The Early Church is the Catholic Church

[keltoi]

The one founded by Jesus that all Christians were part of. The only one that can be supported by history. And it's not the Gnostic church.

That would then be Christ's Church not Romes Church.

Sect = denomination.

Then the RCC , EO, and OO are also sects, it would be nice if you treated us all equally.

I got it that you're non-denominational. You might want to change your faith category to non-denominational if that's what you are so people know.

Says the wo/man who is hiding her/his profile. I am a Christian Protestant and that is what I identify as, you having a problem with that indicates that you want the world to fit in with your ideologies. Sorry but that ain't going to happen.

 

[StanJ]

Those are blatantly anti-catholic sites full of malicious gossip and slander. I'm amazed how the authors of those sites have no conscience as shown by them repeatedly bearing false witness against Christians. They are worse than atheists.
I encourage you to read the Catechism of the Catholic Church if you want to know what the Catholic Church teaches and refute the actual teachings if you are able. It would make for a relevant and fruitful discussion.

Anti-Catholic Church teachings not Anti-Catholic. There is a difference.
I was born and raised Catholic Comet baptized when I was an infant did my confirmation and First Communion went to parochial school and Catholic High School. Trust me I know all about the catechism. These sites are teaching truth and if you don't know that these are the things the Catholic Church teaches then why are you pushing the Catholic Church?
I'd be more than happy to walk you through one issue at a time and you can pick whatever the issue is that you find on those web sites.

 

[keltoi]

Yes, probably close to 100 if not more. For starters, "Repent and be baptized FOR the remission of your sins (Acts 2:38)" Hebrews says "baptism now saves you" Titus says Christians are saved by the "bath of rebirth and renewal" which is water baptism.

Baptism in the spirit is more important than baptism in water. What if someone is in the middle of the Sahara and cannot access water, do you think Christ would reject them because of their location?

I wouldn't rely on Jack Chick tracts or conspiracy theories or anti-catholic websites. They are very biased and most not even Christian if that's where you get your history. It appears very distorted.

I rely on the Word of God and the Spirit. I studied history at UNE in Australia it was my major. I spent the next 15 years teaching it in high schools. What is distorted are your replies, you don;t know me yet you are judging me. I will ask you to refrain from that right now, if you don't you will be blocked.

The same folks that taught salvation by faith and works determined that Hebrews is the word of God. If the early Christians were wrong about salvation then I'm not willing to rely on them to tell me which books are scripture.

The Bible does not in any way shape or form teach that works is a requirement for salvation. We are saved by the Grace of God not by anything we do, if we were saved by works we could claim we are the cause of our own salvation and that is not true.

The fact is the apostles appointed bishops as successors

You see each and every post you make a very "catholic" statement. Please show me any verse where any apostle appointed a bishop.

to preserve the Christian faith

Rubbish. Do you really think God needs mere mortals to preserve the Christian faith?

and those bishops scattered throughout the world all passed on the same Christian faith.

All Christians are called to show Christ to the world, we do this by the way we act, the was we talk, how we behave. Talking to people about Christ and using his word and relying on the Holy Spirit is how the Christian faith is spread BUT it does not need anyone to spread it because God can do that on his own.

That's evidence it is authentic.

To yo maybe but that does not mean it is really authentic.

Contrast that with the followers of Luther who divided and scattered into hundreds of different sects/denominatons/whatever you want to call it which is evidence it's not from God.

When you say "followers of Luther" what exactly do you mean? Do you mean Lutherans or do you mean all modern Protestants?

 

[keltoi]

Not a game.

I do not believe you 1 iota.

The Shepherd of Hermas was one of the books accepted as scripture by early Chrisians. Here's what Wikipedia says about it: "The Shepherd of Hermas is a Christian literary work of the late 1st or mid-2nd century, considered a valuable book by many Christians, and considered canonical scripture by some of the early Church fathers such as Irenaeus.[1][2] The Shepherd was very popular amongst Christians in the 2nd and 3rd centuries.[3] It was bound as part of the New Testament[1][4] in the Codex Sinaiticus, and it was listed between the Acts of the Apostles and the Acts of Paul in the stichometrical list of the Codex Claromontanus."

Stop quoting wikipedia if you are as knowledgable as you are trying to make out you can do much better than wikipedia.

