What is the one true Church?

[Augustin56]

RCC is "personal interpretation" unto apostasy and fulfills our Lord's warning of "wolves in sheeps clothing."

the Vatican in Rome will burn with the fire of God's Judgment upon the Harlot

"HE will put it in their hearts to burn her with fire" - Revelation

the One True Church was never built by men's hands and there never was any earthbound building established/errected or dedicated to it.

Ok. So show me another Church before 1054 A.D. when the Orthodox separated from the Catholic Church.
OR, show me where an angel, or Our Lord, Himself, came down during the 16th century or after, and gave whomever started your Protestant denomination, a list of "corrections" to what was always taught from the beginning? Take your time...

And you are correct. The One True Church was not built by the hands of man, but by Jesus Christ, Himself, Who is God.

When Saul (St. Paul's Hebrew name) was going around persecuting Christians, Jesus knocked him off his horse and asked him, in Acts 9:4, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute Me?" Note that Jesus didn't ask him, "...why do you persecute My Church?" which he was doing, but "...why do you persecute Me?" Christ identifies as one with His Church! Persecute Christ's Church, the Catholic Church, and you persecute Christ.

Recall, too, Luke 22:31-32:

“Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers.”

What does it mean, to sift? It means to separate or divide. Satan, from early on, wanted to separate (or sift) Christ's Church into more and more and more differing groups. Why? In order to dilute the fullness of Christ's truth that He gave His Church! And why was Christ's statement all about Simon (Peter)? Because unity centers around the position Christ created in His Church to lead and govern His Church, the Pope. Where the Pope is, there is Christ's Church!

 

[Augustin56]

I understand that.....it just did not happen.

Again I understand all that it just did not happen.
As far as the anathema in the Christian commune, I think any of the Apostles could have done that.
All I am asking you for is a scripture referring to him as a leader.
Now if you are saying that Peter was the only Apostle to perform miracles....we can talk about that.

Keeping things in perspective, I think Peter was a great Apostle.......Just no one you needed to form a Church or religion on.

Tell me WHY Peter is specified by an angel as the leader and representative of the apostles (Mark 16:7) if he was not in charge??
I do not see the words leader or in charge here and don't thing this has anything to do with being a leader.
Now Christ picked Mary Magdalene to go proclaim His resurrection.....Now that was something that a leader would be blessed with........plus the fact that while the Apostles were hiding and the women came to the tomb might tell you something.

Many words do not appear in the Bible that Christians believe. For example, the word Trinity is not in the Bible. But the principle is, and so is the leadership of Peter.

Now take a closer look at the key verse: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church” (Matt. 16:18). Disputes about this passage have always been related to the meaning of the term “rock.” To whom, or to what, does it refer? Since Simon’s new name of Peter itself means rock, the sentence could be rewritten as: “You are Rock and upon this rock I will build my Church.” The play on words seems obvious, but commentators wishing to avoid what follows from this—namely the establishment of the papacy—have suggested that the word rock could not refer to Peter but must refer to his profession of faith or to Christ.

From the grammatical point of view, the phrase “this rock” must relate back to the closest noun. Peter’s profession of faith (“You are the Christ, the Son of the living God”) is two verses earlier, while his name, a proper noun, is in the immediately preceding clause.

Jesus picking Mary Magdalene to announce the Resurrection does, in now way, detract from Peter as leader of Christ's Church. That's just wishful thinking.

 

[GRACE ambassador]

Many words do not appear in the Bible that Christians believe.

Precious friend, A Very Warm Welcome to the Board.

LOL - I have been on earth a day longer than you, me-being-born on June 26, 1952

Please Be Very RICHLY Encouraged, Enlightened, Exhorted, And Edified In
The LORD JESUS CHRIST, And In His Word Of Truth, Rightly
Divided! (+ I and II!)

Grace, Peace, And JOY!…

 

[BreadOfLife]

Jesus knew Peter would betray Him. Yet is was still peters choice, and Jesus, being the loving Savior He is, would have been doing all He could to strengthen Peter against such an event, and if Peter did fail the test, he would say least remember Jesus' love and solicitude toward a wayward sinner such as himself.

This says absolutely NOTHING about WHY Peter was singled out..

This was after Peters fall. Jesus was encouraging Peter that despite his failure, Jesus still wanted him to serve as a shepherd in his church. Just as Jesus wanted all the disciples to serve likewise. Nothing there about leadership.

They ALL fell. They ALL ran away and hid.
Why didn’t Jesus reinstate ALL of them that morning

This was when Jesus was warning Peter that he would deny Him. Jesus was not putting Peter in charge of anything...he wasn't even converted.

Nonsense.

He was putting Peter in charge of bringing the others back.
What part of “But I have prayed for YOU, Simon, that YOUR faith may not fail. And when YOU have turned back, strengthen YOUR brothers” do you NOT understand??

Because Peter was the first person he came across on the beach at Galilee? Along with Andrew, but what likely drew Christ's attention because he was a loudmouth.

Sooooooo, Peter is listed as FIRST in EVERY Biblical list – because he was a “loidmouth”?
That’s pathetic – even for YOU . . .

Same order they were found and became disciples. No big deal.

WRONG.
Peter wasn’t the first to become a disciple.

