, and abbreviated as D–R and DV) is a translation of the Bible from the Latin Vulgate into English made by members of the English College, Douai, in the service of the Catholic Church.^[2] The New Testament portion was published in Reims, France, in 1582, in one volume with extensive commentary and notes. The Old Testament portion was published in two volumes thirty years later by the University of Douai. The first volume, covering Genesis through Job, was published in 1609; the second, covering Psalms to 2 Machabees plus the apocrypha of the Clementine Vulgate was published in 1610.>>>> 

So the KJV and the Rheims-Douay were completed more-or-less at the same time.  You can't have it both ways, INVICTUS! Need I say more? I don't describe the R-D as only 400 years old on the Basis of the completion of a particular translation and you should not  date the Bible I use as only 400 years old on the same basis. It is an intemperate and childish criticism you have blurted out.  You are urged to do penance for that! 

And--the KJV translation was made by scholars who diligently compared previous translations--from the Greek and Hebrew--and who did not simply  translate from the Latin Vulgate--one language away from original  Greek and Hebrew  (although they did take the Vulgate into account).

I see you've learned to twist as well as billie.

Name given to the English translation of the Bible produced by the

Commission appointed by James I, and in consequence often spoken of as

"King James's Bible". It is in general use among English-speaking non-

Catholics. In order to understand its origin and history, a brief survey is

necessary of the earlier English translations of the Scriptures.

From very early times portions of the Bible have been translated into English.

It is well known that Venerable Bede was finishing a translation of

St. John's Gospel on his deathbed. But the history of the English Bible as a

whole does not go back nearly so far; it dates from the so-called Wyclif

Version, believed to have been completed about the year 1380.

The translation was made from the Vulgate as it then existed, that is before

the Sixtine and Clementine revisions, and was well and accurately done.

Abbot Gasquet contends confidently (The Old English Bible, 102 sqq.)

that it was in reality of Catholic origin, and not due to Wyclif at all; at any

rate it seems fairly certain that he had no share in any part of it except the

Gospels, even if he had in these; and there is evidence that copies of the

whole were in the hands of the good Catholics, and were read by them.

The version, however, undoubtedly derived its chief importance from the use

made of it by Wyclif and the Lollards, and it is in this connection that it is

chiefly remembered. During the progress of the Reformation a number of

English versions appeared, translated for the most part not from the Vulgate,

but from the original Hebrew and Greek.

Of these the most famous were Tyndale's Bible (1525); Coverdale's Bible

(Cromwell's, or the "Great Bible" (1539), the second and subsequent

editions of which were known as Cranmer's Bible; the Geneva Bible

(1557-60); and the Bishop's Bible (1568).

The art of printing being by this time known, copies of all these circulated

freely among the people. That there was much good and patient work in

them, none will deny; but they were marred by the perversion of many

passages, due to the theological bias of the translators; and they were

used on all sides to serve the cause of Protestantism.

Ah, yes, John Wycliffe, a man so hated and reviled by the Catholic Cult that they dug up his bones and burned them, as ordered by that Cult's CLOWNcil of Constance.  

<<<<So hated was he by Rome that, although Rome was restrained in his lifetime from harming him, the church could not let his bones rest in peace. On October 8, 1427, on order of the CLOWNcil of Constance (the same CLOWNncil that burned John Hus at the stake), Wycliffe's body was exhumed, his bones burned, and the ashes strewn on the River Swift.>>>>

While all the archbishops, cardinals and other self-righteous, heretical, diabolical officials of that murderous cult looked on!

http://www.prca.org/books/portraits/wycliffe.htm

The translating of the Scriptures in Wycliffe's time  extremely dangerous, because the Catholic Cult had forbidden the Scriptures to be put into the language of the common people. (Horrors! That would never do!)  Even though printing had not been invented at that time, many copies must have been made laboriously by hand, for there are still nearly 170 hand-copied Wycliffe Bibles extant. Oppressed and suppressed people of Wycliffe's era wanted to read the scriptures for themselves instead of having doctrine foisted upon them by the corrupt Popes  who flourished in their outrageousness in the nations where they dominated civil government and used it to punish dissenters.

And look what happened when there wasn't organized distribution and

interpretation of the Bible. You have an unauthorized version of the Bible

to go with thousands of unauthorized cult spinoffs.

Well you CoC cultist had the killing Catholics thing going very well with

Thousands of Catholics were killed in England alone after the Reformation

struck there. The same thing was true in Ireland and other areas where the

Reformation came.

John Calvin, for instance, was known for burning people at the stake.

In addition, Protestants were the big witch-burners. Witch burning never

caught on in Catholic countries. When the Spanish Inquisition examined

the cases of reported witches, it almost invariably concluded that the

charges were false and the accused were not guilty.

But tens of thousands of supposed witches were burned at the stake,

hanged, or drowned in Protestant countries, including the American colonies.

From the 15th to the 18th century, Irish prisoners were sold as slaves.

For centuries, the Irish were dehumanised by the English, described as

savages, so making their murder and displacement appear all the more

justified. In 1654 the British parliament gave Oliver Cromwell a free

hand to banish Irish "undesirables".

Cromwell rounded up Catholics throughout the Irish countryside and placed

them on ships bound for the Caribbean, mainly Barbados. The authorities in

the West Indies, fearing the Irish would resist servitude, treated the prisoners

harshly. Records suggest that priests may have been routinely tortured and

executed. By 1655, 12,000 political prisoners had been forcibly shipped

to Barbados.