I respectfully ask evangelical, protestant and sola scriptura proponents...

[Marybeloved]

Gotta go. It’s been nice chatting. Not too much pizza there guys!

Right on time, eh Gerhard? Is it the big bad questions again? This is just too predictable.

 

[Marybeloved]

The point is that my Church can trace its successors from Jesus through to B16.

Yours cannot.

Easy there PR.
I don’t go to church. I am (part of the) Church. Anyone who is born again (something you have to do - John 3:3-5), obeys His word (something you have to do - 1 John 2:3) and is led by the Holy Spirit (something you have to do - Romans 8:14) is Church. The rest is ‘bells and smells’. Moreover, it is not a place you go to.

Indeed, you are! If you are baptized, you are a member, although, sadly, separated, of the Catholic Church.
As with most Catholic answers, it’s not either/or but both/and.
The Church is spiritual. The Church is a Body. The Church is also a place that you go to.

Gerhard, what is it with your persitence in this notion that Catholics have a weird understanding of the church as a building, corporate institution etc etc? How many times has that been explained to you already? No one has that much difficulty grasping concepts :nope:. PR didn’t even say anything about “going” to church!

It seems that my suspicions were right- You must believe that the catholic notion of Church is that “institution in a building” caricature you’ve been describing (and obviously still believe) so that you can believe that you have the “true” “spiritual” understanding of it. That’s why it doesn’t matter how many times it’s explained to you- you will hold on to your caricature of our beliefs because you need to for your own sense of justification.

-It aint about Truth: What do Catholics really believe?
-It’s about justification: They must believe this, or my argument falls…therefore they do!

Peace.

 

[joe370]

Hey gerhardc…

You don’t think that James and John and Peter needed reassurances that the guy who once persecuted them was now on their side? As a matter of fact, they did: “But they were hearing only, “He who formerly persecuted us now preaches the faith which he once tried to destroy.” And they glorified God in me.” (Galatians 1:23-24). These guys needed to see for themselves - not hear second hand - that Paul was really converted. Still, you are avoiding the issue, Paul did not ask for permission to be an Apostle.

I understand your point regarding Peter and James. I am avoiding…? Why didn’t Paul simply settle the dispute himself, in Antioch and then go visit Peter and James?

That’s Joe’s beliefs of course. The operative word being “beliefs”.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Perhaps you are referring to another Joe…

Is that not what you believe then?

Again, no idea what you are talking about. You have wrongly suggested that I believed the following: “According to your beliefs the Apostle Paul was a real trouble maker…”

You then suggest that by “modern standards, (saint Paul) - should really have been excommunicated (much like others have been for lesser breaches…”)

I have no idea what you are talking about regarding saint Paul and others!!! Excommunication of course is very biblical and it only makes sense to excommunicate someone if someone is trying to pervert the teachings of Jesus. Every protestant church has such system even if it is only loosely defined. I was booted from a protestant church.

If you don’t believe it already, you have to believe it according to your system of religious rules - no-one can openly call the pope a “hypocrite”, having “stood condemned” and ‘leading others astray’ (and get away with it) without recanting or being branded a trouble maker (something like some here are accusing me of).

So Peter, a fellow apostle of Paul, being called a hypocrite by Paul, was grounds for his excommunication by Peter? Sorry, no idea what you are talking about. Both possessed the spiritual charism to teach and both were prone to make mistakes and both were obligated to set the other straight in the face of hypocrisy. Do you really believe that Paul thought there was a chance that his friend Peter, on which Jesus’ church is built, might falter doctrinally?

Peter was wrong to have led other Jews away from the gentiles out of fear. Peter’s unique office has nothing to do with him, but rather everything to do with God. Proving that Peter was a weak, hypocritical, fallible man proves nothing, other than he was no different than Paul, James or any other man that has walked this earth.

Every Christian regardless of denomination, must believe their church’s teachings and follow their church’s system of religious rules, otherwise they are no longer welcomed and I can prove it. With the exception of those who defer to no one other than their bibles via their interpretations.

If that is not what you believe, won’t you tell those who wish to term me a trouble maker for appropriately quoting Scripture in this regard to knock it off then?