I question catholics about Catholicism just as I do Protestants.

Please show me at least 1 post in this thread where you have questioned a catholic in the exact same way you have questioned me.

I didn't bother filling out a profile because it's not relevant. Discussion should be based on the merits of the arguments, not on the poster's personal life.

Then your previous post telling me I should change my profile is hypocritical. My personal preference for what I identify as is not for you to debate or to tell me what I should do.

 

[keltoi]

Those are blatantly anti-catholic sites full of malicious gossip and slander. I'm amazed how the authors of those sites have no conscience as shown by them repeatedly bearing false witness against Christians. They are worse than atheists.

I encourage you to read the Catechism of the Catholic Church if you want to know what the Catholic Church teaches and refute the actual teachings if you are able. It would make for a relevant and fruitful discussion.

That has just proven to me without a doubt that you are not serious, your discussion is pro "catholic" and I am starting to consider asking a mod to check you IP against some other members who have a similar posting style.

This discussion is over.

 

[Anguspure]

Where can I find a copy of that record? I'd like to read it for myself.

There are a couple of examples. The apostle Paul wrote a letter to the church in Rome and in it he states: If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.”For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

Now it is also true that anyone who believes in Christ Jesus in this way and proclaims Him as Lord has switched allegiance to the Kingdom and is thus a part of the body of Christ another name for which is the church.

Here is an example of this narrated by Luke the physician (who wasn’t an apostle but is recognised as authoritive and was writing to Romans so should make Roman church people happy) telling the story of 2 thieves being crucified next to Our Lord:

One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: “Aren’t you the Messiah? Save yourself and us!”

But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.”

Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.”

Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”

So we find that anybody who believes in Christ is a part of the kingdom and again Pauls letter to the Roman church is helpful here, he writes:

And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.

Scripture describes a hierarchy in the church and says Christians are to submit to their leaders who are over them in the Lord so it's not divisive for a bishop to explain the Christian faith and what must be believed.

We are also, as believers told to submit humbly to one another, so any perceived authority structure in the Church is a whole lot more horizontal than a control freak would like.

It is divisive if the Bishop starts talking a lot of gobbledigook and insisting that one must also believe this to be saved.

Nobody is disputing the leadership of leaders that are Christ orientated what is in dispute is when leaders start insisting on all sorts of man-made tradition and other dubious claims.

As examples of (IMO) silly doctrines from the Roman church we have (in no particular order and by no means complete):

Apostolic succession as an identification of the Church(not found in any writing of the Apostles);

Transubstantiation (Not scriptural unless one takes a particular view of one sentence);

The perpetual virginity of Mary the Mother of Jesus (Very hard to swallow when the Apostles wrote quite clearly that Jesus had at least a brother);

The Immaculate conception of Mary (Is not scriptural, not physically necessary, and should have been retracted 60 years ago when the nature of the Foetus – Mother relationship was discovered);

The overriding Authority of the Pope Ex-Cathedra and the Priests (Because apparently the laity don’t have a relationship with God that is worth respecting);

Celibacy of the Clergy (Identified over 500 years ago as major source of sexual perversion within the Church, has no Apostolic basis, apart from a recommendation from Paul for some unmarried believers, and flies completely in the face of the guidance given to Timothy by the same person);

I'd like to see evidence of this. All the early Christians writings I read show they followed the bishops who were successors of the apostles and were united in one faith, rejecting those who didn't agree with that faith.

No. They followed Christ who was reflected in the Bishops who were the successors of the Apostles. We forget that it is Christ who is the head of the Church so easily, don’t we.
They didn't follow the Roman church either and this was made very clear when the Roman control freaks tried to stamp their authority on the whole of Christendom. We have the Greek, Eastern and Russian Orthodox denomiantions as well as the Coptic denomination as a testament to this madness. At least the Irish played the game a little bit better anyway.

Bishops, Elders, Deacons etc are appointed to lead us towards Christ. Due to the vagueries of human nature and the continued influence of sin they are often easier to see and follow than the Spirit. But each individual believer is also responsible and should not be following blindly.

At the point the acknowledged Bishops start dragging the Church down some track away from the person of Christ Jesus, at this point there should be an inertia that stops the whole shooting match until the correct direction is regained.

