What Is Hell?

Heb 9:27 And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment,

We die one time here on Earth, after death there is no more improving or getting assigned Ghost duty for haunting houses. You die, then it's Judgement next.
I do not understand how you are imagining this is against the idea of purgatory. You draw conclusions which are not justified given the premises. With purgatory, you are judged once. Your judgment is purgatory. "After death there is no more improving" is your own belief, it is not inherent in Hebrews 9:27.

Without scripture there would be NO church. So how you get salvation without Hearing the Word and believing is not going to happen. You are putting the Cart in front of the Horse. If you don't value scripture then you can't be saved.

The written Word is all authority and if you don't believe that and can be corrected then I suggest make some changes quick.
Actually, without the Church there would be no Scripture. The Church was vibrant before there was ever a written New Testament. All those Churches St. Paul writes to and writes about did not have the Gospels, and yet their faith was strong.
 
If that is the case then you need to accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior.

Please don't. That was so ignorant of you to say. I'm just going to pray to God and assume you aren't very acquainted with the Catholic faith. That's okay, because before I started attending this school, I was uninformed and not aware either.

The Catholic church accepts Jesus. They accept the Trinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They believe Jesus is the true son of God. It's quite arrogant of you to say that while being so uninformed.

As for the OP, what is Hell? I believe Hell is the separation of God and his creations who deny him. The place those who don't accept him go after they die.
 
I do not understand how you are imagining this is against the idea of purgatory. You draw conclusions which are not justified given the premises. With purgatory, you are judged once. Your judgment is purgatory. "After death there is no more improving" is your own belief, it is not inherent in Hebrews 9:27.

Actually, without the Church there would be no Scripture. The Church was vibrant before there was ever a written New Testament. All those Churches St. Paul writes to and writes about did not have the Gospels, and yet their faith was strong.

John......... Your confused brother. I don't know what is wrong with you...... Jesus Quoted the OT over 100 times there were lots of scriptures. The Catholic church did not come around until 1,000 years later after Revelation was written. They did not make up Salvation on their own, they had something called scriptures. We had this talk in another thread about exactly "When" the Cathloic church showed up.

Faith comes by hearing and by hearing the Word of God. The word says Hell is eternal and not only with the meaning of Anionios but also the Greek expression used in Rev that it's forever and a place of torment.

No Word, no faith. You don't get faith any other way and if you doubt the integrity of scripture then............................. Well bad things is next.

Judgement is not to a place called purgatory. It's the Last Judgement at the White throne as Jesus said one will judge you in the Last day as mentioned in Revelation. That is scripture if you want me to pull them up for you.
John, your confused and not much else I can do for you. I hope you get it turned around. Being Catholic does not mean confused.

Please don't. That was so ignorant of you to say. I'm just going to pray to God and assume you aren't very acquainted with the Catholic faith. That's okay, because before I started attending this school, I was uninformed and not aware either.

The Catholic church accepts Jesus. They accept the Trinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They believe Jesus is the true son of God. It's quite arrogant of you to say that while being so uninformed.

As for the OP, what is Hell? I believe Hell is the separation of God and his creations who deny him. The place those who don't accept him go after they die.

Please don't do what? I am not ignorant of Catholic practices. I am concerned about this brother who is confused. Accepting Trinity don't mean a thing either as even Baptist believe in the creed.

As for Arrogant? I can give scripture to back everything I have said up. Jesus said he who has ears to hear (The Word) let them hear. If someone has a higher thing in their life over the Eternal Word of God then they have no ears to hear and will be stuck believing fables.

I broke down the Greek Meaning of Eternity......... If you don't believe the Word means forever being a Greek Adjective (Which is the only thing it can mean unless defined by the article) Then you can't also believe in Eternal life with God.

You don't pick and choose in the Word what we want to believe, the Word was sent to correct us.

If you pick in choose that is not called Christianity. You can call it whatever you want at this point much like the Mormons do. God's children Put God's word first place.

