ECT "I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH"---not "churchES"

[HisServant]

Actually, it is... we are also told to not add things to the book.. and your church constantly has added them time and time again.

And if you do go beyond scripture, history shows us also that there was no mother church and the bishop of Rome was not the first among brothers until sometime in the 3rd century... and then deference to the bishop of Rome was only a formality borne out of politeness. It wasn't until the great schism, when the bishop of Rome decided to throw his weight around and usurp his brothers that the current office of Pope as we know it came into existence.

You hitched your wagon to the wrong horse, my friend.

 

[Cruciform]

Actually, it is... we are also told to not add things to the book...

...which has nothing whatsoever to do with sola scriptura. Try again.

...and your church constantly has added them time and time again.

Now go ahead and list an example in which the Catholic Church has composed more Scriptures and added them to the canon of the Bible.

And if you do go beyond scripture, history shows us also that there was no mother church and the bishop of Rome was not the first among brothers until sometime in the 3rd century...

In fact, the record of history shows that Peter and Paul themselves founded the Church in Rome in the 1st century. So much for your claim here.

It wasn't until the great schism, when the bishop of Rome decided to throw his weight around and usurp his brothers that the current office of Pope as we know it came into existence.

Categorically refuted here.

You hitched your wagon to the wrong horse, my friend.

Your claim that the one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself is "the wrong horse" is noted. But I'll go with the apostolic testimony of the early Christian Church over your hopelessly uninformed and entirely non-authoritative opinion every time.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[HisServant]

...which has nothing whatsoever to do with sola scriptura. Try again.


Now go ahead and list an example in which the Catholic Church has composed more Scriptures and added them to the canon of the Bible.


In fact, the record of history shows that Peter and Paul themselves founded the Church in Rome in the 1st century. So much for your claim here.


Categorically refuted here.


Your claim that the one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself is "the wrong horse" is noted. But I'll go with the apostolic testimony of the early Christian Church over your hopelessly uninformed and entirely non-authoritative opinion every time.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

It is a historical FACT that Peter never entered into Rome, nor Ministered there, unless you say scripture is false, because we know where he was on his journey and a trip to Rome was physically impossible unless he had a transporter.

History also shows that there was no central church in Rome for many centuries... that is a FACT.

Your claim that the RCC is the church that Jesus founded is one of the biggest piles of horse dung that I have ever heard in my entire life... it's just not historically and factually possible. It's nothing more than a fabrication of the Roman Empire... any idiot can see that.. yet so many Roman Catholics are so self deluded that it is disturbing.

I also find it quite funny that the argument you are posing is the exact same argument that the roman pagans uses to kill, rape and maim Christians for centuries..... which eventually your church did to heretics. History does repeat itself and the RCC is proof of that.

 

[Cruciform]

It is a historical FACT that Peter never entered into Rome, nor Ministered there...

Try again. And again.

History also shows that there was no central church in Rome for many centuries... that is a FACT.

Already answered.

Your claim that the RCC is the church that Jesus founded is one of the biggest piles of horse dung that I have ever heard in my entire life... it's just not historically and factually possible. It's nothing more than a fabrication of the Roman Empire... any idiot can see that.. yet so many Roman Catholics are so self deluded that it is disturbing.

The anti-Catholic assumptions and opinions (i.e., traditions of men) that you have derived from your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect are noted. :yawn:

I also find it quite funny that the argument you are posing is the exact same argument that the roman pagans uses to kill, rape and maim Christians for centuries..... which eventually your church did to heretics. History does repeat itself and the RCC is proof of that.

Answered just above.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Cruciform]

Back to your OP. Where is your proof of your assertion?

• First, the proof is summarized very briefly in the source cited in the OP itself.
• Second, if you disagree, then go ahead and name a valid alternative non-Catholic denomination or sect which fulfills the characteristics noted in the OP's cited source. Don't forget to actually demonstrate your claim from the testimony of early ecclesiastical history.

The same verses you use to support your theology, I use to support mine.

The question is which recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect's preferred interpretations line up with the beliefs and teachings of the early Christian Church. Go ahead, then, and post your proof.

Since your devalue the scripture that Jesus lived, and taught, you lose.

Right back at you.

In your organization, the pope and tradition take precedence over scripture.

If by authoritatively interpreting Scripture the Pope and bishops are "taking precedence over Scripture" as he claims, then---by the same logic---it follows that by interpreting Scripture apart from the teachings of the Church, oats himself (i.e., the doctrinal traditions of his chosen man-made non-Catholic sect) is thereby "taking precedence over Scripture." Sorry, but I'll take the authoritative teachings of Christ's one historic Church over the mere opinions of oats' chosen recently-invented, man-made sect every time.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[HisServant]

Try again. And again.


Already answered.


The anti-Catholic assumptions and opinions (i.e., traditions of men) that you have derived from your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect are noted. :yawn:


Answered just above.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Those first two links are actually laughable from a historical and factual point of view.. their arguments are supported by their injections and assumption imposed on the authors.

Think carefully.... the first link proves that god is a liar.

If you take the authors injections into the early church fathers writing (denoted by the brackets) you end up with a different reading altogether...once again, you make them out to be liars.

Very, very poor and pitiful.

 

[Cruciform]

Those first two links are actually laughable from a historical and factual point of view.. their arguments are supported by their injections and assumption imposed on the authors.

According to you, anyway. Now go ahead and post your supposed proof for such bare claims.

