Immaculate Conception

[PeaceByJesus]

1 Tim 3:15
if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

It is amazing what RCs seem to extrapolate out of "church living God pillar/support and ground [hedraiōma: said to be unseen in the Hellenistic Jewish literature, or in the LXX or in secular Greek, or it is said to have meant in the latter fixed, steadfast, or immovable] the truth."

That the church of (though no word for "of appears in the Greek, nor in "of the truth") the living God supports and is fixed on the Truth is substantiated in Scripture, the Lord Himself taking time to go thru Scripture and show the basis for His Messiaship and ministry, and opening the understanding of the disciples (more than just apostles being present) to them, (Lk. 24:44,45) and with Biblical prophets being foundational. (Eph. 2:20).

But the often word for "foundation" is not used here, yet Caths seem to invoke this texts as if it said that the church was the pillar and basis of the Truth, for RCs seem to imagine that the church was like a kind of "big bang" and did actually begin upon and flow from the foundation of Scripture, to which the NT abundantly quotes, references and appeals to.

Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,) (Romans 1:1-2) But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: (Romans 16:26)

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Consider this quote from Ignatius, who knew the apostle John, written in about 107 AD:

“You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles.

Which once again is an argument against you, as it testifies to aspects of the progressive deviation from Scripture. For this makes a distinction btwn bishop, while in Scripture we see no such distinction, but both manifestly refer to the same person, the presbuteros (senior/elder) or episkopos (superintendent/overseer), the former referring to the status of the man and the latter to his function.

For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders [presbuteros] in every city, as I had appointed thee: (Titus 1:5)
For a bishop [episkopos] must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; (Titus 1:7)

And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders [presbuteros] of the church. (Acts 20:17)
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers [episkopos] , to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. (Acts 20:28)

Apostles were the only higher class than presbuteros.

Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one whom he appoints.

Nowhere in the life of the NT church are NT pastors even shown dispensing food as part of their ordained function, and who are charged with preaching the word, which i the only things said to spiritually "nourish" souls (1Tim. 4:6) and which builds them up. (Acts 20:32)

Nor is it permitted without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate the agape;

Yet in Scripture deacon (the apostles were said to be Jerusalem) Phillip baptized, being directly sent by the Holy Spirit. (Acts 8)

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Right. Scripture is inspired and is profitable for doctrine, etc--i.e. oral teaching of the Word. And in 2 Peter 1:21, Holy men of God "spake"--oral tradition-- as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

Which is yet another argument against you as we only know this because it was written, and "spake" (as in such places as Heb. 7:14) refers to what we see written, here being the "prophecy of the scripture," and belonging to that body is the assurance that it was of God, not because leadership gave it authority.

In contrast to this is using the fact that prophets spoke the word of God to justify whatever Rome says is the word of God.

That is inspiration of the oral Word of God.

But Rome does not speak (or claim to) under the inspiration of the Spirit as with the writers of Scripture.

Likewise the Bible says that the Catholic Church is Christ's Body "the fullness of the one who fills all things in every way".

WRONG! The Scriptures do NOT SAY THAT, but refers to the body of Christ which consists of all believers (even a relative few RCs).

And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all. (Ephesians 1:22-23)

You are assuming that the universal corporate body of Christ, which assuredly alone consists 100% of born again believers, is (even uniquely?) one and the same as the unholy admixture called Catholicism, which cannot be.

And Paul tells the Corinthians that they themselves are his letter, written by the Holy Spirit. Thus the Church is inspired by the Holy Spirit, and is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth.

NO, 2Co. 3:3 means they were birthed by the Spirit (cf. 1Co. 12:13) thru the apostles, spiritually writing the word on "fleshy tables of the heart," which simply does not translate into everything the church says being inspired of God. If so, then consistent with your logic, everything the Corinthian church expressed would be of God, which would be ludicrous conclusion.

Writing under the inspiration of Scripture is a special work, which one cannot claim simply because they are filled with the Spirit. Even Paul once only expressed that it was His opinion that He was speaking/writing according to the Spirit. (1Co. 7:40)

The Holy Spirit testifies to the Catholic Church, and that Mary, His Spouse and our Mother, is His Immaculate Sanctuary.

Which is simply error based on error, as NOWHERE does the Spirit say or teach that Mary was sinless, even though as noted, He characteristically mentions extraordinary aspects of even lesser characters throughout Scripture.

 

[Extraneous]

I think you proved to be in error when you rejected the importance of the Lord's supper.

27So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.