I don't dislike Catholics. Since Catholics don't believe on the authority of the Word, using other works that have more authority over the word. Then Catholics don't need to post in threads about hell because the site here uses scriptures only. There are other threads to post in.

You should know it's always been a issue when it comes to Sola Scriptura with Catholics.

Blessings.
 
John......... Your confused brother. I don't know what is wrong with you...... Jesus Quoted the OT over 100 times there were lots of scriptures. The Catholic church did not come around until 1,000 years later after Revelation was written. They did not make up Salvation on their own, they had something called scriptures. We had this talk in another thread about exactly "When" the Cathloic church showed up.

Faith comes by hearing and by hearing the Word of God. The word says Hell is eternal and not only with the meaning of Anionios but also the Greek expression used in Rev that it's forever and a place of torment.

No Word, no faith. You don't get faith any other way and if you doubt the integrity of scripture then............................. Well bad things is next.

Judgement is not to a place called purgatory. It's the Last Judgement at the White throne as Jesus said one will judge you in the Last day as mentioned in Revelation. That is scripture if you want me to pull them up for you.
John, your confused and not much else I can do for you. I hope you get it turned around. Being Catholic does not mean confused.



Please don't do what? I am not ignorant of Catholic practices. I am concerned about this brother who is confused. Accepting Trinity don't mean a thing either as even Baptist believe in the creed.

As for Arrogant? I can give scripture to back everything I have said up. Jesus said he who has ears to hear (The Word) let them hear. If someone has a higher thing in their life over the Eternal Word of God then they have no ears to hear and will be stuck believing fables.

I broke down the Greek Meaning of Eternity......... If you don't believe the Word means forever being a Greek Adjective (Which is the only thing it can mean unless defined by the article) Then you can't also believe in Eternal life with God.

You don't pick and choose in the Word what we want to believe, the Word was sent to correct us.

If you pick in choose that is not called Christianity. You can call it whatever you want at this point much like the Mormons do. God's children Put God's word first place.

I don't dislike Catholics. Since Catholics don't believe on the authority of the Word, using other works that have more authority over the word. Then Catholics don't need to post in threads about hell because the site here uses scriptures only. There are other threads to post in.

You should know it's always been a issue when it comes to Sola Scriptura with Catholics.

Blessings.
All I hear is blah, blah, blah. The Word of God is Christ, not a writing. Sacred Tradition is the continuation of the Word of God, which includes but is not reducible to the 73 books of the Bible. You misunderstand my position and Catholics in general. It is not that we devalue the biblical literature, but rather that we believe it is indiscernible when separated from Sacred Tradition. So, for example, I would definitely not be a trinitarian if I believed in Sola Scriptura. There is simply no biblical justification for a belief in the Trinity if you read the Bible as a one-sided abstraction. Just as we do not consider the Angel of the Lord to be a distinct personhood of God, there is no New Testament justification for believing the Spirit is a distinct personhood if you read one-sidedly. And it is precisely for this reason that a decent number of Protestants are anti-Trinitarian. The Bible is an expression of Sacred Tradition and becomes meaningless when it is read outside of God's Church.

Also, the abstracted proof-texts you post are so poorly done. You have said nothing to convince me that there is not a particular and a general judgment.
 
Last edited:
All I hear is blah, blah, blah. The Word of God is Christ, not a writing. Sacred Tradition is the continuation of the Word of God, which includes but is not reducible to the 73 books of the Bible. You misunderstand my position and Catholics in general. It is not that we devalue the biblical literature, but rather that we believe it is indiscernible when separated from Sacred Tradition. So, for example, I would definitely not be a trinitarian if I believed in Sola Scriptura. There is simply no biblical justification for a belief in the Trinity if you read the Bible as a one-sided abstraction. Just as we do not consider the Angel of the Lord to be a distinct personhood of God, there is no New Testament justification for believing the Spirit is a distinct personhood if you read one-sidedly. And it is precisely for this reason that a decent number of Protestants are anti-Trinitarian. The Bible is an expression of Sacred Tradition and becomes meaningless when it is read outside of God's Church.

