Reply #595 by chestertonrules
Of course it does. You claimed that you are entitled to form your own message. Jesus makes it clear that the message comes from the leaders of his Church. We choose to accept it or reject it. We are not authorized to customize it to our personal preferences.
« Mon Mar 21, 2011 - 18:46:06 »
Jesus told US to listen to the leaders. We don't get to make up our own message, we are to follow their message.
John 17
16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. 17 Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth. 18 As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world. 19 For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified.
20 “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you.
BOLD= CHURCH LEADERS(Apostles)
Underline= The rest of us
The scripture you quoted has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. It doesn't even have anything to do with what you said. That scripture has no statement for us to listen to our leaders. We are told to listen to the Holy Spirit. I would ask you, again, to deal with specific scripture I posted on that earlier in this thread, but I realize there is no way you are going to do so, because you are not equipped to do so.
Of course it does. You claimed that you are entitled to form your own message. Jesus makes it clear that the message comes from the leaders of his Church. We choose to accept it or reject it. We are not authorized to customize it to our personal preferences.
Logged
Reply #596 by chestertonrules
This is historical fact.
The writers of the New Testament were members of the Church. They were inspired by the Holy Spirit and they put the words in print. The Christian Church was united in the first century. The various gospels and epistles were scattered throughout the Christian world. They were read as part of the mass in the liturgy of the word. Over time, there were disputes about which writings could be considered inspired. Over the years and eventually through Church councils the current books that we call the New Testament were canonized by the Church.
Which Church? The Catholic Church.
"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).
"[A]ll the people wondered that there should be such a difference between the unbelievers and the elect, of whom this most admirable Polycarp was one, having in our own times been an apostolic and prophetic teacher, and bishop of the Catholic Church which is in Smyrna. For every word that went out of his mouth either has been or shall yet be accomplished." Martyrdom of Polycarp, 16:2 (A.D. 155).
“…to be in honour however with the Catholic Church for the ordering of ecclesiastical discipline...one to the Laodicenes, another to the Alexandrians, both forged in Paul's name to suit the heresy of Marcion, and several others, which cannot be received into the Catholic Church; for it is not fitting that gall be mixed with honey. The Epistle of Jude no doubt, and the couple bearing the name of John, are accepted by the Catholic Church...But of Arsinous, called also Valentinus, or of Militiades we receive nothing at all.
« Mon Mar 21, 2011 - 18:55:59 »
You are asking that question with the implication that Catholic doctrine is the product of men. Catholic doctrine is just like Sacred Scripture it passses through the hands of God's chosen leadership but it is not their work. It is God's.
So your question is ultimately void when you accept the reality of the situation.
Official universally binding Catholic doctrine does not come from man. It is a piece of God's Word which Truth and the Infinity thereof.
What Catholics take from scripture is true doctrine. doctrines they invented are not any part of Gods word. You say men who call themselves church authority can create doctrine that is equal to Gods word
So i will ask you the same question. Do you put more faith in men than Gods word?
The Catholic Church wrote, compiled and preserved the New Testament. Of course we believe it is God's Word.
Our differences lie in interpretations of scripture.
You believe many modern interpretations of scripture which were never part of the early Church.
Let me get this straight: We know that when you say catholic you are making it synonymous with the RCC and there was no RCC when scripture was wrote at east what you see it as. So you are telling me that the papacy wrote scripture. There was no papacy that was a religious political authority system when scripture was wrote. No pope sitiing on a throne with a fancy hat with people who bowed at his feet
The question was not about differences in interpretation. It was about in what do you put more faith in Men or Gods word?
This is historical fact.
The writers of the New Testament were members of the Church. They were inspired by the Holy Spirit and they put the words in print. The Christian Church was united in the first century. The various gospels and epistles were scattered throughout the Christian world. They were read as part of the mass in the liturgy of the word. Over time, there were disputes about which writings could be considered inspired. Over the years and eventually through Church councils the current books that we call the New Testament were canonized by the Church.
Which Church? The Catholic Church.
"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).
"[A]ll the people wondered that there should be such a difference between the unbelievers and the elect, of whom this most admirable Polycarp was one, having in our own times been an apostolic and prophetic teacher, and bishop of the Catholic Church which is in Smyrna. For every word that went out of his mouth either has been or shall yet be accomplished." Martyrdom of Polycarp, 16:2 (A.D. 155).
“…to be in honour however with the Catholic Church for the ordering of ecclesiastical discipline...one to the Laodicenes, another to the Alexandrians, both forged in Paul's name to suit the heresy of Marcion, and several others, which cannot be received into the Catholic Church; for it is not fitting that gall be mixed with honey. The Epistle of Jude no doubt, and the couple bearing the name of John, are accepted by the Catholic Church...But of Arsinous, called also Valentinus, or of Militiades we receive nothing at all.
Logged
Reply #597 by Josiah
Quote Jesus where He says it comes from the RCC denomination and/or the "leaders" thereof....
And where He says that the RCC is infallible, unaccountable and exempt from the issue of truth and honesty.
Why is the RCC?
.
« Mon Mar 21, 2011 - 20:31:11 »
Jesus makes it clear that the message comes from the leaders of his Church.
Quote Jesus where He says it comes from the RCC denomination and/or the "leaders" thereof....
And where He says that the RCC is infallible, unaccountable and exempt from the issue of truth and honesty.
Quote
We are not authorized to customize it to our personal preferences.
Why is the RCC?
.
Logged
Reply #598 by Josiah
Okay. As HISTORY, document for me every author of every one of the NT books - not whom the RCC says is the penmen but from HISTORY.
Then document for me that every single one of them was officially registered in a congregation legally affiliated with the RCC denomination. NOT the EO denomination and NOT some synogogue, but a congregation of the specific RC denomination.
And how does this indicate that the RC doesn't listen to self - which you declared t be WRONG?
Which of the 7 Ecumenical Councils embraced the UNIQUE set of books that ONLY the RCC embraces as Scripture? And why is an Ecumenical Council only that of the RCC denomination, isn't that a contradiction?
« Mon Mar 21, 2011 - 20:37:52 »
This is historical fact.
