the church

[Nihilo]

Historical fantasy.... created by your "church".

No, but historical revision/fantasy is what you're banking on, to support your own views of the one historic Christian faith.

That is some silly twisted story right there. Paul's ministry was NOT to "help Peter". That is a fairy tale that your "church" has developed to deceive those that will not take God's Word seriously.,

I also have views.

TODAY there is ONE church and Paul calls it the body of Christ. It is NOT the same church that had TWELVE tribes.

"The Body of Christ" is exactly what the Catholic Church calls herself, as from the beginning.

Not even sure what you mean by that.

It means that I consider you my sibling in Christ.

 

[Right Divider]

No, but historical revision/fantasy is what you're banking on, to support your own views of the one historic Christian faith.

Absolutely NOT. I rely on the BIBLE. It's not hard to understand the Bible, unless you've believed the RCC lies about what it says.

I also have views.

Everyone has "their views". That does not make them all correct.

"The Body of Christ" is exactly what the Catholic Church calls herself, as from the beginning.

Of course the RCC does that. They are always trying to claim that everything is about them.

It means that I consider you my sibling in Christ.

That's nice. I hope that we are both believers.

Again, Paul was NOT under the leadership of the TWELVE apostles for the TWELVE tribes of Israel. He was DIRECTLY under the leadership of the RISEN and ASCENDED LORD JESUS CHRIST. The idea that he was is something that the RCC lies to you about.

 

[TulipBee]

The body of Christ did not give us the bible.
Used by God
Point #5 - When it comes to spiritual deception the most dangerous lies are the ones that contain a certain amount of truth mixed in. And that is the case here. The “certain amount of truth mixed in” is that the Catholic Church was used, to some extent, in preserving and copying the Bible. But the Catholic Church did not “give us the Bible.” GOD did. It is HIS Word given to His people… the Old Testament given through the Jewish prophets, and the New Testament given through the Apostles and their close associates. The universal church of the New Testament just recognized the inspired Scriptures… it did not create or establish them. It was simply used by God in identifying the canon.
But apparently, some Catholics believe that if God uses someone, then we must submit to them.” But this does not logically or necessarily follow because God can use anybody or anything, good or bad, to accomplish His will. But this only proves that God is sovereign. God has used a whale (Jonah 1:17), a rooster (Matthew 26:74-75), and even a donkey (Numbers 22:22-34) to do His will, but that doesn’t mean that we are to submit to whales, roosters or donkeys, does it?
God can also use evil men to prophesy (John 11:49-52), but are we expected to yield to them? Obviously not. God can even use the devil to accomplish His will (Job 1:6-12; 42:10), but does this mean that we should be obedient to Satan? Again, the point is, just because God has USED a person or group in some way to bring about His will, that doesn’t necessarily mean that we must now submit to them. We should only submit to a person or church whose teachings are biblical.

 

[HisServant]

No, but historical revision/fantasy is what you're banking on, to support your own views of the one historic Christian faith.
I also have views.
"The Body of Christ" is exactly what the Catholic Church calls herself, as from the beginning.
It means that I consider you my sibling in Christ.

The problem is Romes claim to be the exclusive title holder to 'The Body of Christ"... it may be part of the body of Christ (only God knows).. but it sure doesn't hold the title to it.

Your churches audacious claims that are not backed up by scripture or history are a huge turn off to a lot of people... not to mention all its crimes throughout history.. and the crimes it continues to conduct (money laundering through the Vatican bank, continued racketeering with its shielding of child abusers, protecting of priests who committed genocide in Africa).

There really is a lot of clean up and atoning your church needs to do before the world before anyone can take it seriously again.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

The problem is Romes claim to be the exclusive title holder to 'The Body of Christ"......

Is there some reason that people like you cannot post facts? Is there some reason that people like you always make up lies to post?

Rome has never claimed to be the exclusive title holder to 'The Body of Christ". That's just a lie, plain and simple.

 

[HisServant]

Is there some reason that people like you cannot post facts? Is there some reason that people like you always make up lies to post?

Rome has never claimed to be the exclusive title holder to 'The Body of Christ". That's just a lie, plain and simple.

There is no salvation outside of the church is still RCC official dogma.

Non RCC'ers cannot obtain any grace since they do not participate in your pagan sacraments.

 

[TulipBee]

There is no salvation outside of the church is still RCC official dogma.

Non RCC'ers cannot obtain any grace since they do not participate in your pagan sacraments.

rcc is outside the church. they left.
Historical fact: Not all churches in the early centuries had all the Scriptures, & communication traveled slow being delivered in letters by foot. Yet in this time the bishop of Rome gave no doctrinal instruction addressed to the entire church. We also went to the year 325 without an ecumenical council to guide the church. This first council was not called by the bishop of Rome, nor did he even attend, but was called by a Roman Emperor. In this council the delegates did not even seek the permission, advice, or approval of the Roman bishop.

Seems strange doesn't it? That the church did just fine for 325 years without doctrinal instruction from the bishop of Rome & without the guidance of an ecumenical council.

By the way, I still haven't had a Roman Catholic give me an example of the bishop of Rome giving doctrinal instruction addressed to the entire church on the first 1200 years.

