I am scared of dying

Page 3:

Originally posted by Marchello
"The grass withered, and the flower has fallen--but the word of the Lord endures forever." [1 Pet. 1:24-25]. You are in ERROR in your assumption that the Bible is authoritative only because of the Catholic Church. The Bible does NOT owe its EXISTENCE to the Catholic Church, BUT to the AUTHORITY...POWER and PROVIDENCE of God. It would seem unnecessary for your church to make the boastful claim of giving the Bible to the world when it and so-called Protestantism accept the Bible as a revelation from God. However, it is an ATTEMPT to WEAKEN the Bible as the SOLE AUTHORITY and to REPLACE it with your MAN-MADE church. If it is true that we can accept the Bible ONLY on the basis of the Catholic Church...that would make the Catholic Church SUPERIOR to the Bible? This is EXACTLY what your church officials want men to believe. Their only PROBLEM is that their doctrine comes from their own HUMAN REASONING rather than from God. Their logic is a classic example of their "circular reasoning." They try to PROVE the Bible BY the church (can accept the Bible only on the basis of the Catholic Church) and PROVE the church BY the Bible ("has ever grounded her doctrines upon it"😉. Such is the ABSURD reasoning which proves NOTHING. EITHER the New Testament is the SOLE AUTHORITY or it is NOT. If it IS the New Testament...then it CANNOT be the CHURCH...and if it is the CHURCH...it cannot be the New Testament.

Your church boasts that the Bible was written by Catholics, e.g., "All the books of the New Testament were written by Catholics." (The Bible is a Catholic Book, p. 14). However, when we consider the word "catholic" as meaning "universal"...it means that the writers were members of the
church Christ...which is described in the Scriptures [Col. 1:18; Rom. 16:16]. However, we firmly deny that the writers of the New Testament were MEMBERS of the Roman Catholic Church. In point of fact, Roman Catholicism was NOT fully developed until several HUNDRED years AFTER the New Testament was written. It is NOT...nor EVER HAS BEEN the SAME institution as disclosed in the New Testament. The New Testament books were written by members of the Lord's Church...but they are NOT its AUTHOR!...ONLY God HIMSELF is the AUTHOR of the New Testament.

Catholic officials claim that WITHOUT the Catholic Church there would be NO Bible...they argue that mankind can accept the Scriptures ONLY on the basis of the Catholic Church which gathered the books and determined which were inspired. Surely the Catholic Church cannot claim that it gave us the Old Testament Scriptures...for the Old Testament came THROUGH the Jews [God's CHOSEN people of OLD] who had the holy oracles ENTRUSTED to them. HEAR the apostle Paul: "What ADVANTAGE then remains to the Jew, or what is the use of circumcision? Much in every respect. First, indeed, because the oracles of God were ENTRUSTED to THEM" [Rom. 3:1-2; see also Rom. 9:4-5; Acts 7:38]. The Old Testament books were gathered into one volume and were translated from Hebrew into Greek LONG BEFORE Christ came to earth. The Septuagint Version was translated by seventy scholars at Alexandria, Egypt around the year 227 B.C...and this was the version Christ and His apostles USED. Christ did NOT tell the people, as Catholics DO today...that they could accept the Scriptures ONLY on the basis of the AUTHORITY of those who gathered them and declared them
to be inspired. He urged the people of His day to follow the Old Testament Scriptures as the infallible guide, NOT because man...or any group of men has sanctioned them as such...but BECAUSE they came FROM God.

