Check out some similar questions!

galveston · Mar 2, 2009, 01:59 PM

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.

JoeT777 · Mar 2, 2009, 02:52 PM

Originally Posted by galveston

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.

Is this a real and honest challenge?

JoeT

sndbay · Mar 2, 2009, 03:07 PM

Originally Posted by De Maria

Exactly. And it is Jesus who said:
Matthew 16:19
And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Therefore it is Jesus who gave His Church authority. And it is in obeying the Church that you obey Jesus.

Sincerely,

De Maria

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.

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

cozyk · Mar 2, 2009, 05:17 PM

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!

Tj3 · Mar 2, 2009, 06:18 PM

Originally Posted by De Maria

Men are not born into the ministerial priesthood. They make a decision. They decide whether they want to be a ministerial priest or not.

If they decide to do so, then they VOLUNTARILY give up marriage. I've yet to hear of anyone being forced to make his vows at the point of a gun.

So the Roman Catholic church does forbid the marriage of priests contrary to your earlier statement.

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.

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.

The Catholic Church was established by Jesus Christ.

How many times must this be refuted. The Catholic church did not even exist until 325AD and Jesus did not found a denomination.

You can't remember it being refuted because it never has been refuted.

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?

Tj3 · Mar 2, 2009, 06:19 PM

Originally Posted by galveston

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.

I'm standing right beside you on that statement.

Tj3 · Mar 2, 2009, 06:20 PM

Originally Posted by cozyk

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!

Try the Living Bible. That is exactly what it is.

Akoue · Mar 2, 2009, 06:36 PM

Originally Posted by Tj3

So the Roman Catholic church does forbid the marriage of priests contrary to your earlier statement.

And you claim to have studied the Catholic Church? There are lots of married priests. Surely you've heard of Eastern Rite Catholics.

The Catholic church did not even exist until 325AD

Why 325? Do you think the Catholic Church was invented at the Council of Nicea or something? Why do you choose that year?

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?

Wow, you just never get tired of recycling this stuff.

Tj3 · Mar 2, 2009, 06:59 PM

Originally Posted by Akoue

And you claim to have studied the Catholic Church? There are lots of married priests. Surely you've heard of Eastern Rite Catholics.

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.

Why 325? Do you think the Catholic Church was invented at the Council of Nicea or something? Why do you choose that year?

Invented would not be an appropriate word, but started would be.

Wow, you just never get tired of recycling this stuff.

Right. I never tire of telling the truth.

Akoue · Mar 2, 2009, 07:22 PM

Originally Posted by Tj3

Invented would not be an appropriate word, but started would be.

You didn't answer the question. Why do you choose the year 325? Why not 313, or 314, or 387, or 256? Why 325?

Tj3 · Mar 2, 2009, 07:28 PM

Originally Posted by Akoue

You didn't answer the question. Why do you choose the year 325? Why not 313, or 314, or 387, or 256? Why 325?

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.

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.

Akoue · Mar 2, 2009, 07:31 PM

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.

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?

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.

Akoue · Mar 2, 2009, 07:32 PM

Originally Posted by Tj3

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.

You brought it up, Tom. I'm just asking you why you choose the year 325.

Tj3 · Mar 2, 2009, 07:35 PM

Originally Posted by Akoue

You brought it up, Tom. I'm just asking you why you choose the year 325.

Actually, no I didn't. I think that you will find that it is Joe who brought denominationalism into the thread.

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.

Akoue · Mar 2, 2009, 07:38 PM

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.

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?

arcura · Mar 2, 2009, 07:39 PM

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

Akoue · Mar 2, 2009, 07:40 PM

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.

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.

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.

Tj3 · Mar 2, 2009, 07:46 PM

Originally Posted by Akoue

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.

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.

Once again, I would suggest starting a new thread if you wish to discuss this further.

Tj3 · Mar 2, 2009, 07:47 PM

Originally Posted by arcura

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

Can we not have a respectful disagreement, Fred? Must you always make demeaning personal comments and false accusations?

Akoue · Mar 2, 2009, 07:53 PM

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.

Once again, I would suggest starting a new thread if you wish to discuss this further.

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.