Did Jesus Start the Catholic Church?

[benedictus2]

Then if it is not part of the Holy Trinity then how could Jesus say he is sending the Advocate the Holy Spirit to lead you to all truth.

Well think about this. Why would the Church need to be guided into truth if it is already the person of Jesus? Did Jesus not say He is the Truth? Why would He/The Church need to be guided by the Holy Spirit into Himself?

Sorry Rinnie, but you are spreading a very erroneous teaching if you tell people that.

Have you bought into some New Age interpretation of Scripture?

 

[rinnie]

Well think about this. Why would the Church need to be guided into truth if it is already the person of Jesus? Did Jesus not say He is the Truth? Why would He/The Church need to be guided by the Holy Spirit into Himself?

Sorry Rinnie, but you are spreading a very erroneous teaching if you tell people that.

Have you bought into some New Age interpretation of Scripture?

I didn’t say that. I said that Jesus is the Church, not had to be guided into the Church. When Jesus LEFT he said he had to leave so he could send the ADVOCATE the HS to guide us into all truth.

Because Jesus knew that he had to die on the Cross to save us from sin, If he did not die for our sins then we could not be saved.

Jesus said before ABRAHAM I AM. How could he say that if he was not God himself.

God revealed himself to us 3 way, the Father, the Son and now the Holy Spirit.

In the O.T it was the Father (the word)
In the N.T.it was Jesus Christ ( human and divine)
In this world it is the Church ( the Holy Spirit)

It will be that way until he comes again in Glory.

 

[rev_kevin]

The question then is does he have enough intellectual honesty to really go for the truth or is this more a case of “I believe this to be so therefore it is so.”

You are right, he has this habit of writing the same thing over and over again even when you have shown him conclusively that it is not so.

It is like there is a desperate need to cling to this lie. I really wonder why that is. There must something else going on underneath that.

I’m done with this thread if that is the way you feel.

 

[benedictus2]

I’m done with this thread if that is the way you feel.

Well Rev Kevin, you make us wonder.

Why is that you ignore those posts that directly address your questions?

You said you are game, I reply to you in detail and you completely ignore them?

So why? At one point in your life you have to address that. You can’t keep running away from truth forever.

Peace!

Cory

 

[benedictus2]

I didn’t say that. I said that Jesus is the Church, not had to be guided into the Church. When Jesus LEFT he said he had to leave so he could send the ADVOCATE the HS to guide us into all truth.

Because Jesus knew that he had to die on the Cross to save us from sin, If he did not die for our sins then we could not be saved.

Jesus said before ABRAHAM I AM. How could he say that if he was not God himself.

God revealed himself to us 3 way, the Father, the Son and now the Holy Spirit.

In the O.T it was the Father (the word)
In the N.T.it was Jesus Christ ( human and divine)
In this world it is the Church ( the Holy Spirit)

It will be that way until he comes again in Glory.

Rinnie, your theology is so waaayyyyyy wrong.

**Even more erroneous than the protestants.
**
You did not read my last post properly.

You said Jesus is the Church that is why He left so He could send the advocate.

If the Church is the PERSON of Christ then why would the Church need to be guided by the Holy Spirit into truth since Christ is already the Truth?

Here is your claim step by step:

The Church is Jesus
Jesus is the Second Person of the Trinity
Therefore the Church is the Second Person of the Trinity.

Now Jesus said He is the Truth so it must go like this:

Jesus is the Truth
The Church is Jesus
therefore the Church is the Truth.

** If the Church is the Truth what does she need the Holy Spirit to guide her into Truth for? If the Church is God what does she need to pray to God for?
**
You have a very, very strange theology and it is not Catholic.

I think you have been imbibing some kind of New Age attempt at syncretism. It is heretical and if you continue on this tack then all I can say is that you are a heretic.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I’m done with this thread if that is the way you feel.

That’s a shame. I was genuinely interested in seeing why you would consider points by a Jewish general and ignore writings of early Church fathers…

 

[benedictus2]

That’s a shame. I was genuinely interested in seeing why you would consider points by a Jewish general and ignore writings of early Church fathers…

Because after all is said and done, Rev Kevin is afraid of the truth.

But he can’t run away from it forever. Not if he is sincere in his desire to follow the Lord. Unless there is a question mark on that sincerity as well. Only God knows.

 

[Cinette]

Jesus did not Start the Catholic Church Jesus IS the CATHOLIC CHURCH.

But Jesus did build the visual Church here on earth that he build on Peter. It is the Spiritual Church here on earth led by the Power of the Holy Spirit.

Jesus said the stone that the builders rejected has become the corner stone. We all know who was rejected and that was Jesus.

Jesus said The Church and I are ONE.