The writers of the New Testament were members of the Church.
Okay. As HISTORY, document for me every author of every one of the NT books - not whom the RCC says is the penmen but from HISTORY.
Then document for me that every single one of them was officially registered in a congregation legally affiliated with the RCC denomination. NOT the EO denomination and NOT some synogogue, but a congregation of the specific RC denomination.
And how does this indicate that the RC doesn't listen to self - which you declared t be WRONG?
Quote
Over the years and eventually through Church councils
Which of the 7 Ecumenical Councils embraced the UNIQUE set of books that ONLY the RCC embraces as Scripture? And why is an Ecumenical Council only that of the RCC denomination, isn't that a contradiction?
Quote
"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).
"[A]ll the people wondered that there should be such a difference between the unbelievers and the elect, of whom this most admirable Polycarp was one, having in our own times been an apostolic and prophetic teacher, and bishop of the Catholic Church which is in Smyrna. For every word that went out of his mouth either has been or shall yet be accomplished." Martyrdom of Polycarp, 16:2 (A.D. 155).
“…to be in honour however with the Catholic Church for the ordering of ecclesiastical discipline...one to the Laodicenes, another to the Alexandrians, both forged in Paul's name to suit the heresy of Marcion, and several others, which cannot be received into the Catholic Church; for it is not fitting that gall be mixed with honey. The Epistle of Jude no doubt, and the couple bearing the name of John, are accepted by the Catholic Church...But of Arsinous, called also Valentinus, or of Militiades we receive nothing at all.
Logged
Reply #599 by LightHammer
In matters of universally binding doctrine and morals the Holy Spirit is the author of the Catholic Church's decree.
We can play this game for the next three years but I am not going to let you insist on promoting the lie that the Catholic Church makes up its own beliefs or listens and learns from itself.
That is blasphemy. The Catholic Church is not God. She is His messenger.
To say that the Catholic Church listens to self is to say that the Catholic Church by extension is God because God is who authors and teaches us faith and morals. God is not the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is not God.
The Catholic Church is the voice the Holy Spirit uses to speak to and guide His flock. The Stewarts of the King. Fishermen of the Captain. Commanders for the General's Army. Servants of His Court.
Don't mistake the role of the Apostolic Leadership.
« Mon Mar 21, 2011 - 20:48:22 »
Jesus makes it clear that the message comes from the leaders of his Church.
Quote Jesus where He says it comes from the RCC denomination and/or the "leaders" thereof....
And where He says that the RCC is infallible, unaccountable and exempt from the issue of truth and honesty.QuoteWe are not authorized to customize it to our personal preferences.
Why is the RCC?
.
In matters of universally binding doctrine and morals the Holy Spirit is the author of the Catholic Church's decree.
We can play this game for the next three years but I am not going to let you insist on promoting the lie that the Catholic Church makes up its own beliefs or listens and learns from itself.
That is blasphemy. The Catholic Church is not God. She is His messenger.
To say that the Catholic Church listens to self is to say that the Catholic Church by extension is God because God is who authors and teaches us faith and morals. God is not the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is not God.
The Catholic Church is the voice the Holy Spirit uses to speak to and guide His flock. The Stewarts of the King. Fishermen of the Captain. Commanders for the General's Army. Servants of His Court.
Don't mistake the role of the Apostolic Leadership.
Logged
Reply #600 by mclees8
« Mon Mar 21, 2011 - 21:25:36 »
You are asking that question with the implication that Catholic doctrine is the product of men. Catholic doctrine is just like Sacred Scripture it passses through the hands of God's chosen leadership but it is not their work. It is God's.
So your question is ultimately void when you accept the reality of the situation.
Official universally binding Catholic doctrine does not come from man. It is a piece of God's Word which Truth and the Infinity thereof.
What Catholics take from scripture is true doctrine. doctrines they invented are not any part of Gods word. You say men who call themselves church authority can create doctrine that is equal to Gods word
So i will ask you the same question. Do you put more faith in men than Gods word?
The Catholic Church wrote, compiled and preserved the New Testament. Of course we believe it is God's Word.
Our differences lie in interpretations of scripture.
You believe many modern interpretations of scripture which were never part of the early Church.
Let me get this straight: We know that when you say catholic you are making it synonymous with the RCC and there was no RCC when scripture was wrote at east what you see it as. So you are telling me that the papacy wrote scripture. There was no papacy that was a religious political authority system when scripture was wrote. No pope sitiing on a throne with a fancy hat with people who bowed at his feet
The question was not about differences in interpretation. It was about in what do you put more faith in Men or Gods word?
This is historical fact.
The writers of the New Testament were members of the Church. They were inspired by the Holy Spirit and they put the words in print. The Christian Church was united in the first century. The various gospels and epistles were scattered throughout the Christian world. They were read as part of the mass in the liturgy of the word. Over time, there were disputes about which writings could be considered inspired. Over the years and eventually through Church councils the current books that we call the New Testament were canonized by the Church.
Which Church? The Catholic Church.
"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).
"[A]ll the people wondered that there should be such a difference between the unbelievers and the elect, of whom this most admirable Polycarp was one, having in our own times been an apostolic and prophetic teacher, and bishop of the Catholic Church which is in Smyrna. For every word that went out of his mouth either has been or shall yet be accomplished." Martyrdom of Polycarp, 16:2 (A.D. 155).
“…to be in honour however with the Catholic Church for the ordering of ecclesiastical discipline...one to the Laodicenes, another to the Alexandrians, both forged in Paul's name to suit the heresy of Marcion, and several others, which cannot be received into the Catholic Church; for it is not fitting that gall be mixed with honey. The Epistle of Jude no doubt, and the couple bearing the name of John, are accepted by the Catholic Church...But of Arsinous, called also Valentinus, or of Militiades we receive nothing at all.
Logged
Reply #601 by mclees8
I can tell you why the RCC can custimize. Its because they gave themselves the authority to do so. Their authority did not Come from God nor the Holy Spirit. They are a den of thieves and robbers who became a pseudo authority. Why do we know that they are not God's messengers with a divine role. Because more than on Roman Catholic bishop tried to secure that power from Roman emperors. It was a political thing to intergrate the church and claim a seat that never belonged to them.
