Cross Reference
New member
And He also may have been the one who revealed Himself to Mose' per Exo.33:22. All of which was the Word BEFORE Jesus was born of man to become the "Word made flesh"..
ECT CATHOLICS ARE THE ORIGINAL CHRISTIANS: A Documented Fact of Ecclesiastical History
- Thread starter Cruciform
- Start date
And He also may have been the one who revealed Himself to Mose' per Exo.33:22. All of which was the Word BEFORE Jesus was born of man to become the "Word made flesh"..
WonderfulLordJesus
New member
Exactly so, a deceptive argument, I believe really silly argument, you hear now and again, as if playing with words the cult at Rome makes. There was, of course, no formation of the Roman so-called catholic church until the 4th century. Prior to this, even recorded in the Bible, were numerous autonomous churches, for instance, throughout Asia Minor, all of equal legitimacy, no church at Rome even considered worth a mention by the Lord, of the seven churches in Revelation. It's all a huge fraud.
Jesus said, "And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was."
(John 17:5 NKJV)
Then the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old and have You seen Abraham?”
Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.” (John 8:58 NKJV)
(John 17:5 NKJV)
Then the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old and have You seen Abraham?”
Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.” (John 8:58 NKJV)
Cross Reference
New member
Yep! Absolutely! Fits doesn't it?
Cruciform
New member
The Church was undivided until Martin Luther and company separated from it in the 16th century.
And when did this take place, exactly, and who authoritatively decided it? Post your proof, please.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
Cruciform
New member
Feel free, then, to actually disprove the content of the OP. Otherwise, you've only made a claim that really proves nothing at all. Sorry.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
Cruciform
New member
Please indicate exactly where the OP says anything whatsoever about the "Roman" Catholic Church.
Cruciform
New member
The entirely non-authoritative assumptions and opinions that you've been fed by your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect are noted. :yawn:
Me thinks Ignatius wrote of the "Universal" Church, not the Roman Catholic Church.
Cruciform
New member
Please indicate exactly where the OP says anything whatsoever about the "Roman" Catholic Church.
Then I take it you agree that Ignatius was speaking of the "Universal" Church?
Cruciform
New member
Ignatius was speaking about "the Catholic Church," of which the Roman (Latin) Rite eventually became its most prominent liturgical rite, as it is to this day.
No statement of proof thus there is nothing to argue against. It is an opinion and he, and you, are entitled to your opinion. Opinions are not proof.
brewmama
New member
It was all the same.
brewmama
New member
That's absurd. Yes, there were churches all through Asia Minor, but when you say "autonomous", that only means they were under various Bishops. They were still all the same universal church. There were several Patriachates, and one of them was Rome.
You think that because 7 churches were mentioned in Revelation, there were only 7 churches??
Ridiculous.
Hi and anyone looking for the Greek word CHRISTIANOS / CHRISTIAN will never find this word in the Gospels and you are wrong AGAIN !!:chuckle::chuckle:
They are called JEWS in the Gospels , what do you KNOW !!
DAN P
WonderfulLordJesus
New member
Before you start throwing around words like "ridiculous," at least do so over something actually said. Did anybody ever say there were only seven churches in the world? Entirely non-sequitur. Don't try to put words in my mouth. Also, try grasping the point for a change, which I realize is challenging, given Roman Catholicism's inability to grasp so much clear scripture and obey, but the point is Rome is not mentioned, as in was never a preeminent church body to the Lord Jesus or anybody else, right through the close of the Bible. And a Bible that condemns adding anything to the word of God or taking away from the word of God.
Roman Catholicism never had any authority from God, rather appointed itself, and at the time Constantine decided to try and hijack Christianity, corrupting scripture and adding its own corrupt doctrines and laws, fabrications, to create a bloody, murderous, political monster. (Who's the father of murder, and lies, by the way? Whose nature is this?) The Catechism is filled with fabrications of man, lies.
Funny how, one way or another, Rome just went on killing Christians. What a coincidence. Seems Satan's chain was unbroken, thanks to all things Rome. By the way, your new boy, Francis, is spouting doctrines of demons half the time he opens his mouth, is trying to eviscerate the faith of Jesus Christ and the apostles, trying to create a bastard ecumenical religion from hell that can save nobody. The Lord rebuke him, and shame on him!
Please put words in somebody else's mouth. All the repetitious Roman Catholic arguments that get down to "because we say so" have become a bore, all these non-sequitur attacks you always use, to change the focus and deflect answers you don't have, and hundreds of years after the Reformation. Bible believers existed then, and you viciously tortured and murdered them, burned their scripture, the very word of God, but we still exist now, in huge numbers. At this point, at this very late date, you may try getting over it.
Tell you what's truly ridiculous, and it is that you're all still at war with Martin Luther, oblivious that a large body of Christianity moved on a very long time ago, and for good. You're irrelevant. You may be surprised, but my church never talks about you, out of sight and out of mind. I know I have no need to hear you repeat the same, worn diatribe Luther rejected, ten thousand more times. Get a life, that is in the gospel of the Holy Bible.
Last edited:
Cruciform
New member
The OP consists of [1] the divinely-inspired apostolic testimony of the New Testament, along with [2] the factual Patristic testimony of ecclesiastical history. Far more, then, than mere "opinion," unlike your bumbling attempt at relativistic reductionism above.
Again, if you disagree with the OP, simply go ahead and disprove its content. If you can't, then the OP stands exactly as posted.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
The OP contains a very pretty piece of digital art containing the opinions of a man. As such, there is nothing to be debated. Your OP stands as nothing more than an opinion of a man who lived some 110 years after the deviples. If they weren't called Christian one wonders what they were called.
Bradley D
Well-known member
There were two Churches prior to Luther. The Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox. As for the doctrine breaking away from scripture. When Rome started venerating Saints, claiming that Mary the Mother of Jesus also was born of a virgin birth, indulgences. When all that is not of scripture came about. Your the Catholic you give me the dates.