Arch Stanton
Well-known member
yes, you always misrepresent Christ's Catholic Church... won't be funArch I see you found my response funny,
yes, you always misrepresent Christ's Catholic Church... won't be funArch I see you found my response funny,
You don't even know Christ's real church, his catholic church is not your evil tree the RCC. STOP blaming Jesus for the harming of the flock.yes, you always misrepresent Christ's Catholic Church... won't be fun
You haven't been to Christ's Catholic Church in years.... no Eucharist for youYou don't even know Christ's real church,
I was not in Christ's church when I was younger, when I was a child. I was in the evil tree, being taught lies. Now I am in the real church, Jesus does not allow the flock to be harmed. You can follow your blind guides, they only lead you to one place. If you don't want the truth posted about your institution then not make those false claims.You haven't been to Christ's Catholic Church in years.... no Eucharist for you
You were when you became a Catholic.I was not in Christ's church when I was younger, when I was a child.
No I wasn't and I didn't become a Catholic by choice. You institution is not His catholic church, your institution was founded by the father of lies and that is why it teaches false doctrines and the blind guides lie and do not tell the truth. This has been going on for centuries.You were when you became a Catholic.
You were given a gift from God and you have thrown it awayNo I wasn't and I didn't become a Catholic by choice.
you are in imperfect communion with His Church... if you are ok with that --I am now in His church.
No I threw away the poison that I was thrown into by satan the founder of the RCC.You were given a gift from God and you have thrown it away
you are in imperfect communion with His Church... if you are ok with that --
great proofA myth told to Catholics.
Willoughby C. Allen [Anglican]: The International Critical Commentary --That's funny, because in Matthew 16, there is no Chamberlain, no Steward, and in Isaiah 22 there are no keys, just one key. That's not what anyone would define as a necessary connection.
still waiting for you to show me the verse where all the apostles received the keysYou're the one arguing that Peter was the only Apostle to get the keys.
Mt 16:19 I will give you [Peter] 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.”I'm simply pointing out the fact that Scripture doesn't explicitly say when Peter got the keys.
our difference is this. we have an infallible living interpreter in the church (matt18: 15-18;1tim3:15) while you have the bible which actually is the individual's personal fallible interpretation.
the church does not make it a habit of infallibly interpreting verses.
if i am not mistaken only a handful (less than 10) have been infallibly defined. individual catholics are allowed to personally interpret verses as long as it does not ago against what is theologically certain. if you want check for a textbook where catholic subject matter have been properly expounded, one can go to 'the catechism of the catholic church'.
Willoughby C. Allen [Anglican]: The International Critical Commentary --That's funny, because in Matthew 16, there is no Chamberlain, no Steward, and in Isaiah 22 there are no keys, just one key. That's not what anyone would define as a necessary connection.
"The figure of the gates of Hades suggests the metaphor of the keys. There were keys of Hades, Rev 1:18; cf. 9:1; 20:1. The apocalyptic writer describes the risen Christ as having the keys of Hades, i.e. having power over it, power to enter it, and power to release from it, or to imprison in it. In the same way, 'the kingdom of the heavens' can be likened to a citadel with barred gates. He who held the keys would have power within it, power to admit, power to exclude. In Rev 3:7 this power is held by Christ Himself [quotes Rev 3:7]...The words are modelled on Is 22:22, and express supreme authority. To hold the keys is to have absolute right, which can be contested by none...It would, therefore, be not unexpected if we found the Messiah or Son of Man described as having the keys of the kingdom of the heavens. This would imply that He was supreme within it. But it is surprising to find this power delegated to S. Peter...To S. Peter were to be given the keys of the kingdom. The kingdom is here, as elsewhere in this Gospel, the kingdom to be inaugurated when the Son of Man came upon the clouds of heaven. If S. Peter was to hold supreme authority within it, the other apostles were also to have places of rank...To 'bind' and to 'loose' in Jewish legal terminology are equivalent to 'forbid' and 'allow,' to 'declare forbidden' and to 'declare allowed'...The terms, therefore, describe an authority of a legal nature. If he who has the keys has authority of an administrative nature, he who binds and looses exercises authority of a legislative character....Further, the position of v. 18, with its description of the Church as a fortress impregnable against the attacks of evil (the gates of Hades), suggest irresistibly that 'the keys of the kingdom' mean more than power to open merely, and imply rather authority within the kingdom. And this is confirmed by the 'binding' and 'loosing' which immediately follow...What were the keys thus given? Even if we identify the kingdom with the Church, it is not entirely satisfactory to suppose that the Lord simply foretold that S. Peter was to take a prominent part in the work of opening the door of faith to the Gentiles. His share in that work, though a great, was not an exclusive one....The motive must have been toemphasise the prominence of S. Peter in the Christian body as foretold and sanctioned by Christ Himself...They [the apostles] had left all to follow Christ; but when He sat on the throne of His glory they would sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel, 19:18. And amongst them Peter was pre-eminent. He was protos, 10:2." (Allen, The International Critical Commentary [orig 1909, 1985], page 176ff)
still waiting for you to show me the verse where all the apostles received the keys?
