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

  • Thread starter Thread starter joe370
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hey Cal…
CalChristian;8556588]1. I know of NO Protestant church that claims for itself that it itself alone was “founded by Jesus in 33 AD.” Since none claims such, why it is necessary for them to prove that what they don’t claim is nonetheless the case?
Click to expand...
OK, that seems like a good starting point. 🙂 By whose authority do I have the right to start a church and preach and teach my own brand of Christianity, knowing full well, as you have stated, that my new church was not “founded by Jesus in 33 AD”?
 
joe370 said:
Hey Cal…

OK, that seems like a good starting point. 🙂
Click to expand...
Then why ask Protestants to prove a claim none make?

Why does mandating that a Protestant church body prove what it does NOT claim exempt The Catholic Church from needing to prove what it DOES claim?
By whose authority do I have the right to start a church, knowing full well, as you have stated, that my new church was not “founded by Jesus in 33 AD”?
Click to expand...
  1. I know of NO church started by Jesus in 33 AD. If you do - and can prove it - go ahead.
  2. Who said that a church needs to be founded by Jesus in 33 AD? I live in California. The oldest churches here date from more than 1700 years after that. My Catholic one dated from over 1900 years after that. NONE of them were founded by Jesus. All of them have names of those who signed the articles of incorporation - and I’m pretty sure Jesus’ name doesn’t appear on any of them.
  3. Yes, although I’ve never stated so, I think it’s probably okay for congregations to associate together - embracing a common organization, faith, etc. I do NOT believe that every congregations (there are millions of them in the world - I think over a million just in the CC) MUST be non-denoms, totally autonomous and independent, with no formal connection or association with any other. I don’t think that’s forbidden, but I don’t think that’s mandated, either. Like my Catholic parish - not autonomous, but part of The Catholic Church, cooperating and supporting many other parishes, embracing an organization above itself - I don’t agree with you that that’s wrong, I think congregations are so permitted. In fact, in MY opinion, it’s BETTER for congregations to so associate rather than be entirely autonomous, independent and disassociated with any and all other Christians. Even if Jesus did not sign their articles of incorporation or charter.
But again, what I don’t understand is, why is it the mandate for Protestant churches to prove something none of them claim, and why does that mean that The Catholic Church ergo does NOT need to prove what it DOES claim for itself?

.
 
CalChristian said:
Then why ask Protestants to prove a claim none make?

Why does mandating that a Protestant church body prove what it does NOT claim exempt The Catholic Church from needing to prove what it DOES claim?
  1. I know of NO church started by Jesus in 33 AD. If you do - and can prove it - go ahead.
  2. Who said that a church needs to be founded by Jesus in 33 AD? I live in California. The oldest churches here date from more than 1700 years after that. My Catholic one dated from over 1900 years after that. NONE of them were founded by Jesus. All of them have names of those who signed the articles of incorporation - and I’m pretty sure Jesus’ name doesn’t appear on any of them.
  3. Yes, although I’ve never stated so, I think it’s probably okay for congregations to associate together - embracing a common organization, faith, etc. I do NOT believe that every congregations (there are millions of them in the world - I think over a million just in the CC) MUST be non-denoms, totally autonomous and independent, with no formal connection or association with any other. I don’t think that’s forbidden, but I don’t think that’s mandated, either. Like my Catholic parish - not autonomous, but part of The Catholic Church, cooperating and supporting many other parishes, embracing an organization above itself - I don’t agree with you that that’s wrong, I think congregations are so permitted. In fact, in MY opinion, it’s BETTER for congregations to so associate rather than be entirely autonomous, independent and disassociated with any and all other Christians. Even if Jesus did not sign their articles of incorporation or charter.
But again, what I don’t understand is, why is it the mandate for Protestant churches to prove something none of them claim, and why does that mean that The Catholic Church ergo does NOT need to prove what it DOES claim for itself?

.
Click to expand...
You say you read the Bible.

Jesus said He would build a Church…did he lie?

Paul says the Church is the Pillar and foundation of truth…must be somewhere with truth

Paul says it is the Church is the mystery hidden for all ages,no longer hidden…can be seen then and now…where and what is it?

All done before California became a state.
 