(Continued)

Furthermore, He understood that God-fearing men and women would be able to discern by evidence (external and internal) which books were of God and which were not...thus, He never raised questions and doubts concerning the gathering of the inspired books. If the Bible is a Catholic book, why does it NOWHERE mention the Catholic Church? Why is there no mention of a pope, a cardinal, an archbishop, a parish priest, a nun, or a member of any other Catholic order? If the Bible is a Catholic book, why is auricular confession, indulgences, prayers to the saints, adoration of Mary, veneration of relics and images, and many other rites and ceremonies of the Catholic Church, left out of it? If the Bible is a Catholic book, how can Catholics account for the passage, "A bishop then, must be blameless, married but once, reserved, prudent, of good conduct, hospitable, a teacher...He should rule well his own household, keeping his children under control and perfectly respectful. For if a man cannot rule his own household, how is he to take care of the church of God?" (1 Tim. 3:2, 4-5). The Catholic Church does not allow a bishop to marry, while the Bible says "he must be married." Furthermore, if the Bible is a Catholic book, why did they write the Bible as it is, and feel the
necessity of putting footnotes at the bottom of the page in effort to keep their subject from believing what is in the text?

I have summarized the following list...to give a summation of what I have been trying to emphasize. If the Bible is a Catholic book...
1. Why does it condemn clerical dress? (Matt. 23:5-6).
2. Why does it teach against the adoration of Mary? (Luke 11:27-28).
3. Why does it show that all Christians are priests? (1 Pet. 2:5,9).
4. Why does it condemn the observance of special days? (Gal. 4:9-11).
5. Why does it teach that all Christians are saints? (1 Cor. 1:2).
6. Why does it condemn the making and adoration of images? (Ex. 20:4-5).
7. Why does it teach that baptism is immersion instead of pouring? (Col. 2:12).
8. Why does it forbid us to address religious leaders as "father"? (Matt. 23:9).
9. Why does it teach that Christ is the only foundation and not the apostle Peter? (1 Cor. 3:11).
10. Why does it teach that there is one mediator instead of many? (1 Tim. 2:5).
11. Why does it teach that a bishop must be a married man? (1 Tim. 3:2, 4-5).
12. Why is it opposed to the primacy of Peter? (Luke 22:24-27).
13. Why does it oppose the idea of purgatory? (Luke 16:26).
14. Why is it completely silent about infant baptism, instrumental music in worship, indulgences, confession to priests, the rosary, the mass, and many other things in the Catholic Church?

(Continued)

Are Catholics going to hell?

Some are and some aren't, just like with all 'Christian' religions.

Page 4:

Originally posted by Marchello
Page 3:

Furthermore, He understood that God-fearing men and women would be able to discern by evidence (external and internal) which books were of God and which were not...thus, He never raised questions and doubts concerning the gathering of the inspired books. If the Bible is a Catholic book, why does it NOWHERE mention the Catholic Church? Why is there no mention of a pope, a cardinal, an archbishop, a parish priest, a nun, or a member of any other Catholic order? If the Bible is a Catholic book, why is auricular confession, indulgences, prayers to the saints, adoration of Mary, veneration of relics and images, and many other rites and ceremonies of the Catholic Church, left out of it? If the Bible is a Catholic book, how can Catholics account for the passage, "A bishop then, must be blameless, married but once, reserved, prudent, of good conduct, hospitable, a teacher...He should rule well his own household, keeping his children under control and perfectly respectful. For if a man cannot rule his own household, how is he to take care of the church of God?" (1 Tim. 3:2, 4-5). The Catholic Church does not allow a bishop to marry, while the Bible says "he must be married." Furthermore, if the Bible is a Catholic book, why did they write the Bible as it is, and feel the
necessity of putting footnotes at the bottom of the page in effort to keep their subject from believing what is in the text?

