• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Refuting Rome

Status
Not open for further replies.

Trento

Senior Veteran
Apr 12, 2002
4,387
575
AZ. Between the Holy Cross river and the Saint Rit
Visit site
✟30,034.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Dale said:
Truebluefan24 in OP:
"If the Catholic Church is wrong why did it take 1500 years for the reform?"

The veneration of Mary didn't really get going in Western Europe until after 1000 AD.
Canon law that believers must confess to an ordained priest in the confessional wasn't firmly established or enforced until after 1000 AD.
The RCC didn't adopt the method of succession where Popes are elected by Cardinals until the 1200's.

If these things are the right way of doing things, why did it take so long?

It is a fact which every enquirer can see for himself, and which no believer can deny, that Christianity has developed. There has also been theological development. And -- most important for our present argument -- there has been dogmatic and, I add, doctrinal development. A clear illustration of dogmatic development is the articulation of Christian belief about the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity in the great conciliar decisions from A.D. 325 to A.D. 680.
The result of such development is that many statements by the Fathers of the first three centuries would be condemned as heretical if made by medieval or modern writers. Similarly, it can be said that the doctrine of the sacramental minister has developed since the days of St. Cyprian, who denied the reality of Baptism conferred by schismatics and heretics.
If Christianity is a living thing it is only to be expected that it too will develop.
It is therefore true that there is something which has since 1870 been an article of the Catholic faith which was not such before that date. But it does not follow that "the faith of the Church of Rome" has changed, since the faith is coextensive with the Christian revelation and thus more comprehensive than the sum-total of the "articles of the Catholic faith."
When you received the word of the message of God from us, you received it not as a human word, but (as in truth it is) as the word of God." (1 Thess 2:13) (This is exactly the same as the claim made for its teaching by the Catholic Church). But there is no reason why Christ should have conveyed his infallible teaching authority to his Church for a generation only. If the Church was to endure till Christ's second coming, and to represent him in all subsequent ages, it will follow that her teaching will be his teaching not only till the death of the last Apostle, but so long as she herself endures. She claims no "infallibility" other than that which, through the Apostles and the primitive Christian community, she derives from him, who is the "word" of God "made flesh" (John 1:14) and who said to his first followers: "He who receives [hears] you, receives [hears] me" (Matt 10:40; Luke 10:16).



The truth is, that development is visible in that brief section of the Christian story of which the New Testament books are a fragmentary record, and in the last resort the choice is between accepting the principle of development and rejecting the Christian claim to possess a divine revelation.
Every article of the Catholic faith expresses a constituent element of the Christian revelation. But no constituent element of the Christian revelation is an article of the Catholic faith until it has been thus authoritatively defined and imposed. Until an element of the Christian revelation becomes, by such definition, an "article of the Catholic faith" the penalties of heresy are not incurred by those who withhold from it their assent.​
 
Upvote 0

Trento

Senior Veteran
Apr 12, 2002
4,387
575
AZ. Between the Holy Cross river and the Saint Rit
Visit site
✟30,034.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Dale said:
Truebluefan24 in OP:
"And how come none of the early church fathers spoke out against tradition and the catholic eucharist as being the actual flesh of jesus? "

Maybe they'd never heard of the one-sided hyperliteral interpretation that you have have.

In Baptist Churches, Disciples of Christ, and non-denominational Churches you see a communion table with the words:
"This do in remembrance of me."

What's wrong with that? These words are a direct quote from Christ at the Last Supper. Christ did not tell us to re-create his death in every church service. He did tell Christians to remember, yes, remember, what He did.

Protestant early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly writes that in the early Church "the Eucharist was regarded as the distinctively Christian sacrifice. . . . Malachi’s prediction (1:10–11) that the Lord would reject Jewish sacrifices and instead would have "a pure offering" made to him by the Gentiles in every place was seized upon by Christians as a prophecy of the Eucharist. The Didache indeed actually applies the term thusia, or sacrifice, to the Eucharist. . . .