Hey Cal…
CalChristian;8557272]Then why ask Protestants to prove a claim none make?
Click to expand...
Why does mandating that a Protestant church body prove what it does NOT claim exempt The Catholic Church from needing to prove what it DOES claim?
Click to expand...
Again, if you don’t mind, and I agree with what you have said, regarding the fact that no protestant church claims to be the church founded by Jesus:

By whose authority do I have the right to start a church, and establish my own “rubrics” and doctrinal charter, knowing full well, as you have stated, that my new church was not “founded by Jesus in 33 AD”? Is it by the authority of sacred scripture, the holy spirit, or something I am missing?
 
CopticChristian said:
You say you read the Bible.
Click to expand...
um… where?
Jesus said He would build a Church…did he lie?
Click to expand...
Actually, He said He would build His church. He said nothing about The Catholic Church or The United Methodist Church or The Coptic Church or The United Pentecostal Church.

Now, how is it that this promise means that all Protestant churches must prove what none of them claim and ergo The Catholic Church is exempt from proving what it DOES claim for it itself alone?

.
 
CalChristian
Actually, He said He would build His church. He said nothing about The Catholic Church or The United Methodist Church or The Coptic Church or The United Pentecostal Church.
Click to expand...
Yeah, you are right, so let’s work together to locate where exactly, Jesus’ church is to be found in the world today, and let’s assume for the moment, that you are right and that Jesus is not the founder of the CC or any of the non-Catholic churches, such as the United Methodist Church or The Coptic Church or The United Pentecostal Church etc etc…?👍

Or, are we to assume that Jesus’ established church, on Pentecost, no longer exists, leaving us with all man-made churches???
 
PRmerger said:
I will concede if you can offer another way that you know that the Gospel of Mark is inspired.

It seems that you can’t. :nope:

I’ll leave it at that.

(Or maybe not. :))
Click to expand...
People were accepting Scripture as such LONG before the Council of Trent. Or even the meeting at Hippo. In fact, they were doing so CENTURIES before even The Catholic Church claims itself that it itself even came into existence (and thus COULD do ANYTHING - in this regard or any other). Thus, is The Catholic Church needed in order to accept Scripture as such?

Yes, as far as know, every church embraces the Second Gospel as Scripture. Not just The Catholic Church. Christians were doing so LONG before the 5th century or the Council of Trent in the 16th. It seems The Catholic Church is not needed to know what is and is not Scripture…

IF it were so, and we’re all following the choices of The Catholic Church as to what is and is not Scripture, then why does NO CHURCH on the planet agree with yours on what is and is not Scripture? Where is all this “leadership” on this issue if none are following - and never have? There’s NONE that agree with The Catholic Church on what is and is not Scripture.

And IF something from The Catholic Church is - in ANY sense - required, then how did Moses know the two tablets were Scripture? Explain how The Catholic Church went back in time - some 3000 years - to tell Moses?

And how does the reality that The Catholic Church obviously is in no sense needed to know what is and is not Scripture, and that no church agrees with or follows the CC on this point (revealing it’s leadership is limited exclusively to it itself alone for only it itself is f0ollowing it itself on this point) reveals that it is mandated for Protestant churches to prove what none of them claims and that means that The Catholic Church is ergo exempt from proving what it DOES claim for it itself?

.
 
CalChristian said:
Now, how is it that this promise means that all Protestant churches must prove what none of them claim and ergo The Catholic Church is exempt from proving what it DOES claim for it itself alone?
Click to expand...
Historically, there are Protestants who claim their church was started by Christ and I don’t know that historically the Catholic Church claims it alone was started by Christ.
 
CalChristian said:
People were accepting Scripture as such LONG before the Council of Trent. Or even the meeting at Hippo. In fact, they were doing so CENTURIES before even The Catholic Church claims itself that it itself even came into existence (and thus COULD do ANYTHING - in this regard or any other). Thus, is The Catholic Church needed in order to accept Scripture as such?

Yes, as far as know, every church embraces the Second Gospel as Scripture. Not just The Catholic Church. Christians were doing so LONG before the 5th century or the Council of Trent in the 16th. It seems The Catholic Church is not needed to know what is and is not Scripture…

IF it were so, and we’re all following the choices of The Catholic Church as to what is and is not Scripture, then why does NO CHURCH on the planet agree with yours on what is and is not Scripture? Where is all this “leadership” on this issue if none are following - and never have? There’s NONE that agree with The Catholic Church on what is and is not Scripture.