I have summarized the following list...to give a summation of what I have been trying to emphasize. If the Bible is a Catholic book...
1. Why does it condemn clerical dress? (Matt. 23:5-6).
2. Why does it teach against the adoration of Mary? (Luke 11:27-28).
3. Why does it show that all Christians are priests? (1 Pet. 2:5,9).
4. Why does it condemn the observance of special days? (Gal. 4:9-11).
5. Why does it teach that all Christians are saints? (1 Cor. 1:2).
6. Why does it condemn the making and adoration of images? (Ex. 20:4-5).
7. Why does it teach that baptism is immersion instead of pouring? (Col. 2:12).
8. Why does it forbid us to address religious leaders as "father"? (Matt. 23:9).
9. Why does it teach that Christ is the only foundation and not the apostle Peter? (1 Cor. 3:11).
10. Why does it teach that there is one mediator instead of many? (1 Tim. 2:5).
11. Why does it teach that a bishop must be a married man? (1 Tim. 3:2, 4-5).
12. Why is it opposed to the primacy of Peter? (Luke 22:24-27).
13. Why does it oppose the idea of purgatory? (Luke 16:26).
14. Why is it completely silent about infant baptism, instrumental music in worship, indulgences, confession to priests, the rosary, the mass, and many other things in the Catholic Church?

(Continued)

Catholics argue that since the Council of Hippo in 390 A.D. proclaimed which books were actually inspired and placed them in one volume, all are indebted to the Catholic Church for the New Testament and can accept it only on the authority of the Catholic Church. There are several things wrong with this. First, it CANNOT be PROVEN that the church which held the Council of Hippo in 390 A.D. was the SAME church which is now known as the Roman Catholic Church. For example, the church of 390 had NO crucifixes and images because, "The FIRST MENTION of Crucifixes are in the sixth century" and "The whole tradition of veneration holy images gradually and naturally developed" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. VII, p. 667). The church of 390 took communion under BOTH kinds because that was the prevailing practice until it was formally abolished in 1416 A.D. So the church of 390 was a church altogether DIFFERENT from the Roman Catholic Church.

Furthermore, in the proceedings of the Council of Hippo, the bishops did NOT mention nor give the slightest hint that they were for the first time "officially" cataloging the books of he Bible for the world. It was NOT until the FOURTH SESSION of the Council of Trent (1545-1563) that the bishops and high ranking officials of the Catholic Church "officially" cataloged the books they thought should be included in the Bible and bound them upon the consciences of all Catholics.

Secondly, God did not give councils the AUTHORITY to select His sacred books, nor does He expect men to receive His sacred books ONLY because of councils or on the basis of councils. It takes NO vote or sanction of a council to MAKE the books of the Bible AUTHORITATIVE. Men were able to rightly discern which books were inspired before the existence of ecclesiastical councils and men can do so today. A council of men in 390 with no DIVINE AUTHORITY whatever, supposedly took upon itself the right to state which books were inspired, and Catholics argue, "We can accept the Bible only on the authority of the Catholic Church." Can we follow such reasoning?

Thirdly, it CANNOT be PROVEN that the Catholic Church is solely responsible for the gathering and selection of the New Testament books. In fact, it can be shown that the New Testament books were gathered into one volume and were in circulation LONG BEFORE the Catholic Church claims to have taken its action in 390 at the council of Hippo. In the following I list some of the catalogues of the books of the Bible which are given by early Christian writers.

[1] 326. Athanasius, bishop at Alexandria, mentions all of the New Testament books.
[2] 315-386. Cyril, bishop at Jerusalem, gives a list of all New Testament books except Revelation.
[3] 270. Eusebius, bishop at Caesarea, called the Father of ecclesiastical history, gives an account of the
persecution of Emperor Diocletian whose edict required that all churches be destroyed and the Scriptures
burned. He lists all the books of the New Testament. He was commissioned by Constantine to have transcribed
fifty copies of the Bible for use of the churches of Constantinople.
[4] 185-254. Origen, born at Alexandria, names all the books of both the Old and New Testaments.
[5] 165-220. Clement, of Alexandria, names all the books of the New Testament except Philemon, James, 2 Peter
and 3 John. In addition we are told by Eusebius, who had the works of Clement, that he gave explanations and
quotations from all the canonical books.
[6] 160-240. Turtullian, contemporary of Origen and Clement, mentions all the New Testament books except 2
Peter, James and 2 John.
[7] 135-200. Irenaeus, quoted from all New Testament books except Philemon, Jude, James and 3 John.
[8] 100-147. Justin Martyr, mentions the Gospels as being four in number and quotes from them and some of the epistles of Paul and Revelation.
[9]Besides the above...the early church fathers have handed down in their writings quotations from ALL the New Testament books so much so that it is said that the ENTIRE New Testament can be REPRODUCED fron their writings alone!