If thats true, then you are surely straining gnats and swallowing camels

 

[Extraneous]

I was researching opinions on the symbolic meaning of the flesh and blood. I found an interesting scripture. In this scripture David refers to drinking the blood of 3 of his soldiers. He is actually using a metaphor, he is saying that he cannot drink the water which these men risked their lives to get it for him. In this example it seems that drinking blood refers to benefiting from the death of other people, or at least benefiting from the risk they took. I know this will not end any debate, but it seemed interesting and i thought it might be good to share.

1 Chronicles 11:19 “God forbid that I should do this!” he said. “Should I drink the blood of these men who went at the risk of their lives?” Because they risked their lives to bring it back, David would not drink it.

Such were the exploits of the three mighty warriors.

 

[Extraneous]

Interesting also, this is where David takes Jerusalem after being anointed King, if im not mistaken. It reminds me of Christ riding in Jerusalem on His donkey too. I love it.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

I was researching opinions on the symbolic meaning of the flesh and blood. I found an interesting scripture. In this scripture David refers to drinking the blood of 3 of his soldiers. He is actually using a metaphor, he is saying that he cannot drink the water which these men risked their lives to get it for him. In this example it seems that drinking blood refers to benefiting from the death of other people, or at least benefiting from the risk they took. I know this will not end any debate, but it seemed interesting and i thought it might be good to share.

1 Chronicles 11:19 “God forbid that I should do this!” he said. “Should I drink the blood of these men who went at the risk of their lives?” Because they risked their lives to bring it back, David would not drink it.

Such were the exploits of the three mighty warriors.

If you look to where you likely found it then you will see that it only one of a multitude. And as said, David poured it out on the ground as an offering to the Lord, as it is forbidden to drink blood. Thus to be consistent with their plain-language hermeneutic Caths insist on forJn. 6, they should also insist this was literal.

And of course the apostles understood such language, and as they, esp. Peter, were prone to object to what they found hard to accept, such as no divorce save for fornication, or having feet washed to eating non-kosher food, they certainly would not passively accept physically consuming the body and blood of Christ (note that they were not given the Neoplatonic theology of the "real" but not bloody" flesh and blood, being real though it appears otherwise, yet not being real when it starts to lose the appearance which is contrary to being real.).

Which certainly would be a unique miracle, since the Lord restricted Himself from being in two places at once, versus being in the apostle's stomachs while sitting before them, until digestions starts to take place.

Yes, that is also the kind of stuff RCs extrapolate as needed. Of course, the visible churches in general are admixtures of both "wheat" and "tares," and the fire shall "devour" the latter, while to do the Father's will is the Lord's "meat," for indeed "man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God" (Mt. 4:4, quoting Scripture), and thus As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me, (John 6:57) means that this is how we live, as Christ did, which was not by physcally consuming the Father's body and blood.

 

[Extraneous]

If you look to where you likely found it then you will see that it only one of a multitude. And as said, David poured it out on the ground as an offering to the Lord, as it is forbidden to drink blood. Thus to be consistent with their plain-language hermeneutic Caths insist on forJn. 6, they should also insist this was literal.

And of course the apostles understood such language, and as they, esp. Peter, were prone to object to what they found hard to accept, such as no divorce save for fornication, or having feet washed to eating non-kosher food, they certainly would not passively accept physically consuming the body and blood of Christ (note that they were not given the Neoplatonic theology of the "real" but not bloody" flesh and blood, being real though it appears otherwise, yet not being real when it starts to lose the appearance which is contrary to being real.).

Which certainly would be a unique miracle, since the Lord restricted Himself from being in two places at once, versus being in the apostle's stomachs while sitting before them, until digestions starts to take place.

Yes, that is also the kind of stuff RCs extrapolate as needed. Of course, the visible churches in general are admixtures of both "wheat" and "tares," and the fire shall "devour" the latter, while to do the Father's will is the Lord's "meat," for indeed "man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God" (Mt. 4:4, quoting Scripture), and thus As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me, (John 6:57) means that this is how we live, as Christ did, which was not by physcally consuming the Father's body and blood.

The flesh and blood metaphor which the Lord used, may just be the same exact one which David also used. Perhaps both metaphors describe the same thing. It certainly seems logical, however i cannot say for sure. I just live by faith best i can.

 

[Extraneous]

If you look to where you likely found it then you will see that it only one of a multitude.

I just now followed the blue link to see what you referred to. I totally missed where you previously posted that scripture already. I found it by googling the topic and i read a few webpages for opinions.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Jesus only started one Church.
Which one do you think it is?

