Are you one of the 12 in Matthew-Mark? No? So much, then, for your (mis)application of the biblical text.
See how that works, clown, Roman shill?
ECT CATHOLIC VS PROTESTANT BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION
- Thread starter Cruciform
- Start date
Are you one of the 12 in Matthew-Mark? No? So much, then, for your (mis)application of the biblical text.
See how that works, clown, Roman shill?
Cruciform
New member
Rather, your assumption about exactly how God normally goes about communicating his will to lay believers falls flat.
Straw Man Fallacy. Rather, we should trust the authoritative teachings of Christ's one historic Church (that is, the teachings of Jesus Christ himself ~ Lk. 10:16; 1 Tim. 3:15) to better understand Divine Revelation (Scripture/Tradition) than the fallible opinions of mere laymen, including ourselves.
genuineoriginal
New member
Those that trust in the religious leaders often ask "by what authority".
Matthew 21:23 23 And when he was come into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came unto him as he was teaching, and said, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority? |
The problem is that the people asking never want to hear the true answer.
It engages to the extent that your religious group has no biblical authority to legislate or to deviate from what is written.
Who do you think you're fooling?
Cruciform
New member
Who here ever claimed otherwise?
There are no laity in the NT church of God. All are a holy priesthood.
Does your religious group observe God's seventh day Sabbath? If not, why not?
Why do you continue to refer to your religious group as Christ's church?
Don't you realize Christ's ekklesia began with the Passover in Egypt?
"Rather, we should trust the authoritative teachings of Christ's one historic Church (that is, the teachings of Jesus Christ himself ~ Lk. 10:16; 1 Tim. 3:15) to better understand Divine Revelation (Scripture/Tradition) than the fallible opinions of mere laymen, including ourselves."-Roman shill
Observe, the deception. He asserts that this mystical "one historic Church" is infallible, as opposed to "the fallible opinions of mere laymen, including ourselves"-us country bumpkins(Acts 4:13 KJV). No scripture says that the church is made up of this ecclesiastic hierarchy of clown, in clown suits, that are infallible. The church, which is his body, is comprised of yes, fallible, respective members of the body of Christ, which includes me. And the shill, in deceit, cites 1 Tim. 3:15 KJV-the passage only states that respective members of the boc, us, fallible people supports(hence, "pillar") the already established objective truth of the scripture. However, no scripture argues that the church is the source of objective truth-NADA. This stooge just regurgitates what this RCO propaganda machine spams all over the globe
Observe, the deception. He asserts that this mystical "one historic Church" is infallible, as opposed to "the fallible opinions of mere laymen, including ourselves"-us country bumpkins(Acts 4:13 KJV). No scripture says that the church is made up of this ecclesiastic hierarchy of clown, in clown suits, that are infallible. The church, which is his body, is comprised of yes, fallible, respective members of the body of Christ, which includes me. And the shill, in deceit, cites 1 Tim. 3:15 KJV-the passage only states that respective members of the boc, us, fallible people supports(hence, "pillar") the already established objective truth of the scripture. However, no scripture argues that the church is the source of objective truth-NADA. This stooge just regurgitates what this RCO propaganda machine spams all over the globe
Cruciform
New member
Your latter statement in no way necessitates your former statement. Yes, all believers are in some sense "priests," though not in a way which nullifies Christ's clerical priesthood.
Incidentally, the moment that Jesus Christ chose and appointed the apostles to guide and teach his Church in his own name and by his very authority, the magisterial hierarchy was established. And it continues in his Church to this day.
Cruciform
New member
Of course not, and HERE is why.
Cruciform
New member
In a sense, yes, however Jesus Christ specifically declared that he would build his Church during and subsequent to his earthly ministry (Mt. 16:18-19). He began this task by choosing and appointing the apostles to guide and teach the faithful in his own name and by his very authority (Mt. 28:18-20). It is noteworthy that by the end of the 1st century A.D., Christ's one historic Church was already being commonly referred to as "the Catholic Church."
Just made up-no scripture says what he spams-NADA.
Can you show us where Jesus said we should not pray but listen to men instead?
Why should we trust them? They sell indulgences, a concept not to be found in scripture. They venerate Mary as coredemptrix, again, a completely unscriptural things. They preach purgatory which, oddly enough is not in scripture. Whatever authority they once had they have long since squandered on the alter human foolishness.
Cruciform
New member
Your question is based on a False Dilemma Fallacy ("EITHER prayer OR Church teaching"). In fact, it's BOTH. Jesus and the apostles instruct us to pray for wisdom, AND to seek his truth in the teachings of his Church.
We should trust the Magisterium as a whole because Christ has endowed it with his own authority to infallibly guide and teach his Church according to the leading of the Holy Spirit.
Individual bishops "sold" indulgences in the Middle Ages, an abuse that was corrected at that time---by the one historic Catholic Church herself.
The fact that some Catholic doctrines happen to contradict the mere human opinions of your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect says much about your sect, and nothing whatsoever about Catholic doctrine itself. As for the Marian doctrines, I challenge you to make a careful and thorough study of THIS.
Again, only according to the opinions of your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect which---as you yourself have admitted on this forum---is decidedly NOT Jesus' one historic Church, and so whose opinions carry no binding doctrinal authority whatsoever.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
genuineoriginal
New member
The Catholic worship of Mary is a blasphemous heresy perpetuated by the Magisterium.
Must have forgotten to record that part in scripture.
As a whole, the guided you into the Crusades and the Inquisition and false teachings regarding purgatory and Mary and indulgences. As a whole, they have wholly failed.
And yet the idea of an indulgence persists to this day. Why? Christ never taught it. The Apostles never taught it.
Questions or Comments?
Hi and lets debate YOU vs ME , how about ??
Don't ne SHY , now !!
So explain Acts 15 , PLEASE !!
Did you say , START on Acts 15:5 ??
DAN P
Last edited:
Cruciform
New member
Hardly. For example, see Mt. 16:18-19/Is. 22:22; Mt. 28:18-20; Lk. 10:16; Ac. 15:2; 16:4; Rom. 11:2; 18:17; 2 Thess. 2:15; 3:4; 1 Tim. 3:15; 1 Jn. 3:15. And these are just a few texts that come to mind as I type this; a good many more could be cited.
Again, "CM doesn't like (prefer) it!" does not mean it isn't divinely-revealed truth.
Yes, the Medieval abuse of indulgences is not the same thing as the Christian doctrine of indulgences itself. See THIS and THIS for details.
Christ's one historic Church (endowed by Christ with binding doctrinal authority)---and therefore Christ himself (Lk. 10:16; 1 Tim. 3;15)---both taught and teaches it.
And yet that is the very dynamic from which you operate. It's simply inescapable.
...as (mis)understood according to the opinions of your favored recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect.
...as (mis)understood according to the opinions of your favored recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+