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

[joe370]

CalChristian

1. 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).

NT churches established by Jesus via His ministers in His stead, starting with the apostles, and continuing with their chosen successors, (such as Ignatius, Clement and Polycarp, all of which were professed Christians belonging to the catholic church) - via the imposition of hands as per scripture and the ECF’s:

Churches of Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria all started by one of the apostles or one of their chosen successors.

Churches of Damascus, all started by one of the apostles and of course their chosen successors.

Churches of Galilee, all started by one of the apostles or one of their chosen successors.

Churches of Caesarea - all started by one of the apostles or one of their chosen successors.

Churches of Antioch (first Gentile churches) - all start by Paul, Barnabas, Simeon, Lucius, Manaen, Silas or chosen successors.

Churches of Phoenicia started by the apostles and their chosen successors.

As was the case with all the churches of the NT that cropped up in Philippi, Macedonia, Corinth, Thessalonica, the seven Churches of Asia (Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, Laodicea), Galatia, Crete, Bithynia.

All of these newly established NT churches were ultimately connected via the proper, legitimate church authority of the apostles, who of course derived their authority directly from Jesus Christ. When the first reformers broke away, they disconnected themselves from that proper, legitimate church authority of the apostles, which is why apostolic succession is rejected, among protestant Christians.

 

[joe370]

CalChristian, you said:

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.

Again, you are right; no mention of the CC or any of the PC’s in the bible, soplease identify 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 you suggesting that Jesus’ established church, on Pentecost, no longer exists, leaving us with all man-made churches today?

 

[CalChristian]

NT churches established by Jesus via His ministers in His stead, starting with the apostles, and continuing with their chosen successors, (such as Ignatius, Clement and Polycarp, all of which were professed Christians belonging to the catholic church) - via the imposition of hands as per scripture and the ECF’s:

Then you agree, Jesus didn’t found any of them.

So, why your insistence that only Jesus can establish a church when you admit He never did that?

And again, how does this mandate that Protestants must prove what none claim ergo The Catholic Church need NOT prove what it itself alone for itself DOES claim?

.

 

[CalChristian]

CalChristian, you said:

Again, you are right; no mention of the CC or any of the PC’s in the bible

So, explain to me…

1. How does that substantiate that Jesus - specifically, personally - founded The Catholic Church - the entity now legally incorporated in many places by that name?
2. How does Scripture’s silence indicate that it is mandated that Protestant churches prove what none of them claim and ergo The Catholic Church need not prove what it itself DOES claim for itself?

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 you suggesting that Jesus’ established church, on Pentecost, no longer exists, leaving us with all man-made churches today?

I think you are confusing our positions…

Isn’t it YOUR point that Jesus founded the specific, particular “The Catholic Church.” At Jerusalem, On Pentecost Day in the year 33 (or there about)? Is that YOUR claim? Then, reasonably, who has the burden of proof?

I’m NOT saying that Jesus founded ANY congregational entity (we seem to agree on that), and ergo ANY association of them. I see nothing to indicate that, but I’m all ears.

Why it is the mandate that Protestant churches prove what none of them claim and ergo The Catholic Church is NOT mandated to prove what it DOES claim for itself?

.

 

[joe370]

Then you agree, Jesus didn’t found any of them.

So, why your insistence that only Jesus can establish a church when you admit He never did that?

 

[CalChristian]

Of course Jesus did not start any church per se.

Okay. But how is that proof that He founded The Catholic Church.
Specifically. Personally. Directly.
On Pentecost. 33 AD.
And ergo, all the claims that The Catholic Church makes for The Catholic Church are true and correct?

How does it prove that only Jesus can start a church?

How does it prove that Protestant churches must prove what none of them claim and ergo The Catholic Church does NOT need to prove what it itself DOES claim for itself?

I have already agreed with you that Protestants do NOT have prove what they do not claim, which was why I revised my question, but you continue to ignore it, but that’s OK.

