I have said all this many times before , so it is pointless repeating , and I do so only because you are civil, which I applaud
so only because of that and one last time.
Thank you, but it does not matter how many times you restate a falsehood, that does not turn it into a truth.
On the contrary, the Catholic Church is the church originated with Christ.
The catholic church did not start until around 590AD. (According to The Moody Handbook of Theology, the official beginning of the Roman Catholic church occurred in 590AD, with Pope Gregory I.) Priests of the catholic church retroactively look back to earlier events and shape them into what the catholic church became, but Peter was not the first pope (that was Gregory I).
The New Testament did not exist in that early church, nor would it for centuries Till the same Catholic Church decided it with the powers vested in it by Christ to “bind and loose”
The catholic church was not given the authority to "bind and loose". That authority was given to the Apostles, and (although it is debated) to either all followers of Christ, or only to the Elders of each congregation. The catholic church assumes that this authority is reserved to them, but I believe that the authority is given to all followers of Christ.
The early Followers compiled the writings that became the Bible in the second to the fourth centuries (although some of the writings were considered Scripture from the time of their writing (1 Timothy 5:18 and Luke 10:7, 2 Peter 3:15-16, Colossians 4:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:27). But that all happened before the catholic church became an entity.
The early church “ handed down “ the true faith ( paradosis, traditon) ) only valid by those “ sent “ to preach . So scripture and history clearly tells us. The church handed down meaning as tradition and authority Decisions taken by council.
This is true, but as already mentioned, this was the early Church, not the catholic church.
That is why scripture identifies the CHURCH not scripture as the foundation of truth, and tells us that traditon is true,
Tradition is not in conflict with scripture onky YOUR personal interpretation of scripture, and false understanding if you think they ever conflict, you are the problem not scripture. So think again.
Would you mind telling me where that can be found in Scripture? I see in Scripture that Scripture is valuable for doctrine, reproof, correction, education, etc., but I don't see anywhere that it says that the Church as the foundation of truth: please educate me on this.
The problem is the false man made reformation tradition of sola scriptura.
How is it error to only trust the Scriptures that were authored by the Holy Spirit (2 Tim 3:16), and because the Holy Spirit is God and God is incapable of making an error or mistake, the Scriptures are without error or mistake. But no where does it say that human tradition is without error or mistake, correct (if it does, please show me where).
The early church was not sola scriptura, which was demonstrably false made easily provable false in many ways. It is logically, historically and scriptural disprovable as are many of your above statements.
Jesus gave power to resolve disputes to a succession. You should listen to them.
Yes, there were several disputes that arose in the early Church, and they were resolved through counsel, seeking the Holy Spirit's guidance, and prayer. And those disputes, the solutions, and the results became part of the Scriptures that you say are not the final authority.
Proof sola scriptura is false , is that you ALL DISAGREE on the meaning of scriptiure on EVERY major issue of doctrine.
That is proof of nothing other than that man is not God. There are many things in Scripture that are not clear (Peter even says that some of the things Paul says are hard to understand), and they require the Holy Spirit's guidance to understand. And I willingly admit that not all the congregations that call themselves "christians" are really followers of Christ. There are many who claim to be followers of Christ who have absoluetely nothing to do with Him (JWs, mormons, and others). They follow man made doctrines.
The stupidity of it , is none of you ever ask why the reformers all disagreed with each other, their eponymous denominations all disagree with thsm , which have since split into tens of thousands of bits , as yet another illinformed arrogant know it all decides it means something else, so schisms! The answer is NONE of you PROVABLY understavs scripture
So Why don’t you attack each other , like the cult of ezranism ( or other ridiculous Protestant sects)
? Why only Catholicism ?
Oh, I do disagree with many of the groups (and individuals) who teach false doctrines. As said, JWs claim to follow Christ, but they teach false doctrines that are directly contradictory to Scripture. The same can be said of mormons, catholics, eastern orthodox, lutherins, baptists, methodists, the churches of christ and many other denominations. But the catholics claim that they are the only true church when they teach and practice many unBiblical, unScriptural things.
Please show me where any of the practices that I listed as false in previous comments are condoned in Scripture.
The problem with you all deciding that “ your personal meaning of scripture “ trumps what Jesus handed down, is you end up with all the old heresies.
Ezra believes like JWs that Jesus was “ created” when Scripture is clear he was begotten!
Ezra reinvented arianism, just as some pentecostals reinvented modalism.
Without the authority of Jesus church you end up believing anything.
First off, I am not Ezra, and so I don't really care what he believes or teaches. He is not God, nor does he (or any other human today (including the pope) speak with the authority of Scripture.
Second, you are correct that Jesus was not created. Jesus was born in a human body, but His spirit came down from Heaven leaving all His glory, power, and knowledge in Heaven.
Yes, it is true that without the authority of Jesus, you can end up believing anything. Which brings me back to the false teachings of the catholic church that you have yet to address other than sweeping them under the rug. Address each one with Scriptureal support for why the practice is acceptable to God, please.