Also, the abstracted proof-texts you post are so poorly done. You have said nothing to convince me that there is not a particular and a general judgment.

First, I won't be able to convince you of anything, so lets not be deceived here. 2nd and so fourth, I have no idea what Trinity Concept has to do with anything. I am not trinitarian or oneness. I prefer Trinity if someone is going to believe in Monotheism though.

The problem here is that I don't hold any church over scripture, I don't hold any other books but the 66. You don't. So we are talking on whole different levels here and not close enough.

So a subject like Hell might not be the best thing to discuss as I am starting to see this.
 
I have been a believer in apocatastasis, along with Origen and Hans von Urs Balthasar, for a very long time. I have never been convinced that the Greek word αιωνιον means "eternal".

aiōnios (translated eternal)- primarily means without beginning and end, that which always has been and always will be..see Thayer's or Strong's if you prefer...taken from two Hebrew concepts, qedem and olam (Jesus and the Apostles were essentially Hebrew speaking first to Hebrew hearers), which are used to describe God...one means from before time or aforetime and the other without end, perpetual, never ceasing...you can however believe whatever you want. When God makes something eternal it may have had a beginning (therefore qedem does not apply) but it is now olam (never ending, perpetual).
 
All I hear is blah, blah, blah. The Word of God is Christ, not a writing. Sacred Tradition is the continuation of the Word of God, which includes but is not reducible to the 73 books of the Bible. You misunderstand my position and Catholics in general. It is not that we devalue the biblical literature, but rather that we believe it is indiscernible when separated from Sacred Tradition. So, for example, I would definitely not be a trinitarian if I believed in Sola Scriptura. There is simply no biblical justification for a belief in the Trinity if you read the Bible as a one-sided abstraction. Just as we do not consider the Angel of the Lord to be a distinct personhood of God, there is no New Testament justification for believing the Spirit is a distinct personhood if you read one-sidedly. And it is precisely for this reason that a decent number of Protestants are anti-Trinitarian. The Bible is an expression of Sacred Tradition and becomes meaningless when it is read outside of God's Church.

Also, the abstracted proof-texts you post are so poorly done. You have said nothing to convince me that there is not a particular and a general judgment.

The early church always held to Scripture as the final authority of faith and life. This is the basis upon which they accepted or rejected any doctrine. See below...

Irenaeus of Lyons (160 A.D.) “Against Heresies” 3.1.1, p. 414.

"We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith."

Clement of Alexandria (CA. 150 – 215), Stromata, Book VII, Chapter 16

“But those who are ready to toil in the most excellent pursuits, will not desist from the search after truth, till they get the demonstration from Scripture themselves.”

Tertullian (CA. 155 – 220)

In refuting a heresy of Docetism (denying doctrine of incarnation), Tertullian writes, “But there is no evidence of this, because Scripture says nothing.” Furthermore, he writes, “If it is nowhere written, then let it fear the woe which impends on all who add or take away from the written word.”

Hippolytus (CA. 170 – 236)

Against the Heresy of One Noetus

“There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scripture, and from no other source. . . . Whatever things, then, the Holy Scriptures declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn; and the Father will our belief to be, let us believe . . . Not according to our own will, nor according to our own mind, nor yet as using violently those things which are given by God, but even as He has chosen to teach them by the Holy Scripture, so let us discern them.

Basil of Jerusalem - Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favour of that side will be cast the vote of truth."

Augustine (354 – 430)

On the Good of Widowhood
“What more can I teach you, than what we read in the Apostle? For the holy Scripture setteth a rule to our teaching, that we dare not “be wise more than it behoveth to be wise.”

Basil the Great (368 A.D.)

The words are to be understood by their plain meaning, not allegorized.