(Continued)

Originally posted by debbiejo
Are Catholics going to hell?

If I know Marchello his ramblings just claimed that everbody on this thread but him is going to hell

so let me sum up his posts . . .
Catholics hell
Jews hell
Muslims hell
Atheists hell
Christians that are not marchello 1) not christian 2) hell
Hindus hell
Pagans hell
Satanists hell
etc etc

Page 5:

Originally posted by Marchello
Page 4:

Catholics argue that since the Council of Hippo in 390 A.D. proclaimed which books were actually inspired and placed them in one volume, all are indebted to the Catholic Church for the New Testament and can accept it only on the authority of the Catholic Church. There are several things wrong with this. First, it CANNOT be PROVEN that the church which held the Council of Hippo in 390 A.D. was the SAME church which is now known as the Roman Catholic Church. For example, the church of 390 had NO crucifixes and images because, "The FIRST MENTION of Crucifixes are in the sixth century" and "The whole tradition of veneration holy images gradually and naturally developed" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. VII, p. 667). The church of 390 took communion under BOTH kinds because that was the prevailing practice until it was formally abolished in 1416 A.D. So the church of 390 was a church altogether DIFFERENT from the Roman Catholic Church.

Furthermore, in the proceedings of the Council of Hippo, the bishops did NOT mention nor give the slightest hint that they were for the first time "officially" cataloging the books of he Bible for the world. It was NOT until the FOURTH SESSION of the Council of Trent (1545-1563) that the bishops and high ranking officials of the Catholic Church "officially" cataloged the books they thought should be included in the Bible and bound them upon the consciences of all Catholics.

Secondly, God did not give councils the AUTHORITY to select His sacred books, nor does He expect men to receive His sacred books ONLY because of councils or on the basis of councils. It takes NO vote or sanction of a council to MAKE the books of the Bible AUTHORITATIVE. Men were able to rightly discern which books were inspired before the existence of ecclesiastical councils and men can do so today. A council of men in 390 with no DIVINE AUTHORITY whatever, supposedly took upon itself the right to state which books were inspired, and Catholics argue, "We can accept the Bible only on the authority of the Catholic Church." Can we follow such reasoning?

Thirdly, it CANNOT be PROVEN that the Catholic Church is solely responsible for the gathering and selection of the New Testament books. In fact, it can be shown that the New Testament books were gathered into one volume and were in circulation LONG BEFORE the Catholic Church claims to have taken its action in 390 at the council of Hippo. In the following I list some of the catalogues of the books of the Bible which are given by early Christian writers.

[1] 326. Athanasius, bishop at Alexandria, mentions all of the New Testament books.
[2] 315-386. Cyril, bishop at Jerusalem, gives a list of all New Testament books except Revelation.
[3] 270. Eusebius, bishop at Caesarea, called the Father of ecclesiastical history, gives an account of the
persecution of Emperor Diocletian whose edict required that all churches be destroyed and the Scriptures
burned. He lists all the books of the New Testament. He was commissioned by Constantine to have transcribed
fifty copies of the Bible for use of the churches of Constantinople.
[4] 185-254. Origen, born at Alexandria, names all the books of both the Old and New Testaments.
[5] 165-220. Clement, of Alexandria, names all the books of the New Testament except Philemon, James, 2 Peter
and 3 John. In addition we are told by Eusebius, who had the works of Clement, that he gave explanations and
quotations from all the canonical books.
[6] 160-240. Turtullian, contemporary of Origen and Clement, mentions all the New Testament books except 2
Peter, James and 2 John.
[7] 135-200. Irenaeus, quoted from all New Testament books except Philemon, Jude, James and 3 John.
[8] 100-147. Justin Martyr, mentions the Gospels as being four in number and quotes from them and some of the epistles of Paul and Revelation.
[9]Besides the above...the early church fathers have handed down in their writings quotations from ALL the New Testament books so much so that it is said that the ENTIRE New Testament can be REPRODUCED fron their writings alone!