« Mon Mar 21, 2011 - 21:44:30 »
Jesus makes it clear that the message comes from the leaders of his Church.
Quote Jesus where He says it comes from the RCC denomination and/or the "leaders" thereof....
And where He says that the RCC is infallible, unaccountable and exempt from the issue of truth and honesty.QuoteWe are not authorized to customize it to our personal preferences.
Why is the RCC?
.
In matters of universally binding doctrine and morals the Holy Spirit is the author of the Catholic Church's decree.
We can play this game for the next three years but I am not going to let you insist on promoting the lie that the Catholic Church makes up its own beliefs or listens and learns from itself.
That is blasphemy. The Catholic Church is not God. She is His messenger.
To say that the Catholic Church listens to self is to say that the Catholic Church by extension is God because God is who authors and teaches us faith and morals. God is not the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is not God.
The Catholic Church is the voice the Holy Spirit uses to speak to and guide His flock. The Stewarts of the King. Fishermen of the Captain. Commanders for the General's Army. Servants of His Court.
Don't mistake the role of the Apostolic Leadership.
I can tell you why the RCC can custimize. Its because they gave themselves the authority to do so. Their authority did not Come from God nor the Holy Spirit. They are a den of thieves and robbers who became a pseudo authority. Why do we know that they are not God's messengers with a divine role. Because more than on Roman Catholic bishop tried to secure that power from Roman emperors. It was a political thing to intergrate the church and claim a seat that never belonged to them.
Logged
Reply #602 by LightHammer
The power of state has always felt threaten by the Catholic Church. It has been the same sense the beginning when Rome hunted down the early Catholics marytrying our leaders Apostoles and successor alike.
Sorry mclees but your entire belief system is based on a blending if timelines and consolidation of events.
That is why you're wrong.
« Mon Mar 21, 2011 - 21:59:49 »
The power of state has always had aspirations to gain power. That is why the Roman Emperor tried to kill the pope at the Sacking of Rome where 41 Swiss Guardsmen list their lives. The power of state has always felt threaten by the Catholic Church. It has been the same sense the beginning when Rome hunted down the early Catholics marytrying our leaders Apostoles and successor alike.
Sorry mclees but your entire belief system is based on a blending if timelines and consolidation of events.
That is why you're wrong.
Logged
Reply #603 by Josiah
Well, I think MOST of them probably had ACCESS to most of it, yes. They employed Sola Scriptura.
Did the RCC at Trent in the 16th Century officially declare what will be regarded as Scripture in that specific singular denomination? Yes.
Did the RCC decide what is and is not Scripture? Obviously, not.
No. God is.
By tradition, Matthew, John, Paul and Peter were the penmen of some books - 21 of the 66 (or 72 or 76 or 81 or however many are regarded as such).
You mean at most 21 of them? Probably with some type of writing device; I don't know. They didn't have computers and MS Word then. I think the only case where we have ANY indication is the first Scriptures - the Ten Commandments. God wrote those with His "finger" - but I'd rather not speculate about that.
No.
It did, however, at Trent in the 16th century make it's own UNIQUE embrace of such official. No other denomination on the planet agrees with it.
Of course not. How silly to suggest that the ancient Hebrews knew that the Ten Commandments were Scripture because they looked to the 16th Century RCC meeting at Trent. Or that Jesus was wrong to call Scripture "Scripture" (as He did over and over and over) since the RCC had not yet told Him what was and was not Scripture.
IF the "Catholic Church" had anything to do with it - and all the other 49,999 denominations are just docilicly submitting to the "can't-be-wrong" RCC, then why do NONE of them have the same canon as the RCC does?
.
« Mon Mar 21, 2011 - 22:42:27 »
Did Sacred Scripture physically pass through the Apostles?
Well, I think MOST of them probably had ACCESS to most of it, yes. They employed Sola Scriptura.
Quote
Did the Catholic Church physically canonize Sacred Scripture?
Did the RCC at Trent in the 16th Century officially declare what will be regarded as Scripture in that specific singular denomination? Yes.
Did the RCC decide what is and is not Scripture? Obviously, not.
Quote
Did the Apostles author Sacred Scripture?
No. God is.
By tradition, Matthew, John, Paul and Peter were the penmen of some books - 21 of the 66 (or 72 or 76 or 81 or however many are regarded as such).
Quote
But how did the Apostles physically write them?
You mean at most 21 of them? Probably with some type of writing device; I don't know. They didn't have computers and MS Word then. I think the only case where we have ANY indication is the first Scriptures - the Ten Commandments. God wrote those with His "finger" - but I'd rather not speculate about that.
Quote
Did the Catholic Church by its own reason, power and authority formulate the canon?
No.
It did, however, at Trent in the 16th century make it's own UNIQUE embrace of such official. No other denomination on the planet agrees with it.
Quote
So then yes God created the canon but delivered to us through the Catholic Church?
Of course not. How silly to suggest that the ancient Hebrews knew that the Ten Commandments were Scripture because they looked to the 16th Century RCC meeting at Trent. Or that Jesus was wrong to call Scripture "Scripture" (as He did over and over and over) since the RCC had not yet told Him what was and was not Scripture.
IF the "Catholic Church" had anything to do with it - and all the other 49,999 denominations are just docilicly submitting to the "can't-be-wrong" RCC, then why do NONE of them have the same canon as the RCC does?
.
Logged
Reply #604 by chestertonrules
« Tue Mar 22, 2011 - 07:13:26 »
You are asking that question with the implication that Catholic doctrine is the product of men. Catholic doctrine is just like Sacred Scripture it passses through the hands of God's chosen leadership but it is not their work. It is God's.
So your question is ultimately void when you accept the reality of the situation.
Official universally binding Catholic doctrine does not come from man. It is a piece of God's Word which Truth and the Infinity thereof.
What Catholics take from scripture is true doctrine. doctrines they invented are not any part of Gods word. You say men who call themselves church authority can create doctrine that is equal to Gods word
So i will ask you the same question. Do you put more faith in men than Gods word?