Jesus said I will tear down the temple and rebuild it in 3 days. Jesus died and rose from the dead on the 3rd day.

Jesus Christ is indeed the Living Catholic Church here on earth, being led by his Holy Spirit!!

*Jesus is the Mystical Body. The Church is all Christians.

Now why would the Holy Spirit lead Jesus Christ???

*

 

[Cinette]

The same old arguement to counter the arguement “where is it in the Scripture” to “where does Scripture say Peter did not go to Rome.” Come up with a better responce than that.
As far as the other 11. Well Scripture says that Paul went to Rome,found in Acts 27-28. It also says in verse30 that “For the next 2 years, Paul lived in his own rented house.” This house is in Rome. So Scripture actually does say where at least one of them went, now don’t it?

*The question is, did Jesus found the Catholic Church? We know that everything is not recorded in the bible - there was just too much. The core beliefs, all that is important for our salvation is revealed.

Why is it so important to argue that Peter was not in Rome? We know he is buried there. He died there. We know that he was the Rock on which Jesus founded His Church.

*

 

[Cinette]

*By Jove - I think I have got it!!

For some it is important to PROVE that Peter went to Rome in order to prove that the Church started in Rome! The Church was not founded in Rome. I don’t think Jesus went to Rome.

Incidentally the official name of the Church is The Catholic Church - not The Roman Catholic Church. I think it was the old Anglicans that referred to us as the Roman Catholic Church and it STUCK! But it is not the official name.

*

 

[rev_kevin]

Because after all is said and done, Rev Kevin is afraid of the truth.

But he can’t run away from it forever. Not if he is sincere in his desire to follow the Lord. Unless there is a question mark on that sincerity as well. Only God knows.

Not afraid of what you call the truth. You say that because I don’t see it the way you see it therefore to you I’m afraid of the truth. Thats laughable and I’m laughting.
Why don’t I want to discuss this because of the way you, so called Christian people have to say thess kind of things I highlighted in red.
Then you question my sincerity in my desire to follow the Lord. Why because I don’t see things the way you want me to see them.​

That’s a shame. I was genuinely interested in seeing why you would consider points by a Jewish general and ignore writings of early Church fathers…

The question then is does he have ENOUGH INTELLECTUAL HONESTY to really go for the truth or is this more a case of “I believe this to be so therefore it is so.”

You are right, he has thisHABIT of writing the same thing OVER and OVER again even when you have shown him concludively that it is not so.

It is like there is a desperate need to cling to this LIE. I really wonder why that is. There must something else going on underneath that.​

Its comments like these that are turning me further and further from the Catholic Faith. If there was a slight chance of me every comming back the the Catholic Faith comments like these and the way you, meaning Catholics here, treat someone who disagrees with you that chance if pretty much gone. IF someone disagrees with you there in no reason to say comments like these. I disagree but I don’t make rude comments because you don’t see it my way. You people should be ashamed of your selves. I should have listen to my first instinct when you asked me to join you on this thread. My first instinct was, this is going to turn into a get rev kevin site, but I decieded to trust you and look at what you say about me.

I wasn’t ignoring your posts. I have been answering others and way going to get to you soon.

 

[benedictus2]

Not afraid of what you call the truth. You say that because I don’t see it the way you see it therefore to you I’m afraid of the truth. Thats laughable and I’m laughting.

Well then, why do you evade posts that hit your questions right on the mark?

Why don’t I want to discuss this because of the way you, so called Christian people have to say thess kind of things I highlighted in red.
Then you question my sincerity in my desire to follow the Lord. Why because I don’t see things the way you want me to see them.

No. Only because of the way you evade answers that address your point then several posts later you say the same thing you said before when that was already addressed by several other posts.
rev Kevin:

benedictus2:

The question then is does he have ENOUGH INTELLECTUAL HONESTY

to really go for the truth or is this more a case of “I believe this to be so therefore it is so.”

You are right, he has thisHABIT of writing the same thing OVER and OVER again even when you have shown him concludively that it is not so.

It is like there is a desperate need to cling to this LIE. I really wonder why that is. There must something else going on underneath that.

Its comments like these that are turning me further and further from the Catholic Faith. If there was a slight chance of me every comming back the the Catholic Faith comments like these and the way you, meaning Catholics here, treat someone who disagrees with you. IF someone disagrees with you there in no reason to say comments like these. I disagree but I don’t make rude comments because you don’t see it my way. You people should be ashamed of your selves. I should have listen to my first instinct when you asked me to join you on this thread. My first instinct was, this is going to turn into a get rev kevin site, but I decieded to trust you and look at what you say about me

Okay, I unreservedly apologize for saying that. Mea Culpa, Mea maxima culpa.
I also trusted your word when you said you are game to do this so was not expecting evasion.
Can we then move forward and address the points I raised considering I have addressed all the points you raised?