 

[HisServant]

rcc is outside the church. they left.
Historical fact: Not all churches in the early centuries had all the Scriptures, & communication traveled slow being delivered in letters by foot. Yet in this time the bishop of Rome gave no doctrinal instruction addressed to the entire church. We also went to the year 325 without an ecumenical council to guide the church. This first council was not called by the bishop of Rome, nor did he even attend, but was called by a Roman Emperor. In this council the delegates did not even seek the permission, advice, or approval of the Roman bishop.

Seems strange doesn't it? That the church did just fine for 325 years without doctrinal instruction from the bishop of Rome & without the guidance of an ecumenical council.

By the way, I still haven't had a Roman Catholic give me an example of the bishop of Rome giving doctrinal instruction addressed to the entire church on the first 1200 years.

Agreed, the RCC is the end product of the Roman Empire desiring a single religion to unite all its citizens... after all, much of their society was ruled by religion, people paid a religious tax to support all the pagan temples and priests... mithraism was THE religion of the military, with its sacriments and all.

"The Way" had to be modified to fit Roman sensibilities so it would appeal to its citizens... but also had to be modified to be compatible with empire building and wars.. hence we have the just war theory come out of no where and violence replaced pacifism... after all, how to you maintain an empire when no one will fight?

 

[TulipBee]

If the Bible is a Catholic book....

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

 

[Catholic Crusader]

If the Bible is a Catholic book....

1. Why does it condemn clerical dress?.........

Stop right there - you're whole list is a monument to stupidity, ignorance, and perversion of the scriptures. Matt 23:5-6 does not condemn clerical dress. Jesus was talking about the teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat who do not practice what they preach.

You perversion of the scriptures is disgusting. Your whole list is a list of lies. You call yourself a Christian? Anyone who lies like you do is no Christian.

 

[TulipBee]

Stop right there - you're whole list is a monument to stupidity, ignorance, and perversion of the scriptures. Matt 23:5-6 does not condemn clerical dress. Jesus was talking about the teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat who do not practice what they preach.

You perversion of the scriptures is disgusting. Your whole list is a list of lies. You call yourself a Christian? Anyone who lies like you do is no Christian.

bible don't lie

 

[God's Truth]

Stop right there - you're whole list is a monument to stupidity, ignorance, and perversion of the scriptures. Matt 23:5-6 does not condemn clerical dress. Jesus was talking about the teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat who do not practice what they preach.

You perversion of the scriptures is disgusting. Your whole list is a list of lies. You call yourself a Christian? Anyone who lies like you do is no Christian.

Jesus did not merely put down the dressing because they were teachers of the law, he put down the dressing because it was elaborate dressing. The Catholics' popes dress elaborately, and that is a fruit of disobedience.


Luke 20:46 "Beware of the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets.

 

[chrysostom]

the church teaches -
the church protects the truth -
the church determines what the truth is

 

[TulipBee]

the church teaches -
the church protects the truth -
the church determines what the truth is

Truths don't need to be remodeled by men. Instead of gold plating it, give it away to the poor

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

the church teaches -
the church protects the truth -
the church determines what the truth is

:chuckle:

 

[Right Divider]

the church teaches -
the church protects the truth -
the church determines what the truth is

One out of three.... not good.

 

[God's Truth]

the church teaches -
the church protects the truth -
the church determines what the truth is

The church does not teach anyone how to be saved.

It is so without God it is uncanny.

 

[garyd509]

In my opinion, Jesus was talking about Peter's confession. Jesus is the rock, the chief cornerstone, upon which all is built. Peter's confession it the theological and confessional rock upon which the church was built. The earliest church had elders to guide the various assemblies of Christians and to watch over and correct theology. Some might argue that Paul was an "overseer" over the church but only those he had started or was intimately acquainted with. The church does need guidance and oversight but the history of the papacy is not a positive one for theology. No other group seems to have any better approach.

 

[patrick jane]

In my opinion, Jesus was talking about Peter's confession. Jesus is the rock, the chief cornerstone, upon which all is built. Peter's confession it the theological and confessional rock upon which the church was built. The earliest church had elders to guide the various assemblies of Christians and to watch over and correct theology. Some might argue that Paul was an "overseer" over the church but only those he had started or was intimately acquainted with. The church does need guidance and oversight but the history of the papacy is not a positive one for theology. No other group seems to have any better approach.

Welcome to TOL gary509, you made your first post -

 

[TulipBee]

In my opinion, Jesus was talking about Peter's confession. Jesus is the rock, the chief cornerstone, upon which all is built. Peter's confession it the theological and confessional rock upon which the church was built. The earliest church had elders to guide the various assemblies of Christians and to watch over and correct theology. Some might argue that Paul was an "overseer" over the church but only those he had started or was intimately acquainted with. The church does need guidance and oversight but the history of the papacy is not a positive one for theology. No other group seems to have any better approach.

It was not until Thomas Aquinas (using forgeries) that the doctrine of the pope, the papacy, became part of dogmatic theology. Since 1274 every doctrinal treatise has a section on the pope & his primacy. Even Cyprian in his work, The Unity of the Church, knows nothing of the papacy. Rome claims the church stands or falls based on the it's unity to the pope, yet Cyprian doesn't even mention a pope in a work about the unity of the church.