And IF something from The Catholic Church is - in ANY sense - required, then how did Moses know the two tablets were Scripture? Explain how The Catholic Church went back in time - some 3000 years - to tell Moses?

And how does the reality that The Catholic Church obviously is in no sense needed to know what is and is not Scripture, and that no church agrees with or follows the CC on this point (revealing it’s leadership is limited exclusively to it itself alone for only it itself is f0ollowing it itself on this point) reveals that it is mandated for Protestant churches to prove what none of them claims and that means that The Catholic Church is ergo exempt from proving what it DOES claim for it itself?
Click to expand...
Stephen168 said:
If you define “scripture” as Old Testament only
Click to expand...
 
CalChristian said:
People were accepting Scripture as such LONG before the Council of Trent. Or even the meeting at Hippo. In fact, they were doing so CENTURIES before even The Catholic Church claims itself that it itself even came into existence (and thus COULD do ANYTHING - in this regard or any other). Thus, is The Catholic Church needed in order to accept Scripture as such?

Yes, as far as know, every church embraces the Second Gospel as Scripture. Not just The Catholic Church. Christians were doing so LONG before the 5th century or the Council of Trent in the 16th. It seems The Catholic Church is not needed to know what is and is not Scripture…

IF it were so, and we’re all following the choices of The Catholic Church as to what is and is not Scripture, then why does NO CHURCH on the planet agree with yours on what is and is not Scripture? Where is all this “leadership” on this issue if none are following - and never have? There’s NONE that agree with The Catholic Church on what is and is not Scripture.

And IF something from The Catholic Church is - in ANY sense - required, then how did Moses know the two tablets were Scripture? Explain how The Catholic Church went back in time - some 3000 years - to tell Moses?

And how does the reality that The Catholic Church obviously is in no sense needed to know what is and is not Scripture, and that no church agrees with or follows the CC on this point (revealing it’s leadership is limited exclusively to it itself alone for only it itself is f0ollowing it itself on this point) reveals that it is mandated for Protestant churches to prove what none of them claims and that means that The Catholic Church is ergo exempt from proving what it DOES claim for it itself?

.
Click to expand...
And yet you said nothing with value to answer the question at hand. 🤷
 
CalChristian said:
um… where?

Actually, He said He would build His church. He said nothing about The Catholic Church or The United Methodist Church or The Coptic Church or The United Pentecostal Church.

Now, how is it that this promise means that all Protestant churches must prove what none of them claim and ergo The Catholic Church is exempt from proving what it DOES claim for it itself alone?

.
Click to expand...
Yeah and Jesus said nothing about Sola Scriptura or any Joe or Jane to start their own church. Your point being?
 
CalChristian said:
  1. I know of NO church started by Jesus in 33 AD. If you do - and can prove it - go ahead.
  2. Who said that a church needs to be founded by Jesus in 33 AD? I live in California. The oldest churches here date from more than 1700 years after that. My Catholic one dated from over 1900 years after that. NONE of them were founded by Jesus. All of them have names of those who signed the articles of incorporation - and I’m pretty sure Jesus’ name doesn’t appear on any of them.
Click to expand...
In response to #1, you are probably aware of the part of Scripture in the Gospel according to Matthew where Jesus said, regarding Simon Peter, that…“Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it.” It’s clear that Our Lord is referring to Simon Peter as being the leader of His Church, and that the Church would always exist.

In response to #2, I would say that as a California native myself, I believe that Fr. Junipero Serra, who founded many missions in California, would have been amused at the idea that he would have to seek the signature of Jesus Himself on the paperwork for the missions. After all, Fr. Serra was ordained by a bishop who was himself a descendant of the 12 Apostles, via apostolic succession, and authority also would have been given by the bishop in mexico for Fr. Serra to found the missions in California. All Catholic churches, as I’m sure you’re aware, are connected through proper, legitimate church authority.
 