"It was natural for early Christians to think of the Eucharist as a sacrifice. The fulfillment of prophecy demanded a solemn Christian offering, and the rite itself was wrapped in the sacrificial atmosphere with which our Lord invested the Last Supper. The words of institution, ‘Do this’ (touto poieite), must have been charged with sacrificial overtones for second-century ears; Justin at any rate understood them to mean, ‘Offer this.’ . . . The bread and wine, moreover, are offered ‘for a memorial (eis anamnasin) of the passion,’ a phrase which in view of his identification of them with the Lord’s body and blood implies much more than an act of purely spiritual recollection" (J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines [Full Reference], 196–7).


The Didache

"Assemble on the Lord’s day, and break bread and offer the Eucharist; but first make confession of your faults, so that your sacrifice may be a pure one. Anyone who has a difference with his fellow is not to take part with you until he has been reconciled, so as to avoid any profanation of your sacrifice [Matt. 5:23–24]. For this is the offering of which the Lord has said, ‘Everywhere and always bring me a sacrifice that is undefiled, for I am a great king, says the Lord, and my name is the wonder of nations’ [Mal. 1:11, 14]" (Didache 14 [A.D. 70]).

Ignatius of Antioch


"Make certain, therefore, that you all observe one common Eucharist; for there is but one Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and but one cup of union with his Blood, and one single altar of sacrifice—even as there is also but one bishop, with his clergy and my own fellow servitors, the deacons. This will ensure that all your doings are in full accord with the will of God" (Letter to the Philadelphians 4 [A.D. 110]).



"God speaks by the mouth of Malachi, one of the twelve [minor prophets], as I said before, about the sacrifices at that time presented by you: ‘I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord, and I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands; for from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same, my name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering, for my name is great among the Gentiles . . . [Mal. 1:10–11]. He then speaks of those Gentiles, namely us [Christians] who in every place offer sacrifices to him, that is, the bread of the Eucharist and also the cup of the Eucharist" (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 41 [A.D. 155]).



Irenaeus


"He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying, ‘This is my body.’ The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, he confessed to be his blood. He taught the new sacrifice of the new covenant, of which Malachi, one of the twelve [minor] prophets, had signified beforehand: ‘You do not do my will, says the Lord Almighty, and I will not accept a sacrifice at your hands. For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure sacrifice; for great is my name among the Gentiles, says the Lord Almighty’ [Mal. 1:10–11]. By these words he makes it plain that the former people will cease to make offerings to God; but that in every place sacrifice will be offered to him, and indeed, a pure one, for his name is glorified among the Gentiles" (Against Heresies 4:17:5 [A.D. 189]).




 
Upvote 0

Dale

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Apr 14, 2003
7,499
1,331
72
Sebring, FL
✟835,477.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Trento in post #41:
"It is a fact which every enquirer can see for himself, and which no believer can deny, that Christianity has developed. There has also been theological development. And -- most important for our present argument -- there has been dogmatic and, I add, doctrinal development."

Why does development so often take the form of ossification? Why does it so often take the form of centralization and bureaucracy?
 
Upvote 0

Carey

Contributor
Aug 17, 2006
9,624
161
60
Texas
✟33,339.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Politics
US-Others
Those who spoke out where killed by the "Holy Roman" government.

There outspoken words are lost to History except for what you see in the Bible about Rome itself. When it is referring to the Government of Rome it is referring ti the Catholic faith they were for Centuries joined at the hip
 
Upvote 0

Carey

Contributor
Aug 17, 2006
9,624
161
60
Texas
✟33,339.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Politics
US-Others
more
The re-birth of Israel is an unprecedented phenomenon in human history.


The yearning for the land of Israel never left the Jewish people.

We see it in Psalms that Jews constantly recited: "If I forget you, O Jerusalem ..." or "When the Lord brings about our return to Zion, we will be like dreamers..."
In the statements of the rabbis, such as this one by Rabbi Nachman of Breslav: "Wherever I go I'm always going to Israel."
We see it in Jewish poetry, such as that of Yehuda HaLevi: "My heart is in the East but I am in the most far West."
In holiday rituals: "Next year in Jerusalem."
And, of course, in countless blessings recited daily: "Have mercy, Lord our God, on Israel your people, on Jerusalem, your city, on Zion... Rebuild Jerusalem, your holy city, speedily in our days, and bring us there to rejoice in its rebuilding..."
In other words, the land of Israel was always a place in the minds of the Jews where the Jewish national potential could someday be fulfilled.

