Catholics say they gave us the Bible!

  • Thread starter Thread starter excatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
excatholic, you just ignore everything we give you and keep posting your propoganda.

The Catholic Church has never claimed that the Church was called the “Roman Catholic Church”. They claim that it was called “The Catholic Church”. The word Roman was added by the reformers. I have told you this before. But I am proud to call my self a Roman Catholic simply because I am proud to be in union with Rome.
Give reference that say the church in Rome was diferent than that in Jerusalem. I can give you councils that had bishops from both Rome and Jerusalem where they were incommunion with eachother. Both before 380AD and after 380AD. They include Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesius, and Chalcedon. They were all accepted by both Rome and Jerusalem. You need some references.
 
40.png
excatholic:
John14:26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you. Don’t trust me trust the Lord and read his Word. If you read his Word and avail yourself to the Holy Spirit he will show you what is truth. Men will fail us every time. His Word will stand forever.
Click to expand...
This verse says that the Holy Spirit will teach all things to those who heard Jesus speak, i.e., the Apostles. Just as in Jude 3 it says that “the faith was delivered once for all to the saints” To imply from John 14:26 that the Holy Spirit guides anyone other than the Apostles to all truth is reading more into the passage than it really says.
 
40.png
excatholic:
Priests can’t marry, when I was Catholic I could not eat meat on Fridays during lent. Do you know what the requirements for a Bishop are according to the bible?1tim3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Are your Bishops able to marry? I think not. What changed the Word of God or your church?
Click to expand...
Oh
Sounds like you are parroting the typical anti-catholic rants please use some logic here.

Catholic priest can marry in fact their are over 100 RC pastors in the USA married and thousands of Eastern catholic priests around the world who are married. The favored discipline which the church evercises by her right of binding an loosing given to us by Christ is for celeibacy. Paul himself favored celibacy although it is not a necessary requirement but a fovored one. Since it is not a dogma but a discipline it can be changed. As far as your inept interpretation of TImothy do you realize you would have cancelled out the apostles Paul and John and Jesus himself as being leaders in the chruch for not being married. Surely I think these men would have qualified to take the office of an aposlte the literal meaning of bishop. What the verse is sayins is that a bishop have no more than one wife and be in good standing with the church community and be known as a good husband and father if he had those family relations. If not obviously those would not qualify. If your interpretation is valid then he must be a father as well (He must be one who (10) manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity) Obviously when using a catholic interpretation if he didn’t have children that wouldn’t cancel out his call to be a bishop. But uisng your interpretation he has to have wife and children.
Also Timothy 3 addresses the qulification of both bishop and deacon. Deacons (who are allowed to marry) in the catholic church are investigated to their faimilial background that they have a good realtionship with wife and child and that those members are in good standing with the community just like Timothy alludes to. But we are entirely consistent here if a deacon is not married or is married with no children that alone does not disqualify one from this office these apply only if the deacon had those realtionships. And this is the case with the catholic priests who happened to be married. Use a little logic will you.
Here is where the protestant church has changed the rules and we havent. Scripture says that these such leaders are to have but 1 wife (if they happened to be in that state) but the protestnat church says nothing if the pastor where to have 2, 3, 4, or more wives. THis is how it seen by God when a pasor divorces his wife and remarreis this does not happen in catholicims but happens all the time in protestantism. Why do your pastors disobey the word of God and get married and have so many wives when a leader is permitted but one wife?
 
Priests can’t marry, when I was Catholic I could not eat meat on Fridays during lent. Do you know what the requirements for a Bishop are according to the bible?1tim3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Are your Bishops able to marry? I think not. What changed the Word of God or your church?

I thought you were a Bible Christian Ex…Look at Matthew 19:10-12
Jesus talks about celibacy & so does Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:32-35…Paul himself was single…(1Cor 7:8) . You keep alleging all this stuff but fail to bring up the very scriptures you KNOW full well support the Catholic position. I love talkin’ to ya, but ya gotta play fair w/ us & keep it all in context. Anything outta context can be stretched to mean anything at all.

Abstinence on Fridays is a discipline of the church & as such can change…as could celibacy for priests. I don’t see celibacy going away, but even if it did it wouldn’t change the truths of Catholism.

You will not win converts here…most of us are learning to defend the faith & have already answered a bunch of questions like yours…they’re nothin’ new. Same Stuff Different Day.

C’mon…c’mon…easy now…just enter this big door to the Cathedral here…

Love ya…
 
40.png
excatholic:
John14:26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you. Don’t trust me trust the Lord and read his Word. If you read his Word and avail yourself to the Holy Spirit he will show you what is truth. Men will fail us every time. His Word will stand forever.
Click to expand...
Amen Excatholic. Trust not men or you. I trust God alone who gave us an Authoratative Church, the bride of Christ.