The Catholic Church wrote, compiled and preserved the New Testament. Of course we believe it is God's Word.
Our differences lie in interpretations of scripture.
You believe many modern interpretations of scripture which were never part of the early Church.
Let me get this straight: We know that when you say catholic you are making it synonymous with the RCC and there was no RCC when scripture was wrote at east what you see it as. So you are telling me that the papacy wrote scripture. There was no papacy that was a religious political authority system when scripture was wrote. No pope sitiing on a throne with a fancy hat with people who bowed at his feet
The question was not about differences in interpretation. It was about in what do you put more faith in Men or Gods word?
This is historical fact.
The writers of the New Testament were members of the Church. They were inspired by the Holy Spirit and they put the words in print. The Christian Church was united in the first century. The various gospels and epistles were scattered throughout the Christian world. They were read as part of the mass in the liturgy of the word. Over time, there were disputes about which writings could be considered inspired. Over the years and eventually through Church councils the current books that we call the New Testament were canonized by the Church.
Which Church? The Catholic Church.
"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).
"[A]ll the people wondered that there should be such a difference between the unbelievers and the elect, of whom this most admirable Polycarp was one, having in our own times been an apostolic and prophetic teacher, and bishop of the Catholic Church which is in Smyrna. For every word that went out of his mouth either has been or shall yet be accomplished." Martyrdom of Polycarp, 16:2 (A.D. 155).
“…to be in honour however with the Catholic Church for the ordering of ecclesiastical discipline...one to the Laodicenes, another to the Alexandrians, both forged in Paul's name to suit the heresy of Marcion, and several others, which cannot be received into the Catholic Church; for it is not fitting that gall be mixed with honey. The Epistle of Jude no doubt, and the couple bearing the name of John, are accepted by the Catholic Church...But of Arsinous, called also Valentinus, or of Militiades we receive nothing at all.
Logged
Reply #606 by Cobalt1959
What do you know about them Sport? Since you claim to be an expert in just about everything. If they weren't about doctrine then why exactly did they go around torturing and killing people for? Just a little bit of good, clean RCC fun?
« Tue Mar 22, 2011 - 07:36:03 »
The Inquisitions have nothing whatsoever to do with doctrine.
What do you know about the inquisitions?
What do you know about them Sport? Since you claim to be an expert in just about everything. If they weren't about doctrine then why exactly did they go around torturing and killing people for? Just a little bit of good, clean RCC fun?
Logged
Reply #607 by Cobalt1959
You can't prove a negative. What you are attempting to do is set up a false dichotomy. And it always amuses me when you do this. Because you, and your tag-team partner are always asking for proof, but neither one of you are able to answer direct questions and when anyone asks you for scripture to prove what you say, you either start whistling like you didn't hear the question, or you post some church literature, as if that carries any weight. Both of you are unprepared to sustantiate your claims with scripture alone, because there is no way you can.
« Tue Mar 22, 2011 - 07:41:29 »
I know that you are confused, but it doesn't have to stay that way.
The Catholic Church, as we read above, was unified in doctrine and was spread throughout much of the world.
Feel free to demonstrate that the Catholic Church written about above is not the Roman Catholic Church of today.
You can't prove a negative. What you are attempting to do is set up a false dichotomy. And it always amuses me when you do this. Because you, and your tag-team partner are always asking for proof, but neither one of you are able to answer direct questions and when anyone asks you for scripture to prove what you say, you either start whistling like you didn't hear the question, or you post some church literature, as if that carries any weight. Both of you are unprepared to sustantiate your claims with scripture alone, because there is no way you can.
Logged
Reply #608 by mclees8
« Tue Mar 22, 2011 - 08:03:42 »
You are asking that question with the implication that Catholic doctrine is the product of men. Catholic doctrine is just like Sacred Scripture it passses through the hands of God's chosen leadership but it is not their work. It is God's.
So your question is ultimately void when you accept the reality of the situation.
Official universally binding Catholic doctrine does not come from man. It is a piece of God's Word which Truth and the Infinity thereof.
What Catholics take from scripture is true doctrine. doctrines they invented are not any part of Gods word. You say men who call themselves church authority can create doctrine that is equal to Gods word
So i will ask you the same question. Do you put more faith in men than Gods word?
The Catholic Church wrote, compiled and preserved the New Testament. Of course we believe it is God's Word.
Our differences lie in interpretations of scripture.
You believe many modern interpretations of scripture which were never part of the early Church.
Let me get this straight: We know that when you say catholic you are making it synonymous with the RCC and there was no RCC when scripture was wrote at east what you see it as. So you are telling me that the papacy wrote scripture. There was no papacy that was a religious political authority system when scripture was wrote. No pope sitiing on a throne with a fancy hat with people who bowed at his feet
The question was not about differences in interpretation. It was about in what do you put more faith in Men or Gods word?
This is historical fact.
The writers of the New Testament were members of the Church. They were inspired by the Holy Spirit and they put the words in print. The Christian Church was united in the first century. The various gospels and epistles were scattered throughout the Christian world. They were read as part of the mass in the liturgy of the word. Over time, there were disputes about which writings could be considered inspired. Over the years and eventually through Church councils the current books that we call the New Testament were canonized by the Church.
Which Church? The Catholic Church.
"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).
"[A]ll the people wondered that there should be such a difference between the unbelievers and the elect, of whom this most admirable Polycarp was one, having in our own times been an apostolic and prophetic teacher, and bishop of the Catholic Church which is in Smyrna. For every word that went out of his mouth either has been or shall yet be accomplished." Martyrdom of Polycarp, 16:2 (A.D. 155).
“…to be in honour however with the Catholic Church for the ordering of ecclesiastical discipline...one to the Laodicenes, another to the Alexandrians, both forged in Paul's name to suit the heresy of Marcion, and several others, which cannot be received into the Catholic Church; for it is not fitting that gall be mixed with honey. The Epistle of Jude no doubt, and the couple bearing the name of John, are accepted by the Catholic Church...But of Arsinous, called also Valentinus, or of Militiades we receive nothing at all.