When the Roman church declares that all of those who disagree are not part of the body and attempt enforcement is neither humble, nor gentle, nor loving.

The Roman church heirachy is not only kicking people out for disagreeing with Christ Jesus though, is it? It has kicked many out, and in fact burnt them at the stake or the like for many reasons not even remotely connected to Christ crucified and resurrected.

Let's change a few words. Do you agree with the following statement? "When a Protestant church declares that all of those who disagree with scripture are not part of the body and attempt enforcement is neither humble, nor gentle, nor loving." By "disagree with scripture" I don't mean interpret it differently. I mean people who say "I agree with most of what the bible teaches but I think some things are wrong. For example, I don't believe the flood of Noah, that Moses parted the Red Sea, the virgin birth, or that adultery is wrong."

Not really, I'm not a Sola Scriptura sort of guy. But in respect of disagreements with the body it depends on what the topic is and how it is done.

The only thing I can see in your list that would be directly damaging to the body, in terms of developing the Love that we have for one another, is the practice of adultery. This would need to be addressed strongly but in a way that encourages the Church to Love one another after the example of Christ. Executions are unhelpful.


As Paul (the Apostle) wrote to the Roman Church: Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,” and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

The other things while certainly generally accepted and indeed scriptural are hardly game changers and should not warrant anything other than the presentation of some good strong evidence if anybody is concerned.

In fact all of the other topics you mentioned have the potential to develop stronger relationships, Love and respect for one another if handled properly. Theres nothing like a good honest debate among devoted, Loving brothers for binding community and developing character and strength of relationship.

I certainly agree with humility. The pope humbly calls himself "the servant of servants." A person can have great authority, proclaim it, and still be humble.

Some Popes have done so, others were tyrants. The word “Pope” itself means “Great” which is hardly what Christ Jesus called himself. This alone tells me that there is something wrong with this office in terms of following Christ Jesus. Ghandhi got it (the teaching of Christ Jesus) better than most if not all of the Popes.

I do live up to it but it's not a high standard and has nothing to do with sin or being perfect. I'll replace "the Christian faith" with scripture since that's what Protestants say is the source of the Christian faith and see whether you agree:

Disagreeing with even one doctrine of the Christian faith scripture is a rejection of all of it because it means the person has no faith in Christ who revealed it. Such a person does not have faith because he is merely choosing to believe whatever feels right to him instead of putting his trust in Christ.

Some say Sola Scritura, some say Sola Pope. I say Sola Dios.

It is Christ Jesus that is the source of the Christian faith and it is His spirit that guides us into all truth, if we will listen.

Acknowledged scripture is the benchmark and the leading of faithful men of God is essential but it is the Spirit that we are called to live by.

If a person truly believes scripture to be the word of God then he will believe all of it because God can't be wrong. If a person says he believes most of the bible but not all of it then it means he doesn't believe scripture to be God's word. Therefore, the parts he accepts is not due to faith in what God revealed but due to it agreeing with his own opinions. That's why a person who rejects even one verse in scripture does not have faith because he doesn't believe the bible, the source of the Christian faith, to be from God.

But the only thing that matters is Christ crucified and risen from the dead. His grace is sufficient to take care of the rest.

If the source of the Christian faith is the Catholic Church instead of the bible (which BTW didn't exist until the 4th century) then rejecting one Catholic teaching is equivalent to rejecting all of it.

Before the Roman church, Jesus Christ Is Was and Is to come.

The early church defined heretic as one who taught false doctrines in opposition to the Christian faith. I never heard a pastor called a heretic because he told someone he needed to accept the divinity of Jesus if he wanted to be part of the church.

Again, in respect of the Roman Church it is not the things concerning Christ Jesus that are in dispute, are they?

Although it would definitely be a rejection of the efficacy of the work of Christ if it were true, your statement about indulgences is completely false. An indulgence is the reduction of the temporal punishment of a sin that has already been forgiven. Indulgences can be given to those who do good deeds such as donating money to the church. The CC no longer grants indulgences for donations because of the potential for abuse and appearing like the person paid for the indulgence.

Fair enough, I stand corrected.

 

[Anguspure]

If that how you learned of the Trinity, the incarnation of Jesus, and all teachings of Jesus? Am I correct to assume you don't own a bible because you don't need it as the Holy Spirit has revealed everything to you?