...the first link proves that god is a liar.

Post your proof.

If you take the authors injections into the early church fathers writing (denoted by the brackets) you end up with a different reading altogether...once again, you make them out to be liars. Very, very poor and pitiful.

See answers above.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[HisServant]

According to you, anyway. Now go ahead and post your supposed proof for such bare claims.


Post your proof.


See answers above.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

If Rome = Babylon, then God lied!

Are you a muslim? They believe that Falsehoods are permissible if they promote Islam

 

[Cruciform]

If Rome = Babylon, then God lied!

Sorry, but merely repeating your initial claim doesn't qualify as "proof." Try again. :nono:

 

[Cruciform]

Still waiting for oats' choice for a valid alternative as requested in Post #186 above... :yawn:

 

[whitestone]

Clement I think gives the better advice on the matter (chapter 42,43 ect.)http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm

 

[HisServant]

Sorry, but merely repeating your initial claim doesn't qualify as "proof." Try again. :nono:

Than what was God afraid of that he had to use code words?

Seriously, this entire argument here shows how much cognitive dissonance you are under.

 

[Cruciform]

Than what was God afraid of that he had to use code words?

The question itself merely reveals your lack of understanding.

The letter [1 Peter] was written from "Babylon" (1 Pet. 5:13). This is not a literal reference to the city of that name in lower Mesopotamia, but a figurative reference to Rome, the imperial capital of the Mediterranean world. Mark's presence with Peter at the time of writing (1 Pet. 5:13) coheres nicely with this interpretation, for Paul seems to indicate that Mark was in Rome at the time of his first imprisonment in the early 60s (Col. 4:10). Additional support comes from Christian writers who identify Peter, along with Paul, as a co-founder of the Roman Church (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3,3) and as one who spent the latter years of his life there (St. Jerome, On Illustrious Men 1). Archaeological evidence has likewise given reason to believe that Peter spent his final days in the capital, for it has convincingly established that the apostle was and remains buried on Vatican Hill. Finally, there are parallel uses of "Babylon" as a pseudonym for Rome in Jewish texts written in early Christian times (4 Ezra 3,1; 2 Baruch 11,1; Sibylline Oracles 5, 143).*​

Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+


__________
*S. Hahn & C. Mitch, Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: New Testament (Ignatius Press, 2010), p. 448.

 

[republicanchick]

Back to your OP.

Where is your proof of your assertion?

The same verses you use to support your theology, I use to support mine.

Since your devalue the scripture that Jesus lived, and taught, you lose.

In your organization, the pope and tradition take precedence over scripture.

John 17:17

not to brag but I have a high IQ

and have been Catholic off/on all my life, really devout in the last several yrs

Why is it that I, a member of the Church, can find no contradictions between what is taught by the Church and the Word... but you can?


please explain



___

 

[OCTOBER23]

Republichick said,

not to brag but I have a high IQ

and have been Catholic off/on all my life, really devout in the last several yrs

Why is it that I, a member of the Church, can find no contradictions between what is taught by the Church and the Word... but you can?
=-----------------------------=----------------------------=

Because you are NOT as Biblically Knowledgeable as we are.

Neither YOU nor Cruciform want to critically analyze the obvious Sinful Practices of

the Catholic church such as Putting Mary as Mediatrix in place of JESUS and saying

that she was Immaculately Raised and also calling others Father smith, Father jones etc.

which Jesus says not to do and many more obvious Pagan Practices like bowing down to idols.

 

[republicanchick]

Republichick said,

not to brag but I have a high IQ

and have been Catholic off/on all my life, really devout in the last several yrs

Why is it that I, a member of the Church, can find no contradictions between what is taught by the Church and the Word... but you can?
=-----------------------------=----------------------------=

Because you are NOT as Biblically Knowledgeable as we are.

how stupid. You have no idea how well I know the Bible.. but that being said, I dare say I know it better than most people here. I have actually READ it... Plus i have had it read to me every day for years and years... in the Church.

Presumption is so disgusting

Neither YOU nor Cruciform want to critically analyze the obvious Sinful Practices of

the Catholic church such as Putting Mary as Mediatrix in place of JESUS and saying

that she was Immaculately Raised and also calling others Father smith, Father jones etc.

which Jesus says not to do and many more obvious Pagan Practices like bowing down to idols.

if it were sinful, maybe we would.

you protestants are so illogical and inconsistent.. You believe you can just "accept Christ" and commit any manner of terrible sin (adultery, abortion... ) and still get into Heaven.. But talking to Mary is a Hell worthy sin...

moron city



++

 

[jamie]

Why is it that I, a member of the Church, can find no contradictions between what is taught by the Church and the Word... but you can?

Good point. I've been looking for the verse where Jesus changed Sabbath observance to Sunday observance. Maybe you can help me.

 

[Cruciform]

Good point. I've been looking for the verse where Jesus changed Sabbath observance to Sunday observance. Maybe you can help me.

Here you go.

 

[republicanchick]

You are delusional.

what a great, informative answer...

he's delusional?

well, at least he knows how to find the Church Christ established.. You haven't figured that one out yet.

 

[republicanchick]

Good point. I've been looking for the verse where Jesus changed Sabbath observance to Sunday observance. Maybe you can help me.

I've been looking for that verse where Jesus says that everything about Him and HIs Church can be found in the Bible... which was not written yet, of course... which all Christians did not have access to for 1440 or more years after His Ascension...

yeh, where is all THAT in the Bible?



___