Sure. Whoever is calling Gerhardc a trouble maker, please stop; it’s not at all Christian like as well as flat out wrong!!! I don’t think you are a troublemaker my friend.

Paul hardly called it a “moment of weakness”. On the contrary, he discerned that Peter stood condemned for his actions.

You seem to suppose that we believe that Peter and his successors, are in some way beyond reproach. That’s silly as I have already pointed out.

It was so serious that he had to not only set Peter straight but everybody who followed him in his grave error. Thank God Paul loved Peter enough to correct him before he did even more damage!

Yes, thank God Peter stopped separating himself from the Gentiles due to the fact that he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.

Refer above please. Also, James 3:1 - “let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgement.” Peter was a teacher. That made all the difference.

Well, perhaps Peter, on which Jesus’ church is built, shouldn’t have become a teacher. LOL… Just joking around brother…

 

[joe370]

Hey gerhardc…

I don’t go to church. I am (part of the) Church. Anyone who is born again (something you have to do - John 3:3-5), obeys His word (something you have to do - 1 John 2:3) and is led by the Holy Spirit (something you have to do - Romans 8:14) is Church. The rest is ‘bells and smells’. Moreover, it is not a place you go to.

I try and go to church as much as possible. Where else can a catholic like me go to find the Eucharist in a small city with nothing but non-Catholic churches? I am also a part of the church. Not the building which is made of brick of course. LOL… Just a little levity…

 

[gerhardc]

Hello Joe, sir,

Why didn’t Paul simply settle the dispute himself, in Antioch and then go visit Peter and James?

Really not sure what you’re saying here? What I am saying is this:
After accepted Jesus as Lord, he:

1. did not go to see Peter directly (to ask his permission or confer with him or anything else). He went to see Peter **and **James **and **John after three years only whilst being taught by the Holy Spirit whilst spending time in Arabia (vv. 16-17: “I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.”).
2. Note that all three these men were seen as equal “pillars”: “James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars” (v. 9)

This goes to show that Paul did not receive guidance from Peter, claimed to be ‘the first pope’ here (instead, his visit served for the other Apostles to “glorify God” (refer v 24). Therefore, as per the Catholic movement’s definition of membership (submitting to the authority of the pope), Paul was not a member of that movement. Paul’s understanding of what “Church” constitutes and who “leads the Church” differs from that which is being taught here.

Important: The Bible says nothing about Peter being called to head up the Church (I know you will cite Matt. 16:18, but that is pure interpretation (or, self-fulfilling prophesy) - no-one but Catholics believe this). However, the Bible is explicit about Peter being called specifically for the Jews (only) while Paul was called for the Gentiles: *“for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles” *(Gal. 1:8) and “we should go to the Gentiles and they (meaning Peter, James and John) to the circumcised”. Wow, now *there *is a contradiction to the doctrine of Peter’s supreme leadership of the Church!

gerhardc wrote: You then suggest that by “modern standards, (saint Paul) - should really have been excommunicated (much like others have been for lesser breaches…”)

I have no idea what you are talking about regarding saint Paul and others!!! Excommunication of course is very biblical and it only makes sense to excommunicate someone if someone is trying to pervert the teachings of Jesus. Every protestant church has such system even if it is only loosely defined. I was booted from a protestant church.

(you must have been very naughty! ). Okay, this is what I mean: can you recall when last someone openly challenged the pope by calling him a “hypocrite”, having “stood condemned” and accusing him of leading others “astray”? Well, that’s because Paul did not see Peter as the boss despite having had respect for the man. Peter, in a way, confirms this by saying that Paul is (perhaps) a step or two ahead of him as far as understanding of God’s matters goes: “as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures” (2 Peter 3:16). Note, he ***is ***saying that he also finds some things Paul teaches hard to understand (he adds “which untaught and unstable people twist”, referring to others). Now, does that strike you as ‘the leader of God’s Church on earth’ - someone who as another as his senior as regards the things pertaining to God? No.

Do you really believe that Paul thought there was a chance that his friend Peter, on which Jesus’ church is built, might falter doctrinally?

