Is that requirement in the New testament?
Ok, owing to your persistence, let’s try this one more time. The word “church” means either all of Christendom, i.e., the Body of Christ, or it means a specific Christian community, e.g. the Baptist Church, the Episcopal Church, the Lutheran Church, the Russian Orthodox Church, etc., etc., etc, The name of Jesus Christ is implicit in the word “church.” The Baptist Church means the Baptist community of Jesus Christ. To say the Jesus Christ community of Jesus Christ or the Christian community of Jesus Christ would be redundant. The Catholic Church means the universal community of Jesus Christ.
By the year 110 AD, the Church that Jesus established was already called the Catholic Church.
For the same reason the mormons proseltyze on St. Peter’s square and leave LDS print material inside our churches.
i think the bible shows in those cases the horrible consequences of polygamy. look at abraham, what happened with is firstborn son? joseph? that was full of problems. david? disaster. solomon? even worse. i don’t think the bible ever shows us a “successful” polygamous marriage. nor does the BoM and neither shows us “eternal marriage” either. this was a later concept of JS to justify his womanizing. we see this behavior alot in these type of cults. yaweh ben yaweh, father divine, jim jones, david koresh, warren jeffs, etc. Jesus tells us very clearly that marriage is between one aman and one woman and he tells us it is only on earth, not in heaven.
Always have.
If one insists that the church must be officially called “The Church of Christ”, then there are at least two other claimants to that; heck, there’s even a Filipino version. The insulting comparisons aside the comment made by Christ was regarding the fate of a women when she was resurrected. It was asked by those who did not even believe in a resurrection and it was already clear in the Law what was going to happen. Christ followed his own advice and did not cast a pearl before swine.
that isn’t christs only words on marriage. and christ took time to answer them. are you implying that he lied? if you believe this so strongly then why do you choose to come to this “pen” bag of “pearls” in hand casting away? there is no scriptural basis for eternal marriage outside of the mormon claim from D&C 132 which was primarily used to justify polygyny. not just any polygyny either but a version that ignored previous scriptural prohibitions regaarding unlawful marriages and in practice even contradicted this section as the taking to wife of already married women would appear to contradict the requirement that they had vowed to no other man (which was circumvented by the section claiming that any vows without the “sealing” authority have no value) of course even “sealed” women were sometimes “reassigned” as BY taught higher priesthood leaders could always take the women from the lower ones. i simply see no way that this current DOCTRINE of the LDs church (even it isn’t currently practiced) can be justified.
Well if you want to call your self a pig thats your issue.
your analogy…Well if you want to call your self a pig thats your issue.
the point I was making is that Christ’s response was just that a response. He rarely got into deep or complex ideas when asked stupid questions unless he masked them in a story. you other accusations would best be served on another thread (perhaps wonderland)
facts are interesting things. Ideas become facts when people like them.
no facts are facts because they are objective and can be verified. fire is hot. columbus sailed from spain to the Caribbean. joseph smith founded the LDS church. those are facts. so are the ones i mentioned. christ wasn’t just teaching the people asking the questions. he was teaching all who were following him listening and all of us who learn from the reading his words. “higher” doctrine isn’t secret or contradictory. it’s not scientology. christ gave us eternal truths. we can trust every one of his words as gospel. literally.
In the LDS church, apparently, but not in the real world.
Now I understand how you can be mormon
It’s not just the people here. History - real, objective history; the kind taught in secular universities - supports the history that “promotes” the Catholic Church. This is one of the reasons I finally wound up becoming Catholic.