‘I know the laws of allegory, though less by myself than from the works of others. There are those truly, who do not admit the common sense of the Scriptures, for whom water is not water, but some other nature, who see in a plant, in a fish, what their fancy wishes, who change the nature of reptiles and of wild beasts to suit their allegories, like the interpreters of dreams who explain visions in sleep to make them serve their own ends. For me grass is grass; plant, fish, wild beast, domestic animal, I take all in the literal sense. “For I am not ashamed of the Gospel” [Rom. 1:16].’ (Homily IX:1)

To interpret Scripture otherwise is to put ourselves above God, the Holy Spirit, who inspired its writing.

‘It is this which those seem to me not to have understood, who, giving themselves up to the distorted meaning of allegory, have undertaken to give a majesty of their own invention to Scripture. It is to believe themselves wiser than the Holy Spirit, and to bring forth their own ideas under a pretext of exegesis. Let us hear Scripture as it has been written.’ (Homily IX:1)

Gregory of Nyssa (394 A.D)

"The generality of men still fluctuate in their opinions about this, which are as erroneous as they are numerous. As for ourselves, if the Gentile philosophy, which deals methodically with all these points, were really adequate for a demonstration, it would certainly be superfluous to add a discussion on the soul to those speculations. But while the latter proceeded, on the subject of the soul, as far in the direction of supposed consequences as the thinker pleased, we are not entitled to such license, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings."

Cyril of Jerusalem (450 A.D.)

"This seal have thou ever on thy mind; which now by way of summary has been touched on in its heads, and if the Lord grant, shall hereafter be set forth according to our power, with Scripture proofs. For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures."

_____________________________________________

The earliest church (for four hundred plus years) seemed very determined to test everything by Scripture. So where any doctrine could not be demonstrated by Scripture it was rejected. Therefore the first tradition was that we are to test everything by the written word of God (thats the proof it is what the Apostles taught and intended)

In His love

Brother Paul
 
The problem here is that I don't hold any church over scripture, I don't hold any other books but the 66.
I agree. That is a problem. ;)

The difference is that I do not go around calling you a heretic and acting like a boorish jerk for not being Roman Catholic.

aiōnios (translated eternal)- primarily means without beginning and end, that which always has been and always will be..see Thayer's or Strong's if you prefer...taken from two Hebrew concepts, qedem and olam (Jesus and the Apostles were essentially Hebrew speaking first to Hebrew hearers), which are used to describe God...one means from before time or aforetime and the other without end, perpetual, never ceasing...you can however believe whatever you want. When God makes something eternal it may have had a beginning (therefore qedem does not apply) but it is now olam (never ending, perpetual).
There are too many instances where עולם is used for something temporal, such as in Genesis 6:4. It is used rather quite like קדם. Interestingly enough, עולם is so often used for the Old Covenant, something we Christians believe has passed away or been sublated.
The early church always held to Scripture as the final authority of faith and life. This is the basis upon which they accepted or rejected any doctrine. See below...

Irenaeus of Lyons (160 A.D.) “Against Heresies” 3.1.1, p. 414.

"We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith."

Clement of Alexandria (CA. 150 – 215), Stromata, Book VII, Chapter 16

“But those who are ready to toil in the most excellent pursuits, will not desist from the search after truth, till they get the demonstration from Scripture themselves.”

Tertullian (CA. 155 – 220)

In refuting a heresy of Docetism (denying doctrine of incarnation), Tertullian writes, “But there is no evidence of this, because Scripture says nothing.” Furthermore, he writes, “If it is nowhere written, then let it fear the woe which impends on all who add or take away from the written word.”

Hippolytus (CA. 170 – 236)

Against the Heresy of One Noetus

“There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scripture, and from no other source. . . . Whatever things, then, the Holy Scriptures declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn; and the Father will our belief to be, let us believe . . . Not according to our own will, nor according to our own mind, nor yet as using violently those things which are given by God, but even as He has chosen to teach them by the Holy Scripture, so let us discern them.

Basil of Jerusalem - Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favour of that side will be cast the vote of truth."