But, as a practical reality, this did not begin to happen in a significant way until the birth of modern Zionism, not as a religious, but as a political movement.

The re-birth of Israel is an unprecedented phenomenon in human history. That a people should go into exile, be dispersed, and yet survive for 2,000 years, that they should be a nation without a national homeland and come back again, that they should re-establish that homeland is a miraculous, singular event. No one ever did such a thing.

BRIEF OVERVIEW

Before we discuss the Jews' return to their homeland, let us then look back at history and review briefly what had been happening in the Land of Israel from the time that the Temple was destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE, (See Parts 35 thru 37.)

Subsequently, Jerusalem was leveled, rebuilt on the Roman model, and re-named Aeolia Capitolina. The land of Israel was re-named Palestine (after the extinct Phillistines, some of the worst enemies of the Jews in ancient times).

From that time, Jews were barred from Jerusalem. The Byzantine Empire (the Constantinople-based Christian version of the Roman Empire) continued the earlier policy, and Jews were not allowed into Jerusalem until the Muslims conquered the Byzantines in 638 CE. (See Part 42.)

Once the Muslims took over the Land of Israel, they held onto it with the brief exception of the period of the Crusades. (See Part 45.)

The Turkish Ottoman Empire held onto power here the longest: from 1518 to 1917. Yet, during all this time, the Muslims generally treated the Holy Land as a backwater province. There was virtually no attempt to make Jerusalem, which was quite run-down, an important capital city nor to improve its infrastructure (save for the re-building of the walls of the city in 16th century during the reign of Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent.) Similarly, only limited building went on in the rest of the land, which was barren and not populated by many Arabs. The only major new city built was Ramle, which served as the Ottoman administrative center.

Mark Twain who visited Israel in 1867 described it like this in Innocents Abroad:


We traversed some miles of desolate country whose soil is rich enough but is given wholly to weeds - a silent, mournful expanse... A desolation is here that not even imagination can grace with the pomp of life and action. We reached Tabor safely... We never saw a human being on the whole route. We pressed on toward the goal of our crusade, renowned Jerusalem. The further we went the hotter the sun got and the more rocky and bare, repulsive and dreary the landscape became... There was hardly a tree or a shrub anywhere. Even the olive and the cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil, had almost deserted the country. No landscape exists that is more tiresome to the eye than that which bounds the approaches to Jerusalem... Jerusalem is mournful, dreary and lifeless. I would not desire to live here. It is a hopeless, dreary, heartbroken land... Palestine sits in sackcloth and ashes."

EARLY MIGRATIONS

During the time of the Muslims, life for the Jews here was for the most part easier than under the Christians.

In 1210, following the demise of the Crusaders, several hundred rabbis, known as the Ba'alei Tosefot, re-settled in Israel. This marked the emergence of the first Ashkenazic European community in Israel.

In 1263, the great philosopher Nachmanides also known as the Ramban, established a small Sephardic community on Mount Zion which was outside the walls. (See Part 47.) Later, in the 1400s, that community moved inside the walls and they established the Ramban Synagogue which still exists today.

When Nachmanides came to Jerusalem there was already a vibrant Jewish community in Hebron, though the Muslims did not permit them entry into the Cave of the Machpela (where the Jewish Patriarchs and Matriarchs are buried). Indeed, this ban continued until the 20th century.

More Jews started to migrate to Israel following their expulsion from Spain in 1492. In the 16th century, large numbers of Jews migrated to the northern city of Tzfat (also known as Safed) and it became the center of Jewish mysticism -- the Kabbalah.

In mid-1700s a student of the Ba'al Shem Tov by the name of Gershon Kitover started the first Hassidic community in Israel. This community was part of what was called Old Yishuv. (Today, when in the Old City of Jerusalem, you can visit the "Old Yishuv Court Museum" and learn some fascinating facts about it.)