Hey Denise…🙂
In response to #2, I would say that as a California native myself, I believe that Fr. Junipero Serra, who founded many missions in California, would have been amused at the idea that he would have to seek the signature of Jesus Himself on the paperwork for the missions. After all, Fr. Serra was ordained by a bishop who was himself a descendant of the 12 Apostles, via apostolic succession, and authority also would have been given by the bishop in mexico for Fr. Serra to found the missions in California. All Catholic churches, as I’m sure you’re aware, are connected through proper, legitimate church authority.
Click to expand...
Exactly, 👍 - and if the CC is the church of Matthew 16:18-20, John 16:13, John 14:16, Matthew 28:20, Acts 1 and 2, etc., and I believe it is, then any catholic church established by Fr. Junipero Serraas would be connected through proper, legitimate church authority, ultimately derived from Jesus Christ Himself, on Pentecost.
 
Nicea325 said:
Yeah and Jesus said nothing about Sola Scriptura or any Joe or Jane to start their own church. Your point being?
Click to expand...
  1. Practices are rarely taught, they are more often illustrated. Yes, Jesus did use Scripture normatively (the practice is called “Sola Scriptura”) and yes, He referred specifically to “Scripture” 23 times. How often did He use The Catholic Church for anything? How often did He specifically mention it? But, again, I’ve repeatedly asked how this reveals that it is mandated for Protestant churches to prove what none of them claim, and ergo The Catholic Church need NOT prove what it DOES claim for it itself?
  2. As far as I know, Scripture does not say that ANYONE may start a church - although several are started and that is recorded in Scripture. Thus, the practice is not taught but it is illustrated. Paul started several himself (Jesus had never been been to any of those cities and all of them where started AFTER Easter, Pentecost and Ascension).
  3. I don’t know if ANYONE needs authorization to start a church. In the USA, the government generally permits such but I’m not sure I’d regard that as “authorization” per se.
Again, how does your question indicate that Protestant churches must prove what none of them claim and ergo The Catholic Church does NOT need to prove what it DOES claim?

.
 
Denise1957 said:
In response to #1, you are probably aware of the part of Scripture in the Gospel according to Matthew where Jesus said, regarding Simon Peter, that…“Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it.” It’s clear that Our Lord is referring to Simon Peter as being the leader of His Church, and that the Church would always exist.
Click to expand...
I disagree.

No mention of The Catholic Church. For, about or concerning anything.

Actually, Jesus said “assembly.” Not “The Catholic Church.”
In response to #2, I would say that as a California native myself, I believe that Fr. Junipero Serra, who founded many missions in California, would have been amused at the idea that he would have to seek the signature of Jesus Himself on the paperwork for the missions.
Click to expand...
Quote me where I said he did? YOU are the one implying some authorization is needed to start a church and that only Jesus can start one.

.
 
CalChristian said:
I disagree.

No mention of The Catholic Church. For, about or concerning anything.

Actually, Jesus said “assembly.” Not “The Catholic Church.”

Quote me where I said he did? YOU are the one implying some authorization is needed to start a church and that only Jesus can start one.

.
Click to expand...
So, Jesus said that upon this rock (Simon Peter), that he would build his assembly? So the Bible, in using the term, “Church,” is wrong, in your view?
 
Denise1957 said:
So, Jesus said that upon this rock (Simon Peter), that he would build his assembly? So the Bible, in using the term, “Church,” is wrong, in your view?
Click to expand...
  1. He said, “I will build my assembly” Not, “I will build The Catholic Church.”
  2. Why would one in modern English capitolize the word “assembly?” If I wrote, “A group of us coworkers went out for lunch today,” would the proper English there be, " A Group of us coworkers went out for lunch today?" I was not an English major in college, but that seems odd to me.
Now, how does that affirm that Protestant churches must prove what none of them claim and ergo The Catholic Church need not prove what it DOES claim**?**

.
 
Denise1957 said:
In response to #1, you are probably aware of the part of Scripture in the Gospel according to Matthew where Jesus said, regarding Simon Peter, that…“Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it.” It’s clear that Our Lord is referring to Simon Peter as being the leader of His Church, and that the Church would always exist.
Click to expand...
Yes, clearly Christ started a Church during his life time, and none of the Protestant churches are it. The only time I think Matthew 16:18 comes into play is when talking with members of Apostolic Churches not in communion with the Bishop of Rome.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top