What is the true church?

[Eden]

Doctrinal issues: Celibacy of Priests (mockery of the sanctity of marriage and what it illustrates)

Can you please give concrete examples of how celibacy of the priesthood mocks the sanctity of marriage and what it illustrates?

Eucharist (misrepresentation of Christs body)

Can you please give concrete examples of the misrepresentation of Christ’s body in relation to the Eucharist using the Catechism?

Marianism

Can you please give concrete examples of Marianism in the Catechism?

etc. (the other issues being discussed on these forums…

Can you please give concrete examples of what etc. and other issues discussed on these forums are?

 

[bibleapologist]

Eden,

Can someone please explain to me by what authority bibleapologist speaks on scripture? I may have missed it as I skimmed the posts, but I don’t see the post in which he/she establishes their authority to speak on matters of faith.

Either you are someone who has been elevated by the Catholic Church to speak on matters of faith, or you are taking liberties not granted to you by the Catholic Church to post on this forum. I assume by your statement that you are the former.

If in fact you are one who has authority to elucidate scripture, how have you gained that authority? By men, or of God? Are you speaking exclusively from tradition, or the truth as it has been revealed to you by God?

If you are speaking on scripture, how can you claim any authority to teach the things of God, if you have only been granted the authority to teach by the traditions of men?

Gal 1:14 And profited in the Jews’ religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.
Gal 1:15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called [me] by his grace,
Gal 1:16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[Eden]

Eden,

Either you are someone who has been elevated by the Catholic Church to speak on matters of faith, or you are taking liberties not granted to you by the Catholic Church to post on this forum. I assume by your statement that you are the former.

If in fact you are one who has authority to elucidate scripture, how have you gained that authority? By men, or of God? Are you speaking exclusively from tradition, or the truth as it has been revealed to you by God?

If you are speaking on scripture, how can you claim any authority to teach the things of God, if you have only been granted the authority to teach by the traditions of men?

John
www.gideonsword.net

This is very easy for a Catholic to answer. As long as my responses are in harmony with the teaching of the Church, my answers have the authority of the Church.

But the larger answer is that you redirected your response by questioning my authority rather than answering with the awkward and obvious answer that you have no authority.

 

[bibleapologist]

Eden,

Can you please give concrete examples of how celibacy of the priesthood mocks the sanctity of marriage and what it illustrates?

The institution of marriage is sactified as an illustration of Christ and His Church. To forbid to marry is to symbolically relegate Christ and His Church as a meaningless relationship…

1Ti 4:3 Forbidding to marry, [and commanding] to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

You also said…

Can you please give concrete examples of the misrepresentation of Christ’s body in relation to the Eucharist using the Catechism?

If you care to read it, I will refer you to the thread entitled “Jesus denied transubstantiation”, or you can read my article on that by following this link.

By the way, if Jesus had married it would have been adultery to claim the Church as His bride. Paul, was celibate not by choice, but by necessity… as his former position with the Jews would have required him to be married, we can only assume that by some circumstance his wife left him (either by death, or as a result of his conversion).

You also said…

Can you please give concrete examples of Marianism in the Catechism?

I’m not sure what you are asking… Are you saying that the Catholic Church does not endorse Marianism?

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Eden,

This is very easy for a Catholic to answer. As long as my responses are in harmony with the teaching of the Church, my answers have the authority of the Church.

But the larger answer is that you redirected your response by questioning my authority rather than answering with the awkward and obvious answer that you have no authority.

Again, you have side-stepped my question… I didn’t ask you if your response was in harmony with the Catholic Church’s teaching… I asked you (and everyone else), if your response was contrary to the Catholic Church’s teaching, would you oppose the Catholic Church?

I have answered the question pertaining to my authority. By the revelation of the truth I have received, and the liberty given to me by Christ to act according to my conscience. Now, please answer my question regarding your authority to elucidate scripture.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[Eden]

Eden,

The institution of marriage is sactified as an illustration of Christ and His Church. To forbid to marry is to symbolically relegate Christ and His Church as a meaningless relationship…

Marriage is, in fact, a Sacrament. Matrimony is a very special calling which most Catholics will answer. Priestly celibacy does not negate this. In fact, Jesus says in Matt. 19:11-12 that celibacy is a gift from God and whoever can bear it should bear it. If Jesus taught it, I believe it.

If you care to read it, I will refer you to the thread entitled “Jesus denied transubstantiation”, or you can read my article on that by following this link.

I will definitely join that thread. Thanks for inviting me.