By 1880, there were about 40,000 Jews, living in the land of Israel among some 400,000 Muslims.

One of the major figures of this time period was Moses Montefiore (1784 to 1887) -- the first Jew to be knighted in Britain.

Montefiore had made his fortune with the Rothschilds, who struck it rich in the Napoleonic Wars. They used carrier pigeons and they knew about the victory at Waterloo before anyone else; this is how they made a killing on the English stock market.

With his fortune made by age 40, Montefiore embarked on a career in philanthropy, becoming a tireless worker for the Jewish community of Israel.

At that time, most of the Jews then lived in what is now called the Old City of Jerusalem, specifically in what is now called the "Moslem Quarter." The main entrance to the city for the Jews was through Damascus Gate and of the many synagogues in Jerusalem, most of them were in the "Moslem Quarter" close to the site where the Temple stood on Mount Moriah.

The city was hugely overcrowded and sanitary conditions were terrible, but due to the lawlessness of that time, people were afraid to built homes and live outside.

Montefiore built the first settlement outside the walls of the Old City, called "Yemin Moshe" in 1858. He opened the door and more neighborhoods were built in the New City. One of the earliest ones, built in 1875, was Mea Shearim (which, contrary to popular opinion does not mean "Hundred Gates" but "Hundredfold" as in Genesis 26:12.)

Besides Montefiore, another extremely important personality in this period of time was Baron Edmond de Rothschild (1845 to 1934).

Rothschild was a man who more than anyone else, financially made the re-settlement of Jews in the land of Israel possible. During his lifetime he spent 70 million francs of his own money on various agricultural settlements and business enterprises such as the Carmel Winery for example. So important and generous was Rothschild that he was nicknamed HaNadiv HaYaduah, "The Famous Contributor."

Although Rothschild was quite assimilated and disconnected from the Jewish yearning for the land, he was greatly influenced by Rabbi Shmuel Mohilever, who was one of the first religious Zionists from Poland.

Mohilever converted Rothschild to his ideology and from that point on the rich banker began to look at Israel as an "investment." He made it possible for thousands of Jews to return to the land and survive here in those days.

EARLY POLITICAL ZIONISM

We do not see the appearance of political Zionism until late in the 19th century as a reaction to the intolerable persecution of the Jews of Russia.

The early political Zionists, being largely secular, did not feel a special yearning for Israel rooted in tradition or religion, rather they felt that the Land of Israel was the only place where Jews could create a national identity, regain their pride and productivity, and hopefully escape the horrible anti-Semitism of Czarist Russia and other places.

One of the main organizations involved in early political Zionism was called Hibbat Zion "the love of Zion" founded in 1870. (Its members were called Hovevei Zion, "lovers of Zion.")

A major personality among the Hovevi Zion was Judah Leob Pinsker (1821-1891). A Polish doctor, Pinsker started out as one of the Maskilim, a group which wanted their fellow Jews to drop Judaism and merge with Russian culture in the hope that if Jews were socially accepted, then Russian anti-Semitism would disappear. (See Part 56.) But after the pogroms following the assassination of Czar Alexander in 1881, he and many other of the Maskilim came to the conclusion that their efforts were futile and anti-Semitism was never going to disappear. Like Theodor Herzl later, Pinsker was shocked at the depth of European anti-Semitism. The only solution, he came to believe, was for Jews to live in their own national homeland.

Pinsker published his ideas in a pamphlet called "Auto-Emancipation." In it he penned these memorable words:


"We must reconcile ourselves to the idea that the other nations, by reason of their inherent natural antagonism, will forever reject us."

FIRST ALIYAH

In 1882, another important organization was formed in Russia. It was called Bilu, an acronym of the opening words from verse in Isaiah (2:5): Beit Yaacov lechu Venelech meaning, "House of Jacob, come, let us go...

Bilu was very active in the early settlement movement, what came to be called the "First Aliyah" -- the first large migration of Jews from Russia to the Land of Israel.

Aliyah means "ascent." To migrate to Israel -- to make aliyah -- means to come from a low place and to "go up."