Logged
Reply #609 by mclees8
God bless
« Tue Mar 22, 2011 - 08:07:58 »
Thank you cobalt for you supportGod bless
Logged
Reply #610 by LightHammer
First, you should know that the Inquistion wasn't singular. There were mulitple commited in succession over a span of about 400 years. By 1730 the Inquisitions had all faded away.
The Spanish Inquisition was had ntohing to do with doctrine and if you had done any research you would know that the Spanish Inquisiton was not formulated by the Catolic Church. King Fredinand(excuse spelling doing this from memory and my blackberry) was a political powerhouse. He was very insidious and very ambitious. As such Fred sought to expand his kingdom's wealth. In Spain there was a race of Jews that were, as a community, pretty wealthy. In medieval Spain being Jewish was ineffect being black in Jim Crow or Japanese during the interment of WWII. As such the King pressured the Jewish community first by mandating conversions to Christianity or departure from the country. It was then that the Jewish community split. Some accepted Christianity in order to retain their businesses and homes while others who would renounce the faith of their ancestors left Spain and traveled to Portugal.
Although they Jew-Christian converts, Cathars, adopted Christianity, they faced a new problem. Rumors were steadily increasing among the populous that the Cathars were praticing theiir Jewish faith in secret and adhered to Christianity only in public with no genuine faith or allegiance at all. This is when the King ceased his opportunity. The King wrote to the Pope and requested the Church's intervention in Spain"s "quest to purify itself of heresy". The Pope, Innocent if I remember right, responded according and intervened. However in this particular inquisition was one where the state retained the authority and not the Church. As such the inquisitors and the inquisitor general were nominated by the crown and approved by the Pope.
The interrogation and cases(if you could really call such injustice a "case") we're conducted by the Church but actually carried out and physically done by the secular authorities. The best way I can describe it is how the Pharisees used the Roman government. To execute Jesus because it was forbidden for them to kill anyone by their own laws just like it is with Catholic law. Sadly the corrupt jerks of the time found around even that Catholic Truth by using the secular authorities.
Now onto to process. Before an iquisitor could arrest someone they had to have two valid witnesses to accuse them. It was completely psychotic. The witnesses were mostly neighbors who held grugdes againts Cathars who were usually wealthier than they were. And their accusations were ridicuolous. "I saw this guy praying, I think it was a Jewish prayer". Or "I saw this guy using candles." Stupid stuff like that. Once you were arrested it was pretty much down hill from there. Torture was performed by "experts" but orchestrated and guided predominantly by the Dominican order. The only absolution was confession and the implications of others. I don't know if you guys have ever seen or read "the Crucible" but when Abigail and her friends are caught doing witchcraft they started blaming other people and then those people were brought in and the same fear compelled them to throw out names two in a horrible domino affect of lies. As such the cycle of death and injustice thrived on itself for a while.
« Tue Mar 22, 2011 - 08:21:49 »
I didn't think you knew much at all about them. First, you should know that the Inquistion wasn't singular. There were mulitple commited in succession over a span of about 400 years. By 1730 the Inquisitions had all faded away.
The Spanish Inquisition was had ntohing to do with doctrine and if you had done any research you would know that the Spanish Inquisiton was not formulated by the Catolic Church. King Fredinand(excuse spelling doing this from memory and my blackberry) was a political powerhouse. He was very insidious and very ambitious. As such Fred sought to expand his kingdom's wealth. In Spain there was a race of Jews that were, as a community, pretty wealthy. In medieval Spain being Jewish was ineffect being black in Jim Crow or Japanese during the interment of WWII. As such the King pressured the Jewish community first by mandating conversions to Christianity or departure from the country. It was then that the Jewish community split. Some accepted Christianity in order to retain their businesses and homes while others who would renounce the faith of their ancestors left Spain and traveled to Portugal.
Although they Jew-Christian converts, Cathars, adopted Christianity, they faced a new problem. Rumors were steadily increasing among the populous that the Cathars were praticing theiir Jewish faith in secret and adhered to Christianity only in public with no genuine faith or allegiance at all. This is when the King ceased his opportunity. The King wrote to the Pope and requested the Church's intervention in Spain"s "quest to purify itself of heresy". The Pope, Innocent if I remember right, responded according and intervened. However in this particular inquisition was one where the state retained the authority and not the Church. As such the inquisitors and the inquisitor general were nominated by the crown and approved by the Pope.
The interrogation and cases(if you could really call such injustice a "case") we're conducted by the Church but actually carried out and physically done by the secular authorities. The best way I can describe it is how the Pharisees used the Roman government. To execute Jesus because it was forbidden for them to kill anyone by their own laws just like it is with Catholic law. Sadly the corrupt jerks of the time found around even that Catholic Truth by using the secular authorities.
Now onto to process. Before an iquisitor could arrest someone they had to have two valid witnesses to accuse them. It was completely psychotic. The witnesses were mostly neighbors who held grugdes againts Cathars who were usually wealthier than they were. And their accusations were ridicuolous. "I saw this guy praying, I think it was a Jewish prayer". Or "I saw this guy using candles." Stupid stuff like that. Once you were arrested it was pretty much down hill from there. Torture was performed by "experts" but orchestrated and guided predominantly by the Dominican order. The only absolution was confession and the implications of others. I don't know if you guys have ever seen or read "the Crucible" but when Abigail and her friends are caught doing witchcraft they started blaming other people and then those people were brought in and the same fear compelled them to throw out names two in a horrible domino affect of lies. As such the cycle of death and injustice thrived on itself for a while.
Logged
Reply #611 by LightHammer
The main problem of the Inquisition wasn't any outside force but the lack of supprot coming from the majority of true Catholics in the Church at that time. The Inquisitions were horrible. Auto de Faiths were held publicly in the same manner of the games of the Coliseum. People were roasted in firey agony and people saw it for what it was. Nothing of God or His Catholic Church.