By the way, if Jesus had married it would have been adultery to claim the Church as His bride.

You are ignoring Jesus’ own statements about the gift of celibacy.

Paul, was celibate not by choice, but by necessity… as his former position with the Jews would have required him to be married, we can only assume that by some circumstance his wife left him (either by death, or as a result of his conversion).

Why can we only assume? It does not sound like a man who lost his wife when he says in 1 Cor. 7:32-33, 38 He “who refrains from marriage will do better.”

Or in 1 Cor. 7:27 when Paul teaches men that they should not seek marriage because marriage introduces worldly temptations that can interfere with one’s relationship with God, specifically regarding those who will become full-time ministers in the Church.

I’m not sure what you are asking… Are you saying that the Catholic Church does not endorse Marianism?

I am asking you to use the Catechism to illustrate the teachings of the Church that would be defined as “Marianism”, a term which you are using to denote the worship of Mary.

 

[Eden]

Eden,

Again, you have side-stepped my question… I didn’t ask you if your response was in harmony with the Catholic Church’s teaching… I asked you (and everyone else), if your response was contrary to the Catholic Church’s teaching, would you oppose the Catholic Church?

Your question to me was not “if your response was contrary to the Catholic Church’s teaching, would you oppose the Catholic Church?”

Your question to me was “If in fact you are one who has authority to elucidate scripture, how have you gained that authority? By men, or of God? Are you speaking exclusively from tradition, or the truth as it has been revealed to you by God?”

And again I answer, my authority is the Church. If I were to make statements that were contradictory to what the Church teaches, *I *would be in error. So, back to my old question “What’s your authority?”

And your latest answer to that question is:

By the revelation of the truth I have received, and the liberty given to me by Christ to act according to my conscience. Now, please answer my question regarding your authority to elucidate scripture.

In other words you are claiming to have received private revelation without the authority laid out in scripture. This is what is referred to in the Bible as a “false prophet”. You have not received the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands from a successor of the apostles as the bishops (the teachers of the Church) have.

Why then would I reject the teachings of the bishops who have the authority of apostolic succession within the Church to follow the contradictory teachings of a self-proclaimed prophet of God?

 

[alexaustralia]

Alexaustralia,
I agree, truth comes by revelation, not by tradition. So, Alex, are you saying that if the Father revealed a truth to you that contradicted the Catholic Church’s teaching… would you be able to act according to your conscience and deny your affiliation with the CC?

First, you are putting words into my mouth for I never said that truth does not come through Apostolic Tradition; that is really cheap John. Also, I do not think I used in my argument future revelation but revealed truth which is found in Apostolic Tradition through the Church. To be honest that type of question really is in the same lines as; can God create a meal big enough so he can’t eat it?

Having said this I will opt with St. John of the Cross’ response

“Taking Scripture as our guide we do not err, since the Holy Spirit speaks to us through it. Should I misunderstand or be mistaken in some point, whether I deduce it from Scripture or not, I will not be intending to deviate from the true meaning of Sacred Scripture or from the doctrine of our Holy Mother the Catholic Church. Should there be some mistake, I submit entirely to the Church, …”

But if you still wish for a more direct answer if the “Father” revealed a truth opposite to the CC I will declare all Christianity false and that this “Father” is a totally different God. The God of Christianity is found in the Catholic Church. And the Church the God of Christianity intended to reveal himself to and to protect is the Catholic Church.

I am just being honest. This is something I thought about years before and that is the conclusion I ended up with and has been reinforced through time.

God bless

Alex

 

[Philthy]

Odell,
Contrary to what you think, the Church does not have authority… only the Apostles had authority (12 of them).