The year 1882 marked the first such aliyah, when Jews began to arrive in the land of Israel in droves -- some 30,000 Jews came in two waves between 1882-1891 and founded 28 new settlements.

(Among these new settlements was Hadera, which has been so much in the news lately as the repeated target of vicious terrorist attacks.)

Hundreds of thousands of acres were purchased by these early Zionists from absentee Arab landowners who usually lived elsewhere in the Middle East. The majority of the lands purchased were in areas that were neglected and considered un-developable -- such as the sandy coastal plain or the swampy Hula Valley in the north. Amazingly, and with much effort, these early settlers made the barren land bloom again.

What drove many of these early immigrants was an idealism that was captured by Zev Dugnov, a member of Bilu:


"My final purpose is to take possession of Palestine and to restore to the Jews the political independence for which they have now been denied for two thousand years. Don't laugh. It is not a mirage. It does not matter if that splendid day will come in 50-years' time or more. A period of 50 years is no more than a moment of time for such an undertaking."

In fact, it would take 66 years. Meanwhile, Jews would continue to come, reclaim the land and build a strong political movement demanding back their ancient homeland
 
Upvote 0

ps139

Ab omni malo, libera nos, Domine!
Sep 23, 2003
15,088
818
New Jersey
Visit site
✟45,407.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Those who spoke out where killed by the "Holy Roman" government.

There outspoken words are lost to History except for what you see in the Bible about Rome itself.
Try reading ancient history, Church Fathers, not copying and pasting large amounts of text from websites unrelated to the current discussion.... :sigh:
 
Upvote 0

Trento

Senior Veteran
Apr 12, 2002
4,387
575
AZ. Between the Holy Cross river and the Saint Rit
Visit site
✟30,034.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Those who spoke out where killed by the "Holy Roman" government.

There outspoken words are lost to History except for what you see in the Bible about Rome itself. When it is referring to the Government of Rome it is referring ti the Catholic faith they were for Centuries joined at the hip

Differenciate for me as to who was hiding in the Catacombs and the as you call it Catholic faith that was joined with the roman gvt. All the histories i have read from St. Peter down for the first 300 years all the Popes were martyred for their Christianity. This is even confirmed by Protestant Church Historians.

Quote Protestant Church historian Philip Schaff, in his History of the Christian Church, Vol. III: Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity (A.D. 311-600),


Next to the Holy Scriptures, which are themselves a history and depository of divine revelation, there is no stronger proof of the continual presence of Christ with his people, no more thorough vindication of Christianity, no richer source of spiritual wisdom and experience, no deeper incentive to virtue and piety, than the history of Christ's kingdom. Every age has a message from God to man, which is of the greatest importance for man to understand.”
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The early Church fathers steered this young church through turbulent cultural and mythological currents of the world around them. Their writings provided guidance and assurance to early Christians whose faith was not only doctrinally challenged, since copies of Scripture were rare and costly, but who often suffered persecution and even martyrdom. Contemporary believers will find in these records a fascinating glimpse of the first centuries following the death and resurrection of Christ, and will be given rich insight into the growth and history of the Christian Church.[/FONT]
They represent primary evidences of the Canon and the credibility of the New Testament. Written before the Canon was established, the works of the Ante-Nicene Fathers offers itself as a means to defend the Christian faith, to record the martyrdom of the early Christian church body, and to stand as monuments to the power of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I woud advise you to do what this Protestant scholar suggests.


Schaff -- HISTORY of the CHRISTIAN CHURCH






CHAPTER IV:

ORGANIZATION AND DISCIPLINE OF THE CHURCH


The ministerial office was instituted by the Lord before his ascension, and solemnly inaugurated on the first Christian Pentecost by the outpouring of the Holy Ghost, to be the regular organ of the kingly power of Christ on earth in founding, maintaining, and extending the church. It appears in the New Testament under different names, descriptive of its various functions:—the "ministry of the word," "of the Spirit," "of righteousness," "of reconciliation." It includes the preaching of the gospel, the administration of the sacraments, and church discipline or the power of the keys, the power to open and shut the gates of the kingdom of heaven, in other words, to declare to the penitent the forgiveness of sins, and to the unworthy excommunication in the name and by the authority of Christ. The idea and institution of a special priesthood, distinct from the body of the people, with the accompanying notion of sacrifice and altar, passed imperceptibly from Jewish reminiscences and analogies into the Christian church.