However the Crown and the papacy were getting pretty well fed financially and in context of power from the conquest of the Cathars. They tried to reassure the people that cause of the Inquisition was to defend against heresy. The people weren't buying it and some of the most prominent Catholics were either killed or left the Church because of the dark cloud of corruption that hovered ove rit in that time. The leader of the Fransican Order left the Catholic and many fransicans were killed for the opposing the Inquisition. Martin Luther, was not the onlt Catholic outraged at the Inquisitions, and thus isn;t the only Catholic who thought that separation was the only means of survival. I myself personally would rather choose the path of the Fransicans and die trying to absolve God's establish Church of corruption as Christ died condmening the corruption of His ordained leadership in the Pharisees. However Luther and the others are just men. It can be expected for us to disagree.
Inregards to the support of the laity, it was said that sympathy for the Cathars were so dominant that the Inquisition faced assimilation. That was until a group of Cathars took justice into their own hands and murdered a priest of the inquisition. This forever turned people away from the Cathars. For the most part, the Cathars remained non-violent and submissive to the Iquisition begging only for peace if not for themselves then for their families they were leaving behind. With this it was hard oh man it was getting so hard for the Crown and the papacy and the corrupt leaders of the time to sell heresy as the slogan for slaughtering a people who didnt even fight back. But when these guys gave into their emotions the people had what they needed to properly fear the Cathars, blood. As such the Iquisition ignited like never before and as such many Cathars fled to Portugal. However it was in the time were Portugal took advantage of the same opportunities of Spain and aunched its own Inquisition to get rid of Cathars.
That is a brief overview and its not veyr thorough. It is important to note that death wasn't the only form of punishment. and I don't say that in defense of anything because I probably rather would've died from esfictiation from the smoke of me burning over ending a slave on board the Spanish glley ships. Horrible stuff. It is also important to ntoe that after the decrease in Cathars the Inquistion persecuted muslims as well.
The death count was horrific. There are great exaggerations out there but the Truth is that the Inquisitions, in fact just the Spanihs Inquistion alone, took out a few thousand people and left thosuands more lives desolate. At one Auto de Faith, just one, 2000 people were executed. It was the blackest time in my Church's history but it does not define my Church. the Catechism, Sacred Scripture and the teachings by which my Church was built on, the ones that these men completely contradict with their actions is what my Church is built on. So I can be upfront about the sins of men because just as you guys claim that those protestants who would to stuff like mormonism and other doctrines you don't apporve aren't true Christians, these guys were not True Catholic Christians and that is God-given Truth.
It is also a very crucial fact that I mention the Roman Inquistion. Unlike the Spanish Inquisition, the Roman Inquistion was orchestrated, carried out, started, construted with the papacy, well the corrupt leader who sat there physically. That guy was no more a true Bishop of Rome than Bucket Head is the gretaest guitarist. The authority rest solely with the Church and no secular authority.
Now I say again. What do you think you know about the Inquistions Cobalt? They had nothing to do with doctrine or heresy and eveyrthing absolutely everything to do with a quest for political power, dominance and wealth. Did you expect to run away when I heard you say the Inquisitions? I fell asleep two nights ago lwacthing another documentary about it and looking for more books to read about it. It is the blackest time my Church's history and ignorant protestant tend to use it to discredit the Church. I love the Church so why would I not know as much as I an about it? Especially when the enemy will use this to blind millions from the truth of the Catholic Church?
In any event the Inquisitions were no small matter that I can swep under a rug by comparing it to slavery, intermemt, the Holocaust or any of that. All three collectively are by far the most horrible atrcoities ever commited on this planet and I mean more than Judas betraying Christ and more than Herod ordering the death of ever child in Jesus generation. It was horrible. I stayed away from the Church for ten years because of it.
Then I studied and saw that it the Catholic Church wasn't built on hatred and greed and evil like this time presented. The system of Catholicism itself is flawless and True because it is given by God but men are the problem. Ignorance, bias, inequality, stupidity, psychopaths and evil is the problem. I decided to be like the fransicans and do my bets to never let stuff like this happen again through God's established Church. She will be what Martin Luther himself knew her to be when She was first created.
True Catholics will show the world what God made when first created the Catholic Church. The gate is open.
« Tue Mar 22, 2011 - 08:56:40 »
All the while this bloody sacrilege was going on the Crown of Spain was getting filthy rich, just as he planned. He confiscated lands, property, revenue and even bodies to fill his pockets. s aThe main problem of the Inquisition wasn't any outside force but the lack of supprot coming from the majority of true Catholics in the Church at that time. The Inquisitions were horrible. Auto de Faiths were held publicly in the same manner of the games of the Coliseum. People were roasted in firey agony and people saw it for what it was. Nothing of God or His Catholic Church.
However the Crown and the papacy were getting pretty well fed financially and in context of power from the conquest of the Cathars. They tried to reassure the people that cause of the Inquisition was to defend against heresy. The people weren't buying it and some of the most prominent Catholics were either killed or left the Church because of the dark cloud of corruption that hovered ove rit in that time. The leader of the Fransican Order left the Catholic and many fransicans were killed for the opposing the Inquisition. Martin Luther, was not the onlt Catholic outraged at the Inquisitions, and thus isn;t the only Catholic who thought that separation was the only means of survival. I myself personally would rather choose the path of the Fransicans and die trying to absolve God's establish Church of corruption as Christ died condmening the corruption of His ordained leadership in the Pharisees. However Luther and the others are just men. It can be expected for us to disagree.
Inregards to the support of the laity, it was said that sympathy for the Cathars were so dominant that the Inquisition faced assimilation. That was until a group of Cathars took justice into their own hands and murdered a priest of the inquisition. This forever turned people away from the Cathars. For the most part, the Cathars remained non-violent and submissive to the Iquisition begging only for peace if not for themselves then for their families they were leaving behind. With this it was hard oh man it was getting so hard for the Crown and the papacy and the corrupt leaders of the time to sell heresy as the slogan for slaughtering a people who didnt even fight back. But when these guys gave into their emotions the people had what they needed to properly fear the Cathars, blood. As such the Iquisition ignited like never before and as such many Cathars fled to Portugal. However it was in the time were Portugal took advantage of the same opportunities of Spain and aunched its own Inquisition to get rid of Cathars.
