This is why we are here............

Bonnie

Super Member
Like saying where is 'The Way' written in the word Lutheran :rolleyes: --The 'Universal/Catholic Church' is the same through Apostolic Succession.

No, it isn't. And the "Lutheran thing" you wrote makes no sense. But nowhere does the NT mention the ROMAN Catholic church, nor was it headquartered in Rome and nor was it headed by one man.
It could just as easily been Antioch

Sure. But then it would the Antiochian catholic church--do note the small "c".
It was/is the ONLY Church established by Christ!!!

Baloney. Christ Jesus never established the ROMAN Catholic church with its many false teachings and corrupt leaders.
The truth shall set you free [Jn 8:32]
I know the truth. Christ has shown it to me in the pages of the Bible. The veil isn't over my eyes. But it remains over the eyes of Catholics who refuse to see the truth about their church, its many false unbiblical doctrines, and its corrupt leaders.
 
Last edited:

balshan

Well-known member
and you still don't understand the laying of hands in Christ's Church

Yes, he most definitely did -- use this example for the Anglicans

'Apostolicae Curae'​

On the Nullity of Anglican Orders​

Pope Leo XIII - 1896
No it is RCs who have no clues about the real laying on of hands. They misuse it and do it to men who do not meet the scriptural requirements, so it is meaningless.
 

Bonnie

Super Member
The headquarters could have been in Jerusalem, Antioch, etc.

Same Church, same Apostles!

Then you would be Catholic!
False! Neither Jesus or the Apostles are "Catholic" with a capital "C." Neither of them taught the following:

1. the 4 Marian dogmas
2. Praying to saints dead in the Lord for help, comfort, etc. as one would pray to God
3. Indulgences
4. Purgatory
5. Celibate clergy (Peter was married)
6. Scapulars
7. Salvation by grace through faith in Jesus plus our good works

Neither Jesus or the Apostles taught these things. Nor did they have one human leader over all the church. Jesus was the leader of their church--the TRUE church. Yours has only a mere man as a leader, and a foolish one, at that.
 
Last edited:

Arch Stanton

Well-known member
It was never the ROMAN Catholic church in the first century. It took several centuries to develop into that.
By your own words you have two options -- Christ's Catholic Church stopped being His Church OR The catholic Church stopped being His Church ... 🤔 :unsure:
 

Bonnie

Super Member
By your own words you have two options -- Christ's Catholic Church stopped being His Church OR The catholic Church stopped being His Church ... 🤔 :unsure:
Who says I have only these two choices?

Your Catholic Church is not Christ's--not with all of the false doctrines it teaches. And has done for many centuries.

The Church is made up of all believers everywhere who confess Jesus Christ as Lord and God and Savior, trusting in HIM for salvation, great and free. It is not a formal institution, but the rule of Jesus Christ in the hearts of all believers, everywhere.
 

pilgrim

Well-known member
Your church grew gradually out of the early church. But over time, it packed on so many unbiblical doctrines, "teaching for doctrine the precepts of men" that it became nothing like the early church. It ceased to be like the early church; it hasn't been HIS church in many centuries.
Where is there documented the rise of a church parallel to the early church? That is sure easy to say but no one can point to any documentation to prove it. If St Ignatius who lived at that time and was a disciple of St. John and ordained a bishop by St Peter isn't good enough evidence for you, then why should NO EVIDENCE AT ALL be acceptable to us? Surely someone would have noticed such a terrible thing happen and say so. Wasn't the Holy Spirit supposed to guide the Church to all truth? Can you explain why you think He failed for 1500 years?
 

balshan

Well-known member
Where is there documented the rise of a church parallel to the early church? That is sure easy to say but no one can point to any documentation to prove it. If St Ignatius who lived at that time and was a disciple of St. John and ordained a bishop by St Peter isn't good enough evidence for you, then why should NO EVIDENCE AT ALL be acceptable to us? Surely someone would have noticed such a terrible thing happen and say so. Wasn't the Holy Spirit supposed to guide the Church to all truth? Can you explain why you think He failed for 1500 years?
Your documentation means absolutely nothing at all. Your documentation does not prove that your teachings/doctrines are correct, that your leaders meet the scriptural requirments for leaders and it is not the laying on of hands that is important and does not take into account the fruit of your institution. Your institution forced people to convert and destroyed the records of others. So as I say you documentation means nothing.

Does your institution pass the scriptural tests for being the NT church? Answer is No it doesn't, it only passes the bad tree test.

Does your institution look like the scriptural desription of His church? Again the answer is no.

Does your leaders meet the sccriptural requirements for leaders? NO.

Does it teach what the apostles taught? NO.

In other words the things in scripture relating to His church, the NT church are not meet by your institution. Your claims, documents are meaningless.
 

Buzzard

Well-known member
Paul says
Romans 11:1​
I say then, Hath God cast away his people?
God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham,
of the tribe of Benjamin.
2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew.
Wot (know) ye not what the scripture saith of Elias?
how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying,
3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets,
and digged down thine altars;
and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
4 But what saith the answer of God unto him?
I have reserved to myself seven thousand men,
who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.
5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant
according to the election of grace.

I have reserved to myself seven thousand men,
who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal
.


Where is there documented the rise of a church parallel to the early church? That is sure easy to say but no one can point to any documentation to prove it. If St Ignatius who lived at that time and was a disciple of St. John and ordained a bishop by St Peter isn't good enough evidence for you, then why should NO EVIDENCE AT ALL be acceptable to us? Surely someone would have noticed such a terrible thing happen and say so. Wasn't the Holy Spirit supposed to guide the Church to all truth? Can you explain why you think He failed for 1500 years?

