Did Jesus Start the Catholic Church?

[rev_kevin]

Catholic and Orthodox have the claim of direct descent from Christ. Can you see this?

So they CLAIM it. That don’t mean I have to as well.

 

[rev_kevin]

Kevin, you said:

That is NOT what I want to hear. I want to hear what you believe, not what we believe. Just in case you over looked my post: What you wrote in red did not answer my question. Still waiting… If you don’t want to give me the name of the man, or men, just say so and I won’t bother you about it anymore? Well, I have to get some sleep. Maybe I will have my answer tomorrow. Have a good night brother.

You want me to say Peter and Paul. And anything less then that means I have not answered your question.

 

[benedictus2]

Ok Ok yes Jesus started the Catholic Church. I say that because that is what you want to here. Anything less then that you would not accept.

But Rev Kevin, this is not about saying what we want to hear.

We refute what you say and you refute us back.

Now after proofs are presented one uses one’s reason and say where is the proof leading us? That is what this discussion is about.

You said you do not believe the Catholic Church was started by Christ so we both provide proof in support of our positions. But in the end one has to go through all that and think is this correct? Is this making sense?

For example when you claim that until something is given a name that something cannot be. Well as I have shown you, that reasoning is illogical because something IS fist before it is given a name.

I have given you answers but you won’t accept them because its not what you want to hear so I gave you what you want to hear. But I don’t believe it.

It is not about accepting your answers. You provide an answer and if we can refute them then obviously your answer is not good enough. So you need to come up with something better. And if we are able to refute that again then you come up with another rebuttal. That is how debates go.

 

[po18guy]

So they CLAIM it. That don’t mean I have to as well.

How do you claim it?

 

[benedictus2]

So they CLAIM it. That don’t mean I have to as well.

But Rev Kevin, unlike something that we cannot verify, these claims can be verified because historical records abound.

Do you really want to believe something that has no foundation on truth at all?

Would you not want to find out what the truth is rather than just merrily believing something that may be comfortable but is not true ?

Christ established a Church, would you not at least want to investigate and find where that Church is now? Surely it is still here because it was God who established it.

 

[benedictus2]

Kevin, if you honestly do not believe that the Catholic Church began with Jesus, **then you must, out of moral obligation to the truth, reject the 66 books of your bible and begin to compile your own assemblage of what you consider to be scripture. **

Brilliant! :clapping::clapping::clapping: Excellent, excellent point.

 

[benedictus2]

Somehow that sex scandal must come up. I suppose the fact it happens so much elsewhere and so little in the CC it would be a big deal

And the fact that they make it a big deal when it comes to the Catholic Church means that they expect the Church to set a moral standard. So that means the Catholic church must count.

 

[po18guy]

I never said the Catholic Church is a bogus church. And I never said I hated the Catholic Church, so please don’t say something that I never said.

Take a breath! if you are not Jack Chick, then I was not speaking of you. I was merely saying that even those who absolutely hate the Catholic Church will not change the 66 books that are left of the Catholic bible.

As a matter of fact I have always said that I have nothing against the Catholic Church and I have also said I respect the Catholic Church. The Bible is inspired by God, no matter who put it together, or who wrote it, it is the inspired word of God.

This allows you to compartmentalize any and all criticism of the CC and still keep the bible. I must admit that it is a very pragmatic view.

I never said it wasn’t Scritpure. You see it in one view, the Cahtolic view and I see it in another view. It don’t mean because I see it differently then you that it is not Scripture.

So why is your view correct and all others not?

Your getting frustrated because I won’t see it the way you want me to and when someone wants someone to see things their way and the other person don’t then frustration get a hold of the person who insists on his way. And I believe that is where you are at now.

Frankly, I was expecting someone with such rock-solid beliefs to have a reasonable explanation for those beliefs - in light of 1 Peter 3:15.

 

[benedictus2]

You want me to say Peter and Paul. And anything less then that means I have not answered your question.

Rev Kevin, just ask yourself, that Church in Acts, what happened to that Church? There was only One Church then. Where is it now?

 

[po18guy]

Brilliant! :clapping::clapping::clapping: Excellent, excellent point.

Yeah, but he wiggled right out of it using the old “it was inevitable” argument. You know, the Church could have spared herself years of arguing the canon by applying that simple principle. I’m sure that the Church fathers are collectively slapping their foreheads about right now… :doh2:

 

[benedictus2]

The Bible is inspired by God, no matter who put it together, or who wrote it, it is the inspired word of God.

But the question is how do you know it is inspired by God? How do you known that The Gospels of Thomas and Mary Magdalene should not be in and that John and Matthew should be included?

You are therefore acknowledging that God guided the Catholic Church in coming up with the Bible.

In saying that, you are acknowledging that the Catholic Church (since there was no other church then) in the 4th century was guided by the Holy to make a definitive decision on the Bible.

