Mother Mary

What flimsy reasoning! The OT prefigures the NT. The OT is the shadow, but Christ is the substance. It stands to reason that once Jesus came into the world, there would be those who would record his life and teachings, fulfilling what was propgesied in the NT. Plus, Peter obliquely refers to Paul's letters as Scripture.

Try again.
I started a thread on the stupidity of making out the NT is an add on. You have made some excellent points I did not think of.
 
What flimsy reasoning! The OT prefigures the NT. The OT is the shadow, but Christ is the substance. It stands to reason that once Jesus came into the world, there would be those who would record his life and teachings, fulfilling what was propgesied in the NT. Plus, Peter obliquely refers to Paul's letters as Scripture.

Try again.
flimsy answer.
 
flimsy answer.
What is "flimsy" about it? It is NOT an "add on" the way the RCC adds to Scripture with its many man-made doctrines not found in either the OT or NT. The NT doesn't contradict the OT, but rather, fulfills it. Plus, your supposed first pope, Peter, obliquely refers to Paul's letters as "Scripture", and his letters make up half the NT!

Jesus said His word will never die. For that to happen, He knew they would be recorded. And they were. And kept preserved.
 
The true church has always existed since Pentecost. Even within your own heterodoxical church, there have been those who recognized the truth in Scripture, but were often put to death when trying to point out errors in your church.
Of course. And that is the Catholic Church. There is no evidence of a parallel "Bible Church" alongside it.
 
What is "flimsy" about it? It is NOT an "add on" the way the RCC adds to Scripture with its many man-made doctrines not found in either the OT or NT. The NT doesn't contradict the OT, but rather, fulfills it. Plus, your supposed first pope, Peter, obliquely refers to Paul's letters as "Scripture", and his letters make up half the NT!

Jesus said His word will never die. For that to happen, He knew they would be recorded. And they were. And kept preserved.
It didn't answer the question.
 
The true church has always existed since Pentecost. Even within your own heterodoxical church, there have been those who recognized the truth in Scripture, but were often put to death when trying to point out errors in your church.
If that were true, wouldn't Luther have joined it instead of starting his own church?
 
Pilgrim, you think Christ would establish a church that would burn people at the stake.......

Try to hide/pay off clergy sex scandals...

EDITED--TOO MANY LINKS. ONLY SUPER MEMBERS MAY POST MORE THAN 2 LINKS PER POST.



And countless other sins down through history.........^^^^^^^^^ THAT is the RCC!!

You'd have to be blind, deaf, and dumb to think that Christ established THAT church!! If you still do, then God help you see the truth!!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
My problem with Luther is that he retained certain parts of Catholicism.
If we really take a good long look at it, it becomes obvious that this isn't confined to just Luther. As the bible points out, "the whole world is deceived".
 
If that were true, wouldn't Luther have joined it instead of starting his own church?
All true believers from Pentecost on have been members of the TRUE church, even without formal membership in any organized church denomination.

Luther did not set out to start anything. He loved the church. But he could not go against the actual word of God, or his conscience. He chose to obey God rather than the corrupt leaders of your church, who demanded he recant and obey tbe pope. He was following in the footsteps of Peter, who said in Acts that "It is better to obey God than man."

So he did.
 
Last edited:
I,m not in the mood to confront demons this moment. You have to be open and teachable to the Word of God.
I am not open to made up Christian history. There needs to be proof for the claims. The Catholic Church has documentation all throughout its existence. Where is yours?
 
Back
Top