Leader? In charge?? This is but another encouragement for Peter after his great denial which he without doubt he was still feeling great guilt. Jesus was encouraging him and specifically including him, singling him out, in order to defeat any feelings of discouragement and doubts regarding Jesus' willingness to forgive.

Sooooo, Jesus and the angel had to “work” on Peter to try to convince him??

You don’t think that Peter would have simply had a complete change just by seeing and hearing his risen Lord??

Precociousness.

Another cop-out . . .

Could be any number of reasons. Trying to prove himself to the others that he has recovered from his depression and was eager to serve? Filled with the holy Spirit and led to do what we are all lead to do? Preach the gospel? Nothing there to suggest being in charge.

WRONG.
The mere fact that he spoke FOR all of the others shows his leadership.

No idea. Wasn't he the clerk at the desk taking the count? Does that mean he was in charge? Most institutions I know the clerk was at the bottom, the tail, not the head. Just thinking out loud.

There’s no verse that even implies that Peter was the “clerk”.
The fact that Annanias and Sapphira had to answer to Peter ALONE shows that he was in charge,

No idea. Man on the spot.

The Scriptures don’t deal in “coincidences”
There is reason and order for EVERYTHING..

That's interesting. I never knew that. But it only has significance if you apply significance to all the others as well... And I don't.
All that said though, maybe he was in charge and took the lead for a time of the church in Jerusalem, taking the gospel to the Jews. Paul was at the lead of mission work taking the gospel to the Gentiles. There were numerous others doing great work for the Lord during those early years. Apollos. Bartholomew. Timothy. Paul. Mark. Thomas. There is no hint anywhere in scripture or history that links Peter to any headship or authority over any of the other apostles or disciples, not over any of the hundreds of church groups that sprang up throughout the known world. Nor did such an authority become apparent until many decades later, and the so called succession you speak of was a late invention to justify papal superiority and power.

Roman Catholicism has a virtually identical view of divine revelation as did apostate Judaism in the days of Christ. The three elements of a sacred deposit, a transmitting mechanism and an authoritative living interpreter are all present in both systems. Strikingly, the terminology is virtually identical as well (Tradition, handed down, passed on, received, hold, unbroken succession, etc).
In both systems the oral traditions supposedly go back to an original source. In the case of the Jews, that source was Moses; in the case of the Roman Catholic Church it was Peter. Amazingly, the Pope speaks ex-cathedra and his word is considered infallible and final. When the rabbis spoke from Moses= kathedra, their word was considered infallible and final as well.
In both systems the oral tradition and the written word were given equal authority and in some cases oral tradition even transcended the authority of the written word. In Judaism, the people were expected to render implicit and unquestioning submission to the theological views of the scholars. Any divergence was swiftly punished with expulsion from the synagogue. In Roman Catholicism the same is true. Any disagreement with the theological cadre is punished with excommunication. In fact, even theologians who disagree with the magisterium are defrocked from their teaching positions, as can be seen, for example, in the case of Hans Kung. By controlling the magisterium, Satan can control the masses.

And the condemnation of the Pharisees in upholding tradition and making the observations thereof mandatory for the masses, applies no less to the Catholic Church where their traditions make null and void the sacred written word of God.

This rant shows a complete failure to understand Tradition in both Judaism and the Church. You also have an ignorant view of Tradition vs. tradition.

Tradition (Sacred/Apostolic) is on par with Scripture – as we are told IN Scripture:
2 Thess 2:15
"Stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions you were taught, whether by an ORAL STATEMENT or by a LETTER from us."

It is every bit as binding on the believer as the written Word.
Minor traditions and disciplines are BOT the same thing and are NEVER presents as being equal to Scripture.

As for your issue with the Church not allowing theological dissent - show me a SINGLE Biblical instance where God approved of dissent. Hans Kung rejected doctrinal and dogmatic positions held by the Church. Can you point me to a SINGLE Protestant denomination – including your SDA sect that would approve of the same?

I didn’t think so . . .

 

[Illuminator]

Telling the truth is not demonizing the Catholic Church....

Subjectivity isn't telling the truth either.

and you do not have live in denial or live a fantasy to be Catholic.

True. We commend Catholics who live in denial and fantasy to appropriate medical intervention and pastoral counselling.

I worship with the Catholics and the Protestants.

I worshipped with Protestants for 30 years. 99% of them are sincere Christians who love the Bible and their biggest hang-up was always the saint worship myth. I was challenged about twice. I didn't challenge them about sola scriptura or the Chick Publications in plain view because I wasn't equipped at the time. My mother thought I was nuts (being a hippie in the Jesus Movement, a fan of Larry Norman and Keith Green) and I agreed to a retreat where I met the Venerable Catherine Doherty at Madonna House. After that, Protestantism seemed so...incomplete.

I do not refuse to accept the development of the papacy when it actually occurred.

That's your problem, you deny it occurred at all, but don't deny the development of the canon of scripture. You have a disassociative perspective, in the extreme form, it's known as schizophrenia.

There is nothing wrong with the structure of the Catholic Church.....but it did not occur in early Christianity.

Who told you that? James White??? You deny the early Church was thoroughly Catholic since Pentecost contrary to truckloads of documented primary source evidence, and claim the Greek kataholos doesn't apply to Catholicism. Who taught you your flavor of early church history? The wanna-be preachers on you tube?