**Now the question is, how do you know that she was guided by the Holy Spirit then and not now?

The only way you can be certain that the Holy Spirit guided the formation of the Canon is if you say that she continues to be guided by the Holy Spirit.

Because if you do not acknowledge that, then you cannot be certain that guidance was provided in the formation of the canon.
**

 

[rev_kevin]

If you pay attention to what I wrote we can move forward.

I said before they were CALLED Christians they were Catholics.

They were called Christians at Antioch. But converts at Antioch were not the first Gentile converts.

As I have explained before, once the Apostles started preaching to Gentiles, that very moment the faith became Catholic i.e. Universal because at that moment they started to follow Christ commission to make disciples of all nations. That means Jesus from the beginning had the intention that making His Church Catholic.

Well no. Not in Acts and not for the first 1000 years of Christianity. Everyone who was Christian was Catholic. Unfortunately that is a fact that you cannot rationalize.

And this is why we are having this discussion now. How come 1500 years after Christ established His Church, we find Christians who are not Catholic. Can we therefore say that these Churches were founded by Christ? Obviously not.

And every single believer belonged to the Catholic Church. There were no other churches then. This is something you keep forgetting.

I am not trying to be mean by saying that a statement is absurd. It is just a mere recognition of the absurdity of the statement. Mind you, I do not say something is absurd without providing support for this.

What I mean by man is human being. If no one said you are a human being, does that mean you are not a human being until someone said so? Do you see how ridiculous your argument is?

And you are right, not all Christians become Catholic. But that is because of the
sin of schisms. Before the schisms, one does not even talk about differentiation. Christian = Catholic. That was the way God intended.

And all Christians before the sin of the reformation were Catholics. That is something you cannot evade. God did not establish different Churches. If there is something we can be very sure of in the Bible it is that FACT.

Wrong. Read your Bible. Christian = Catholic because way back at the beginning of the foundation of the Church of Christ there was no other Church except the Catholic Church. That TRUTH is as plain as day.

Your denomination started only in 1609.

All that Catholic means is universal, that is one church that extends to the world. When they started including Gentiles, then the Church became Catholic. At the beginning it was just a sect within the Jewish religion But that is not what Christ had in mind for His Church. He wanted it to be Catholic as can be seen from His commisioning of the apostles to preach to all the nations.

The NATURE of the early Church was Catholic.

Aaah, you see, that Church that started at Pentecost came up with the Nicene Creed. And guess what, they came up with the Nicene Creed EVEN BEFORE they completed the Canon.

Besides all your arguments become null and void because you are using a Catholic book - the Bible.

You are basing your arguments upon a book that the Catholic Church gave the world.

He wanted his teachings, his beliefs to go universal , to go to all nations but they were still Christians. It wasn’t until some time later that the word Catholic, universal, was coined and used. Today other denominations have gone universal, Catholic, but are not a part of the Catholic faith.

Yes we can say these Churches are founded by Christ. Christ is the Church and if you believe in Christ, and accept him as your savior then you are a part of his Church.

Every single Christian was Catholic, why?
Unlike most religions in the Roman Empire, Christianity required its adherents to renounce all other gods, a practice adopted from Judaism, see Idolatry. Christians’ refusal to join pagan celebrations meant they were unable to participate in much of public life, which caused non-Christians–including government authorities–to fear that the Christians were angering the gods and thereby threatening the peace and prosperity of the Empire. In addition, the peculiar intimacy of Christian society and its secrecy about its religious practices spawned rumors that Christians were guilty of incest and cannibalism; the resulting persecutions, although usually local and sporadic, were a defining feature of Christian self-understanding until Christianity was legalized in the 4th century. A series of more centrally organized persecutions of Christians emerged in the late 3rd century, when emperors decreed that the Empire’s military, political, and economic crises were caused by angry gods. All residents were ordered to give sacrifices or be punished. Jews were exempted as long as they paid the Jewish Tax. A small number of Christians were executed; others fled or renounced their beliefs. Disagreements over what role, if any, these apostates should have in the Church led to the Donatist and Novatianist schisms.

In spite of these persecutions, evangelization efforts persisted, leading to the Edict of Milan which legalized Christianity in 313. By 380, Christianity had become the state religion of the Roman Empire

The Catholic Church PUT Scripture together, but the Bible is inspired by God, written by man through God. So I have every right to use the Bible that God inspired.
Null and void, HA!

 

[rev_kevin]

But Rev Kevin, this is not about saying what we want to hear.

We refute what you say and you refute us back.

Now after proofs are presented one uses one’s reason and say where is the proof leading us? That is what this discussion is about.

You said you do not believe the Catholic Church was started by Christ so we both provide proof in support of our positions. But in the end one has to go through all that and think is this correct? Is this making sense?