 

[Cinette]

Hi RevKevin - At the risk of sounding dumb, why does it matter to you about the whereabouts of Peter?

Jesus said to Peter, “Feed my sheep.” Isn’t that enough? Didn’t Peter do that?

As mentioned before, the Church Fathers have recorded that he was there. And, it is believed that when writing from “Babylon” (1 Peter 5:13) it could be a code word for Rome.

Again, I am not sure why this matters - is this a personal hang-up for you or is it a belief widely held among Protestants that Peter was not in Rome, and therefore, was never Bishop of Rome?

*Couldn’t agree with you more.

I can’t understand why some people feel the need to harp on insignificant detail. Perhaps to divert the conversation.

*

 

[rev_kevin]

Yes, that is what we are trying to ascertain here - What Church?

Now, if Christ did establish a Church, that means that that very same Church exists till today because He promised that the gates of hell will not prevail.

Indeed the church that sent Paul and Barnabas to speak to the council of Jerusalem was a Church.

But, the fact that they needed to get an okay from the council in Jerusalem meant that this church must be part of the a bigger Church of which the church in Jerusalem is also only a part. Otherwise, the ruling of the council will not be binding on the Church in Antioch, the church that sent Paul and Barnabas.

So we see several churches in infancy : Smyrna, Antioch, Jerusalem, Rome, Ephesus, Galatia, etc. But, they all belong to that one Church that Christ established because these Churches were all founded by the Apostles and Paul. The foundation of these churches was in response to Christ commisioning: Make disciples of all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

Very early on, we see the Catholicity/Universality of Christ’s Church.

What we also see is that there is a central body that determines doctrines. Paul could not make a decision on his own, and neither could Barnabas. The Judaizers which belong to the church in Jerusalem could not impose their own decision too.

The church is the people, the believers not a single named church.

 

[Cinette]

*rev kevin - Hi!

It would help me to understand you if I knew what is your religion - your central authority.

I do believe you love Jesus Christ. I know you think the CC does not have the Deposit of Faith.

Please tell me where one can find the truth as you see it.

*

 

[benedictus2]

The church is the people, the believers not a single named church.

Yes, that is true. But according to you, the church is defined as a group of people with the same belief. That is why Lutherans believe the same, Anglicans believe the same, etc. They are all different Churches.

When the Church of Christ started at Pentecost, they all had the same belief, there was a central body that determined belief, which is why Paul had to go to Jerusalem for the council.

So this Church being Christ’s Church must still be here today. But which one is it is the question.

Something I must point out too is that very early on we see a heirarchical structure. The Church did not just stem from all these people following Jesus. He made a specific call of the Apostles.

 

[rev_kevin]

I don’t classify that as doing “for God” for without Him can’t do any of these things.

But we can do His will, ie. follow Him, and the above would be classified as following Him provided we have the right discernent. Even the above can be a case of working for God rather than doing His will.

For example, a wife and mother who is very active in charity work feeding the hungry, clothing the naked etc and is always out of the house doing these things that she neglects her own family. That is working for God.

But anyway I won’t reply again to any response on this point as this is truly derailing my thread which is my own fault. Two raps on the knuckles for me.

One should not neglect ones family. Now some of the disciples left their family to follow Jesus. 2 of them left their father to tend to the boat and fish.

 

[rev_kevin]

*rev kevin - Hi!

It would help me to understand you if I knew what is your religion - your central authority.

I do believe you love Jesus Christ. I know you think the CC does not have the Deposit of Faith.

Please tell me where one can find the truth as you see it.

*

Baptist. But there are some parts that I disagree with.

 

[rev_kevin]

The Bible does not contain all the truth about what the apostles did. After Acts, the Apostles were still alive but the book was already finished so this kind of reasoning is flawed.

For a fuller explanation of Peter’s travel to Rome, I hope you will take the time to read this link

catholic.com/library/Was_Peter_in_Rome.asp

Ok I read it.
I also answered your post12, 34 I answered in post 58, 35 seemed we agreed so no answer by me, 38 I answered, 39 you asked me to look a the link, 41 I answered in post 58, 43 I answered in post 57, 89, didn’t have time was in a meeting, 91 you again asked me to read the link, and now I finished reading the link, Thanks.

 

[LilyM]

Here’s a question, revkev - Paul wrote TO the Christians in Rome. And in Romans makes pretty clear that he had not yet been there personally. So clearly someone else had beaten him to the punch and gone to Rome and established a Christian community there. Any candidates for who? Apart from Peter?