So true to form, you simply ignore the multitude evidences that excludes the church of Rome from being that church, and assume by "church" that the Lord was referring to one particular organic church, which He was not.

At conversion, by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. (1 Corinthians 12:13)

The church to which the Lord is married to, and which the gates of Hell will not prevail against, is not
one particular organic church, as in general these are admixtures of both wheat and tares, esp. in the case of Catholicism as well as liberal so-called "Protestant churches (meaning there is some Hell in such churches), while the corporate body of Christ only consists of believers.

And in reality the church of Rome has become as the gates of Hell for multitudes, and not just the Ted Kennedy types which she infers will enter glory due to the merits of Rome.

Thus in answer to your question, the one true church is the mystical body of Christ which God bought with His own sinless shed blood, (Acts 20:28) which unbelievers are not. But as this body will have visible manifestations, then true churches are those such as,

1. Ordained presbuteros/episkopos, that being one office, and which never are titled "hiereus" which is the word used exclusively for sacerdotal priests. And NT pastors are never described as having a primary unique sacerdotal function, but are part of the sacerdotal priesthood of all believers, for all are called to sacrifice. More here by God's grace.

2. Like Peter and all but two of the known apostles,(1Co. 9:5) these pastors are normally married, and expected to be, if only to one wife, not two, in contrast to requiring most all pastors to have the gift of celibacy, (cf. 1Co. 7:7) which is a dangerous presumption.

3. Like Peter, they preach of the crucified and risen Lord Jesus, the (Divine) Son of God, that "To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins," (Acts 10:43) And that thus those who believe, and thus are baptized, shall be saved, (Cf. Acts 2:38) God "purifying their hearts by faith," (Acts 15:9) which faith appropriates justification, being counted for righteousness. (Rm. 3:10 - 4:7ff)

In contrast to the act of baptism effecting regeneration, and rendering one actually good enough to be with God, and thus needing to one again becoming good enough to be with God thru postmortem "purifying torments."

4. They often are converted under strong preaching which convicted them of sin, of righteousness and of judgment, (cf. Jn. 16:8) and of their desperate need for salvation thru effectual faith, (Acts 2:14-41) expressed in baptism, versus being converted thru a ritual as innocent yet morally incognizant souls who need need and cannot fulfil the stated requirements for baptism, that being repentance and wholehearted faith. (Acts 2:38; 8:36,37)

5. And being converted and taught by manifest men of God, they are to "everywhere preaching the word," (Acts 8:4) that of Scripturally substantiated gospel truths, (Lk. 24:44,45; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19) with the veracity of which resting upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.

6. And like Paul, since believers are already "accepted in the Beloved," on Christ's account, and made to sit together with Him in the heavens, (Eph. 1:6; 2:6) thus they preach that "to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord, (2 Corinthians 5:8) so that even if the Lord had returned in the first century, then all the believers would have gone to be with the Lord, and henceforth be with Him, (1Thes. 4:16,17) not stuck in some postmortem "purifying torments," until the atone for sins and become purged of character defects in order to actually be with God

But they do await the resurrection of their bodies, as being the only transformative postmortem event. (Rm. 8:23) Glory be to God, and with the judgment seat of Christ being the only postmortem suffering for believers that Scripture manifestly teaches, that of the loss of rewards and the Lord's disapproval due to the manner of workmanship one built the church with, wheat or tares, directly or indirectly. (1Co. 3:8ff) And which one time event only occurs at the Lord's return, not commencing at death. (1Cor. 4:5; 2Tim. 4:1,8; Rev.11:18; Mt. 25:31-46; 1Pt. 1:7; 5:4)

7. They occasionally ("as oft as you do this") take part in the Lord's supper as a communal "feast of charity," (Jude 1:14) as per the only epistle (besides Jude) in which it is manifestly described, not as the central means of conveying grace, as a sacrament around which all else, including the duties of pastors, revolved, but in which they were to show/declare the Lord's death till He comes," (1Co. 11:26) by taking part in sharing food, testifying to communion with Christ and each member for whom Christ died, versus eating independently, even so that "one is hungry, and another is drunken," and "shame them which have not," (1Co. 11:21). And thus not discerning the body of Christ by treating others as if they were not part of it.

More by God's grace.

 

[patricius79]

If you follow Catholicism, why dont you use a Catholic faith badge on your profile? That would be the appropriate thing to do.