Not all Catholics do this....but it is like the Jehovah's Witnesses...their whole religion requires them to deny reality and history and even the scriptures....it is something I do not have to do because I focus on the truth.

I do not recognize the Church's perceived authority in such matters as the Bread and Wine ritual.
I never said that the Bread and Wine Ritual was a mere anything....I explained in detail that it is a miraculous event. But the Bread and Wine Ritual is not governed by the Catholic Church.

No, it's governed by the absolute truth that the Passover/Eucharist Sacrifice at the last Supper is one and the same as the Sacrifice on the Cross, so we eat Him like He told us to. The Catholic Church does not and cannot govern hearts. She cannot and does not impose truths, she can only propose truths to those who are disposed to receive it. If any past church leader imposed truth, they were committing a sin. When any truth is imposed, its no longer a truth.

The Church's mission is to preach the Word of God and minster to Christians, not rule over them. This lust for power and authority has always been the stumbling block for the Catholic Church and led it down a very dark path.

See above. Name the pope who formally taught the first theological inconsistency. You can't or won't because you deny consistent formal teaching existed in the first place! Your argument is circular. Yes, we know there were a few scum bag popes, but that does not disprove the doctrine of the papacy, as the Church defines it.

You mean the Catholic numbering system....Catechism?

You make my point. You haven't a clue what I'm talking about.

 

[David in NJ]

Ok. So show me another Church before 1054 A.D. when the Orthodox separated from the Catholic Church.
OR, show me where an angel, or Our Lord, Himself, came down during the 16th century or after, and gave whomever started your Protestant denomination, a list of "corrections" to what was always taught from the beginning? Take your time...

And you are correct. The One True Church was not built by the hands of man, but by Jesus Christ, Himself, Who is God.

When Saul (St. Paul's Hebrew name) was going around persecuting Christians, Jesus knocked him off his horse and asked him, in Acts 9:4, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute Me?" Note that Jesus didn't ask him, "...why do you persecute My Church?" which he was doing, but "...why do you persecute Me?" Christ identifies as one with His Church! Persecute Christ's Church, the Catholic Church, and you persecute Christ.

Recall, too, Luke 22:31-32:

“Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers.”

What does it mean, to sift? It means to separate or divide. Satan, from early on, wanted to separate (or sift) Christ's Church into more and more and more differing groups. Why? In order to dilute the fullness of Christ's truth that He gave His Church! And why was Christ's statement all about Simon (Peter)? Because unity centers around the position Christ created in His Church to lead and govern His Church, the Pope. Where the Pope is, there is Christ's Church!

Apostles Peter, Paul, John, Matthew, Mark and the others where never roman catholics, never started a denomination called 'catholicism' .

If they were walking the earth today they would be calling the RCC what She truly is = the Babylonian Harlot of Revelation.

 

[Illuminator]

Precious friend, A Very Warm Welcome to the Board.

LOL - I have been on earth a day longer than you, me-being-born on June 26, 1952

Please Be Very RICHLY Encouraged, Enlightened, Exhorted, And Edified In
The LORD JESUS CHRIST, And In His Word Of Truth, Rightly
Divided! (+ I and II!)

Grace, Peace, And JOY!…

HA! I got you beat by 6 months, me-being-born January 31, 1952. The FIRST month on the LAST day!

 

[Jim B]

Ok. So show me another Church before 1054 A.D. when the Orthodox separated from the Catholic Church.
OR, show me where an angel, or Our Lord, Himself, came down during the 16th century or after, and gave whomever started your Protestant denomination, a list of "corrections" to what was always taught from the beginning? Take your time...

And you are correct. The One True Church was not built by the hands of man, but by Jesus Christ, Himself, Who is God.

When Saul (St. Paul's Hebrew name) was going around persecuting Christians, Jesus knocked him off his horse and asked him, in Acts 9:4, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute Me?" Note that Jesus didn't ask him, "...why do you persecute My Church?" which he was doing, but "...why do you persecute Me?" Christ identifies as one with His Church! Persecute Christ's Church, the Catholic Church, and you persecute Christ.

Recall, too, Luke 22:31-32:

“Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers.”

What does it mean, to sift? It means to separate or divide. Satan, from early on, wanted to separate (or sift) Christ's Church into more and more and more differing groups. Why? In order to dilute the fullness of Christ's truth that He gave His Church! And why was Christ's statement all about Simon (Peter)? Because unity centers around the position Christ created in His Church to lead and govern His Church, the Pope. Where the Pope is, there is Christ's Church!

Show me anywhere in Scripture where the term "Catholic" or the term "Pope" is mentioned. The church is the body of Christ, composed of all Christians. It is not limited to one (unScriptural) denomination. It is nothing but propaganda created by the Catholic denomination to claim it is the original church of the Bible.

The original church -- actually there were many churches -- was composed almost entirely of Jews; Gentiles were added as grafted-in "branches". Show me where an angel, or Our Lord, Himself, came down during any time and started your unScriptural Catholic denomination. You have just believed your denomination' self-justifying propaganda.

Christ identifies as one with His Church! Persecute Christ's Church, His body of believers, and you persecute Christ. That applies to all denominations, including Orthodox, Protestant, Coptic, and all others who accept Christ as their Savior.