Augustine (354 – 430)

On the Good of Widowhood
“What more can I teach you, than what we read in the Apostle? For the holy Scripture setteth a rule to our teaching, that we dare not “be wise more than it behoveth to be wise.”

Basil the Great (368 A.D.)

The words are to be understood by their plain meaning, not allegorized.

‘I know the laws of allegory, though less by myself than from the works of others. There are those truly, who do not admit the common sense of the Scriptures, for whom water is not water, but some other nature, who see in a plant, in a fish, what their fancy wishes, who change the nature of reptiles and of wild beasts to suit their allegories, like the interpreters of dreams who explain visions in sleep to make them serve their own ends. For me grass is grass; plant, fish, wild beast, domestic animal, I take all in the literal sense. “For I am not ashamed of the Gospel” [Rom. 1:16].’ (Homily IX:1)

To interpret Scripture otherwise is to put ourselves above God, the Holy Spirit, who inspired its writing.

‘It is this which those seem to me not to have understood, who, giving themselves up to the distorted meaning of allegory, have undertaken to give a majesty of their own invention to Scripture. It is to believe themselves wiser than the Holy Spirit, and to bring forth their own ideas under a pretext of exegesis. Let us hear Scripture as it has been written.’ (Homily IX:1)

Gregory of Nyssa (394 A.D)

"The generality of men still fluctuate in their opinions about this, which are as erroneous as they are numerous. As for ourselves, if the Gentile philosophy, which deals methodically with all these points, were really adequate for a demonstration, it would certainly be superfluous to add a discussion on the soul to those speculations. But while the latter proceeded, on the subject of the soul, as far in the direction of supposed consequences as the thinker pleased, we are not entitled to such license, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings."

Cyril of Jerusalem (450 A.D.)

"This seal have thou ever on thy mind; which now by way of summary has been touched on in its heads, and if the Lord grant, shall hereafter be set forth according to our power, with Scripture proofs. For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures."

_____________________________________________

The earliest church (for four hundred plus years) seemed very determined to test everything by Scripture. So where any doctrine could not be demonstrated by Scripture it was rejected. Therefore the first tradition was that we are to test everything by the written word of God (thats the proof it is what the Apostles taught and intended)

In His love

Brother Paul
You are poorly proof-texting and doing violence to the spirit of the most blessed Church Fathers. We Roman Catholics believe that everything we preach is within Sacred Scripture. Sacred Tradition does not contradict Sacred Scripture, but is the ground of its being. In other words, we interpret Sacred Scripture through the lens of Sacred Tradition. What is the Eucharist? We answer that by looking to the Apostolic tradition handed down from generation to generation and we believe that it is verily the Body and Blood of Christ the Lord. We do not analytically separate Sacred Scripture from the rest of Sacred Tradition, and then believe that we can understand it as an external relation.

"That is why it is surely necessary to avoid them [heretics], while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the tradition of truth. . . . What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?" — St. Irenaeus

"It is needful also to make use of tradition, for not everything can be gotten from sacred Scripture. The holy apostles handed down some things in the scriptures, other things in tradition" — St. Epiphanius of Salamis

"But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the apostles themselves or by plenary [ecumenical] councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church" — St. Augustine
 
There are too many instances where עולם is used for something temporal, such as in Genesis 6:4. It is used rather quite like קדם. Interestingly enough, עולם is so often used for the Old Covenant, something we Christians believe has passed away or been sublated.

עוֹלָם `owlam simply means "from a given point in time to or from eternal" .. thus not relevant ..
 
Last edited:
עוֹלָם `owlam simply means "from the beginning" in this verse .. and makes no reference to the future .. thus not relevant ..

in Gen 3:22
Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”— H5769

we have the exact same thing EXCEPT from that point to eternity ..
so the word is used from a single point in time .. from the beginning to now, OR from now to forever ..
meaning linear time from any given point to eternal in either direction ..
 
aiōnios (translated eternal)- primarily means without beginning and end, that which always has been and always will be..see Thayer's or Strong's if you prefer...taken from two Hebrew concepts, qedem and olam (Jesus and the Apostles were essentially Hebrew speaking first to Hebrew hearers), which are used to describe God...one means from before time or aforetime and the other without end, perpetual, never ceasing...you can however believe whatever you want. When God makes something eternal it may have had a beginning (therefore qedem does not apply) but it is now olam (never ending, perpetual).