Actually I received the concept of Trinity that I hold from a Jesuit Priest who was brought to me by the Spirit for the very purpose. Up to that point the concept was a bit of gobbledigook to me, didn't really make sense and the Priests guidance cleared away the clouds for me considerably. Since then I have been able to look at the Biblical record with new eyes and have had quite a number of Ah-Haa moments. God works in mysterious ways.

Those verses say a person can learn God's will by following their conscience and that the Holy Spirit revealed the faith to the apostles but none of them say you can go to Jesus directly to learn what he taught.

Good Lord! Even the non-Christian records of the time make it clear what he taught and the Spirit only and always leads me in the same direction. Scripture provides a benchmark so that our sin does not carry us off on a tangent, and expands on the theme to provide context for daily life, but the teaching and example of Christ should be ridiculously clear to all of those who believe that the Lord Jesus Christ died, was buried and on the third day rose from the dead for the forgiveness of sin.
In case you havn't got it, it is this: If we are following Him we will lay down our lives for the benefit of all people.

 

[amariselle]

Before the Roman empire fell it is believed literacy levels were quite good. Even slaves had to be able to read so they could fulfil their masters wishes. After Rome fell literacy levels dropped drastically to a point that only the "Patricians" were literate, and even then not all of them were. Places like Ireland, which wasn't untouched by the old Roman Empire, had great libraries and the people were still literate but with the Viking conquests of Europe and the British Isles literacy levels collapsed. Before this the last vestiges of what was called the Keltic Church disappeared from the British Isles and the people were not longer educated by the church and Britain was again pagan due to the Angles, Saxons and Jutes bringing in their native religions.

The RCC slowly moved into Britain through missionary work and various kings converted to Christianity. Now Britain had lost its libraries, Ireland still had them but that was going to change with Vikings starting to attack around the 790s, and the people were not longer educated as they had been during the days of the Empire. In Europe Charlemagne was crowned Holy Roman Emperor on "Christmas" day 800AD, there really is no evidence of that but its the date they say it happened and not to far in the past he had brought an end to the Merovingian dynasty, Charlemagne was Carolingian.

The only people in Dark Ages and medieval Europe who were educated were people who were employed (or a better word would be made) to work for the Emperor, vassal Kings, or the Church and even then many in the Church could not read well enough to read a letter let alone the Bible. Families of Free Men generally tried to get at least 1 child into the church so they could learn to read a little bit. Henry VIII was trained as a theologian because his brother Arthur was supposed to be King Arthur of England, Prince of Wales and Lord of Ireland so Henry was taught theology. There are various times during Medieval British history were events come to a push and shove and one of them was the Peasants revolt. The peasants were revolting, pun not intended, because they were not treated as equals they wanted what the Nobles had, they weren't after riches but they were after the opportunity to better themselves and they knew an education could hep them. The King at the time agreed to meet with their representative a man called Watt Tyler, who was able to speak and read a bit, and the King, whose name escapes me right now, agreed to the demands but when the peasants would not let up Watt Tyler was killed and the King said "surf you are and surf you shall remain". Now it was called the Peasants revolt but it was surfs (slaves) who were revolting mostly.

Now think about this, why would you keep the majority of the population uneducated? The church come up with an idea called the "Divine right to rule" which meant the ruling classes, the Nobility and the Church, were given the divine right by God himself to do what they pleased with the lower classes. How do you keep people lower than you if you ant to remain on top? Deny them an education so they cannot learn to read and see what the Bible itself says. People like the Lollards didn't agree with this idea so they had the Bible written in English, some of the Nobility and Church did not like this so they were driven underground, much like the Church in the Soviet Union. It was another 4-500 hundred years before the Reformation and before commoners were able to legally get their hands on a Bible written in their own language. What happened after that? people began to get educations.

Thank you for sharing this Keltoi. I am always saddened when I think about how the church has handled the word of God and the gospel message thoughout the years. It is quite amazing the extent to which God chose to use mankind to bring His words to the world, and no doubt we have not always done a very good job of this. God has still worked throughout history and all the failings of mankind. His truth remains, no matter how much is done to extinguish it.

 

[JLB777]

No other Church can legitimately make this claim.

