ST. John Calvin

[mont974x4]

Like the teaching that the rcc is The Church, popes, priesthood. The way the rcc addresses these issues came after the NT church era.

 

[IamAdopted]

And what about those misinterpreting it? There must be some sort of "miscommunication" between them and God...

We do not always receive infused knowledge from God when reading the scriptures and we as individuals are not immune from making errors in interpretation. The Bible can not be read as a single novel or always interpreted literally. We need the Church who has held to its interpretations from the beginning of its (the Bible's) formation to guide us.

Where do you ever see in the scriptures that it is the church that interprets? Where do you see interprets in the scriptures.. It is the Holy Spirit that will lead a person into all truth and it is the Holy Spirit that is our teacher. We do not need men to teach us scripture says.. The annointing in us will agree with the written word of God.. It is Jesus that opens our eyes to understand the scriptures and not tradtion..

 

[Benedicta00]

So says your denomination...wrongly I might add.

And you are..who..to say that?

 

[Benedicta00]

Distancing myself from the rcc is not distancing myself from Christ

The Catholic Church is the bride of Christ... you can accept Christ and reject His bride but really, how well do you think it would go over if someone said to you, "Hey, Mont, I can have you but your bride?? Man, she's whack and I want no part of her..." ??

It's a question Mont, not a statement. What would you do if someone said that to you about your bride? And to add... you mom, "Man, your Mom, she's great and all, but come on... we don't need her for nothing..."

 

[Rick Otto]

Benedicta00;The Catholic Church is the bride of Christ...

At least, in the brochure it is.

 

[mont974x4]

The Catholic Church is the bride of Christ... you can accept Christ and reject His bride but really, how well do you think it would go over if someone said to you, "Hey, Mont, I can have you but your bride?? Man, she's whack and I want no part of her..." ??

It's a question Mont, not a statement. What would you do if someone said that to you about your bride? And to add... you mom, "Man, your Mom, she's great and all, but come on... we don't need her for nothing..."

Expand that to the biblical ideal of His bride being the Church and not the unbiblical ideal that it is any one specific denomination and you'd have a point.

Of course, I am a part of the Church, His bride, and we don't generally reject ourselves...at least, I don't reject myself.

 

[Benedicta00]

Expand that to the biblical ideal of His bride being the Church and not the unbiblical ideal that it is any one specific denomination and you'd have a point.

Of course, I am a part of the Church, His bride, and we don't generally reject ourselves...at least, I don't reject myself.

Matthew 16 Mont.

Jesus did build a Church and gave to it keys of authority. At this point, your just being obtuse in claiming he did not build a Church and give to it His own authority to bind and lose. It says that He did verbatim in Matthew 16.

And the Catholic Church is not a denomination, it is that Church that He built in Matthew. This is evident both from a scripture standpoint as well as a historical stand point. It is what we see from the 1st century all the way down to the present day.

Can you proves otherwise? Can you show me show me your tradtion documented in the bible and the first century and trace them all the way down to now?

No, you can't because your tradtion is a denomination. They protested Christ's Church that He built in Matthew on St. Peter and they broke away from her, (rather they protested and broke away from those who protested and broke away from her) and began their own church with their own beliefs, one of them is the bible only rule. Of course the bible contradicts such a rule which makes the whole thing illogical but I digress.

So they only question this leaves is, On Who's Authority?

 

[IamAdopted]

Matthew 16 Mont.

Jesus did build a Church and gave to it keys of authority. At this point, your just being obtuse in claiming he did not build a Church and give to it His own authority to bind and lose. It says that He did verbatim in Matthew 16.

And the Catholic Church is not a denomination, it is that Church that He built in Matthew. This is evident both from a scripture standpoint as well as a historical stand point. It is what we see from the 1st century all the way down to the present day.

Can you proves otherwise? Can you show me show me your tradtion documented in the bible and the first century and trace them all the way down to now?

No, you can't because your tradtion is a denomination. They protested Christ's Church that He built in Matthew on St. Peter and they broke away from her, (rather they protested and broke away from those who protested and broke away from her) and began their own church with their own beliefs, one of them is the bible only rule. Of course the bible contradicts such a rule which makes the whole thing illogical but I digress.

So they only question this leaves is, On Who's Authority?

The thing is that the church is not built on mans authority but on Christ authority.. The church is not under the levitical law anymore but under the High Priest after Melchizedek. We no longer have the law of Moses which is part of the Levite Priesthood. In Fact there is no more authority as in Priesthood other than Christ the Head and us His body the royal Priesthood.. So now tell me how the CC can say it is the true Church when it follows after the levite Priesthood that our High Priest was not of. For He was not from the tribe of Levi but of Judah.

