When any one can show me how the RC even faintly resembles the Church revealed in the Book of Acts, then I will reconsider my beliefs.
Until then, the Bible remains, to me, infallible, exclusively.
|
When any one can show me how the RC even faintly resembles the Church revealed in the Book of Acts, then I will reconsider my beliefs.
Until then, the Bible remains, to me, infallible, exclusively.
Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
Is this a real and honest challenge?
JoeT
Hi DeMaria, If I may reproof this posting by carefully added that it was this authority given to Peter, Peter being the disciple that offered evident indentity of his love for Christ, which by Christ telling us was revealed to him by Our Father in Heaven.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Peter showed his authority in Act 2 with Israel, and Acts 10 amoung the Gentiles.
When we look further to Matthew 18:18-20 the same authority was given to others, where two or three are gathered together. And John 20:21-23 example his disciples given the Holy Spirit, with authority to remit sins.
These scriptures show that by the servants of God, at the choice and will of God, each are granted authority through the Spirit to further the works of God, and do all that is written in The Word which was made Flesh in Christ. We follow the spirit of Christ in His will, just as Christ did His Fathers Will.
John 15:20 Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.
In my heart I believe the spirit within each will testify of Christ just as Peter did in evident indentiy "YES LORD I LOVE YOU" Liberty other then this is a broken scripture... and is not done by the sheep that follow and hear Christ.
John 15:26-27 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, [even] the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.
~ In the spirit of Love
Quote:
John 15:26-27 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, [even] the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.
~ In the spirit of Love
Bible speak, still driving me nuts. Why can't we have a bible that has just paraphrases in everyday language. Then my eyes wouldn't just glaze over as I try to make heads or tails of what is being said? Not only is it hard to understand, it's even hard to read. Ugh!
So the Roman Catholic church does forbid the marriage of priests contrary to your earlier statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
At least you are consistent - your key argument all along is everyone is does not follow the private interpretations of your denomination is wrong. But again, just telling people that they are wrong is not a compelling argument.Quote:
That is false logic. It is true. The reason we're having this discussion is because you don't understand the Catholic Church or Her teachings.
How many times must this be refuted. The Catholic church did not even exist until 325AD and Jesus did not found a denomination.Quote:
The Catholic Church was established by Jesus Christ.
Mis-representing what others said again I see - I said "this old claim has been refuted more times that I can remember".Quote:
You can't remember it being refuted because it never has been refuted.
That is three times in this one thread that you have mis-represented what I have said. If your position cannot be defended by the truth alone, is it worth defending?
I'm standing right beside you on that statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
Try the Living Bible. That is exactly what it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by cozyk
And you claim to have studied the Catholic Church? There are lots of married priests. Surely you've heard of Eastern Rite Catholics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Why 325? Do you think the Catholic Church was invented at the Council of Nicea or something? Why do you choose that year?Quote:
The Catholic church did not even exist until 325AD
Wow, you just never get tired of recycling this stuff.Quote:
Mis-representing what others said again I see - I said "this old claim has been refuted more times that I can remember".
That is three times in this one thread that you have mis-represented what I have said. If your position cannot be defended by the truth alone, is it worth defending?
Ah, you did not read what we were talking about. We were talking about the Roman catholic denomination permitting the marriage of a practicing priest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Invented would not be an appropriate word, but started would be.Quote:
Why 325? Do you think the Catholic Church was invented at the Council of Nicea or something? Why do you choose that year?
Right. I never tire of telling the truth.Quote:
Wow, you just never get tired of recycling this stuff.
You didn't answer the question. Why do you choose the year 325? Why not 313, or 314, or 387, or 256? Why 325?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
I did answer it. It is when the Roman catholic church started. Akoue, I don't why, but you really do seem to miss a whole lot when reading posts. Most of your mis-understandings when discussing from others seems to have to do with things which were said but you did not read for one reason or another.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
BTW, look at the title of this thread. Rather than hijacking it, if you wish to discuss the origins of your denomination, I would suggest that you start a new thread.
Why do you claim that 325 is the year the Catholic Church started? What event or events lead you to assign the beginning of Catholicism to the year 325?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
You are quite adamant that the Catholic Church didn't exist until the year 325. You must have some reason for stating that it began in this year and not some other. So what is that reason? Explain your claim if you can back it up.
You brought it up, Tom. I'm just asking you why you choose the year 325.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Actually, no I didn't. I think that you will find that it is Joe who brought denominationalism into the thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
And this question has been discussed over and over. If you still don't know what happened to bring your denomination into being, start a new thread.
You are the one who asserted that the Catholic Church did not exist until the year 325. You have made this claim many, many times. And now you are stalling. If you can substantiate this claim, please do. What is your reason for claiming that the Catholic Church began in the year 325 and did not exist prior to 325? What event or events of the year 325 lead you to date the origins of the Catholic Church to 325?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
TJ3.
Thanks for once again proving that you do NOT understand the Catholic Church or that your refuse to do so.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
Ah, another edit from Tom. I have seen you make the claim that the Catholic Church started in 325 repeatedly and on many different threads. I have not seen you justify it. You made the claim, so justify it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
And I have posted information from both Catholic and non-Catholic sources. You seem to disagree with any source which does not say what you want it to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Once again, I would suggest starting a new thread if you wish to discuss this further.