That is the very point I am making - it is clear from Paul’s handling of Peter’s error that he did not see Peter as anyone on whom Jesus’ church is built. And, as noted above, Peter even acknowledges that Paul is his senior as to his understanding of things pertaining to God. Paul did not see Peter as the head of the church. That is pure speculation. As noted above, Paul did see Peter as being called to the Jews while he (Paul) was being called to the Gentiles. That is the only thing that needs no interpretation - it is clear as daylight. Now, if Peter was called to the Jews (and not to the Gentiles), how is it that he is the head og him (Paul) who was indeed called to the Gentiles? Answer: Peter cannot be head over Paul. Peter cannot be head of the Church of God.

Every Christian regardless of denomination, must believe their church’s teachings and follow their church’s system of religious rules, otherwise they are no longer welcomed and I can prove it. With the exception of those who defer to no one other than their bibles via their interpretations.

I have had no answer to try and refute the following definition of the Body of Christ, the Church?: he or she who is reborn (refer John 3:3-5), he or she who is obedient to His word (refer 1 John 2:3), he or she who is led by the Holy Spirit (refer Romans 8:14). Nothing about “denomination”, “church system”, “church teachings”, “religious rules”. If anyone is not born again - born of the Spirit - they **cannot **enter the Kingdom of God. Now, someone else said, the Holy Spirit is the “soul of the Catholic Church” and by implication whoever belongs to that movement is born again.

Sure. Whoever is calling Gerhardc a trouble maker, please stop; it’s not at all Christian like as well as flat out wrong!!! I don’t think you are a troublemaker my friend.

You are funny. Thank you.

 

[regression]

Thank you for raising the issue. You are referring to a passage in John 7 where Jesus says that no-one can come to the Father without partaking of Him (a saying which some of His followers at the time *also *did not understand). Jesus was saying that His followers needed to **eat or consume what He was all about (truth) **. He referred to Himself as truth: "Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." (John 14:7). To confirm, He also said, "Your word is truth" (John 17:17) and "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father’s who sent Me." (John 14:23-24). Thus, Jesus said that the key to life with the Father is the truth He brings. That’s why He also said: "And you shall know the truth, and the **truth **shall make you free.” (John 8:32).

In contrast with this we see a doctrine that says, ‘If you eat physical bread it turns into Jesus’ flesh and it is that which makes you free’.

But aren’t you teaching us here? Didn’t you say we don’t need teachers?

 

[PRmerger]

Ok, gerhard! I see that you are online. So you should be able to answer my question with a very quick response: Book, chapter and verse, please. (1 word, 2 numbers is all it takes +/- a little explanation to accompany if, if you so desire )

Where does Scripture tell us who should interpret it?

Scripture itself says who should interpret it,

 

[Nicea325]

Originally Posted by 1voice
Where in the Bible does it state that infant baptism causes one to be “born-again into Christ’s life,death and resurrection”.

I understand what you are getting at … but there are some things that Gods written word is very explicit and detailed about. The focus of all of history is the salvation of mankind. Paul the Apostle was clear and to the point on that issue …

Galatians 1:7-9
7Not that there is [or could be] any other [genuine Gospel], but there are [obviously] some who are troubling and disturbing and bewildering you [a]with a different kind of teaching which they offer as a gospel] and want to pervert and distort the Gospel of Christ (the Messiah) [into something which it absolutely is not].

8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to and different from that which we preached to you, let him be accursed (anathema, devoted to destruction, doomed to eternal punishment)!

9As we said before, so I now say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel different from or contrary to that which you received [from us], let him be accursed (anathema, devoted to destruction, doomed to eternal punishment)!

…and the details of that gospel which Paul preached are crystal clearly described … in the Bible… Paul The Apostle of Jesus Christ said personally that there is no discussion where the issue of the Gospel of Jesus is concerned.

Trust me I am not arguing or denying what the Bible says explicitly or implicitly. However, I also know what the Bible does not say or claim it says something when it never does at all,which is my entire point.

 

[gerhardc]

Originally Posted by gerhardc View Post
Scripture itself says who should interpret it,

Ok, gerhard! I see that you are online. So you should be able to answer my question with a very quick response: Book, chapter and verse, please. (1 word, 2 numbers is all it takes +/- a little explanation to accompany if, if you so desire )
Where does Scripture tell us who should interpret it?