Excatholic,

Do not let your hearts be troubled. Do not let your hearts be troubled or afraid. Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, [then] I will enter his house and dine with him, and he with me. The Spirit and the bride say, “Come”.

Get up, let us go.

John 14:1,27;- Rev. 3:20, 22:17;- John 14:30
**
Joe
 
40.png
excatholic:
The Church in Rome was an extension of the Jerusalem church westward.
Click to expand...
In 313, Jerusalem did not exist. It was razed by order of the Emperor Hadrian after the revolt of 133-35 AD (Bar Kochba’s Revolt) and a new Roman city built on the ruins, Alea Capitolina. That city was not renamed “Jerusalem” until Saint Helena prevailed on her son to do so.
40.png
excatholic:
The RCC effectively uses the spin that “catholic means universal” when we know it to mean the “Roman Catholic Church” hence RCC.

"Catholic DOES mean “universal.” Check any dictionary.
40.png
excatholic:
Jesus was not a Catholic; he was and is a Jew.

The Church was formed on Pentecost, after the Resurrection. So technically, Jesus was a Jew. But Peter and Paul and all the other Apostles ceased to follow most of the traditional Jewish laws (about diet and circumcision, and so on) and the Church and Judaism split apart.
40.png
excatholic:
I would say it is good bet they were not seeing as the term Catholic was not even used until 110 C.E. Just because the RCC claims the first church was Catholic does not make it right or true.

Actually, it does. What OTHER church makes that claim? Protestantism didn’t exist prior to the 16th Century!
40.png
excatholic:
2Tim4:1-5 . . . 3 forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. 4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving; 5 for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

Where are you getting this?

2 Timothy 4:1-5

1 1 I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who willjudge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingly power: 2 proclaim the word; be persistent whether it is convenient or inconvenient; convince, reprimand, encourage through all patience and teaching. 3 For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine but, following their own desires and insatiable curiosity, 2 will accumulate teachers 4 and will stop listening to the truth and will be diverted to myths. 5 But you, be self-possessed in all circumstances; put up with hardship; perform the work of an evangelist; fulfill your ministry. It seems the time came in the 16th century, when Protestantism arose.
40.png
excatholic:
Are your Bishops able to marry? I think not. What changed the Word of God or your church?
Are you serious? Celebacy and abstaining from meat (which is now practiced only during Lent) are not biblical in derivation, nor Church doctrine. They are simply disciplines – nothing more than that.
 
40.png
excatholic:
The. Roman Catholic Church was legally recognized by the Roman Emperor Constantine, and, in 380 it became the official religion of the Roman Empire. My contention is synonymous with that of the history of the early church. The RCC makes the claim that the early church in Rome (prior to the 313 date) was called the Roman Catholic Church when in fact it was not. The Church in Rome was an extension of the Jerusalem church westward. When Constantine issued the Edict of Milan in 313C.E. Rome expressed toleration for the Christian church and eventually it became a state religion by the year 380. This state religion was not and is not the same as what the Jerusalem church taught. The RCC makes it a habit of venerating which would cause anything in history that ever happened in the Christian faith to be a Catholic event. The RCC effectively uses the spin that “catholic means universal” when we know it to mean the “Roman Catholic Church” hence RCC. Jesus was not a Catholic; he was and is a Jew. His disciples were not Catholic either, they were also Jewish. Paul was not Catholic either he was a Jew from the tribe of Benjamin. Are we starting to see a pattern here, could it be possible that the first Christians were not Catholic either? I would say it is good bet they were not seeing as the term Catholic was not even used until 110 C.E. Just because the RCC claims the first church was Catholic does not make it right or true.
Click to expand...
Well you know in the 2000 year history of the catholic church it never refers itself as the Roman Catholic Church so yeah the church was never called that you protestants call us that. We are called the catholic church period the same church of John the Apsotle and Paul the Apostle was coined catholic when John was still alive circa 100 AD by Ignatius of Antioch. Peter and John both apostles knew Ignatius by the way Peter ordained him. He sure wasn’t Penatcostal. You stick a magic formula that the catholic church started its own church when Constantine took interest in the church. Well show me a distinct differnce between the church in the Pre-Nicean Era and the Constanine era and we can talk. You can show me nothing but accusations.