That is a brief overview and its not veyr thorough. It is important to note that death wasn't the only form of punishment. and I don't say that in defense of anything because I probably rather would've died from esfictiation from the smoke of me burning over ending a slave on board the Spanish glley ships. Horrible stuff. It is also important to ntoe that after the decrease in Cathars the Inquistion persecuted muslims as well.
The death count was horrific. There are great exaggerations out there but the Truth is that the Inquisitions, in fact just the Spanihs Inquistion alone, took out a few thousand people and left thosuands more lives desolate. At one Auto de Faith, just one, 2000 people were executed. It was the blackest time in my Church's history but it does not define my Church. the Catechism, Sacred Scripture and the teachings by which my Church was built on, the ones that these men completely contradict with their actions is what my Church is built on. So I can be upfront about the sins of men because just as you guys claim that those protestants who would to stuff like mormonism and other doctrines you don't apporve aren't true Christians, these guys were not True Catholic Christians and that is God-given Truth.
It is also a very crucial fact that I mention the Roman Inquistion. Unlike the Spanish Inquisition, the Roman Inquistion was orchestrated, carried out, started, construted with the papacy, well the corrupt leader who sat there physically. That guy was no more a true Bishop of Rome than Bucket Head is the gretaest guitarist. The authority rest solely with the Church and no secular authority.
Now I say again. What do you think you know about the Inquistions Cobalt? They had nothing to do with doctrine or heresy and eveyrthing absolutely everything to do with a quest for political power, dominance and wealth. Did you expect to run away when I heard you say the Inquisitions? I fell asleep two nights ago lwacthing another documentary about it and looking for more books to read about it. It is the blackest time my Church's history and ignorant protestant tend to use it to discredit the Church. I love the Church so why would I not know as much as I an about it? Especially when the enemy will use this to blind millions from the truth of the Catholic Church?
In any event the Inquisitions were no small matter that I can swep under a rug by comparing it to slavery, intermemt, the Holocaust or any of that. All three collectively are by far the most horrible atrcoities ever commited on this planet and I mean more than Judas betraying Christ and more than Herod ordering the death of ever child in Jesus generation. It was horrible. I stayed away from the Church for ten years because of it.
Then I studied and saw that it the Catholic Church wasn't built on hatred and greed and evil like this time presented. The system of Catholicism itself is flawless and True because it is given by God but men are the problem. Ignorance, bias, inequality, stupidity, psychopaths and evil is the problem. I decided to be like the fransicans and do my bets to never let stuff like this happen again through God's established Church. She will be what Martin Luther himself knew her to be when She was first created.
Quote
Is it not true that there is nothing under the vast heavens more corrupt, more pestilential, more hateful, than the Court of Rome? She incomparably surpasses the impiety of the Turks, so that in very truth she, who was formerly the gate of heaven, is now a sort of open mouth of hell, and such a mouth as, under the urgent wrath of God, cannot be blocked up; one course alone being left to us wretched men: to call back and save some few, if we can, from that Roman gulf.
True Catholics will show the world what God made when first created the Catholic Church. The gate is open.
« Last Edit: Tue Mar 22, 2011 - 09:38:47 by LightHammer »
Logged
Reply #612 by chestertonrules
ie. You can't prove a falsehood.
Do you claim that the Catholic Church mentioned in the quotes above is different from the Catholic Church today? If so, that is a positive claim, not a negative claim. Feel free to support your claim.
« Tue Mar 22, 2011 - 09:13:22 »
I know that you are confused, but it doesn't have to stay that way.
The Catholic Church, as we read above, was unified in doctrine and was spread throughout much of the world.
Feel free to demonstrate that the Catholic Church written about above is not the Roman Catholic Church of today.
You can't prove a negative.
ie. You can't prove a falsehood.
Do you claim that the Catholic Church mentioned in the quotes above is different from the Catholic Church today? If so, that is a positive claim, not a negative claim. Feel free to support your claim.
Logged
Reply #613 by mclees8
do we take Gods word in faith. We have a bible. It is heralded as the word of God. When the church was born on the day of Pentecost there is no biblical mention that he church was given a name. Why does the the biblical record that we except by faith to be Gods word not give a name for the church he established. The names we have came from men Not God and Not Lord Jesus. The church is the church. A body of believers, disciples, followers, This also covers the apostles.
Yes I claim the church that was given the name catholic after 110 AD is not and was not anything like the the RCC today.
They only used Gods word in part. Just enough to make them look lagitamate
There was no papacy
No popes with religious robes parading their authority.
there was no Vatican city where popes sat on thrones
There was no added traditions and doctrines aside from what the apostles have given us in scripture.
there is probably a lot more
Now if you want to dispute this claim you will have to support it with evidence.
But Gods word is excepted only by faith. You either trust it or you don't.
« Tue Mar 22, 2011 - 09:53:27 »
I know that you are confused, but it doesn't have to stay that way.
The Catholic Church, as we read above, was unified in doctrine and was spread throughout much of the world.
Feel free to demonstrate that the Catholic Church written about above is not the Roman Catholic Church of today.
You can't prove a negative.
ie. You can't prove a falsehood.
Do you claim that the Catholic Church mentioned in the quotes above is different from the Catholic Church today? If so, that is a positive claim, not a negative claim. Feel free to support your claim.
do we take Gods word in faith. We have a bible. It is heralded as the word of God. When the church was born on the day of Pentecost there is no biblical mention that he church was given a name. Why does the the biblical record that we except by faith to be Gods word not give a name for the church he established. The names we have came from men Not God and Not Lord Jesus. The church is the church. A body of believers, disciples, followers, This also covers the apostles.
Yes I claim the church that was given the name catholic after 110 AD is not and was not anything like the the RCC today.
They only used Gods word in part. Just enough to make them look lagitamate
There was no papacy
No popes with religious robes parading their authority.
there was no Vatican city where popes sat on thrones
There was no added traditions and doctrines aside from what the apostles have given us in scripture.
there is probably a lot more
Now if you want to dispute this claim you will have to support it with evidence.
But Gods word is excepted only by faith. You either trust it or you don't.
Logged
Reply #614 by chestertonrules
I have dedicated an entire thread to this discussion. Feel free to attempt to support your position there.