Mt 16:19 I will give you [Peter] 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.”DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
I'm simply pointing out the fact that Scripture doesn't explicitly say when Peter got the keys.
and you need a date? move the goalposts much?
it is not the claim of the church but the promise of her founder that the holy spirit will guide her, that the gates of hell will not prevail, and that he will be with her till the end of time. when you admitted that the bible is inspired, you implied admission to the infallibility of the catholic church.No, you have a church who claims to be an infallible living interpreter that never, ever infallibly interprets Scripture. On the other hand, we have God actually speaking to us. Could I misunderstand what God is saying, sure. But without an actual argument, you have no reason whatsoever to disparage God speaking to his Church in Scripture.
BTW, if all we have is the individual's personal fallible interpretation of Scripture, then all you have is the individual's personal fallible interpretation of the magisterium. Whether the words are written in a book, or spoken by a priest, each can be equally be misinterpreted.
the church has no record of official interpretation of the verses in the bible. what we have are only a few verses. It is not true that the church have tried in the past to officially interpret all verses in the bible.Because they've tried in the past, and they ended up with egg on their face.
the few verses officially defined were made by the council of trent. here it is:When and where have these verses been infallibly defined?
"what is theologically certain"—In other words, your Church cares more about protecting their traditions than listening to God.
God Bless
the church has no official interpretation of rom4:8. the blessed man is the sinner who repents and asks pardon for his sins. here, paul is saying that our sins will not be counted against us once God forgives us of your sins. God's forgiveness is not merely a legal declaration but the objective guilt from sin has been removed. one is 'made clean and whiter than snow' (psalm51: 9). when God reckons someone as righteous, there is actually a change in what the sinner is. God's declaration and the transformation by grace are not exclusive of each other.PS: Don't think I forgot about you refusing to interact with the teaching of Saint Paul.
it is not the claim of the church but the promise of her founder that the holy spirit will guide her, that the gates of hell will not prevail, and that he will be with her till the end of time. when you admitted that the bible is inspired, you implied admission to the infallibility of the catholic church.
it is not the claim of the church but the promise of her founder that the holy spirit will guide her, that the gates of hell will not prevail, and that he will be with her till the end of time. when you admitted that the bible is inspired, you implied admission to the infallibility of the catholic church.\No, you have a church who claims to be an infallible living interpreter that never, ever infallibly interprets Scripture. On the other hand, we have God actually speaking to us. Could I misunderstand what God is saying, sure. But without an actual argument, you have no reason whatsoever to disparage God speaking to his Church in Scripture.
BTW, if all we have is the individual's personal fallible interpretation of Scripture, then all you have is the individual's personal fallible interpretation of the magisterium. Whether the words are written in a book, or spoken by a priest, each can be equally be misinterpreted.
we have the catechism to guide us when we are in doubt while you have your fallible personal interpretation of the written word.
the church has no record of official interpretation of the verses in the bible. what we have are only a few verses. It is not true that the church have tried in the past to officially interpret all verses in the bible.DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Because they've tried in the past, and they ended up with egg on their face.
the few verses officially defined were made by the council of trent. here it is:DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
When and where have these verses been infallibly defined?
"what is theologically certain"—In other words, your Church cares more about protecting their traditions than listening to God.
1) The reference being “born of water and the Spirit” in John 3:5 does include the idea of baptism.
(2–3) In telling the apostles “Do this [the Eucharist] in memory of me” in Luke 22:19 and 1 Corinthians 11:24, Jesus appointed the apostles priests.
(4–5) In Matthew 18:18 and John 20:22–23, Jesus did confer a power on the apostles to forgive sins, and not everyone shares this power.
(6) Romans 5:12 refers to the reality of original sin.
