The RCC born in 313 AD? (2)

[BobRyan]

hmm - a welcomed change of heart ... the idea of the Bible needed to prove or disprove a doctrine.


The RCC evolved over time as error after error was incorporated.

No pugatory in the NT.

no "Mary mother of God" in the NT

no prayers to the dead in the NT.

No "confecting the body and divinity of Christ" in the NT.

No indulgences in the NT.

No exterminating heretics in the NT.

No Pope Peter in the NT - as we see in Acts 15 - James is the leader.

No infant baptism in the NT

No order of priests in the NT

And without all of that - do you really have the RCC in the NT?

No.

hint - even Catholic sources themselves admit that the RCC doctrines "evolved over time" see "A Concise history of the Catholic Church" and "Catholic Digest" as they research the history of infant baptism and priests.

==========================


And of course the never-answered-question for this thread ...."And without all of that before 100 AD - do you really have the RCC in the NT until 313?"

Nope

It has been answered!

Please do not offer a mere rhetorical "friendship" in what is written in one's posts.
The Catholic Church does claim the attributes (not titles) of the Church that Jesus Christ founded. She is one. holy, catholic, and apostolic. Consequently she is not founded in 313 AD. 33 AD is nearer the mark.

Islam, Catholicism, Mormons and many other denominations "make a lot of claims" - but the idea was to provide some objective basis for evaluating the 33AD vs 313AD discussion.

Care to answer the question?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

And why would Rome be the Mother Church? This seems very odd.

Some protesting Catholics may have applied Rev 17 to the RCC as a result.

 

[Restoresmysoul]

Has the RCC gouged out their own eyes only to hurt themselves? Have they blinded themselves by refusing to let their eyes see? How many so called "heretics" have they gouged out? Its just something to consider.

1 Co 12:8 for to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, to another the word of knowledge through the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healings by the same Spirit, 10 to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another different kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. 11 But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He wills.

Unity and Diversity in One Body
12 For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ. 13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into[c] one Spirit. 14 For in fact the body is not one member but many.

15 If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I am not of the body,” is it therefore not of the body? 16 And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I am not of the body,” is it therefore not of the body? 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would be the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where would be the smelling? 18 But now God has set the members, each one of them, in the body just as He pleased. 19 And if they were all one member, where would the body be?

20 But now indeed there are many members, yet one body. 21 And the eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you”; nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” 22 No, much rather, those members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary. 23 And those members of the body which we think to be less honorable, on these we bestow greater honor; and our unpresentable parts have greater modesty, 24 but our presentable parts have no need. But God composed the body, having given greater honor to that part which lacks it, 25 that there should be no schism in the body, but that the members should have the same care for one another. 26 And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; or if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it.

27 Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually. 28 And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, varieties of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Are all workers of miracles? 30 Do all have gifts of healings? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? 31 But earnestly desire the best[d] gifts. And yet I show you a more excellent way.

 

[Restoresmysoul]

Some protesting Catholics may have applied Rev 17 to the RCC as a result.

Yes, and not just RCC alone, but many worldly Churches today, perhaps.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

And of course the never-answered-question for this thread ...."And without all of that before 100 AD - do you really have the RCC in the NT until 313?"

Originally Posted by Restoresmysoul

Nope
​

Originally Posted by LittleLambofJesus

Nope what?

Good one bro!






.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Im amazed that RCC having so much wealth, so many followers, so many decades in which to study doctrine, that they missed Paul's teaching on observing holy days. But then again, they do seem to suppress any open discussion of doctrine, and they have a reputation for mistreating what they call heretics. This seems to be an example of quenching the Spirit maybe. I cannot understand why anyone would read scripture and not see the very fallible doctrine known as Catholicism.

Maybe they are too involved in RC letters that were written after the apostles died and this is why they seem to be blind to sound doctrine, and blind to the vast fallacy of Catholicism.

Can you give some examples of those letters? Weren't some of those later considered forgeries? Thanks

http://www.bereanpublishers.com/forged-documents-and-papal-power/

What we now call popes were originally bishops of Rome (one bishop among brother bishops from other cities). Then they became popes, with power over the entire Church. Then they became so powerful that they were able to depose kings and emperors. They became so powerful that they were able to force kings to use their secular might to enforce the Inquisition, which was conducted by Catholic priests and monks. In 1870, the Pope was declared to be infallible.
The process of increasing papal power was influenced by forged documents which changed people’s perception of the history of the papacy and of the Church.