These early writings confirm the truth that Jesus started one Church and it was the Catholic Church.

First up, this is taken from the letter of Pope Clement, the fourth pope, written to the Corinthians in about 90 AD. I've highlighted some key quotes that demonstrate the authority of the Church and the pope.

First Epistle to the Church at Corinth,
by His Holiness Pope St. Clement I


Chapter 40

These things therefore being manifest to us, and since we look into the depths of the divine knowledge, it behoves us to do all things in their proper order, which the Lord has commanded us to perform at stated times. He has enjoined offerings to be presented and service to be performed to Him, and that not thoughtlessly or irregularly, but at the appointed times and hours. Where and by whom He desires these things to be done, He Himself has fixed by His own supreme will, in order that all things being piously done according to His good pleasure, may be acceptable to Him. Those, therefore, who present their offerings at the appointed times, are accepted and blessed; for inasmuch as they follow the laws of the Lord, they sin not. For his own peculiar services are assigned to the high priest, and their own proper place is prescribed to the priests, and their own special ministrations devolve on the Levites. The layman is bound by the laws that pertain to laymen.

Chapter 41

Let every one of you, brethren, give thanks to God in his own order, living in all good conscience, with becoming gravity, and not going beyond the rule of the ministry prescribed to him. Not in every place, brethren, are the daily sacrifices offered, or the peace-offerings, or the sin-offerings and the trespass-offerings, but in Jerusalem only. And even there they are not offered in any place, but only at the altar before the temple, that which is offered being first carefully examined by the high priest and the ministers already mentioned. Those, therefore, who do anything beyond that which is agreeable to His will, are punished with death. You see, brethren, that the greater the knowledge that has been vouchsafed to us, the greater also is the danger to which we are exposed.

Chapter 42

The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ has done so from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits of their labours, having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus says the Scripture a certain place, "I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith."

Chapter 43

And what wonder is it if those in Christ who were entrusted with such a duty by God, appointed those ministers before mentioned, when the blessed Moses also, "a faithful servant in all his house," noted down in the sacred books all the injunctions which were given him, and when the other prophets also followed him, bearing witness with one consent to the ordinances which he had appointed? For, when rivalry arose concerning the priesthood, and the tribes were contending among themselves as to which of them should be adorned with that glorious title, he commanded the twelve princes of the tribes to bring him their rods, each one being inscribed with the name of the tribe. And he took them and bound them together, and sealed them with the rings of the princes of the tribes, and laid them up in the tabernacle of witness on the table of God. And having shut the doors of the tabernacle, he sealed the keys, as he had done the rods, and said to them, Men and brethren, the tribe whose rod shall blossom has God chosen to fulfil the office of the priesthood, and to minister to Him. And when the morning was come, he assembled all Israel, six hundred thousand men, and showed the seals to the princes of the tribes, and opened the tabernacle of witness, and brought forth the rods. And the rod of Aaron was found not only to have blossomed, but to bear fruit upon it. What think you, beloved? Did not Moses know beforehand that this would happen? Undoubtedly he knew; but he acted thus, that there might be no sedition in Israel, and that the name of the true and only God might be glorified; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Chapter 44

Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those presbyters already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church, and who have blame-lessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure [from this world]; for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them. But we see that you have removed some men of excellent behaviour from the ministry, which they fulfilled blamelessly and with honour.

This and dozens of other early Church writings can be found here:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/

Catholicism is nothing like what the early Church practiced.


Wake up!


Mary had other children, as we are forbidden to pray to "people" and worship statues.


JLB

 

[Anguspure]

How do you know which books are in the Bible? My Bible contains the 73 books that a catholic council considered scripture in the 4th century but since you don't believe the catholic church was Christ's church, how do you know which books to follow?

Follow the Spirit of Truth and He will lead you into all truth.

 

[JLB777]

Jesus only started one Church. He said that he was building the Church on Peter. You apparently don't believe him.

Which Church do you think is the Church Jesus started?

First of all the Catholicism is nothing like what Peter taught, or preached.


He never said He built His Church on Peter.

15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”

16 Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

17 Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. Matthew 16:15-18

The Rock is Jesus Christ, and confessing that He is the Christ, the Son of the living God.

No one will be saved by confessing Peter as the Pope, which being another man made term.

• Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves Him who begot also loves him who is begotten of Him. 1 John 5:1
• Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God. 1 John 4:15
• He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. 1 John 5:12

JLB

 

[Anguspure]

Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. Matthew 16:15-18

Also interesting that they were all standing looking at the gates of Hades (a pagan temple to Pan) at the time. The temple of Pan was located at the site of a large upwelling spring that came from the base of a cliff in the town of Ceasarea Philippi. The cliff had a series of niches that were carved out for Pagan idols to be placed.

Standing near the pagan temples of Caesarea Philippi, Jesus asked his disciples "Who do you say that I am?" Peter boldly replied, "You are the Son of the living God." The disciples were probably stirred by the contrast between Jesus, the true and living God, and the false hopes of the pagans who trusted in "dead" gods.

Jesus continued, "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it."

It seems clear that Jesus' words also had symbolic meaning. His church would be built on the "rock" of Caesarea Philippi—a rock literally filled with niches for pagan idols, where ungodly values dominated.

 

[samir]

I don;t ask or expect you to blindly believe, what I do expect is that you 1, read the Bible, and 2. grill "catholics" in the exact same way as you are trying to grill me. I'll tell you now they wont be as patient with you as I have been.

I question Catholics and others the same way I question Protestants.

I asked you to define it not to grab it from Merrian-Webster.

I don't create my own definitions of words. I define them using reputable dictionaries, primarily Merrian-Webster which is my favorite.

You need to get 1 thing clear here, it is not MY Bible, it is the Word of God and it was inspired by God.

Okay. I'll go ask the Mormon Church for a copy of the word of God to read for myself.

The RCC and the EO and OO have Revelation in it you are singling me out and by doing so you are quickly loosing any credibility.

I asked them to and they gave me a rational basis for why they believe Revelation is scripture. Protestants so far have not and the criteria you posted would indicate Revelation is not scripture since it's not quoted by any of the books in your bible. All I asked for is an explanation of why you believe Revelation is God's word. If you don't have one and just accepted it blindly because someone told you it's God's word (like I did originally so I'm not criticizing you for that), I will move on and ask someone else.

Does the apocrypha reference Jude?

Do any of the books in your bible reference Jude? If not and you follow the criteria you posted then you must believe it is not God's word.

Do the apocryphal books include writing styles that are similar to other books in the Bible?
The Pope references scripture, my own father used to reference scripture, do I think their writing are part of the Bible? nope. why? because the Bible didn't reference their writings.

Circular logic fallacy. If the books in the Mormon bible reference each other, does that make them scripture?

What rubbish.
Define Christian, be careful you may end up breaking the rules doing so.

If it's against the rules, it's probably wouldn't be very Christian of me to do so.

 

[samir]

You see each and every post you make a very "catholic" statement. Please show me any verse where any apostle appointed a bishop.

I know from church history. The Orthodox and the original Protestants also acknowledged this. The fathers who taught this also determined which books were scripture. Without them, you wouldn't have a bible so I'd think before rejecting their authority.

 

[samir]

That has just proven to me without a doubt that you are not serious, your discussion is pro "catholic" and I am starting to consider asking a mod to check you IP against some other members who have a similar posting style.

This discussion is over.

Wanting to discuss official Catholic teaching instead of anti-catholic slander make me pro-Catholic? Should I rely on anti-christian and atheist websites to learn what Protestants believe? The posting style I use is rational thinking which I agree is common among Catholics.

 

[samir]

There are a couple of examples. The apostle Paul wrote a letter to the church in Rome and in it he states: If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.”For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

Now it is also true that anyone who believes in Christ Jesus in this way and proclaims Him as Lord has switched allegiance to the Kingdom and is thus a part of the body of Christ another name for which is the church.

The passage in Romans says nothing about the church.

Here is an example of this narrated by Luke the physician (who wasn’t an apostle but is recognised as authoritive and was writing to Romans so should make Roman church people happy) telling the story of 2 thieves being crucified next to Our Lord:

One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: “Aren’t you the Messiah? Save yourself and us!”

But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.”

Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.”

Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”

That the murderer on the cross who repented will go to paradise does not support your claim that "anybody who beleives in Christ Jesus crucified and ressurected from the dead for the forgivness of sins and proclaims Him as Lord is a part of the church."