For example when you claim that until something is given a name that something cannot be. Well as I have shown you, that reasoning is illogical because something IS fist before it is given a name.

It is not about accepting your answers. You provide an answer and if we can refute them then obviously your answer is not good enough. So you need to come up with something better. And if we are able to refute that again then you come up with another rebuttal. That is how debates go.

Yes I know that. But after being on the CAF for a while I come to the conclusion that nothing a non-Catholic says is any good and all the Catholics want to hear is YOUR RIGHT, I’M WRONG. Like I said the only correct answer is what you, Catholics, want to hear and that is your view.

 

[rev_kevin]

How do you claim it?

You know how I claim it. After the hundreds of posts here you should know by now.

 

[po18guy]

The Catholic Church PUT Scripture together, but the Bible is inspired by God, written by man through God. So I have every right to use the Bible that God inspired. Null and void, HA!

So, you teach us that all scripture was predestined to be in the bible, and that scripture that was not inspired was predestined to be left out. But, what to call this new denomination??? How about Kevinism?

 

[rev_kevin]

Take a breath! if you are not Jack Chick, then I was not speaking of you. I was merely saying that even those who absolutely hate the Catholic Church will not change the 66 books that are left of the Catholic bible.

This allows you to compartmentalize any and all criticism of the CC and still keep the bible. I must admit that it is a very pragmatic view.

So why is your view correct and all others not?

Frankly, I was expecting someone with such rock-solid beliefs to have a reasonable explanation for those beliefs - in light of 1 Peter 3:15.

I am not changing the books of the Bible. I just don’t see it the way you do.

What is a view:

position: a way of regarding situations or topics etc.; “consider what follows from the positivist view”
the visual percept of a region; “the most desirable feature of the park are the beautiful views”
the act of looking or seeing or observing; “he tried to get a better view of it”; “his survey of the battlefield was limited”
the range of the eye; “they were soon out of view”
opinion: a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty; “my opinion differs from yours”; “I am not of your persuasion”; “what are your thoughts on Haiti?”
opinion: a message expressing a belief about something; the expression of a belief that is held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof; “his opinions appeared frequently on the editorial page”
purpose; the phrase with a view to' means with the intention of’ or `for the purpose of’; “he took the computer with a view to pawning it”
see: deem to be; “She views this quite differently from me”; “I consider her to be shallow”; “I don’t see the situation quite as negatively as you do”
scene: graphic art consisting of the graphic or photographic representation of a visual percept; “he painted scenes from everyday life”; “figure 2 shows photographic and schematic views of the equipment”
look at carefully; study mentally; “view a problem”
horizon: the range of interest or activity that can be anticipated; “It is beyond the horizon of present knowledge”
watch: see or watch; “view a show on television”; “This program will be seen all over the world”; “view an exhibition”; “Catch a show on Broadway”; “see a movie”
outward appearance; “they look the same in outward view”

I gave you my beliefs, you can accept my view/belief or not. I accept that you have a view/belief but you can’t do the same.

 

[benedictus2]

He wanted his teachings, his beliefs to go universal , to go to all nations but they were still Christians.

And Catholic. That was the nature of the Church. He did not just mean for people to know his teaching. He wanted everyone one who hears to be incorporated into His Church that is why he follows the “proclamation of the Gospel” part with "baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

That is why every convert had to be baptized, even those who had already received John’s baptism had to be re-baptized.

It wasn’t until some time later that the word Catholic, universal, was coined and used. Today other denominations have gone universal, Catholic, but are not a part of the Catholic faith.

You keep reiterating that but I have already shown you that that is a bogus argument.

As I already said before, even if no one said you are a human being, the fact remains that you are a human being. The naming comes after reality. Please that is such a simple concept so I don’t see how you cannot understand that.

If you keep using that line of argument, then you are basically saying that before Antioch, the apostles were not Christian. Is that what you are saying? That until they were called Christians they were not Christians?

Yes we can say these Churches are founded by Christ. Christ is the Church and if you believe in Christ, and accept him as your savior then you are a part of his Church.

No Christ is not the Church. You are sounding like Rinnie. That is a heresy. Christ is not the Church. The Church is theBody of Christ but the Church is not the person of Christ.

Every single Christian was Catholic, why?

Because there were no other churches then. Baptists were not formed yet. There were no Lutheran, Anglicans, Evangelicals etc, etc. There were only Catholics. So Christians were all Catholics. And that was true for the first 1000 years.