Let me show you what church John the apostle belonged to what church Paul the apostle belonged to and to what church the scriptures were handed down to us from. This is from 177 AD mere 77 years after the apsotolic age and 150 years before the Constantine era. This is solid evidence from history and not your pastor read it and weep.
“For the blessed apostle Paul himself,following the rule of his predecessor John, writes only by name to seven Churches in the following order–to the Corinthians afirst…there is a second to the Corinthians and to the Thessalonians, yet one Church is recognized as being spread over the entire world…Howbeit to Philemon one, to Titus one, and to Timothy two were put in writing…to be in honour however with the Catholic Church for the ordering of ecclesiastical discipline…one to the Laodicenes, another to the Alexandrians, both forged in Paul’s name to suit the heresy of Marcion, and several others, which cannot be received into the Catholic Church; for it is not fitting that gall be mixed with honey. The Epistle of Jude no doubt, and the couple bearing the name of John, are accepted by the Catholic Church…But of Arsinous,called also Valentinus,or of Militiades we receive nothing at all.”
The fragment of Muratori (A.D. 177),in NE,124
Click to expand...
Notice the early protestors of the catholic church gave to us no scripture that we hold today. Gee sounds to me like Luther, Calvin and King Henry VIII what scipture did we recieve from them oh yeah we receive nothing at all much like the early heretics that protested the catholic church in the 2nd century
“But of Arsinous,called also Valentinus,or of Militiades we receive nothing at all.”
 
Ex-Catholic,

Sadly, you never knew your faith. The warning in 2Tim 3-5…“and commaning to abstain from foods which
God created to be RECEIVED WITH THANKSGIVING BY THOSE WHO BELIEVE AND KNOW THE TRUTH. 4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving; 5 for it is SANCTIFIED BY THE WORD OF GOD AND PRAYER.”

Any good Catholic would recognize the food GOD CREATED to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth is the Holy Eucharist! This is the bread that is sanctified by the word of God (Christ at the last supper) and prayer,“take and eat, this is my body to be given up for you.”

Paul even warns in 1 Cor 11:29 “who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgement on himself.”

As for your stressing “HUSBAND OF ONE WIFE”, It is not a DOCTRINE that priests not marry, but a DISCIPLINE. And if any bishop were married at the time of becoming a bishop, he cound not remarry if he lost his wife. :rolleyes:

Try reading www.catholictradition.org/true-church.htm

If you dare!:yup:

Peace, Lindalou
 
40.png
excatholic:
the term Catholic was not even used until 110 C.E.
Click to expand...
Your statement is inaccurate. The earliest extant written evidence for the term “the Catholic Church” is in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch who died about A.D. 110. So all that we can say with certainty is that the term “the Catholic Church” was in use by A.D. 110. Since Ignatius does not claim to have coined the term nor does he explain what he meant by it in his writings, it is reasonable to assume that the term “the Catholic Church” came into common use prior to his extant writings but when we cannot say.
 
40.png
excatholic:
The RCC effectively uses the spin that “catholic means universal” when we know it to mean the “Roman Catholic Church” hence RCC.
Click to expand...
Catholic does mean universal but it also means being united to the see of Peter being united to a bishop with apostolic succession it means united to the one holy catholic and apostolic church founded by Jesus Christ and is his one body not a divided mess. This is the meaning of the catholic church from the time of Matthew 16 till now not made up after Nicea and Constantine the pre-nicean church recognized this.
Read the following belief of the early church.
Peter speaks there, on whom the Church was to be built, teaching and showing in the name of the Church, that although a rebellious and arrogant multitude of those who will not hear and obey may depart, yet the Church does not depart from Christ; and they are the Church who are a people united to the priest, and the flock which adheres to its pastor. Whence you ought to know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop; and if any one be not with the bishop, that he is not in the Church, and that those flatter themselves in vain who creep in, not having peace with God’s priests, and think that they communicate secretly with some; while the Church, which is Catholic and one, is not cut nor divided, but is indeed connected and bound together by the cement of priests who cohere with one another."
Cyprian,To Florentius,Epistle 66/67(A.D. 254),in ANF,V:374-375
Click to expand...
 
i would appreciate it, excath, if you would at LEAST write your own material, instead of just cutting and pasting from anticatholic websites, like this one, where you got this bit you posted.

bible.ca/cath-bible-origin.htm

ah. i see now that vincent beat me to the punch. david j riggs indeed. let me add HIM to the list of people i pray for, including hank hanegraaf.
 
40.png
Maccabees:
Catholic does mean universal but it also means being united to the see of Peter being united to a bishop with apostolic succession it means united to the one holy catholic and apostolic church founded by Jesus Christ and is his one body not a divided mess. This is the meaning of the catholic church from the time of Matthew 16 till now not made up after Nicea and Constantine the pre-nicean church recognized this.
Read the following belief of the early church.
Click to expand...
The reason I am quoteing you Maccabees is your login name… Hummm… not included in the KJV of the bible… hummm… and, what Jewish holiday is the one the comes from the writings in Maccabees (I wonder how excatholic can rebut that)… They can’t argue with the truth huh!
 
40.png
AmyS:
The reason I am quoteing you Maccabees is your login name… Hummm… not included in the KJV of the bible… hummm… and, what Jewish holiday is the one the comes from the writings in Maccabees (I wonder how excatholic can rebut that)… They can’t argue with the truth huh!
Click to expand...
What Jewish holiday comes from Maccabees?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top