So we find that anybody who believes in Christ is a part of the kingdom and again Pauls letter to the Roman church is helpful here, he writes:

And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.

The passage says those who love God, not those who merely believe, will be justified. Scripture warns believers that adulterers, thieves, and others will not be saved.

We are also, as believers told to submit humbly to one another, so any perceived authority structure in the Church is a whole lot more horizontal than a control freak would like.

Catholics believe this too. It does not contradict a vertical hierarchy.

It is divisive if the Bishop starts talking a lot of gobbledigook and insisting that one must also believe this to be saved.

If it's gobbledigook I agree it's divisive but not if it's what Christ taught.

Nobody is disputing the leadership of leaders that are Christ orientated what is in dispute is when leaders start insisting on all sorts of man-made tradition and other dubious claims.

The reason I don't attend Protestant congregations is because of all the man-made traditions and other dubious claims. Thankfully, I haven't heard any man-made traditions in the Catholic or Orthodox churches.

As examples of (IMO) silly doctrines from the Roman church we have (in no particular order and by no means complete):

Apostolic succession as an identification of the Church(not found in any writing of the Apostles);

Transubstantiation (Not scriptural unless one takes a particular view of one sentence);

The perpetual virginity of Mary the Mother of Jesus (Very hard to swallow when the Apostles wrote quite clearly that Jesus had at least a brother);

The Immaculate conception of Mary (Is not scriptural, not physically necessary, and should have been retracted 60 years ago when the nature of the Foetus – Mother relationship was discovered);

The earliest Christians (not just the Roman church) believed all those things.

The overriding Authority of the Pope Ex-Cathedra and the Priests (Because apparently the laity don’t have a relationship with God that is worth respecting);

Catholics don't believe "the laity don’t have a relationship with God that is worth respecting."

Celibacy of the Clergy (Identified over 500 years ago as major source of sexual perversion within the Church, has no Apostolic basis, apart from a recommendation from Paul for some unmarried believers, and flies completely in the face of the guidance given to Timothy by the same person);

Does every practice in your congregation have apostolic basis?

No. They followed Christ who was reflected in the Bishops who were the successors of the Apostles. We forget that it is Christ who is the head of the Church so easily, don’t we.

No one denies that Christ is the head of the Church.

They didn't follow the Roman church either and this was made very clear when the Roman control freaks tried to stamp their authority on the whole of Christendom. We have the Greek, Eastern and Russian Orthodox denomiantions as well as the Coptic denomination as a testament to this madness. At least the Irish played the game a little bit better anyway.

Bishops, Elders, Deacons etc are appointed to lead us towards Christ. Due to the vagueries of human nature and the continued influence of sin they are often easier to see and follow than the Spirit. But each individual believer is also responsible and should not be following blindly.

At the point the acknowledged Bishops start dragging the Church down some track away from the person of Christ Jesus, at this point there should be an inertia that stops the whole shooting match until the correct direction is regained.

The Greek and Russian Orthodox faith is nearly identical to the Catholic faith believing many of the doctrines you oppose. It's just expressed differently due to language and cultural differences.

The Roman church heirachy is not only kicking people out for disagreeing with Christ Jesus though, is it?

As far as I know though I wouldn't doubt it if you said some were kicked out due to misunderstandings.

It has kicked many out, and in fact burnt them at the stake or the like for many reasons not even remotely connected to Christ crucified and resurrected.

Care to provide any examples?

Not really, I'm not a Sola Scriptura sort of guy.

Glad to hear it as sola scripture is not only unbiblical, it is opposed to scripture.

The only thing I can see in your list that would be directly damaging to the body, in terms of developing the Love that we have for one another, is the practice of adultery. This would need to be addressed strongly but in a way that encourages the Church to Love one another after the example of Christ. Executions are unhelpful.

As Paul (the Apostle) wrote to the Roman Church: Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,” and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

All heresies damage the body because it harms unity which Jesus desired to be a testimony to unbelievers. A person who divides the church, even if it's over relatively minor issues, is not loving his neighbor.

The other things while certainly generally accepted and indeed scriptural are hardly game changers and should not warrant anything other than the presentation of some good strong evidence if anybody is concerned.