I agree that Satan, from early on, wanted to separate (or sift) Christ's Church into more and more and more differing groups in order to dilute the fullness of Christ's truth that He gave His Church! . That is clearly what you are doing when you separate your denomination from the rest of Christ's one body.

Finally, you make the outrageous statement that "Where the Pope is, there is Christ's Church". That is total nonsense! There is no mention of the Pope in the Bible!!! That office is an unscriptural fabrication of the Catholic denomination.

And before you start the false claim that Peter was "the first Pope" on which Christ built His church, don't forget that Peter was the only person whom Jesus called "Satan" and referred to him as a "stumbling block" (as opposed to a "rock"), and who denied knowing Jesus three times when He was arrested.

 

[GRACE ambassador]

...the ones that stand out in the leadership roles were James and Paul.

And, for very Different leadership roles to Two Different groups:

Israel, according to prophecy/covenants/law, Christ on earth, to TWELVE apostles,
James to "the TWELVE tribes" of Israel (James 1:1)

Rightly Divided (2 Timothy 2:15) From “Things That Differ” (online)

ONE Body Of Christ, According To The Revelation Of The Mystery, from
Christ, In Heaven = ONE apostle, Paul to Today's One True (Grace) Church
(Romans Through Philemon)

More here:

'Representations' of Twelve and ONE

 

[Augustin56]

Show me anywhere in Scripture where the term "Catholic" or the term "Pope" is mentioned. The church is the body of Christ, composed of all Christians. It is not limited to one (unScriptural) denomination. It is nothing but propaganda created by the Catholic denomination to claim it is the original church of the Bible.

The original church -- actually there were many churches -- was composed almost entirely of Jews; Gentiles were added as grafted-in "branches". Show me where an angel, or Our Lord, Himself, came down during any time and started your unScriptural Catholic denomination. You have just believed your denomination' self-justifying propaganda.

Christ identifies as one with His Church! Persecute Christ's Church, His body of believers, and you persecute Christ. That applies to all denominations, including Orthodox, Protestant, Coptic, and all others who accept Christ as their Savior.

I agree that Satan, from early on, wanted to separate (or sift) Christ's Church into more and more and more differing groups in order to dilute the fullness of Christ's truth that He gave His Church! . That is clearly what you are doing when you separate your denomination from the rest of Christ's one body.

Finally, you make the outrageous statement that "Where the Pope is, there is Christ's Church". That is total nonsense! There is no mention of the Pope in the Bible!!! That office is an unscriptural fabrication of the Catholic denomination.

And before you start the false claim that Peter was "the first Pope" on which Christ built His church, don't forget that Peter was the only person whom Jesus called "Satan" and referred to him as a "stumbling block" (as opposed to a "rock"), and who denied knowing Jesus three times when He was arrested.

Do you believe in the Holy Trinity? That word and term is not in the Bible! But the principle is, just as the office that the Pope occupies. Clearly, in ancient times, everyone in the Middle East would have easily understood the office symbolized by "the keys" of a second-in-command. Matt. 16:19 clearly shows Jesus establishing Peter as the first to occupy this position.

I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Matt. 16:19

Authority is not taken, it is given. Refer to John 20:19-23, where Jesus appears to the Apostles in the upper room.

On the evening of that first day of the week, when the doors were locked, where the disciples* were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them, “Peace be with you.” When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. The disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord. Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.”

We see here that Jesus says, "As the Father has sent me..." How did the Father send Jesus? With all heavenly authority, including the authority to forgive sins! The next part is also telling, "...so I send you." Jesus delegates His Godly authority to forgive sins to the Apostles! Next, Jesus breathes on them. Only twice in all Scripture, Old Testament and New, does God breathe on man. Once in Genesis where He breathes life into Adam, and once here! The Apostles now have God's authority to breathe new life into a once dead (through sin) soul through the Sacrament of Confession. (The Apostles weren't mind readers, so the sinner had to confess his sins to the Apostle to be forgiven.)

So, Jesus clearly can delegate His authority, as God, to someone else. This He did in a special way with regards to Peter. It wasn't because of Peter's personal ability, but because God chose Him to fulfill the office which we have come to call Pope.

Ok. Let me lay something out for you. Jesus didn't write a book to spread His truths. He was a lot smarter than that. He founded a Church. The vast, vast majority of humanity was illiterate until just over a century ago. Before the Industrial Revolution, the vast majority of labor was manual labor. No literacy required. Creating a system based on a book would have restricted Christ's message to a very small elite percentage. Christ established a Church, trained Apostles, and sent them out to teach and preach, not write and read. Eventually, some of what was taught was written down. In the late 4th century, the Catholic Church selected 27 of these writings and established them as Scripture. We call that the New Testament. Note, too, that whenever the New Testament refers to "Scriptures" it is almost always talking about the Old Testament. The New Testament, as such, didn't exist until the late 4th century. And even then, they didn't run down to the local Kinko's and make a thousand copies to hand out. Everything was hand written by members of the Catholic Church throughout the centuries. Otherwise, we wouldn't have a Bible.

The Bible itself says that not everything Jesus did and taught is in the Bible.

There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written. (John 21:25)

Yet, Jesus commanded the Apostles to go forth and teach all that He had taught them.

Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” (Matt. 28:19-20)

So, if the Apostles were to teach all that Jesus taught them, and all of it was not in Scripture, where's the rest? In Holy Tradition (aka, Oral Tradition) that St. Paul describes.

Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours. (2 Thes. 2:15)

The word "traditions" here does not mean common practices, etc. It means "teaching."

The Catholic Church, technically, is not a denomination. The word denomination comes from the Latin and infers that it comes from the name of something else. Since the Catholic Church is the original Church, founded by Christ, it didn't come from another Christian organization.

 

[Illuminator]

Apostles Peter, Paul, John, Matthew, Mark and the others where never roman catholics, never started a denomination called 'catholicism' .

You are correct. "Roman" Catholic, to designate all Catholics, was first used as a slur by the Anglicans in the 16th century. They tried to maintain a degree of catholicity while separating from the Catholic Church, calling themselves catholic and all Catholics "Roman Catholics". The Latin or Roman rite is but one rite out of 23. I'd be happy to explain what a rite is but you can't receive much with your fists clenched.

If they were walking the earth today they would be calling the RCC what She truly is = the Babylonian Harlot of Revelation.

One of the worst insults anyone can give is calling ones mother a whore; it's found in every country in the world. Please, tell your doctor the Catholic Church is a whore, he has medications that can help you.

 

[Jim B]

Do you believe in the Holy Trinity? That word and term is not in the Bible! But the principle is, just as the office that the Pope occupies. Clearly, in ancient times, everyone in the Middle East would have easily understood the office symbolized by "the keys" of a second-in-command. Matt. 16:19 clearly shows Jesus establishing Peter as the first to occupy this position.

I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Matt. 16:19

Authority is not taken, it is given. Refer to John 20:19-23, where Jesus appears to the Apostles in the upper room.

On the evening of that first day of the week, when the doors were locked, where the disciples* were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them, “Peace be with you.” When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. The disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord. Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.”

We see here that Jesus says, "As the Father has sent me..." How did the Father send Jesus? With all heavenly authority, including the authority to forgive sins! The next part is also telling, "...so I send you." Jesus delegates His Godly authority to forgive sins to the Apostles! Next, Jesus breathes on them. Only twice in all Scripture, Old Testament and New, does God breathe on man. Once in Genesis where He breathes life into Adam, and once here! The Apostles now have God's authority to breathe new life into a once dead (through sin) soul through the Sacrament of Confession. (The Apostles weren't mind readers, so the sinner had to confess his sins to the Apostle to be forgiven.)

So, Jesus clearly can delegate His authority, as God, to someone else. This He did in a special way with regards to Peter. It wasn't because of Peter's personal ability, but because God chose Him to fulfill the office which we have come to call Pope.

Ok. Let me lay something out for you. Jesus didn't write a book to spread His truths. He was a lot smarter than that. He founded a Church. The vast, vast majority of humanity was illiterate until just over a century ago. Before the Industrial Revolution, the vast majority of labor was manual labor. No literacy required. Creating a system based on a book would have restricted Christ's message to a very small elite percentage. Christ established a Church, trained Apostles, and sent them out to teach and preach, not write and read. Eventually, some of what was taught was written down. In the late 4th century, the Catholic Church selected 27 of these writings and established them as Scripture. We call that the New Testament. Note, too, that whenever the New Testament refers to "Scriptures" it is almost always talking about the Old Testament. The New Testament, as such, didn't exist until the late 4th century. And even then, they didn't run down to the local Kinko's and make a thousand copies to hand out. Everything was hand written by members of the Catholic Church throughout the centuries. Otherwise, we wouldn't have a Bible.

The Bible itself says that not everything Jesus did and taught is in the Bible.

There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written. (John 21:25)

Yet, Jesus commanded the Apostles to go forth and teach all that He had taught them.

Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” (Matt. 28:19-20)

So, if the Apostles were to teach all that Jesus taught them, and all of it was not in Scripture, where's the rest? In Holy Tradition (aka, Oral Tradition) that St. Paul describes.

Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours. (2 Thes. 2:15)

The word "traditions" here does not mean common practices, etc. It means "teaching."

The Catholic Church, technically, is not a denomination. The word denomination comes from the Latin and infers that it comes from the name of something else. Since the Catholic Church is the original Church, founded by Christ, it didn't come from another Christian organization.

It is always a mistake to take something out of context to prove doctrine. You quote Matthew 16:19, " I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”, but you need to keep reading...

Matthew 16:20-23, "Then he sternly ordered the disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah. From that time on, Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and undergo great suffering at the hands of the elders and chief priests and scribes and be killed and on the third day be raised. And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, saying, “God forbid it, Lord! This must never happen to you.” But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me, for you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things.”

Jesus never called another person "Satan" ever, only Peter. Also, Peter denied knowing Jesus three times, so he clearly is a "stumbling block". So your claim that It wasn't because of Peter's personal ability, but because God chose Him to fulfill the office which we have come to call Pope has no Scriptural basis. Again, there is no office of the Pope mentioned anywhere in Scripture. It is an invention of the Catholic denomination. There is one head of the church: Jesus Christ. Ephesians 4:15-16, " Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will grow to become in every respect the mature body of him who is the head, that is, Christ. From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work." The church -- all believers -- is the body; Jesus is the head. (Not the Pope, who is the head of a single denomination.)