These seven thousand men Paul speaks of;
do we know their names ???
do we have any mention of any thing they taught or wrote???

No we do not
just the testimony of God and Paul
they were there and
"had not bowed the knee to the image of Baal."
and
Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant
according to the election of grace


what more "evidence" do you need pilgrim
Where is there documented the rise of a church parallel to the early church? That is sure easy to say but no one can point to any documentation to prove it. If St Ignatius who lived at that time and was a disciple of St. John and ordained a bishop by St Peter isn't good enough evidence for you, then why should NO EVIDENCE AT ALL be acceptable to us? Surely someone would have noticed such a terrible thing happen and say so. Wasn't the Holy Spirit supposed to guide the Church to all truth? Can you explain why you think He failed for 1500 years?
pilgrim says:
If St Ignatius who lived at that time and was a disciple of St. John and ordained a bishop by St Peter isn't good enough evidence for you,
========================================================
NO: Absolutly Not

these Myths and fabricated stories of St Ignatius
are evidence of only one thing
2Peter 2:1​
there will be false teachers among you.​
They will secretly introduce destructive heresies,​
..... these teachers will exploit you with fabricated stories.​
NIV​
they will exploit you with concocted stories.​
NCB​

It contains the seven genuine and six spurious letters, but even the genuine epistles were greatly interpolated to lend weight to the personal views of its author. For this reason they are incapable of bearing witness to the original form. The spurious letters in this recension are those that purport to be from Ignatius


pilgrim now you know this;
every time you refer to these letters
you bear false witness to the posters on this forum

For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers,​
and murderers, and idolaters,​
and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie

what was that Peter said
Many will be seduced by their licentious ways​
]]
 
Last edited:

pilgrim

Well-known member
Paul says
Romans 11:1​
I say then, Hath God cast away his people?
God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham,
of the tribe of Benjamin.
2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew.
Wot (know) ye not what the scripture saith of Elias?
how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying,
3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets,
and digged down thine altars;
and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
4 But what saith the answer of God unto him?
I have reserved to myself seven thousand men,
who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.
5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant
according to the election of grace.

I have reserved to myself seven thousand men,
who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal
.




These seven thousand men Paul speaks of;
do we know their names ???
do we have any mention of any thing they taught or wrote???

No we do not
just the testimony of God and Paul
they were there and
"had not bowed the knee to the image of Baal."
and
Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant
according to the election of grace


what more "evidence" do you need pilgrim

pilgrim says:
If St Ignatius who lived at that time and was a disciple of St. John and ordained a bishop by St Peter isn't good enough evidence for you,
========================================================
NO: Absolutly Not

these Myths and fabricated stories of St Ignatius
are evidence of only one thing
2Peter 2:1​
there will be false teachers among you.​
They will secretly introduce destructive heresies,​
..... these teachers will exploit you with fabricated stories.​
NIV​
they will exploit you with concocted stories.​
NCB​

It contains the seven genuine and six spurious letters, but even the genuine epistles were greatly interpolated to lend weight to the personal views of its author. For this reason they are incapable of bearing witness to the original form. The spurious letters in this recension are those that purport to be from Ignatius


pilgrim now you know this;
every time you refer to these letters
you bear false witness to the posters on this forum

For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers,​
and murderers, and idolaters,​
and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie

what was that Peter said
Many will be seduced by their licentious ways​
]]
Again, you do not read thoroughly what you posted:

"Of LATER collections of Ignatian letters which have been preserved, the oldest is known as the "LONG RECENSION". This collection, the author of which is unknown, dates from the latter part of the fourth century. It contains the seven genuine and six spurious letters, but even the genuine epistles were greatly interpolated to lend weight to the personal views of its author."

The 7 genuine Ignatian letters that come from the "middle recension" are considered authentic by Catholic AND Protestant historians. Because think about it: how do they know the "genuine epistles" were "greatly interpolated" unless they had others to compare them to?

From wiki (since some won't read Catholic sources):

"The text of these epistles is known in three different recensions, or editions: the Short Recension, found in a Syriac manuscript; the Middle Recension, found only in Greek manuscripts; and the Long Recension, found in Greek and Latin manuscripts.[4]: 120–121 [34]

For some time, it was believed that the Long Recension was the only extant version of the Ignatian epistles, but around 1628 a Latin translation of the Middle Recension was discovered by Archbishop James Ussher, who published it in 1646. For around a quarter of a century after this, it was debated which recension represented the original text of the epistles. But ever since John Pearson's strong defense of the authenticity of the Middle Recension in the late 17th century, there has been a scholarly consensus that the Middle Recension is the original version of the text.[4]: 121  The Long Recension is the product of a fourth-century Arian Christian, who interpolated the Middle Recension epistles in order posthumously to enlist Ignatius as an unwitting witness in theological disputes of that age. This individual also forged the six spurious epistles attributed to Ignatius (see § Pseudo-Ignatius below).[35]"

Manuscripts representing the Short Recension of the Ignatian epistles were discovered and published by William Cureton in the mid-19th century. For a brief period, there was a scholarly debate on the question of whether the Short Recension was earlier and more original than the Middle Recension. But by the end of the 19th century, Theodor Zahn and J. B. Lightfoot had established a scholarly consensus that the Short Recension is merely a summary of the text of the Middle Recension, and was therefore composed later.[4]: 121 
 
Top