In fact all of the other topics you mentioned have the potential to develop stronger relationships, Love and respect for one another if handled properly. Theres nothing like a good honest debate among devoted, Loving brothers for binding community and developing character and strength of relationship.

The problem with rejecting one minor detail in scripture is that it indicates the person doesn't consider scripture to be the word of God which means the parts he accepts isn't due to faith but merely because it agrees with his own opinions. It's a problem because faith is necessary for salvation.

Some Popes have done so, others were tyrants. The word “Pope” itself means “Great” which is hardly what Christ Jesus called himself. This alone tells me that there is something wrong with this office in terms of following Christ Jesus. Ghandhi got it (the teaching of Christ Jesus) better than most if not all of the Popes.

The word pope means father. Popes are spiritual fathers. The early Christians called other bishops pope too, not just the bishop of Rome.

Some say Sola Scritura, some say Sola Pope. I say Sola Dios.

It is Christ Jesus that is the source of the Christian faith and it is His spirit that guides us into all truth, if we will listen.

Acknowledged scripture is the benchmark and the leading of faithful men of God is essential but it is the Spirit that we are called to live by.

The problem is that Sola Dios and following the spirit is not an objective standard. Many people believe all kinds of wildly ridiculous and outrageous things because they believe the spirit revealed it to them. Only a clear, objective standard results in unity.

But the only thing that matters is Christ crucified and risen from the dead. His grace is sufficient to take care of the rest.

I don't share your opinion.

Before the Roman church, Jesus Christ Is Was and Is to come.

True, but if the Roman church was founded by Jesus as it claims, rejecting it would be rejecting Jesus Christ.

Again, in respect of the Roman Church it is not the things concerning Christ Jesus that are in dispute, are they?

In the early church, it was primarily things concerning Christ Jesus that were in dispute. Today, most Protestants accept those teachings and dispute other issues.

 

[ToBeLoved]

That would then be Christ's Church not Romes Church.

 

[keltoi]

I know from church history. The Orthodox and the original Protestants also acknowledged this. The fathers who taught this also determined which books were scripture. Without them, you wouldn't have a bible so I'd think before rejecting their authority.

So you either cannot or are refusing to.

 

[keltoi]

I question Catholics and others the same way I question Protestants.

I've read the topics you have been a part of and no you don't question RCs like you do Protestants, you have questioned and argued with EOs like you do Protestants though.

I asked them to and they gave me a rational basis for why they believe Revelation is scripture. Protestants so far have not and the criteria you posted would indicate Revelation is not scripture since it's not quoted by any of the books in your bible. All I asked for is an explanation of why you believe Revelation is God's word. If you don't have one and just accepted it blindly because someone told you it's God's word (like I did originally so I'm not criticizing you for that), I will move on and ask someone else.

Greek Mind verse Hebrew Mind. Your rationality is Greek, the Bible was written by Hebrews. I have tried numerous times to show you and you pretty much called me a liar, you are moving along that path again.

Do any of the books in your bible reference Jude? If not and you follow the criteria you posted then you must believe it is not God's word.

A lesson in referencing for you. When someone writes something that is in another book it has been referenced, they did not get the idea on their own. So anytime anything in Jude talks about something that has been written before Jude is referencing that. Likewise anything that is written in other books that are also in Jude Jude is referenced. It is how the Bible works.

In another thread someone quoted a portion of Maccabees and it said that "Judas was valiant" where in the Bible does it say anyone is valiant apart from Maccabees? From this I would determine that Maccabees is not Biblical.

Circular logic fallacy. If the books in the Mormon bible reference each other, does that make them scripture?

Read Star Wars the books actually reference each other does that make them Scripture? Your argument is flawed because you are stuck in a Greek mindset and are not using Hebrew mindset which the Bible is written in.

If it's against the rules, it's probably wouldn't be very Christian of me to do so.

It's not against the rules to define it but how you define could break the rules thus the warning to be careful

 

[keltoi]

I know from church history.

Which church? Where did you get eh history? (Roman Catholics?)

The Orthodox and the original Protestants also acknowledged this.

Proof?

The fathers who taught this also determined which books were scripture.

God is my Father.

Without them, you wouldn't have a bible so I'd think before rejecting their authority.

God can do anything without the need to get mere mortals to help him, you would be wise to acknowledge God instead of dead mean.