In the external organization of the church, several important changes appear in the period before us. The distinction of clergy and laity, and the sacerdotal view of the ministry becomes prominent and fixed; subordinate church offices are multiplied; the episcopate arises; the beginnings of the Roman primacy appear; and the exclusive unity of the Catholic church develops itself in opposition to heretics and schismatics. The apostolical organization of the first century now gives place to the Catholic episcopal system.
 
Upvote 0

Carey

Contributor
Aug 17, 2006
9,624
161
60
Texas
✟33,339.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Politics
US-Others
The Roman government was Ruthless to the Popes they put into place
and as the POpes kept giving into the will of that horrible Pagan empire the True Christianity was tainted by their weakness and acceptance of the will of the empire.

So the doctriens today are vastly different from the first POPE.
But the power given the Papacy enjoyed after the fall of Rome gave more temptation to the Popes such as the pedafile POPE who had Young Naked Boys jumping out of huge cakes in celbrations. Hence pretty girls tradition
for bachelor parties etc.
 
Upvote 0

Trento

Senior Veteran
Apr 12, 2002
4,387
575
AZ. Between the Holy Cross river and the Saint Rit
Visit site
✟30,034.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
The Roman government was Ruthless to the Popes they put into place
and as the POpes kept giving into the will of that horrible Pagan empire the True Christianity was tainted by their weakness and acceptance of the will of the empire.

So the doctriens today are vastly different from the first POPE.
But the power given the Papacy enjoyed after the fall of Rome gave more temptation to the Popes such as the pedafile POPE who had Young Naked Boys jumping out of huge cakes in celbrations. Hence pretty girls tradition
for bachelor parties etc.

"Let him who is without sin cast the first stone..."?
John 8:7



Who said Popes don't sin? The Catholic Church has many scandals...
So? Is it not Scriptural that Jesus Christ said this would happen? So what is the problem?
Do you not believe what He said?

"Woe to the world because of scandals! For it must needs be that scandals come,
but WOE TO THE MAN THROUGH WHOM SCANDAL DOES COME!"
Matthew 18:7

And He said to His disciples, "It is IMPOSSIBLE THAT SCANDALS SHOULD NOT COME;
BUT WOE TO HIM THROUGH WHOM THEY COME."
Luke 17:1
These are the words of Jesus Christ Himself. Did he say the Church is the source, or the cause of the scandals? No, He said a man (or woman, to be politically correct for the time of the Gospel writing) is. Remember, the Catholic Church is not a hotel for saints, it is a hospital for sinners (Mark 2:17).


[SIZE=-1]Some of the most respected professional (Protestant) Church historians: Philip Schaff, J..N.D. Kelly, Heiko Oberman, and Jaroslav Pelikan. historians who are familiar with the Fathers; who specialize in patristics and Church history and history of theology or of doctrinal development of same, completely contradict you.[/SIZE]
Who shall we trust as an authority for the views of the Church when people making claims about these matters contradict each other? I'm glad to be in the company of Protestant Historians Schaff, Kelly, Pelikan, and Oberman. How embarrassing it must be to them! Imagine having the scholarly reputation that they have, yet also being incessantly guilty of "fundamental logical errors in evaluating the views of Early Church History.They have all the credentials and expertise, only to regretfully succumb to your insignificant misunderstanding about how to evaluate church history.
 
Upvote 0

Carey

Contributor
Aug 17, 2006
9,624
161
60
Texas
✟33,339.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Politics
US-Others
but Protestant Catholic blahbla petrian

If that group or denomination has (DOCTRINES) that are anti Bibliacl the flock mus be careful not to adhere to the anti Biblical doctrines. they dont have to start theri own Church just acknowlege their particular denomination is not the CHurch Jesus referred to
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.