Your comments about the Bible, literacy, etc. are a joke. The written Bible has existed for thousands of years. Its message is not dependent on literacy, only that it is communicated faithfully. There have always been a class of literate people who wrote, transcribed, and read sacred texts to people, whether they were literate or not. How do you think that the Bible that the Catholic clergy reads from came about? It was written entirely by Jews (with the sole exception of Luke), and has been read in synagogues, public gatherings, "churches" (including people's homes) for thousands of years. Its message doesn't depend on literacy, but it doesn't need to be distorted by a class of "priests" to justify their power. And making a claim that "The New Testament, as such, didn't exist until the late 4th century" is total nonsense. The "official" Christian canon was decided upon in the 4th Century, but there are many writings that are also considered to be valid Scripture by other denominations and informed scholars. You might want to have a look at "A new New Testament"

Over the past century, numerous lost scriptures have been discovered, authenticated, translated, debated, celebrated. Many of these documents were as important to shaping early Christian communities and beliefs as what we have come to call the New Testament. These were not the work of shunned sects or rebel apostles, not alternative histories or doctrines, but part of the vibrant conversations that sparked the rise of Christianity. Yet these scriptures are rarely read in contemporary churches; they are discussed almost only by scholars or within the context only of gnostic gospels. Why should these books be set aside? Why should they continue to be lost to most of us? And don’t we have a great deal to gain by placing them back into contact with the twenty-seven books of the traditional New Testament—by hearing, finally, the full range of voices that formed the early chorus of Christians?

Of course, your rigid thinking (and your rigid clergy) won't allow you to accept any new scriptures, but people with an open mind are always interested in the truth.

continued below...

 

[Jim B]

I am really not interested in Catholic propaganda. It is a denomination that has departed so far from the New Testament that it is a parody. You can write that The Bible itself says that not everything Jesus did and taught is in the Bible, but clearly you don't believe it.

Finally, claiming that "everything was hand written by members of the Catholic Church throughout the centuries. Otherwise, we wouldn't have a Bible" is just plain nonsense. The Jews wrote the Old Testament, the Scriptures that the prophets, Jesus and the apostles used. The New Testament scriptures (canonical and non-canonical) were written by many people throughout the Mediterranean region, entirely separate from any Catholic scribes.

It is really, really sad that you have swallowed the Catholic propaganda "hook, line, and sinker". I realize that it is fruitless to try to tell you the truth. You can worship as you see fit, but stop trying to claim that your one denomination is the church or is the repository of truth. It isn't!

 

[David in NJ]

You are correct. "Roman" Catholic, to designate all Catholics, was first used as a slur by the Anglicans in the 16th century. They tried to maintain a degree of catholicity while separating from the Catholic Church, calling themselves catholic and all Catholics "Roman Catholics". The Latin or Roman rite is but one rite out of 23. I'd be happy to explain what a rite is but you can't receive much with your fists clenched.

One of the worst insults anyone can give is calling ones mother a whore; it's found in every country in the world. Please, tell your doctor the Catholic Church is a whore, he has medications that can help you.

the Revelation of the LORD Jesus Christ

Chapter 17
Then one of the seven angels with the seven bowls came and said to me, “Come, I will show you the punishment of the great prostitute, who sits on many waters. 2The kings of the earth were immoral with her, and those who dwell on the earth were intoxicated with the wine of her immorality.”

3And the angel carried me away in the Spirit into a wilderness, where I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast that was covered with blasphemous names and had seven heads and ten horns. 4The woman was dressed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and precious stones and pearls. She held in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the impurities of her sexual immorality. 5And on her forehead a mysterious name was written:

BABYLON THE GREAT,
THE MOTHER OF PROSTITUTES
AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
The Mystery Explained

6I could see that the woman was drunk with the blood of the saints and witnesses for Jesus. And I was utterly amazed at the sight of her.

 

[Grailhunter]

tou’re saying that what Jesus told Peter conveyed Supreme Authority – but He was just “kidding”??

What did Christ mean by that? The wording seems clear......so does the hate your father and mother thing....or Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.....we know that these two verses cannot mean what they appear to say because it does not follow through in the storyline.

Peter was a favorite for Christians. And I would have no problem with him being the leader of the Apostles if that was what appeared in the scriptures. If the other Apostles recognized him as their leader or took orders from Peter.....but it did not happen. But even then the Catholic Church as an organized Church would have to prove a direct connection to him.....but then for that connection to matter they would have had to act more Christian like in history.

As it is the Catholic Church did have power and authority and they used it for evil. So was it God that had the Protestants knock them off their pedestal and defang them.

And I’ve given it to you multiple times:

Jesus singled out Peter – and Peter alone to feed His lambs and tend His sheep (John 21:15-19).

Jesus said that He prayed for Peter ALONE to strengthen the others and bring them back to faith (Luke 22:31-32).

I have already said and believe Peter was special.
One of the reasons that I think Peter was popular was that people could connect to his wavering faith.

Why would that tell me ANYTHING??

People aren’t allowed to change? A change of heart is the ENTIRE basis of the Gospel message.

Weak argument . . .