Can we not have a respectful disagreement, Fred? Must you always make demeaning personal comments and false accusations?Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
The thing is, Tom, I've seen you trot out this line with some frequency, but each time I've asked you to back it up you've done exactly what you're doing now, i.e. dodging the question. So I haven't seen this evidence you claim to have. And I've asked a bunch of times now. I've never known you to be terribly shy about changing the subject when it suits you, so I'm increasingly suspicious that your evidence is pretty flimsy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Akoue, you claim that everyone dodges the question even when paragraphs of information are posted, and then afterward you claim that it was not posted. I have posted information many times, and you have even responded to it, but now you claim that I never posted it. So tell me exactly why anyone should waste their time, especially when you are in the process of hijacking the thread?Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
I have debated and discussed this and other topics with people who are interested in truth and two things that I find common with such people - whether they agree or disagree, they never play games such as claiming that someone never posted something, and they discuss respectfully.
Over and over I have suggested that if you do wish to discuss, start a new thread. I think that you know that as long as you are hijacking this thread, few people are even going to get into the discussion and it will get shut down. So this approach (which is a consistent approach that I have seen you use) seems to be a way to making cheap shots knowing that when the thread gets shut down you won't need to back it up. Starting a new thread would be a way to keep the discussion going - if you really wanted to discuss.
Yj3,
I just stated what was obvious.
You do not understand the Catholic Church.
There are many who do not.
It is not demeaning to tell te truth.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
I can't off the top of my head think of anyone who's disagreed with you who hasn't been accused by you of failing to "discuss respectfully". This is one of your standby lines, after all. Wondergirl, De Maria, Joe, Fred, asking, and me--just in the last week or so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
All right, though, if you don't want to substantiate your claims I can't force you to do so. You have no problem pressing others to substantiate their claims, but you've made it quite evident that you don't hold yourself to the same standard to which you hold others. So I'll let it drop for now. You're sure to make the same ridiculous claim again very soon.
Fred,Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
You need to understand that because something disagrees with you does not mean that they do not understand. Quite the contrary, it is because I understand that I disagree.
Well, you know Akoue, I could not care less whether you can think of anyone or not. After all, you claim not to know of things which have been posted on the board when they don't agree with you, so why should I be surprised that you don't remember other things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Ho hum - more false accusations. I can only assume that you fear starting a new thread where this could be discussed openly without hijacking another thread.Quote:
All right, though, if you don't want to substantiate your claims I can't force you to do so. You have no problem pressing others to substantiate their claims, but you've made it quite evident that you don't hold yourself to the same standard to which you hold others. So I'll let it drop for now. You're sure to make the same ridiculous claim again
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Is this the tactic? Not being able to confront Catholicism on this topic so you jump from topic to topic? Stick to the topic. The topic here is eating meat during fast. Show it to be right or wrong - so far you've bounced back and forth across the line. Where does the Tj3 faith fall on this topic?
JoeT
Tj3,
I understand the Catholic Church and have done so for over thirty years. That is why I quit being a Protestant.
It is obvious to me and any knowledgeable Catholic that you do NOT understand it.
Just because you disagree with some of what The Church teaches does not make you right.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
Agreed and I am more than willing to discuss it here. If we can get Akoue to stop hijacking this thread, we can carry on with the discussionQuote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
I have put forward a number of scriptures. Let's see your response.Quote:
Show it to be right or wrong - so far you've bounced back and forth across the line.
Ot seems that to get back to where the topic diverted, you need to go back to about here and before:
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christ...ml#post1578540
Fred, get on topic or start a new thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
Tj3,
Thanks for your ORDER.
But I do not follow any orders given by you or talking heads on TV.
I am done with this topic, I think.
And I'm sure you do not want be to start a new thread on "How Tj3 does not understand the Catholic Church."
Peace and kindness,
Fred
Nor apparently do you respect others by staying on topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
Fred, You've never been able to hold you own in any debate with me on RC doctrine yet, so your protestations mean little to me. You always resort to petty little comments like the above which speak more about the poster than about the person to whom they are aimed.Quote:
And I'm sure you do not want be to start a new thread on "How Tj3 does not understand the Catholic Church."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
You know, for one who speaks so highly of respect, you should be ashamed. I would suggest an apology.
JoeT
You are skilled at rhetoric. At twisting the truth into whatever appeals to you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Fred speaks the truth in simplicity.
In my opinion, you don't hold a candle to Fred. Especially on Catholic doctrine, which you know little about.
Tj3,
It might be what you think
But That is NOT so!
Deam on.
Fred
Thank you Sndbay.Quote:
Originally Posted by sndbay
It is true that the authority was given to Peter. But do you mean that it was to remain with Peter. Was not the Church of God given authority that would be exercised throughout the centuries until Christ returns in Glory?
Joe, it is interesting that you think it okay for any sort of demeaning remarks to be made against those who disagree with you, but you feel that anyone who refuse to go along with those demeaning comments ought to apologize.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
False accusations will get you nowhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Tj3,
I'll say it one more time.
Telling the truth is NOT demeaning.
Fred
:eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by cozyk
May I suggest the Children's Picture Bible?
Amazon.com: The Picture Bible: Iva Hoth, Andre Le Blanc, Andre Le Blanc: Books
I believe there is even one with pop-ups:
Little Pop-up Bible Stories Set, 6 Books - - Christianbook.com
;)
Paul had the same if not greater authority than Peter. But I see that you are trying to distract from the topic again.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
How do your denomination's claims that Peter had greater authority have anything to do with what the Bible says about eating fish on Fridays?
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:15 AM. |