.

 

[MoreCoffee]

And why would Rome be the Mother Church? This seems very odd.

Rome is not the mother church. Jerusalem would be the mother church in the sense of being the first and being the source from which all the others came either directly or indirectly. But the Catholic Church includes the church in Jerusalem. The Catholic Church is the one that is called holy and apostolic. There is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church. There are many churches in the sense of particular diocese.

 

[Restoresmysoul]

Can you give some examples of those letters? Weren't some of those later considered forgeries? Thanks

Forged Documents and Papal Power | Berean Publishers

What we now call popes were originally bishops of Rome (one bishop among brother bishops from other cities). Then they became popes, with power over the entire Church. Then they became so powerful that they were able to depose kings and emperors. They became so powerful that they were able to force kings to use their secular might to enforce the Inquisition, which was conducted by Catholic priests and monks. In 1870, the Pope was declared to be infallible.
The process of increasing papal power was influenced by forged documents which changed people’s perception of the history of the papacy and of the Church.






.

I honestly don't know. I don't read RC letters, but i have had many glimpses of their laws/beliefs/practices and i must assume that their letters are riddled with those very things. As far as forgeries go, i watch the crime drama known as "Law and Order", i saw an episode once that showed how easily a letter can be forged. They take old blank sheets of paper from old books and use special ink and other techniques to forge letters. Good forgeries are often written by men who study the writings of authors from the past and they learn how to mimic their style. I'm sure Law and Order is fictional, yet it has much truth in it as well, i think.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Im amazed that RCC having so much wealth, so many followers, so many decades in which to study doctrine, that they missed Paul's teaching on observing holy days. But then again, they do seem to suppress any open discussion of doctrine, and they have a reputation for mistreating what they call heretics. This seems to be an example of quenching the Spirit maybe. I cannot understand why anyone would read scripture and not see the very fallible doctrine known as Catholicism. Maybe they are too involved in RC letters that were written after the apostles died and this is why they seem to be blind to sound doctrine, and blind to the vast fallacy of Catholicism.

The Catholic Church listens to saint Paul when he writes, "Do not absent yourself from your own assemblies, as some do, but encourage each other; the more so as you see the Day drawing near. If, after we have been given knowledge of the truth, we should deliberately commit any sins, then there is no longer any sacrifice for them. There is left only the dreadful prospect of judgement and of the fiery wrath that is to devour your enemies." (Hebrews 10:25-27 NJB)

It is not so much that a day is holy as that absenting one's self from the assembly is a serious matter because it shows how one sees the assembly gathered for worship and the act of congregational worship itself. By absenting one's self without a good reason (such as sickness either of one's self or one's loved one(s)) or some other serious matter that prevents one from being present, one shows what one's priorities are; specifically, something takes precedent over God and the gathering to worship God.

It seems to me that this is all besides the point of the thread.

The Catholic Church is apostolic because it was founded by Jesus Christ through the work of the twelve apostles of Jesus Christ and as such her beginning as a distinctly Christian church started on the day of Pentecost in the year in which Jesus rose from the dead.

 

[Restoresmysoul]

The Catholic Church listens to saint Paul when he writes that "Do not absent yourself from your own assemblies, as some do, but encourage each other; the more so as you see the Day drawing near. If, after we have been given knowledge of the truth, we should deliberately commit any sins, then there is no longer any sacrifice for them. There is left only the dreadful prospect of judgement and of the fiery wrath that is to devour your enemies." (Hebrews 10:25-27 NJB)

It is not so much that a day is holy as that absenting one's self from the assembly is a serious matter because it shows how one sees the assembly gathered for worship and the act of congregational worship itself. By absenting one's self without a good reason (such as sickness either of one's self or one's loved one(s)) or some other serious matter that prevents one from being present, one shows what one's priorities are; specifically, something takes precedent over God and the gathering to worship God.

It seems to me that this is all besides the point of the thread.

The Catholic Church is apostolic because it was founded by Jesus Christ through the work of the twelve apostles of Jesus Christ and as such her beginning as a distinctly Christian church started on the day of Pentecost in the year in which Jesus rose from the dead.

You failed to grasp the point i was trying to make concerning Paul's instructions on observing holy days.

 

[MoreCoffee]

You failed to grasp the point i was trying to make concerning Paul's instructions on observing holy days.