(7) The presbyters referred to in James 5:14 are ordained and not simply elder members of the Christian community.
the church has no official interpretation of rom4:8. the blessed man is the sinner who repents and asks pardon for his sins. here, paul is saying that our sins will not be counted against us once God forgives us of your sins. God's forgiveness is not merely a legal declaration but the objective guilt from sin has been removed. one is 'made clean and whiter than snow' (psalm51: 9). when God reckons someone as righteous, there is actually a change in what the sinner is. God's declaration and the transformation by grace are not exclusive of each other.DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
PS: Don't think I forgot about you refusing to interact with the teaching of Saint Paul.
or, you could actually look at what the bible says.... Mt 16:19 ?No, I need something, anything to say that the other Apostles were not given the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven like Peter.
Jesus is not the founder of your institution at all. The promise is made to all real believers, not your institution that Jesus would have nothing to do with. Every time RCs say Jesus founded their institution - they are saying He founded an institution that teaches false doctrines, an institution that replaces Him with Mary, an institution that adds to His word, goes beyond His word and takes away/ignores His word, an institution that lies and that alone shows who the real founder of your institution is, and a institution that harms the sheep. This reveals that Jesus never founded the RCC, that is a false RC claim.it is not the claim of the church but the promise of her founder that the holy spirit will guide her, that the gates of hell will not prevail, and that he will be with her till the end of time. when you admitted that the bible is inspired, you implied admission to the infallibility of the catholic church.
we have the catechism to guide us when we are in doubt while you have your fallible personal interpretation of the written word.
the church has no record of official interpretation of the verses in the bible. what we have are only a few verses. It is not true that the church have tried in the past to officially interpret all verses in the bible.
the few verses officially defined were made by the council of trent. here it is:
1) The reference being “born of water and the Spirit” in John 3:5 does include the idea of baptism.
(2–3) In telling the apostles “Do this [the Eucharist] in memory of me” in Luke 22:19 and 1 Corinthians 11:24, Jesus appointed the apostles priests.
(4–5) In Matthew 18:18 and John 20:22–23, Jesus did confer a power on the apostles to forgive sins, and not everyone shares this power.
(6) Romans 5:12 refers to the reality of original sin.
(7) The presbyters referred to in James 5:14 are ordained and not simply elder members of the Christian community.
the church has no official interpretation of rom4:8. the blessed man is the sinner who repents and asks pardon for his sins. here, paul is saying that our sins will not be counted against us once God forgives us of your sins. God's forgiveness is not merely a legal declaration but the objective guilt from sin has been removed. one is 'made clean and whiter than snow' (psalm51: 9). when God reckons someone as righteous, there is actually a change in what the sinner is. God's declaration and the transformation by grace are not exclusive of each other.
That is not referring to an leadership that harms the sheep, teaches false doctrines and lies. Your institution does all that and worse.or, you could actually look at what the bible says.... Mt 16:19 ?
when you say the bible is not inspired, are you referring to the old and new testament books that christians are using which we call as 'bible or the written word of God'? if not, what book/bible are you referring to that is not inspired?the Bible is NOT inspired : Scripture is
"gates of Hell" does not mean infallibility ;
it means the power of death:
and you know it
it is so easy for you to always say that but cannot tell us the name of the church jesus did established in jerusalem, 33ad.Jesus is not the founder of your institution at all. The promise is made to all real believers, not your institution that Jesus would have nothing to do with. Every time RCs say Jesus founded their institution - they are saying He founded an institution that teaches false doctrines, an institution that replaces Him with Mary, an institution that adds to His word, goes beyond His word and takes away/ignores His word, an institution that lies and that alone shows who the real founder of your institution is, and a institution that harms the sheep. This reveals that Jesus never founded the RCC, that is a false RC claim.
Who cares what a false institution defines, their word cannot be trusted because they are proven liars.
On the day of pentecost, those who believed the gospel message, were called believers. Acts 9 is the first mention of believer's belonging to "the way". "The way" is mentioned again in Acts chapter19, Acts chapter 22, Acts chapter 24, in connection with those who believed the gospel message. The early followers of Christ referred to themselves as followers of the Way because of Jesus’ statement in John 14:6 that He is “the way and the truth and the life.” In Acts 11 the believers in Antioch, spoke so much about Christ, that the people living in Antioch, began calling believer's Christians. By Acts 26, the title "Christian" was well known throughout the Roman worldit is so easy for you to always say that but cannot tell us the name of the church jesus did established in jerusalem, 33ad.