Thank you for this Brother Paul. Aionios is a Greek Adjective. People wanting to believe "FALSE" things does not change the Word from Being a Greek Adjective. I can believe that my name means jump (Verb) but Mike is still going to be a proper noun despite my confusion.

Aionios is an adjective because it can be used on it's own or defined in the Article. This is not rocket science or confusing. The Word on it's own has no start or end but just means to continue forever unless a condition is given. That is what Greek Adjectives are basically.

Wait here anionios until I get back means you wait for ever how long it takes for me to get back.

We will be Anionios with Jesus means that we will forever and ever be with Jesus.

So it really don't matter what you want to believe, it does not change Language to suit your confusion.

The Word was sent to help man and give instruction. If we discount any of it, then we do so to our own hurt.


What does Hebrew have to do with the Greek Aionios? Just confusion to reject the Word of God. The Hebrew example is not even accurate. OWlam is just a point for time or a why to express time to eternity. The Word does not at all remove Aionios Punishment.
he difference is that I do not go around calling you a heretic and acting like a boorish jerk for not being Roman Catholic.

I am actually concerned this may be a comprehension disability and not religion related. Despite what any religion says, it would not hinder a logical person ability to understand simple language once it was expained and we have explained in detail.

did you ever have issues learning in school? If you need help, i am willing to pray for you as well as others.

Blessings
 
Hell is the place Gentiles go when they die, to be reincarnated until they reach Spiritual perfection through meditation. That is our Creator, Satan'a wish. He is not evil, nor is He what you think. True satanism is about elevating the soul. Hell is a beautiful place, not the fiery lake that the bible describes. Anyway, joyofsatan.org and exposingchristianity.com can explain it better than I can.

You have a scripture to back this up? I was confused once also and into Satan when I was young and dumb. I do hope you grow out of it.
 
I agree. That is a problem. ;)

The difference is that I do not go around calling you a heretic and acting like a boorish jerk for not being Roman Catholic.

There are too many instances where עולם is used for something temporal, such as in Genesis 6:4. It is used rather quite like קדם. Interestingly enough, עולם is so often used for the Old Covenant, something we Christians believe has passed away or been sublated.
You are poorly proof-texting and doing violence to the spirit of the most blessed Church Fathers. We Roman Catholics believe that everything we preach is within Sacred Scripture. Sacred Tradition does not contradict Sacred Scripture, but is the ground of its being. In other words, we interpret Sacred Scripture through the lens of Sacred Tradition. What is the Eucharist? We answer that by looking to the Apostolic tradition handed down from generation to generation and we believe that it is verily the Body and Blood of Christ the Lord. We do not analytically separate Sacred Scripture from the rest of Sacred Tradition, and then believe that we can understand it as an external relation.

"That is why it is surely necessary to avoid them [heretics], while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the tradition of truth. . . . What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?" — St. Irenaeus

"It is needful also to make use of tradition, for not everything can be gotten from sacred Scripture. The holy apostles handed down some things in the scriptures, other things in tradition" — St. Epiphanius of Salamis

"But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the apostles themselves or by plenary [ecumenical] councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church" — St. Augustine

I love the tradition of the church handed down by the Apostles, and I do discern the body of our Lord in the breaking of the bread, but the question of putting scripture in a place secondary to Tradition (with a capital T) as some have done with dogmas decided many centuries later, is not Apostolic tradition at all. Also please give a source for your Augustine quote (I hope not the alleged letter to Januarius) as I suspect in his actual version the T was not a capital (if there was an actual version), and I also see no conflict with those traditions that were actually held by the earliest fathers (who were actually taught by the Apostles or their immediate disciples). They NEVER contradict the scriptures though the scriptures may not cover all the nuances of practice (for example nothing specifically says it is okey to baptize infants, but I clearly see this in the first fathers and have no problem with it and would certainly encourage it if the parents are sincere and not just going through the ritual)
 
this was way back before internet. I would be what one would call Anton Levey follower. With assorted books on witch craft added in.