I’ll repeat post #520 for your benefit. Originally Posted by gerhardc: First, PR, you have to be born again. That follows **repentance **(from your sins as well as your man-made attempts to please God), and faith towards God (refer Romans 10:9-10). Only faith pleases God, remember (refer Hebrews 11:5-6). If you can experientially testify hereof, then 1 John 2:27 may be relevant to you in being taught by the Holy Spirit what God is saying to you through His word. But, first, you have to be born again. If you cannot testify experientially of being born again, then, I fear, we are (still) living in two different kingdoms.

For those who are indeed born by the Spirit, this verse is true: “But you have received the Holy Spirit, and he lives within you, so you don’t need anyone to teach you what is true. For the Spirit teaches you everything you need to know, and what he teaches is true - it is not a lie. So just as he has taught you, remain in fellowship with Christ.” (1 John 2:27). If you are not born by the Spirit (refer John 3:3-5), then that verse (1 John 2:27) is not true for you.

In fact, that verse (1 John 2:27) says that not only is being taught by the Spirit a nice-to-have, it is a must-have if you want to be (and remain) in fellowship with Christ (who is the “Word of God” - refer John 1:1-5) Hard to believe? *“Faith comes by hearing and hearing of the word of God” *(Romans 10:17).
Question PR, is John 3:3-5 true for you?

 

[JonNC]

=PRmerger;8544394]So it seems that you are contrasting Tradition with the Word of God.

Yes, we see Tradition a secondary and accountable to scripture, not equal to it.

The Catholic definition of Tradition is, of course, the oral transmission of God’s Revelation.

Your communion has a different understanding, then, of (Sacred) Tradition. What is that?

Authoritative might be a good word, at least that which is consistent with scripture - the first 7 councils for example.

We believe that God’s Word (or what God has divinely revealed) has been transmitted to us in two forms, or two channels: via the written word, Scripture, and via the oral word, Tradition.

Thanks, PR.

Jon

 

[CalChristian]

I respectfully ask evangelical, protestant and sola scriptura proponents:

By whose authority does any one person, (such as myself) - have the right to start a church and call his/her established church the church founded by Jesus Christ on Pentecost? Please leave the catholic church out of the discussion unless of course you can prove that the catholic church is not the church founded by Jesus Christ circa AD 33, in Jerusalem, on Pentecost!

Thanks…

1. “Authority” is often a power word.
2. As far as I know, MANY denominations open new congregations. My Catholic parish had a specific date on which it was begun. I think it was begun because several Catholic families moved into the area and it was some distance to the nearest parish. Protestants also often open new congregations.
3. If you are claiming that Jesus begun the RC Denomination c 33 AD in Jerusalem, then the burden of proof lies entirely on you, doesn’t it? But I fail to see what that has to do with beginning new congregations. I image HUNDREDS of them are begun each week - a goodly number of them Catholic.
4. I don’t know of any Protestants that claim that any congregation was founded by Jesus. Much less in 33 AD in Jerusalem. I don’t know of any Protestant denominations that claim this - or why they would. I know of only 3 denominations that claim that Jesus founded them - the RCC, EOC and LDS. None of them claim to be Protestant. As far as I know, none of them have any evidence of this beyond the claim of self and the interpretation of the writings of self.

I hope the helps!

Blessings!

.

 

[Nicea325]

1. “Authority” is often a power word.

Well does not God have the authority over everything? I would say power is very much of the mix.

1. As far as I know, MANY denominations open new congregations. My Catholic parish had a specific date on which it was begun. I think it was begun because several Catholic families moved into the area and it was some distance to the nearest parish. Protestants also often open new congregations.

I am sorry,but I think you are confusing two different situations. Yes every Catholic parish as a beginning or an ending. Now if a new parish is about to be built in other area of town due to demands based on population;thus it is not the same as saying an entire new denomination has opened. A new parish is still under the local bishop, diocese and under the same church…the Catholic Church.