(Continued)

Thus, the New Testament books WERE in existence in their PRESENT form at the CLOSE of the apostolic age. As a matter of fact, the apostles themselves put their writings into circulation. "And when this letter has been read among you, see that it be read in the church of the Laodiceans also; and that you yourselves read the letter from Laodicea." (Col. 4:16). "I charge you by the Lord that this epistle be read to all the holy brethren." (1 Thess. 5:27). The holy Scriptures were
written for all (1 Cor. 1:2; Eph. 1:1) and all will be judged by them in the last day (Rev. 20:12; John 12:48). Jesus said that His Word will abide forever (Matt. 24:35; 1 Pet. 1:23-25).

Fourthly, the Catholic CLAIM of giving the Bible to the world CANNOT be TRUE because they have NOT been the SOLE possessor of the Bible at ANY TIME. Some of the most valuable Greek Bibles and Versions have been handed down to us from non-Roman Catholic sources. A notable example of this is the Codex Sinaiticus which was found in the monastery of St. Catherine (of the Greek Orthodox Church) at Mount Sinai in 1844 and is now in the British Museum. It contains all of the books of the New Testament and all but small portions of the Old Testament. Scholars are certain that this manuscript was made early in the fourth century, not later than 350 A.D. This manuscript found by a German scholar named, Tishendorf, who was a Protestant, and this manuscript which is the most complete of all has never been in the hands of the Roman Catholic Church.

Another valuable manuscript that has never been possessed by the Roman Catholic Church is the Codex Alexandrianus. It, too, is now on exhibit in the manuscript room of the British Museum in London. It was a gift from the Patriarch of Constantinople (of the Greek Orthodox Church) to Charles I in 1628. It had been in possession of the Patriarchs for centuries and originally came from Alexandria, Egypt from which it gets its name. Scholars are certain that this manuscript was also made in the fourth century and, along with the Codex Sinaiticus, is thought to be one of the fifty Greek Bibles commissioned to be copied by Constantine.

In the light of the foregoing, the boastful claim of the Roman Catholic Church that it has been the sole guardian and preserver of the sacred Scriptures down to the present, is nothing but pure falsehood. The Bible is not a Catholic book. Catholics did not write it, nor does their doctrines and church meet the description of the doctrine and church of which it speaks. The New Testament was completed before the end of the first century, A.D. The things in it do not correspond to the Catholic Church which hundreds of years after the death of the apostles slowly evolved into what it now is. The Catholic Church is not the original and true church, but a "church" born of many departures and corruptions from the New Testament church. Even if the Catholic Church could prove that it alone is the sole deliverer of the Scriptures to man today, it still remains that the Catholic Church is not following the Bible and is contrary to the Bible. Furthermore, even if the Catholic Church could show conclusively that it alone is responsible for gathering the books, it does not prove that the Catholic Church is infallible, nor does it prove that it is the author of the Bible. God has at times used evil agencies to accomplish His purpose (Jer. 27:6-8; 43:10; Hab. 1:5-11; John 11:49-52).

Marchello

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If I know Marchello his ramblings just claimed that everbody on this thread but him is going to hell

so let me sum up his posts . . .
Catholics hell
Jews hell
Muslims hell
Atheists hell
Christians that are not marchello 1) not christian 2) hell
Hindus hell
Pagans hell
Satanists hell
etc etc

Damn....heaven is gonna be pretty dull then. Glad I'm not going there.

hey I just noticed

Marchello finally figured out how quotes work

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
hey I just noticed

Marchello finally figured out how quotes work

*["If I know Marchello..."]

***You DON'T know Marchello.

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

*["...his ramblings just claimed that everbody on this thread but him is going to hell..."]