It isn't a failure to grasp it is more a case of refusing to swallow the interpretation (spin) you put on it.

 

[Restoresmysoul]

The Catholic Church is the one that is called holy and apostolic.

My friend, That's only a fallible opinion. The RCC cannot possible claim that title for themselves alone, not after they have proved otherwise by their actions and by their fallible doctrine. Some may argue that they cannot claim that title at all.

 

[MoreCoffee]

My friend, That's only a fallible opinion.

Please do not offer a mere rhetorical "friendship" in what is written in one's posts.

The RCC cannot possible claim that title for themselves alone, not after they having proved otherwise by their actions and by their fallible doctrine. Some may argue that they cannot claim that title at all.

The Catholic Church does claim the attributes (not titles) of the Church that Jesus Christ founded. She is one. holy, catholic, and apostolic. Consequently she is not founded in 313 AD. 33 AD is nearer the mark.

 

[Restoresmysoul]

It isn't a failure to grasp it is more a case of refusing to swallow the interpretation (spin) you put on it.

What spin would that be?

 

[Restoresmysoul]

Please do not offer a mere rhetorical "friendship" in what is written in one's posts.
The Catholic Church does claim the attributes (not titles) of the Church that Jesus Christ founded. She is one. holy, catholic, and apostolic. Consequently she is not founded in 313 AD. 33 AD is nearer the mark.

I would call you Sir but i'm unsure of your gender.

 

[MoreCoffee]

What spin would that be?

Read your own posts and it will be obvious, unless you intend to retract the outrageous and inaccurate claims made in your posts. And don't ask me to repeat them, to do so would be to repeat a calumny against Christ's church.

 

[Restoresmysoul]

Read your own posts and it will be obvious, unless you intend to retract the outrageous and inaccurate claims made in your posts. And don't ask me to repeat them, to do so would be to repeat a calumny against Christ's church.

I must conclude that the assertion you made lacks credibility, otherwise you would demonstrate patience and try to discuss this logically.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I must conclude that the assertion you made lacks credibility, otherwise you would demonstrate patience and try to discuss this logically.

I am happy to drop the discussion of you recent posts, their inaccurate interpretations, and the calumnies against the catholic church contained within them. I do, however, reserve the right to contradict any and every inaccurate interpretation and calumny raised against the catholic church and her teaching which is the teaching of Christ.

 

[Restoresmysoul]

I am happy to drop the discussion of you recent posts, their inaccurate interpretations, and the calumnies against the catholic church contained within them. I do, however, reserve the right to contradict any and every inaccurate interpretation and calumny raised against the catholic church and her teaching which is the teaching of Christ.

Please prove that they are inaccurate interpretations, otherwise my observations stand firm on the solid ground of truth. Paul urged us to prove all things.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Please prove that they are inaccurate interpretations, otherwise my observations stand firm on the solid ground of truth. Paul urged us to prove all things.

I have already provided evidence in a number of posts. Proof however, in matters of history, is no easy task and those who choose to stick with their story will reject any evidence that is presented with a complaint of some sort against it. But here is the summary

• Paul wrote a letter (written around 55 AD to 56 AD) to the church(es) in Rome.
• Saint Peter preached to people who came from Rome on the day of Pentecost.
• Acts 18 tells some of the story of the expulsion of the Jews from Rome and points out that Priscilla and Aquila were among those expelled (they were Christians but the Roman authorities may not have realised that there was any difference between Jews and Christians in the 40s or early 50s AD when the expulsion took place) thus providing evidence that a christian church or churches of some kind existed in Rome in that period.
• When saint Paul went to Rome in the late 50s AD or early 60s AD there was already a church there.
• Irenaeus gives a list of popes in Rome (pope means father, it is only an honorary/spiritual title) his list starts with saint Peter.
• Other early Christian writers also include lists of the popes in Rome always starting with saint Peter.
• The doctrines taught in Rome by the popes are distinctly Catholic; specifically, the real presence, baptismal efficacy and grace (some protestants call his baptismal regeneration), the episcopal office, apostolic succession, the importance of apostolic tradition, the liturgy of the mass (or divine liturgy), and a host of other doctrines that many Protestants reject.

Thus a Catholic church existed in Rome from the earliest times for which we have written records (including the writings of the new testament) and it was distinctly catholic. In fact all the ancient churches that maintained the teaching that they received from the apostles were catholic in the first ten centuries of the christian era.