This should be interesting!
« Tue Mar 22, 2011 - 09:59:59 »
I know that you are confused, but it doesn't have to stay that way.
The Catholic Church, as we read above, was unified in doctrine and was spread throughout much of the world.
Feel free to demonstrate that the Catholic Church written about above is not the Roman Catholic Church of today.
You can't prove a negative.
ie. You can't prove a falsehood.
Do you claim that the Catholic Church mentioned in the quotes above is different from the Catholic Church today? If so, that is a positive claim, not a negative claim. Feel free to support your claim.
do we take Gods word in faith. We have a bible. It is heralded as the word of God. When the church was born on the day of Pentecost there is no biblical mention that he church was given a name. Why does the the biblical record that we except by faith to be Gods word not give a name for the church he established. The names we have came from men Not God and Not Lord Jesus. The church is the church. A body of believers, disciples, followers, This also covers the apostles.
Yes I claim the church that was given the name catholic after 110 AD is not and was not anything like the the RCC today.
They only used Gods word in part. Just enough to make them look lagitamate
There was no papacy
No popes with religious robes parading their authority.
there was no Vatican city where popes sat on thrones
There was no added traditions and doctrines aside from what the apostles have given us in scripture.
there is probably a lot more
Now if you want to dispute this claim you will have to support it with evidence.
But Gods word is excepted only by faith. You either trust it or you don't.
I have dedicated an entire thread to this discussion. Feel free to attempt to support your position there.
This should be interesting!
Logged
Reply #615 by Josiah
1. Feel free to demonstrate that there are not 6.3 billion brown furry creatures living on the Moon of Endor..... Friend, you KNOW you are being silly and evasive - you know that. No one can prove a negative, nor need they. If you are going to insist (and found your entire apologetic upon) Jesus founding the specific, singular, particular RC denomination - then the burden of proof is ENIRELY and solely yours - and you know that. Come on....
2. But what I don't understand is that your whole premise is that it's wrong to listen to self, and then you go on and on and on and on - page after page of posts - insisting that the RCC is listening to itself. You keep shooting yourself in the foot - while shouting "ahha" to others.
.
« Tue Mar 22, 2011 - 10:02:39 »
Feel free to demonstrate that the Catholic Church written about above is not the Roman Catholic Church of today.
1. Feel free to demonstrate that there are not 6.3 billion brown furry creatures living on the Moon of Endor..... Friend, you KNOW you are being silly and evasive - you know that. No one can prove a negative, nor need they. If you are going to insist (and found your entire apologetic upon) Jesus founding the specific, singular, particular RC denomination - then the burden of proof is ENIRELY and solely yours - and you know that. Come on....
2. But what I don't understand is that your whole premise is that it's wrong to listen to self, and then you go on and on and on and on - page after page of posts - insisting that the RCC is listening to itself. You keep shooting yourself in the foot - while shouting "ahha" to others.
.
Logged
Reply #616 by LightHammer
That was so isnightful. Come on mclees give the man the information he asked for and try not be so out of touch. Sacred Scripture as we know it didn't even exist as canon for four hundred afters the Church was already doing its thing. So in fact Sacred Scripture exist in only a part of the Church's history. Why would God build His Church on something that came later?
The Early Church didn't learn from the Holy Spirit via Sacred Scripture. They learned form the Holy Sirit via His apostolic leadership and some, like the Bereans used the Torah to make sure their message didn't contradict.
Or do you deny this historic and Scriptural Truth too?
« Tue Mar 22, 2011 - 10:03:38 »
I know that you are confused, but it doesn't have to stay that way.
The Catholic Church, as we read above, was unified in doctrine and was spread throughout much of the world.
Feel free to demonstrate that the Catholic Church written about above is not the Roman Catholic Church of today.
You can't prove a negative.
ie. You can't prove a falsehood.
Do you claim that the Catholic Church mentioned in the quotes above is different from the Catholic Church today? If so, that is a positive claim, not a negative claim. Feel free to support your claim.
do we take Gods word in faith. We have a bible. It is heralded as the word of God. When the church was born on the day of Pentecost there is no biblical mention that he church was given a name. Why does the the biblical record that we except by faith to be Gods word not give a name for the church he established. The names we have came from men Not God and Not Lord Jesus. The church is the church. A body of believers, disciples, followers, This also covers the apostles.
Yes I claim the church that was given the name catholic after 110 AD is not and was not anything like the the RCC today.
They only used Gods word in part. Just enough to make them look lagitamate
There was no papacy
No popes with religious robes parading their authority.
there was no Vatican city where popes sat on thrones
There was no added traditions and doctrines aside from what the apostles have given us in scripture.
there is probably a lot more
Now if you want to dispute this claim you will have to support it with evidence.
But Gods word is excepted only by faith. You either trust it or you don't.
That was so isnightful. Come on mclees give the man the information he asked for and try not be so out of touch. Sacred Scripture as we know it didn't even exist as canon for four hundred afters the Church was already doing its thing. So in fact Sacred Scripture exist in only a part of the Church's history. Why would God build His Church on something that came later?
The Early Church didn't learn from the Holy Spirit via Sacred Scripture. They learned form the Holy Sirit via His apostolic leadership and some, like the Bereans used the Torah to make sure their message didn't contradict.
Or do you deny this historic and Scriptural Truth too?
Logged
Reply #617 by Lively Stone
Amen.
« Tue Mar 22, 2011 - 10:31:09 »
No I'm not confused at. You seem to talk in generalities. You say nothing here that demonstrate the church was always Roman catholic. catholic means one universal faith in Christ. The churches of that time were established in various cities but they were not subject to the church at Rome nor to any so called pope. This idea is a fabrication. we have already seen what you call evidences which is no evidence at all. These churches were for the most part autonomous. They all had their different problems such as demonstrated by the letters to the seven churches. You will have to be more precise as showing the church was always Roman Catholic. But there is no concrete evidence for that. But one thing we no for certain. there was not RC papacy that ruled religiously or politically. there was no Vatican city where popes sat on thrones during any time before 500 AD or at least before Constantine that we no as the head of Christianity. the RCC
Amen.
Logged