Ah, missed that. Then we are done in this thread and I’ll sign off. I’ll see you in other threads.

.

 

[joe370]

CalChristian;8557671]So, explain to me…

1. How does that substantiate that Jesus - specifically, personally - founded The Catholic Church - the entity now legally incorporated in many places by that name?

Again, let’s assume you are right and I am wrong:

Please identify 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…?

How does Scripture’s silence indicate that it is mandated that Protestant churches prove what none of them claim and ergo The Catholic Church need not prove what it itself DOES claim for itself?

One more time:

I agree that almost all protestant churches do NOT claim to be the church founded by Jesus!!!

 

[Denise1957]

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**?**

.

So, in trying to follow your logic here, which is difficult, wouldn’t it then follow that you would think that only those churches who call themselves ‘assembly’ would be founded by Christ? Such as the Assembly of God? Or something like that?

 

[joe370]

Okay. But how is that proof that He founded The Catholic Church.

Specifically. Personally. Directly.
On Pentecost. 33 AD.
And ergo, all the claims that The Catholic Church makes for The Catholic Church are true and correct?

 

[zz912]

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**?**

.

What would an assembly built upon Peter look like? What does it mean to be built upon Peter?

 

[Stephen168]

Of course Jesus did not start any church per se.

 

[sallybutler]

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.

Perhaps because our elders (aka popes) can trace themselves in an unbroken line back to Peter, who was specially charged by Jesus to be the foundation of His church.

You can look up the list in many places. Your public library & encyclopedia should be able to provide you with the references

 

[sallybutler]

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?

.

I don’t think Jesus ever referred to the Gospel of Mark, the letter of Paul to the Hebrews, the various epistles of John, Philip, Peter, Jude, or even Revelation. If you are only going to use the scriptures Jesus referred to, you will not be able to use any of the New Testament. You will also have to include Macabees.

 

[joe370]

Cal’s point was that Jesus didn’t literally go out among the Jews and gentiles, after His ascension and preach and teach, and he’s right. He left us with His Catholic church leaders, in His stead, to do that, via the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

 

[pablope]

pablope;8556882:

Well, the point here is that The Catholic Church had to tell Moses and the Hebrews.

Well, How could the CC tell Moses? Was the CC in existence at the time of Moses?

The question you have dodged is…why did the Hebrews believe Moses when Moses presented to them the stone tablets as the commands of God?

Why did they not suspect that he just chiseled them from a stone…and faked the stone tablets?

THAT is what I was disagreeing with. I think it IS possible to embrace Scripture as such WITHOUT The Catholic Church telling them what is and is not Scripture.

Okay…now take yourself to the year…AD200 or so…without any bias, no preconcieved idea of what Scripture is…below is a partial list of early writings…tell me…which one is scripture and which one is not?