The Apostles did change.
I was making the point that the faith of the women was stronger and more confident than the men....
The men agreed with Him but they were not willing to stake their lives on it until they truly believed.....and that is not just Peter.

 

[Grailhunter]

And, for very Different leadership roles to Two Different groups:

Israel, according to prophecy/covenants/law, Christ on earth, to TWELVE apostles,
James to "the TWELVE tribes" of Israel (James 1:1)

Rightly Divided (2 Timothy 2:15) From “Things That Differ” (online)

ONE Body Of Christ, According To The Revelation Of The Mystery, from
Christ, In Heaven = ONE apostle, Paul to Today's One True (Grace) Church
(Romans Through Philemon)

More here:

'Representations' of Twelve and ONE

To two different leadership roles....I do not agree....for two different ministries.
For two different groups ..... agree.

 

[Grailhunter]

Many words do not appear in the Bible that Christians believe. For example, the word Trinity is not in the Bible. But the principle is, and so is the leadership of Peter.

Those that believe in the one God formula for the Trinity hug one set of verses that was caught in a scam.....The Comma Johanneum Addition.
But the entire storyline of the Gospels is about Yahweh and His Son working together to save humanity. And I have over a hundred scriptures that prove that the one God formula wrong.

Now take a closer look at the key verse: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church” (Matt. 16:18). Disputes about this passage have always been related to the meaning of the term “rock.” To whom, or to what, does it refer? Since Simon’s new name of Peter itself means rock, the sentence could be rewritten as: “You are Rock and upon this rock I will build my Church.” The play on words seems obvious, but commentators wishing to avoid what follows from this—namely the establishment of the papacy—have suggested that the word rock could not refer to Peter but must refer to his profession of faith or to Christ.

I agree that what Christ said seems to imply a solid foundation.....But Peter was anything but solid.
And I believed others used the name Cephas as a ribbing.....humor.

Jesus picking Mary Magdalene to announce the Resurrection does, in now way, detract from Peter as leader of Christ's Church. That's just wishful thinking.

Peter was not the leader of the Church.....The significance of Christ's decision to have Mary Magdalene make the most important announcement in Christendom is a matter of debate.

 

[Jim B]

Ok. So show me another Church before 1054 A.D. when the Orthodox separated from the Catholic Church.
OR, show me where an angel, or Our Lord, Himself, came down during the 16th century or after, and gave whomever started your Protestant denomination, a list of "corrections" to what was always taught from the beginning? Take your time...

And you are correct. The One True Church was not built by the hands of man, but by Jesus Christ, Himself, Who is God.

When Saul (St. Paul's Hebrew name) was going around persecuting Christians, Jesus knocked him off his horse and asked him, in Acts 9:4, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute Me?" Note that Jesus didn't ask him, "...why do you persecute My Church?" which he was doing, but "...why do you persecute Me?" Christ identifies as one with His Church! Persecute Christ's Church, the Catholic Church, and you persecute Christ.

Recall, too, Luke 22:31-32:

“Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers.”

What does it mean, to sift? It means to separate or divide. Satan, from early on, wanted to separate (or sift) Christ's Church into more and more and more differing groups. Why? In order to dilute the fullness of Christ's truth that He gave His Church! And why was Christ's statement all about Simon (Peter)? Because unity centers around the position Christ created in His Church to lead and govern His Church, the Pope. Where the Pope is, there is Christ's Church!

Read your Bible! There were churches in Israel (and surrounding areas), Rome, Galatia, Ephesus, Colossae, Thessalonica, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, Laodicea, and some other places not mentioned in Scripture (for example, Egypt and Ethiopia).

Simply because the Catholic denomination claims to be the original church doesn't make it true. Take off your blinders!

Why do you call the murderous crusades and the conquering of indigenous peoples God's will? Many thousands of people have been killed under the auspices of the Catholic denomination. Do you think that is loving your neighbor? Your denomination has a history of shedding innocent blood!

Persecution by the Catholic Church of people whom God created in His image, and you persecute Christ, the creator of all.

 

[Illuminator]

Show me anywhere in Scripture where the term "Catholic" or the term "Pope" is mentioned.

CHALLENGE ACCEPTED!!!

Romans 1:5 By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name: 6Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ: 7To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ. 8First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world. …KJV

"spoken(KATAnggeletai) in the whole universe (en HOLO to kosmo)” (Rom. 1:8)

Thus the Greek word KATAHOLOS or the Latin word Catholicus or Catholic in English originated from Scriptures - Romans 1:8

"So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Sama'ria (the whole Christian world at the time) had peace and was built up; and walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit it was multiplied." [Acts 9:31 RSV]

There the words "church throughout all" is translated from the Greek words "Ecclesia kata holis", or, in English, "Catholic".
I'd ask you to show me the name of your church in the bible, but you don't have a church.

The church is the body of Christ, composed of all Christians.
e church is the body of Christ, composed of all Christians.

Agreed.

It is not limited to one (unScriptural) denomination. It is nothing but propaganda created by the Catholic denomination to claim it is the original church of the Bible.

The Catholic Church is not a denomination. She would have to break off from the historic Church to be a denomination. Please name the church she allegedly broke off from, citing qualified Protestant historians who wrote after 1960.