 

[Rick Otto]

Benedicta00;Jesus did build a Church and gave to it keys of authority. At this point, your just being obtuse in claiming he did not build a Church and give to it His own authority to bind and lose. It says that He did verbatim in Matthew 16.

Only in your mind.

And the Catholic Church is not a denomination, it is that Church that He built in Matthew. This is evident both from a scripture standpoint as well as a historical stand point. It is what we see from the 1st century all the way down to the present day.

The Grand Illusion...

Can you proves otherwise? Can you show me show me your tradtion documented in the bible and the first century and trace them all the way down to now?

No, you are too set in your delusions. We can't even show you that you can understand scripture without a priest. Scripture is our tradition.

No, you can't because your tradtion is a denomination.

See what I mean? Your so sold on your religion you can only ask rhetorical questions, not honest ones.

They protested Christ's Church that He built in Matthew on St. Peter and they broke away from her,

Nope. You kicked us out for pointing out your mistakes.

(rather they protested and broke away from those who protested and broke away from her) and began their own church with their own beliefs, one of them is the bible only rule. Of course the bible contradicts such a rule which makes the whole thing illogical but I digress.

Not only do you digress, you indulge in misrepresentations.

So they only question this leaves is, On Who's Authority?

You have so little regard for Jesus & His authority that you replace Him with Popes. priests and especialy His mother.

 

[lionroar0]

You have so little regard for Jesus & His authority that you replace Him with Popes. priests and especialy His mother.

Whoa there partner!!!!

Peace

 

[lionroar0]

Expand that to the biblical ideal of His bride being the Church and not the unbiblical ideal that it is any one specific denomination and you'd have a point.

A bride is one person. That's why the Church is called the bride.

The Chruch is united in one belive and practice.

Not many brides with different belives and practices with a similar opinion.

Peace

 

[lionroar0]

The thing is that the church is not built on mans authority but on Christ authority.. The church is not under the levitical law anymore but under the High Priest after Melchizedek. We no longer have the law of Moses which is part of the Levite Priesthood. In Fact there is no more authority as in Priesthood other than Christ the Head and us His body the royal Priesthood.. So now tell me how the CC can say it is the true Church when it follows after the levite Priesthood that our High Priest was not of. For He was not from the tribe of Levi but of Judah.

umm, ah where you get such a silly idea from?

The Church does not follow the levical priesthood. It follows the Prieshood of Christ.

Peace

 

[IamAdopted]

umm, ah where you get such a silly idea from?

The Church does not follow the levical priesthood. It follows the Prieshood of Christ.

Peace

Which you believe follows after the levite preisthood. Such as in the mass per say.. The last supper for one.. Being that Moses was a levite.. Tee hee. You still hold on to the 10 commanments and follow after the seat of Moses. Which by the way was part of the levitical preisthood..

 

[lionroar0]

Which you believe follows after the levite preisthood. Such as in the mass per say.. The last supper for one.. Being that Moses was a levite.. Tee hee. You still hold on to the 10 commanments and follow after the seat of Moses. Which by the way was part of the levitical preisthood..

You have just stated a claim. Could you please post the evidence?(pretty please with sugar on top)
Peace

 

[IamAdopted]

You have just stated a claim. Could you please post the evidence?(pretty please with sugar on top)
Peace

Yup read the book of Hebrews.. This will explain to you quite a bit.. As far as the claim here is the link,..http://206.212.0.47/~trimbol3/4thcup4.htm

 

[Rick Otto]

lionroar0;umm, ah where you get such a silly idea from?

The "silly" ol' Bible.

The Church does not follow the levical priesthood. It follows the Prieshood of Christ.

Now that's silly.

 

[Benedicta00]

You have so little regard for Jesus & His authority that you replace Him with Popes. priests and especialy His mother.

LOl...

Straw Man


Definition:

The author attacks an argument which is different from, and usually weaker than, the opposition's best argument.

In what way have we replaced Jesus with priest and popes and the Mother of God?

One thing to claim, another to back it up.

 

[Benedicta00]

You have just stated a claim. Could you please post the evidence?(pretty please with sugar on top)

Description of Red Herring

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:


Topic A is under discussion.
Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
Topic A is abandoned.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.

 

[Rick Otto]

One thing to deny, another to disprove.

 

[Kristos]

Lol