80-140 1 Clement
50-60 1 Corinthians
90-120 1 John
80-110 1 Peter
50-60 1 Thessalonians
100-150 1 Timothy
130-160 2 Clement
50-60 2 Corinthians
90-120 2 John
100-160 2 Peter
80-100 2 Thessalonians
100-150 2 Timothy
90-120 3 John
80-130 Acts of the Apostles
150-200 Andrew, Acts of
160-180 Apollinaris, Claudius
200-210 Apollonius
120-130 Aristides, Apology of
130-150 Aristo of Pella
175-180 Athenagoras of Athens
80-120 Barnabas, Epistle of
120-140 Basilides
200-220 Caius
192-202 Clement of Alexandria
50-80 Colossians
170-175 Diatessaron
50-120 Didache
130-200 Diognetus, Epistle of Mathetes to
165-175 Dionysius of Corinth
170-200 Dura-Europos Gospel Harmony
100-160 Ebionites, Gospel of the
70-120 Egerton Gospel
80-150 Egyptians, Gospel of the
80-100 Ephesians
130-160 Epiphanes On Righteousness
140-150 Epistula Apostolorum
50-60 Galatians
175-190 Galen
50-95 Hebrews, Book of
80-150 Hebrews, Gospel of the
165-175 Hegesippus
150-180 Heracleon
100-160 Hermas, Shepherd of
200-230 Hippolytus of Rome
105-115 Ignatius of Antioch
175-185 Irenaeus of Lyons
70-100 James, Epistle of
140-170 James, Infancy Gospel of
100-150 James, Secret Book of
150-200 John, Acts of
90-95 John, Apocalypse of
90-120 John, Gospel of
93 Josephus, Flavius
90-120 Jude, Epistle of
150-160 Justin Martyr
165-175 Lucian of Samosata
80-130 Luke, Gospel of
73-200 Mara Bar Serapion
130-140 Marcion
65-80 Mark, Gospel of
70-160 Mark, Secret Gospel of
120-180 Mary, Gospel of
80-100 Matthew, Gospel of
110-160 Matthias, Traditions of
185-195 Maximus of Jerusalem
165-175 Melito of Sardis
160-250 Minucius Felix, Octavius of
170-200 Muratorian Canon
120-140 Naassene Fragment
100-160 Nazoreans, Gospel of the
100-200 Odes of Solomon
130-160 Ophite Diagrams
200-250 Origen
110-160 Oxyrhynchus 840 Gospel
50-140 Oxyrhynchus 1224 Gospel
190-210 Pantaenus

continued…in another post…

 

[pablope]

CalChristian;8557312:

pablope;8556882:

part two…

I suppose…

Actually, it is common belief that Moses is the source of the Pentateuch…the first 5 books of the OT.

So, the question to you again is…why did the Hebrews believe the Pentateuch as Scripture?

Sorry, I’m not following how whether Mark was the penmen of the Second Gospel proves that the only to know what is and is not Scripture is to be so informed specifically by The Catholic Church.

Answer the questio and I will make my point…so, cite the chapter and verse where St. Mark claims authorship of the gospel of Mark? After you find this chapter and verse…why do you now accept it as Scripture?

Actually, that Mark is the penmen of the Second Gospel is entirely unknown - and entirely irrelevant to anything.

Actually…it is relevant. And you are not the first one to dodge this question.

If the author of the Gospel of Mark is unknown…then who put the name of Mark there? And why do you call it the Gospel of Mark? How did those first christians know it is the Gospel of Mark? Attributed to Mark? And how would they know that it is not anybody named Mark?

What I was taught in The Catholic Church is this, “The Bible was inspired by God. Exactly what does this mean? It means that God is the Author of the Bible. God inspired the writers to write as He wished.” I agree. Thus, the Author of the Second Gospel is GOD (in a process largely mystery).

God used men, fallible men, to write the Scripture, inspired by the HS.

WHO the penmen were of most of the books regarded as Scripture is entirely unknown - and entirely irrelevant.

Why not? Irrelevant to whom? Not according to the first Christians who discerned which to consider for the NT and not? Authorship was important.

By the way, no one knows who was the penmen for the other 3 Gospels, either. Couldn’t matter less.

Actually, it is known who wrote them. And why would it matter less? Okay…go back to the list of writings I provided…if authorship is not important…choose which would be in the NT?

So it would be okay then…if I considered 1 Clement…acts of Andrew…gospel of Thomas and James…and disregard Gospel of john, of luke, of Matthew, of Mark?

But what I don’t understand is this: How does the issue that no one knows (or cares) who the penmen was for the Second Gospel mandate the Protestant churches need to prove claims none of them make and exempts The Catholic Church from proving what it DOES claim for itself? Would you explain that for me?

I am really confused with your question…but I will attempt to answer it.

Protestants claim the Bible as the word of God, inspired…this is their claim. But where does the Bible claim it is the inspired word of God? Where does the Bible claim the official list of books that make it up?

From that partial list of writings I provided…how would a protestant know which should belong to the Bible NT or not?

There was an outside authority, acting on behalf of God…who discerned what is the Canon and what should be excluded. And for a protestant to accept the Canon…that authority had to have made in infallible decision in deciding which should be the OT and NT, right? no?