However, Satan is just a disobedient Angel and full of rebellion. Satan would not even be known If God had not mentioned him in scripture. Satan has no power and can do nothing for you or even wants to do anything for you. I am not sure what motivation there would be to even give the devil the time of time of day, let alone try to make a religion based on his thinking devoid of all wisdom.

As for Jesus taking care of everything? My son is alive today because of Jesus and many healed. My marriage put back together and I avoided 90 years in prison because the lord performed a miracle for me. Following after the devil and doing what my lust wanted only destroyed my life, the Lord Jesus put my life back together.
 
To get off the wheel of life your bad karma (sin) must be eliminated. Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life.

Did jesus (pretending he actually lived)

Ah! At last you reveal your utter lack of knowledge...no one who has done just a little homework would say such a thing...you may not believe He was who He said He was but that He was has never been an issue.
 
The written Word is all authority and if you don't believe that and can be corrected then I suggest make some changes quick.

only if interpreted correctly ..
I see a lot of people twisting the word ..
as well as poor translations that change the context ..
 
The Catholic church did not come around until 1,000 years later after Revelation was written.

Blessings.

that is bad data ..

In 189 AD The Church of Rome’s assertion of its primacy beyond Rome is indicated in Irenaeus of Lyons's proclamation “Against Heresies” (3:3:2): "With [the Church of Rome], because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree... and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition."

In 313 AD, Constantine met with Licinius in Milan, where they developed the Edict of Milan. The edict stated that Christians should be allowed to follow their faith without oppression. The edict removed penalties for professing Christianity (under which many had been martyred) and returned to them confiscated Church property. The edict protected from religious persecution not only Christians, but all religions, allowing anyone to worship whichever deity they chose.

The name Roman Catholic Church was in common use by 325 ad ..

In 380 AD With the Edict of Thessalonica Emperor Constantine declared Catholicism the sole state religion of the Roman Empire,

In 538 AD a decree established by Roman Emperor Justinian granted the Pope official recognition as the “head of all the holy churches” throughout the empire.
 
only if interpreted correctly ..
I see a lot of people twisting the word ..
as well as poor translations that change the context ..

praise God.......... yes, even my beloved KJV has a few quirks in it. I do my best to never twist scripture and compare with more than one. I also trust in the Holy Spirit to throw up stop signs if I am understanding something incorrectly.

Peter talked about Twisting scriptures and he said it was to their own hurt.

I find it hard to believe though that I don't have any area in scripture that I don't believe wrongly or have the full picture. I don't know what those are but I know being human that they are there and will get it corrected once the Lord uses someone to point me in a more clear direction.

Blessings.
 
that is bad data ..

In 189 AD The Church of Rome’s assertion of its primacy beyond Rome is indicated in Irenaeus of Lyons's proclamation “Against Heresies” (3:3:2): "With [the Church of Rome], because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree... and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition."

I don't think it's bad data, and we talked about this already. A church in Rome does not make it the Catholic Church of today. All good churches teach Jesus resurrected and the only way.

As I pointed out I can use this logic to prove my "Word of faith" church was there. I speak in tongues and have layed hands on the sick with healing and evidence to back it up. Plus the Scripture mentions Word of faith, so it has to be so............... not really.

There is no evidence in scripture pointing to any Catholic church. In fact the catholic Churches valued position to pray to Mary is so important that if the church was there and Praying to Mary was scriptural then the Holy Spirit would have mentioned it at least once.

There is nothing in scripture that defines any denominational church we have today.

So, the start of the Catholic Church would be when records of what they Practice outside of everyone else became evident and that was many years after Acts. (Many years)

Blessings.
 
Back
Top