I follow Christ, my God, through the Mother of God. That is why I am a member of the Catholic Church. As it says in the Creed: "I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church" etc. The Catholic Church is the historic Church of Christ, and she testifies that Mary is the Spouse of God the Holy Spirit, the New Eve, and is immaculately conceived.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

The Catholic Church is the historic Church of Christ, and she testifies that Mary...is immaculately conceived.

That the NT looked to a pope in Rome as the first of a line of supreme heads,
in an office possessing a unique charism of personal infallibility,
and regularly going to a class of (mostly) celibate men distinctively called "priests" to obtain forgiveness of sins,
and to physically consume "real" flesh and blood which is offered as a sacrifice for sins and to obtain spiritual life,
and offering indulgences to escape time in a postmortem purgatory commencing at death, and
praying to created beings, including a special class of believers distinctively called "saints,"
is unseen and unevidenced in Scripture, and contrary to what is actually taught.

 

[Thursday]

If thats true, then you are surely straining gnats and swallowing camels

I don't think this qualifies as a gnat:

John 6
53Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.

 

[Thursday]

So true to form, you simply ignore the multitude evidences that excludes the church of Rome from being that church, and assume by "church" that the Lord was referring to one particular organic church, which He was not.

At conversion, by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. (1 Corinthians 12:13)

The church to which the Lord is married to, and which the gates of Hell will not prevail against, is not
one particular organic church, as in general these are admixtures of both wheat and tares, esp. in the case of Catholicism as well as liberal so-called "Protestant churches (meaning there is some Hell in such churches), while the corporate body of Christ only consists of believers.

And in reality the church of Rome has become as the gates of Hell for multitudes, and not just the Ted Kennedy types which she infers will enter glory due to the merits of Rome.

Thus in answer to your question, the one true church is the mystical body of Christ which God bought with His own sinless shed blood, (Acts 20:28) which unbelievers are not. But as this body will have visible manifestations, then true churches are those such as,

1. Ordained presbuteros/episkopos, that being one office, and which never are titled "hiereus" which is the word used exclusively for sacerdotal priests. And NT pastors are never described as having a primary unique sacerdotal function, but are part of the sacerdotal priesthood of all believers, for all are called to sacrifice. More here by God's grace.

2. Like Peter and all but two of the known apostles,(1Co. 9:5) these pastors are normally married, and expected to be, if only to one wife, not two, in contrast to requiring most all pastors to have the gift of celibacy, (cf. 1Co. 7:7) which is a dangerous presumption.

3. Like Peter, they preach of the crucified and risen Lord Jesus, the (Divine) Son of God, that "To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins," (Acts 10:43) And that thus those who believe, and thus are baptized, shall be saved, (Cf. Acts 2:38) God "purifying their hearts by faith," (Acts 15:9) which faith appropriates justification, being counted for righteousness. (Rm. 3:10 - 4:7ff)

In contrast to the act of baptism effecting regeneration, and rendering one actually good enough to be with God, and thus needing to one again becoming good enough to be with God thru postmortem "purifying torments."

4. They often are converted under strong preaching which convicted them of sin, of righteousness and of judgment, (cf. Jn. 16:8) and of their desperate need for salvation thru effectual faith, (Acts 2:14-41) expressed in baptism, versus being converted thru a ritual as innocent yet morally incognizant souls who need need and cannot fulfil the stated requirements for baptism, that being repentance and wholehearted faith. (Acts 2:38; 8:36,37)

5. And being converted and taught by manifest men of God, they are to "everywhere preaching the word," (Acts 8:4) that of Scripturally substantiated gospel truths, (Lk. 24:44,45; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19) with the veracity of which resting upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.

6. And like Paul, since believers are already "accepted in the Beloved," on Christ's account, and made to sit together with Him in the heavens, (Eph. 1:6; 2:6) thus they preach that "to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord, (2 Corinthians 5:8) so that even if the Lord had returned in the first century, then all the believers would have gone to be with the Lord, and henceforth be with Him, (1Thes. 4:16,17) not stuck in some postmortem "purifying torments," until the atone for sins and become purged of character defects in order to actually be with God

But they do await the resurrection of their bodies, as being the only transformative postmortem event. (Rm. 8:23) Glory be to God, and with the judgment seat of Christ being the only postmortem suffering for believers that Scripture manifestly teaches, that of the loss of rewards and the Lord's disapproval due to the manner of workmanship one built the church with, wheat or tares, directly or indirectly. (1Co. 3:8ff) And which one time event only occurs at the Lord's return, not commencing at death. (1Cor. 4:5; 2Tim. 4:1,8; Rev.11:18; Mt. 25:31-46; 1Pt. 1:7; 5:4)

7. They occasionally ("as oft as you do this") take part in the Lord's supper as a communal "feast of charity," (Jude 1:14) as per the only epistle (besides Jude) in which it is manifestly described, not as the central means of conveying grace, as a sacrament around which all else, including the duties of pastors, revolved, but in which they were to show/declare the Lord's death till He comes," (1Co. 11:26) by taking part in sharing food, testifying to communion with Christ and each member for whom Christ died, versus eating independently, even so that "one is hungry, and another is drunken," and "shame them which have not," (1Co. 11:21). And thus not discerning the body of Christ by treating others as if they were not part of it.