And this authority is the Catholic Church…when it made a declaration starting in AD 382, in the council of Rome.

Authorship was actually one of the criterias used in determining the final Canon.

Going back to Mark…if authorship is not important…then why even bother putting names in the books of the Bible? Why not just put in any other name?

Now, cite the chapter and verse where Mark claims authorship…and I will make the point if you still do not get it.

 

[CopticChristian]

Okay. But how is that proof that He founded The Catholic Church.
Specifically. Personally. Directly.
On Pentecost. 33 AD.
And ergo, all the claims that The Catholic Church makes for The Catholic Church are true and correct?

 

[ANNE_2]

For those who are interested in **accurate **information and to avoid the errors of others, please read the New Testament in its entirety.

Then review - - -
Matthew: 16: 18-19
Acts: 1:15-26 (the start of Apostolc Succession).

Then read “Catholicism for Dummies” by Frs. Trigilio and Breghenti.

And for the truth as to what the Catholic Church teaches without human error or human bias, please read the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition”.
You will find many footnotes that lead you back to the Bible.

Other than the Catholic Church, no other Christian Faith can trace itself back to it’s founder being Jesus Christ, and be historically correct.

It also might help you if you read some of Scott Hahn’s books, a Biblical Scholar and former Protestant Minister who himself converted to the Catholic faith.
Catholic Answers also has some book authors who have been converts.
And then there is “Where is that in the Bible” by Patrick Madrid.

 

[David_Castlen]

NT churches established by Jesus via His ministers in His stead, starting with the apostles, and continuing with their chosen successors, (such as Ignatius, Clement and Polycarp, all of which were professed Christians belonging to the catholic church) - via the imposition of hands as per scripture and the ECF’s:

Churches of Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria all started by one of the apostles or one of their chosen successors.

Churches of Damascus, all started by one of the apostles and of course their chosen successors.

Churches of Galilee, all started by one of the apostles or one of their chosen successors.

Churches of Caesarea - all started by one of the apostles or one of their chosen successors.

Churches of Antioch (first Gentile churches) - all start by Paul, Barnabas, Simeon, Lucius, Manaen, Silas or chosen successors.

Churches of Phoenicia started by the apostles and their chosen successors.

As was the case with all the churches of the NT that cropped up in Philippi, Macedonia, Corinth, Thessalonica, the seven Churches of Asia (Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, Laodicea), Galatia, Crete, Bithynia.

All of these newly established NT churches were ultimately connected via the proper, legitimate church authority of the apostles, who of course derived their authority directly from Jesus Christ. When the first reformers broke away, they disconnected themselves from that proper, legitimate church authority of the apostles, which is why apostolic succession is rejected, among protestant Christians.

This is excellent; however to add, I would suggest how these all recognized the bishop of Rome as the final authority on matters of F&M…

 

[ANNE_2]

Each Catholic Dioceseis is called a Church by Catholics.
This has nothing to do with Protestantism and those who broke away from the Catholic Church to start their own in the 1500’s or later.

Again please read the “CCC” for accurate information when discussing the Catohlic Church.

CCC - " 833 The phrase “particular Church,” which is first of all the diocese (or eparchy), refers to a community of the Christian faithful in communion of faith and sacraments with their bishop ordained in apostolic succession.
These particular Churches “are constituted after the model of the universal Church; it is in these and formed out of them that the one and unique Catholic Church exists.”

CCC - " 1560 As Christ’s vicar, each bishop has the pastoral care of the *particular Church *entrusted to him, but at the same time he bears collegially with all his brothers in the episcopacy the solicitude for all the Churches: “Though each bishop is the lawful pastor only of the portion of the flock entrusted to his care, as a legitimate successor of the apostles he is, by divine institution and precept, responsible with the other bishops for the apostolic mission of the Church.”

These are all the “Catholic Church” with the Pope (Successor of Peter) - as the supreme and visible head.