1. If you are claiming that Jesus begun the RC Denomination c 33 AD in Jerusalem, then the burden of proof lies entirely on you, doesn’t it? But I fail to see what that has to do with beginning new congregations. I image HUNDREDS of them are begun each week - a goodly number of them Catholic.

The CC is not a denomination,but only to those outside of the church. It is merely included as a denomination by the non-Catholic world. Second,there is no need for burdens trying to prove Jesus founded the RCC,because he did not found the “Roman” Catholic Church. More important, Roman is only one rite of an entire universal church Christ founded.

1. I don’t know of any Protestants that claim that any congregation was founded by Jesus. Much less in 33 AD in Jerusalem. I don’t know of any Protestant denominations that claim this - or why they would. I know of only 3 denominations that claim that Jesus founded them - the RCC, EOC and LDS. None of them claim to be Protestant. As far as I know, none of them have any evidence of this beyond the claim of self and the interpretation of the writings of self.

Wrong! Then apparently you have not studied early church history.On the contrary, a lot more said about the CC in the early years which included the Orthodox,then the LDS or any Protestant church.

 

[joe370]

Hey Cal…

1. If you are claiming that Jesus begun the RC Denomination c 33 AD in Jerusalem, then the burden of proof lies entirely on you, doesn’t it?

But I fail to see what that has to do with beginning new congregations.

I never said anything about starting congregations. I’m talking about starting a church and calling his/her church founded by Jesus…

I image HUNDREDS of them are begun each week - a goodly number of them Catholic.

The catholic church, founded by Jesus, continues to establish catholic churches in communion with the Pope.

If not the CC then please provide the name of the man who founded the catholic church and when, just as I can do with all protestant churches?

1. I don’t know of any Protestants that claim that any congregation was founded by Jesus. Much less in 33 AD in Jerusalem. I don’t know of any Protestant denominations that claim this - or why they would

If none of the PC’s were founded by Jesus and the CC was not founded by Jesus, where in the world today can I find the one church founded by Jesus circa AD 33 in Jerusalem of course leaving out all of the PC’s as well as the CC???

 

[CopticChristian]

1. “Authority” is often a power word.
2. As far as I know, MANY denominations open new congregations. My Catholic parish had a specific date on which it was begun. I think it was begun because several Catholic families moved into the area and it was some distance to the nearest parish. Protestants also often open new congregations.
3. If you are claiming that Jesus begun the RC Denomination c 33 AD in Jerusalem, then the burden of proof lies entirely on you, doesn’t it? But I fail to see what that has to do with beginning new congregations. I image HUNDREDS of them are begun each week - a goodly number of them Catholic.
4. **I don’t know of any Protestants that claim that any congregation was founded by Jesus. Much less in 33 AD in Jerusalem. I don’t know of any Protestant denominations that claim this - or why they would. ** I know of only 3 denominations that claim that Jesus founded them - the RCC, EOC and LDS. None of them claim to be Protestant. As far as I know, none of them have any evidence of this beyond the claim of self and the interpretation of the writings of self.

I hope the helps!

Blessings!

.

Praise God. Finally honesty. Protestanism is not of the Lord, was not founded by Christ and at last the truth prevails…alleluia, allelluia amen…

 

[louis91766]

1. If you are claiming that Jesus begun the RC Denomination c 33 AD in Jerusalem, then the burden of proof lies entirely on you, doesn’t it?
   .

I read that the Eastern Orthodox believe that J.C. began the Eastern Orthodox Church in 33 BC and that the RC Church began in 1054 when it split from the true Church (the Eastern Orthodox Church) founded by J. C.

 

[joe370]

Originally Posted by gerhardc View Post
Scripture itself says who should interpret it,

I’ll repeat post #520 for your benefit. Originally Posted by gerhardc: First, PR, you have to be born again. That follows **repentance **(from your sins as well as your man-made attempts to please God), and faith towards God (refer Romans 10:9-10). Only faith pleases God, remember (refer Hebrews 11:5-6). If you can experientially testify hereof, then 1 John 2:27 may be relevant to you in being taught by the Holy Spirit what God is saying to you through His word. But, first, you have to be born again. If you cannot testify experientially of being born again, then, I fear, we are (still) living in two different kingdoms.