The original church -- actually there were many churches -- was composed almost entirely of Jews; Gentiles were added as grafted-in "branches". Show me where an angel, or Our Lord, Himself, came down during any time and started your unScriptural Catholic denomination. You have just believed your denomination' self-justifying propaganda.

Luke 16: 30 “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’

31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”

Christ identifies as one with His Church! Persecute Christ's Church, His body of believers, and you persecute Christ. That applies to all denominations, including Orthodox, Protestant, Coptic, and all others who accept Christ as their Savior.

But you persecute Catholics, and not even aware you are doing it.

I agree that Satan, from early on, wanted to separate (or sift) Christ's Church into more and more and more differing groups in order to dilute the fullness of Christ's truth that He gave His Church! . That is clearly what you are doing when you separate your denomination from the rest of Christ's one body.

"Sift" means to divide. To divide the Apostles one from another, not different groups. You can plainly see it in the context of
Luke 22:30 That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
31 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:
32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.

Luke 22:31-32 – Jesus also prays that Peter’s faith may not fail and charges Peter to be the one to strengthen the other apostles – “Simon, satan demanded to have you (plural, referring to all the apostles) to sift you (plural) like wheat, but I prayed for you (singular) that your (singular) faith may not fail, and when you (singular) have turned again, strengthen your brethren.
Did the Father ignore Jesus' prayer for Peter?
Why did Jesus single out Peter for this momentous job to strengthen his brother Apostles?
Peter was an idiot at times, but that's why we like him, he's a lot like us.

Finally, you make the outrageous statement that "Where the Pope is, there is Christ's Church". That is total nonsense! There is no mention of the Pope in the Bible!!! That office is an unscriptural fabrication of the Catholic denomination.

No, the outrageous statement is "where the bishop is, there is the Catholic Church" written by the bishop of Antioch, St. Ignatius, around 110 A.D. when the Apostle John was still alive. I'm sorry you have nothing to do with THAT church and have no bishops.

And before you start the false claim that Peter was "the first Pope" on which Christ built His church, don't forget that Peter was the only person whom Jesus called "Satan" and referred to him as a "stumbling block" (as opposed to a "rock"), and who denied knowing Jesus three times when He was arrested.

Mark 8:33 – You use this verse to down play Peter’s authority. This does not make sense. In this verse, Jesus rebukes Peter to show the import of His Messianic role as the Savior of humanity. Moreover, at this point, Peter was not yet the Pope with the keys, and Jesus did not rebuke Peter for his teaching. Jesus rebuked Peter for his lack of understanding.

What does Jesus do next? He teaches about redemptive suffering

34 And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

Redemptive suffering concept is totally absent in all of Protestantism, so you tell my your plausible alternative meaning for Mark 8:34, or get behind me.

 

[Grailhunter]

I worshipped with Protestants for 30 years. 99% of them are sincere Christians who love the Bible and their biggest hang-up was always the saint worship myth. I was challenged about twice. I didn't challenge them about sola scriptura or the Chick Publications in plain view because I wasn't equipped at the time. My mother thought I was nuts (being a hippie in the Jesus Movement, a fan of Larry Norman and Keith Green) and I agreed to a retreat where I met the Venerable Catherine Doherty at Madonna House. After that, Protestantism seemed so...incomplete.

LOL Perspectives can get lost in debates....I want to make this clear....the modern Catholic Church is valid and Catholics are good people that love Christ.

That's your problem, you deny it occurred at all, but don't deny the development of the canon of scripture. You have a disassociative perspective, in the extreme form, it's known as schizophrenia.

No I am a theologian and a historian.....well educated in both....my the Johnny Appleseed of Truth is about seeking the truth and telling the truth and "dis-spelling" false beliefs.

Who told you that? James White??? You deny the early Church was thoroughly Catholic since Pentecost contrary to truckloads of documented primary source evidence, and claim the Greek kataholos doesn't apply to Catholicism. Who taught you your flavor of early church history? The wanna-be preachers on you tube?

The Catholic Church did not and could not organize and represent Christianity as a whole until after the Edict of Milan.
Who taught me the flavor of the early Christian church.....I am a life long student of it in five countries. From the United States to most of the well known universities in Europe and Hebrew university in Jerusalem.

No, it's governed by the absolute truth that the Passover/Eucharist Sacrifice at the last Supper is one and the same as the Sacrifice on the Cross, so we eat Him like He told us to. The Catholic Church does not and cannot govern hearts. She cannot and does not impose truths, she can only propose truths to those who are disposed to receive it. If any past church leader imposed truth, they were committing a sin. When any truth is imposed, its no longer a truth.

The Catholic Eucharist uses a manufactured Host. I do not agree with that....does Christ? I guess we will find out.

The Catholic Church does not and cannot govern hearts.....right. The effort to establish one faith was correct in principle but not practical.
Belief control in any denomination is a fool's folly.

See above. Name the pope who formally taught the first theological inconsistency. You can't or won't because you deny consistent formal teaching existed in the first place! Your argument is circular. Yes, we know there were a few scum bag popes, but that does not disprove the doctrine of the papacy, as the Church defines it.

Good Popes, bad Popes, great Popes but that is no reason for you to live in denial.

You make my point. You haven't a clue what I'm talking about.

If I am wrong, correct me.