Unlike most religions in the Roman Empire, Christianity required its adherents to renounce all other gods, a practice adopted from Judaism, see Idolatry. Christians’ refusal to join pagan celebrations meant they were unable to participate in much of public life, which caused non-Christians–including government authorities–to fear that the Christians were angering the gods and thereby threatening the peace and prosperity of the Empire. In addition, the peculiar intimacy of Christian society and its secrecy about its religious practices spawned rumors that Christians were guilty of incest and cannibalism; the resulting persecutions, although usually local and sporadic, were a defining feature of Christian self-understanding until Christianity was legalized in the 4th century. A series of more centrally organized persecutions of Christians emerged in the late 3rd century, when emperors decreed that the Empire’s military, political, and economic crises were caused by angry gods. All residents were ordered to give sacrifices or be punished. Jews were exempted as long as they paid the Jewish Tax. A small number of Christians were executed; others fled or renounced their beliefs. Disagreements over what role, if any, these apostates should have in the Church led to the Donatist and Novatianist schisms. In spite of these persecutions, evangelization efforts persisted, leading to the Edict of Milan which legalized Christianity in 313. By 380, Christianity had become the state religion of the Roman Empire

This part of your post has no bearing on our discussion. You are adding information that is irrelevant to the topic. So I won’t address it.

The Catholic Church PUT Scripture together, but the Bible is inspired by God, written by man through God. So I have every right to use the Bible that God inspired.
Null and void, HA!

By doing so you are acknowledging that the Catholic Church was inspired by the Holy Spirit.

**But you put yourself in a quandary. Because the only way you can be certain that the Bible is really inerrant is to accept that at that moment in time, the Cathollic Church was infallible because of the Holy Spirit.

But how do you know that? Seriously, how do you know that she was indeed infallible at that time? Maybe she made an error and left out books that should be there and added books that should not be there?

So therefore, the only way you can be certain that she was infallible when she declared the canon is to admit that is always infallible. **

 

[benedictus2]

I am not changing the books of the Bible. I just don’t see it the way you do.

But we’ve already shown that there is a major flaw in your view if one uses reason. So you need to show us why your view is not flawed.

What is a view:

position: a way of regarding situations or topics etc.; “consider what follows from the positivist view”
the visual percept of a region; “the most desirable feature of the park are the beautiful views”
the act of looking or seeing or observing; “he tried to get a better view of it”; “his survey of the battlefield was limited”
the range of the eye; “they were soon out of view”
opinion: a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty; “my opinion differs from yours”; “I am not of your persuasion”; “what are your thoughts on Haiti?”
opinion: a message expressing a belief about something; the expression of a belief that is held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof; “his opinions appeared frequently on the editorial page”
purpose; the phrase with a view to' means with the intention of’ or `for the purpose of’; “he took the computer with a view to pawning it”
see: deem to be; “She views this quite differently from me”; “I consider her to be shallow”; “I don’t see the situation quite as negatively as you do”
scene: graphic art consisting of the graphic or photographic representation of a visual percept; “he painted scenes from everyday life”; “figure 2 shows photographic and schematic views of the equipment”
look at carefully; study mentally; “view a problem”
horizon: the range of interest or activity that can be anticipated; “It is beyond the horizon of present knowledge”
watch: see or watch; “view a show on television”; “This program will be seen all over the world”; “view an exhibition”; “Catch a show on Broadway”; “see a movie”
outward appearance; “they look the same in outward view”

This is another irrelevant answer to what we are discussing.

I gave you my beliefs, you can accept my view/belief or not. I accept that you have a view/belief but you can’t do the same.

This is not about accepting views or not accepting views.

This is about trying to find out what is true. We can’t just say "this is my belief take it or leave it"because the whole point of this thread is to find out whether that belief can be substantiated by fact.

 

[rev_kevin]

But the question is how do you know it is inspired by God? How do you known that The Gospels of Thomas and Mary Magdalene should not be in and that John and Matthew should be included?

You are therefore acknowledging that God guided the Catholic Church in coming up with the Bible.

In saying that, you are acknowledging that the Catholic Church (since there was no other church then) in the 4th century was guided by the Holy to make a definitive decision on the Bible.

**Now the question is, how do you know that she was guided by the Holy Spirit then and not now?

The only way you can be certain that the Holy Spirit guided the formation of the Canon is if you say that she continues to be guided by the Holy Spirit.

Because if you do not acknowledge that, then you cannot be certain that guidance was provided in the formation of the canon.
**

I wasn’t there but maybe they should have been included.

Let me put it this way Scripture is inspired by God. The Catholic decided to use what they thought should be the Bible. I’m sure there are Scripture that should have been put in as part of the Bible but it didn’t fit what they thought the Bible should be.

NO. Scritpure was inspired by God. Man put in and left out what he wanted.

About the canon. I’m not so sure about. Thats your belief not mine.

 

[rev_kevin]

But Rev Kevin, unlike something that we cannot verify, these claims can be verified because historical records abound.

Do you really want to believe something that has no foundation on truth at all?

Would you not want to find out what the truth is rather than just merrily believing something that may be comfortable but is not true ?

Christ established a Church, would you not at least want to investigate and find where that Church is now? Surely it is still here because it was God who established it.

How many times must I tell you what the Church is?