***I know no such thing. YOU are the one who just made that claim.

******************************************* *["...so let me sum up his posts...

***N/A

Marchello

Marchellooooooooooooooo......Echo..echo..echo... you never did answer my questions......

*Sniffs glue, Oh.........that's right, it's you*

Not good to sniff glue......... ❌

Originally posted by Marchello
*["If I know Marchello..."]

***You DON'T know Marchello.

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

*["...his ramblings just claimed that everbody on this thread but him is going to hell..."]

***I know no such thing. YOU are the one who just made that claim.

******************************************* *["...so let me sum up his posts...

***N/A

Marchello

he forgot about quoting agian

I guess learning was too much to expect fom marchello

as for what you said marchy you have already claimed that everyone on this thread is going to hell individually

secondly my list is simply a list of things that I know for a fact you consider to by evil and demonic just from your posts

Originally posted by debbiejo
Marchellooooooooooooooo......Echo..echo..echo... you never did answer my questions......

*Sniffs glue, Oh.........that's right, it's you*

Not good to sniff glue......... ❌

***What is your question, Lady?

Marchello

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
prove it

You know what? Just to have some fun, I'm going to pwn you with a YTMND. Sad, eh?

http://whomurdered.ytmnd.com/

And no, the definition of being an Atheist is not to bahs on other religions or just solely be non-religious, to be honest. Atheism is a religion in itself, ironically.

Being a true Atheist (Not just bearing the title for fun) is to help your fellow man, live your life instead of living for after death and being kind and proper. Atheism is not a one way ticket to do whatever the f*ck you want. If you think so, you speak out of pure ignorance.

Even Goths and Punks . . . Or greedy businessmen or even your everyday average joe may bear that title, but will not be true to it, basically making you not an atheist. The premise of being an atheist is to believe in yourself, not hate every other religion. That's ridiculous and hurting.

It's like Atheists think they have the right to spit on everyone's religion and flaunt themselves, but god help religion if they dare speak a word concerning what they believe in.

And you thought catholicism was hypocritical.

Originally posted by Marchello
***What is your question, Lady?

Marchello

I want to really n
know...I posted those believes/religions...........tell me.

Originally posted by Vegas

And no, the definition of being an Atheist is not to bash on other religions or just solely be non-religious, to be honest. Atheism is a religion in itself, ironically.

I know this is a terrible debating device but I can think of no other way

American Heritage Dictionary
a·the·ism (ā'thē-ĭz'əm)

1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

I never said athiesm involved bashing other religions

Originally posted by Vegas

Being a true Atheist (Not just bearing the title for fun) is to help your fellow man, live your life instead of living for after death and being kind and proper. Atheism is not a one way ticket to do whatever the f*ck you want. If you think so, you speak out of pure ignorance.

I don't call myself an Athiest any more

I've found that Ignostic covers my philosiphy better

and no Athiesm is not an excuse to do what ever you want but frankly neither is having a religious faith

Originally posted by Vegas

It's like Atheists think they have the right to spit on everyone's religion and flaunt themselves, but god help religion if they dare speak a word concerning what they believe in.

I've really tried to make this point to people

I HAVE NOTHING AGAINST RELIGION! 😠

Marchello, I have been here less than 24 hours, and already I hate your dear little guts. You piss me off something chronic.

The starter of this topic has a phobia called Thanatophobia. i had it too. all i can say is dont waste your time being afraid of dying. Because chances are you will actually have a worse time being alive than when you are dead

Originally posted by The Wishmaster
Marchello, I have been here less than 24 hours, and already I hate your dear little guts. You piss me off something chronic.

***That' too bad. Take your meds tonight before you go to bed and get a good night's sleep...you'll feel better in the morning. Either that or a good LAXATIVE.

Marchello

Originally posted by Marchello
***That' too bad. Take your meds tonight before you go to bed and get a good night's sleep...you'll feel better in the morning. Either that or a good LAXATIVE.

Marchello

it looks like marchy is broken

he's already said that to me