For those who are indeed born by the Spirit, this verse is true: "But you have received the Holy Spirit, and he lives within you, so you don’t need anyone to teach you what is true. For the Spirit teaches you everything you need to know, and what he teaches is true - it is not a lie. So just as he has taught you, remain in fellowship with Christ." (1 John 2:27). If you are not born by the Spirit (refer John 3:3-5), then that verse (1 John 2:27) is not true for you.

In fact, that verse (1 John 2:27) says that not only is being taught by the Spirit a nice-to-have, it is a must-have if you want to be (and remain) in fellowship with Christ (who is the “Word of God” - refer John 1:1-5) Hard to believe? *“Faith comes by hearing and hearing of the word of God” *(Romans 10:17).
Question PR, is John 3:3-5 true for you?

The question is:

Where does Scripture tell us who should interpret it?

So each and every Christian guided by the HS, or the church, guided by the holy spirit???

 

[gerhardc]

The question is:
So each and every Christian guided by the HS, or the church, guided by the holy spirit???

No, each and every peron who is “born by the Spirit” (refer John 3:3-5) can be led by the Spirit (refer 1 John 2:27). Not everybody who is a member of a religious movement that proclaims Jesus is “born again”, although, of course, this is what they are being taught (by those who themselves are not born again). Membership or baptism into an organization means nothing in terms of being “born of the Spirit”.

 

[joe370]

Hey Gerhardc…

“Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question.”

You mentioned that the holy spirit was Paul’s only guide. Why didn’t Paul, as he was moved by the holy spirit, simply settle the preceding dispute???

 

[jmcrae]

Okay, this is what I mean: can you recall when last someone openly challenged the pope by calling him a “hypocrite”, having “stood condemned” and accusing him of leading others “astray”?

SAINT Catherine of Sienna, anybody?

 

[joe370]

Gerhardc, (you must have been very naughty! ).

Yup. I said that I was beginning to believe in the true presence in the Eucharist and the Immaculate Conception, and they basically excommunicated me. :bighanky: LOL…

Okay, this is what I mean: can you recall when last someone openly challenged the pope by calling him a “hypocrite”, having “stood condemned” and accusing him of leading others “astray”?

Me personally? No.

Well, that’s because Paul did not see Peter as the boss despite having had respect for the man.

Peter was not Paul’s boss, as I have already mentioned. Paul didn’t have to defer to Peter each and every time he wrote infallibly. Icovered the whole Petrine thing so I won’t bother you with that again.

Peter, in a way, confirms this by saying that Paul is (perhaps) a step or two ahead of him as far as understanding of God’s matters goes: "as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures" (2 Peter 3:16). Note, he ***is ***saying that he also finds some things Paul teaches hard to understand (he adds “which untaught and unstable people twist”, referring to others). Now, does that strike you as ‘the leader of God’s Church on earth’ - someone who as another as his senior as regards the things pertaining to God? No.

(KJV) “And also l his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Sorry, I don’t see it friend.

Are you actually suggesting that Peter is one of those who were considered untaught and unstable, twisting things…? :bigyikes:

That is the very point I am making - it is clear from Paul’s handling of Peter’s error that he did not see Peter as anyone on whom Jesus’ church is built.

Covered this…

Paul did not see Peter as the head of the church.

Paul doesn’t tell us one way or the other.

As noted above, Paul did see Peter as being called to the Jews while he (Paul) was being called to the Gentiles.

So. Looks like Paul was wrong about Peter: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe."

I have had no answer to try and refute the following definition of the Body of Christ, the Church?: he or she who is reborn (refer John 3:3-5), he or she who is obedient to His word (refer 1 John 2:3), he or she who is led by the Holy Spirit (refer Romans 8:14).

Why would I refute scripture? Every catholic agrees with those passages. I have had no answers or refutations to the following:

"..if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth."

Do you believe that the church is pillar and foundation of the truth???

Nothing about “denomination”,

Exactly.

“church system”, “church teachings”, “religious rules”.

Did you really mean that or did I misunderstand…?

If anyone is not born again - born of the Spirit - they **cannot **enter the Kingdom of God.

“Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life in you.”