As for some of the more frankly MORONIC attacks you use have you never asked , why Paul and abraham called themselves “father” ? Are they apostate in your view too ? GOD told Abraham to call himself FATHER . Should abraham not obey God?
You all read the same book of anti catholic nonsense! Real explanation - Jesus used hyperbole!
Do you research none of your mindless criticisms?
Are you referring to 1 Corinthians 4:14-16 where Paul tells the Church in Corinth that he is their "father" in the faith? He is not telling them to call him "father", but rather saying that he is the one responsible for bringing them to the faith. Read the context:
"I do not write these things to shame you, but to admonish you as my beloved children. 15 For if you were to have countless tutors in Christ, yet you would not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel. 16 Therefore I urge you, be imitators of me."
He was saying that they should be imitators of Paul, not any other tutors they might have in Christ. Remember, God does not have any grandchildren. These people were not Paul's children (and thus grandchildren to God). Jesus is their father, and Paul is simply their teacher, having introduced them to the faith. He is not instrucing them to call him "father", because that would be a direct violation to the instruction of Jesus.
You forget , I was a Protestant and fundamentalist ,
No, I did not forget, because I never knew. I don't know anything about you, other than what you have shared in the past 3 or 4 posts
I saw all the flaws in their doctrine.
I saw. the nasty anti catholic hostility - many Baptists and calvinists are probably worst , but then Calvin was an odious man.
With that I cannot argue, although I cannot agree either. I never know Calvin, so I cannot speak to his charactor. And I try not to categorize people by "baptist" or "calvinist" because it rarely tells me anything about their personal beliefs.
So , I will end this where I began.
if you want TRUE doctrine start with the early church.
Find out what it handed down.
What scriptiure really means. We catholics know it inside out and what it meabs.
Do you? Hmmm.
The lamb for sacrifice started with Abraham
That led to the paschal lamb Which was eaten At Passover.
Jesus identifies himself as the new paschal lamb To be eaten.
To be eaten spiritually.
He was born in an eating trough. In the “ house of bread”
Jesus was born in a cave that was used as a stable for the sheep, because (due to the presumed infidelity of Mary) Joseph's family would not allow them to stay in their guest room (upper room, where honored guests would stay), and then He was laid in a eating trough because that was the only place they had to lay him (as they had no other furniture yet). Later, Joseph built a house for them (before the Wise Men arrived).
It is himself eaten in the eucharist .
So we know from johns disciples that is what the eucharist is, what John said John6 means!
You are taking figurative, spiritual language and making it literal and physical. We do not eat the physical, literal body of Christ (we are not cannibal), nor do we drink his literal blood. To eat of Christ is to study His Word (the Bible) and to grow into the meat of it (as opposed to the milk of the Word that we require when we are new to the faith (1 Pet 2:2, 1 Cor 3:1-2, Heb 5:12-14)). Yes, Jesus said that the bread is His body, and the fruit of the vine (wine) is His blood, and this is figurative language (a metaphor). The wine is not literally blood, nor is the bread literally His flesh, they remain what they were, but we are to eat and drink with His sacrifice in mind.
we know because Long before there was a New Testament, a few decades after Christ, the disciple of John ignatius , taught by John tells us in ignatius to smyrneans , that it isa Eucharist of the real body, validONLY if presided by bishop in succession.
Ahh, so an uninspired human wrote a human tradition, and you take that as Scripture? Sorry, but I cannot accept that as truth. Even the catholic church does not accept ignatius as Scripture.
Confirming the real flesh of the eucharist , the eternal sacrifice ever present, and the succession and importance of priesthood from the first days of the church!!
unless you are a catholic ( or orthodox) you have neither valid Eucharist, valid succession , or valid faith handed down
No, the Scriptural mandate for the Lord's Supper is very clear and unambiguous:
"For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night when He was betrayed, took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same way He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes." - 1 Cor 11:23-26
Notice that the cup is not His blood, but the New Covenant IN His blood. We eat and drink in remembrance, not the actual body and blood.
All you have is one more variant of faux christianity, that proliferators as man’s arrogance took over in the reformation.
You all put your fallible wisdom, higher than Gods truth !
So study history,
if you do you will come back to Rome .
No, I could never venerate another man, nor could I call a fallible human man "father" in a spiritual sense. I do not need anyone to interpret the Scriptures for me (the Holy Spirit does that), nor do I need anyone to interceed with the Father for me (Jesus alone does that).
Tell proven Arian apostate Erpzra to stop insulting me in private message.
Signing out.
Take that up with him. I have no authority over him, nor do I wish any.
When you work out why you all disagree with each other, you will know your method is False reformation teaching.
And when you submit to the Scripture as your authority instead of human tradition (which was condemned by Jesus), then you will have taken you first step toward Godly truth.
. i realize your tradition let me share scripture traditions of men.