More by God's grace.

You post long, blustering answers and ignore simple questions.

Jesus started one Church.

Which one do you think it is?

 

[PeaceByJesus]

You post long, blustering answers and ignore simple questions.
Jesus started one Church.
Which one do you think it is?

It id not a simply question, as it is based upon certain presupposition that must be addressed, but as RCs are supposed to simply follow their pastors, it is not surprising that you are incapable or unwilling to read replies which refute both your presumption of what was meant by church and that Rome is that church. Here it is without the substantiation for the latter statement:

So true to form, you simply ignore the multitude evidences that excludes the church of Rome from being that church, and assume by "church" that the Lord was referring to one particular organic church, which He was not.

At conversion, by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. (1 Corinthians 12:13)

The church to which the Lord is married to, and which the gates of Hell will not prevail against, is not one particular organic church, as in general these are admixtures of both wheat and tares, esp. in the case of Catholicism as well as liberal so-called "Protestant churches (meaning there is some Hell in such churches), while the corporate body of Christ only consists of believers.

And in reality the church of Rome has become as the gates of Hell for multitudes, and not just the Ted Kennedy types which she infers will enter glory due to the merits of Rome.

Thus in answer to your question, the one true church is the mystical body of Christ which God bought with His own sinless shed blood, (Acts 20:28) which unbelievers are not. But as this body will have visible manifestations, then true churches are those such as...

 

[patricius79]

That the NT looked to a pope in Rome as the first of a line of supreme heads,
in an office possessing a unique charism of personal infallibility,
and regularly going to a class of (mostly) celibate men distinctively called "priests" to obtain forgiveness of sins,
and to physically consume "real" flesh and blood which is offered as a sacrifice for sins and to obtain spiritual life,

The Church of Christ has always believed that Christ's Flesh is true food, and that Mary is the Immaculate Mother of God.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Speaking of works, I had a thought about that.

I believe, in my opinion, that works are about love. Some people focus on doing works to be blessed with money, or perhaps other things, but i believe works are about being blessed with joy and love. When you have suffered and you need Gods spirit to help you, then joy and love become very precious. They are like water in the desert. I would gladly do works so i could have joy in my heart. If you are happy, why do you need anything else?

Just my opinion.

I completely agree. Love is not an emotion, though, love is a decision. You decide to sacrifice yourself for someone else's benefit. Not your own (benefit). The works we do are not about us. If you do works in this vein, it is for God, ultimately.
Jesus said "For I was hungry, and you gave me food. I was thirsty and you gave me drink, naked and you clothed me, without shelter and you housed me, in prison and you comforted me." (Paraphrasing). Do it for the person you're helping, not for your own salvation, and that's where it will lead.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I use Godly DISCERNMENT and COMMON-SENSE to determine whether dead carcasses can actually hear.

But I don't pray to dead carcasses. I pray to saints. Revelation tells us that the Saints in heaven are alive.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Listen brother, i don't need those letters. I have read the Lords teaching and i dont need anything else. I cant believe you would offer me that as evidence, as if its going to make me abandon the Doctrine of Christ and follow Catholicism

The doctrine of Christ is Catholicism.

I am following the doctrine of Christ already. Why are you trying to hang the yoke of Catholicism around my neck brother?

Do you eat Jesus' body and drink His blood as he commanded?

The Lord is my teacher. He promised that, and he delivered that. I wouldnt trade what i have for anything

If you're Catholic, you don't have to trade. We have Jesus. How much more intimate could you be than to hold Him inside your body?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Inquisitional stealing after torture and murder is fine.

Who did that???

Extortion by indulgences is sacred tradition.

Who did that???

Supporting systemic paedophilia is taken for granted
This is known as popery's love

Who did that??? If you say "Catholics", I have two thoughts for you. First, if the Church taught it and promoted it, you might be right. But the Church doesn't teach it. Any of it. What someone does in the name of a religion might be different, and often is different, than what the religion teaches as doctrine.