Sorry John, but there were 14. Do you need me to list them for you? Remember Paul - do you not consider him an Apostle?Remember what happened when Judas died? Another “took his office.” So we know for a fact that the authority of an Apostle’s office can be transferred.
We also know that the Apostles were given the ability to forgive and retain sins and were given the commission to “make disciples of every nation”. Does that sound like a job for one generation? Did the Apostles make it to every nation on earth? No, they didnt. They did build up the Church by giving authority to other men. Some of these men had so much authority that they wrote Scripture. Did you ever think of that? Luke was not an Apostle, yet he wrote Scripture - go figure.
When I pressed you to provide verification of the divine origin of NT Scripture apart from the authority of the Church to act as the pillar and foundation of truth, you could not do it. When asked for OT evidence that a NT was forthcoming you did not provide a single OT verse to support it. All you did was claim that the LACK of a definitive end to the OT was proof that a NT was coming. You then attempted to bolster this claim by using quotes from the NT - which basically means you attempted to prove the NT through the NT - this is folly. It simply returns us to square one: How, apart from the authority of the Church as the “pillar and foundation of truth” do we know the canon of the NT and its inspiration?" I am not actually asking you to respond again - I have heard the best you have to offer, and I simply find it lacking. The reason I bring this up is because the very logic that you use to justify the NT - that there is no Scriptural indication of it being finished - can be used to justify Apostolic succession of authority. There is no indication in the NT that the office of the Apostles would come to an end. In fact we see the exact opposite explicitly stated: when Judas died they decided to “let another take his office” The capacity to generate Scripture may have ended with the Apostles, but the other authority which came with the office of apostle remained. We see that in the development of Bishops, Presbyters, etc. We see the over arching authority of Paul and Peter continuing to have its influence “everywhere in every Church” We also know that the “younger members (were) subject to the Presbyters” 1Pet 5:5. And we also have the testimony of the earliest Christians in the immediate post-Apostolic era supporting the idea that authority had been passed on, and the testimony of their lives as martyrs for the faith that we can trust. And what, exactly, do we have in opposition to this logical, scriptural and historical concept? Very little, John.
ba:

And contrary to what you might say, you don’t believe the Catholic Church allows soul-liberty… you apparently believe that people have liberty within the confines of Catholic Church authority. That is not freedom, it is communism.

You dont have the slightest what you are talking about. The Catholic Church does not compel anyone to believe anything. They simply let you know the parameters of Christianity, and are there to function, again, as the “pillar and foundation of Truth”. Think of the Apostle’s Creed - same thing. If you dont believe in “one God” you are outside the bounds of Christianity. Is that communism or is it love?
ba:

Let me ask you this… if the time came that you felt your walk with Christ was being hindered by practicing Catholicism… would you leave the Catholic Church?

Classic perspective on your psychological make-up. Translation: If you are experiencing a problem in your life, do you humbly consider your own failings - knowing full well the thousands of saintly people who have walked the very same path you are on - or do you look to blame others for your own failings?
ba:

Would you walk away from the teachings of the Catholic Church if staying in the Catholic Church meant straying from Christ?

Would you walk away from the teachings of Jesus Christ if those teachings meant straying from God? It has been revealed to me that your answer to this question is the same as Odells is to your question. Please let us know your answer and we will have Odells as well. God truly works in mysterious ways! We will all be interested to hear the answers, John…

 

[Philthy]

Again, a biased statement that carries no weight whatsoever for lack of substantiation.
John
www.gideonsword.net

Finally we can agree John! Unfortunately the fact that the statement is “biased and carries no weight for lack of substantiation” simply puts it on equal footing with your original claim that was being responded to.

 

[Philthy]

Alexaustralia, agree, truth comes by revelation, not by tradition…
John
www.gideonssword.net

I dont agree. The origin of certain truth is revelation, but the means of communicating that truth to most people is, among other things, tradition. I see you making the same mistake you made when discussing the origin of Truth and the means God chooses to reveal that Truth…(Bible, chair of Peter, private revelation…)

 

[geezerbob]

Revelation, once passed on, becomes tradition. We have the revelations of Christ to those around Him, not just the apostles, which have been preserved and passed on to us through the scriptures and tradition by the Church.

Now, we have a person who claims to have received revelations and wants to pass his revelations on to us, thus asking us to believe his version of the tradition which he argues so strongly but erroneously against. How arrogant can one be to insist that his private revelations are correct while all the revelations that preceded him, including those directly from Christ, are wrong simply because they have been passed from one generation to another? Because the truth, as revealed by Christ and preserved by His Church, differ from the “truth” revealed to him in his private revelation, that’s how.

I would also like to remind everyone that when we registered at this forum, we agreed to certain rules, including being respectful of others’ religions, Catholic or otherwise. I don’t consider the repeated use of the phrase “the false teachings of the Catholic Church” to be respectful in any way or in compliance with the rules of this forum. There are a number of names available to describe a person who does not live up to his agreements. I remember reading somewhere about letting your “yes” mean yes and your “no” mean no, but I guess that only applies to some of us.

My rant for the day.

 

[TobyLue]

Quote:
You and the Paulicians, Donatists, Waldensians, etc., all FALSELY made claims against the true teachings of the CC. These sects were all found to be heretic.

That statement is as per “tobylou”, and influenced by your point of view as loyal to the Catholic Church.

My point of view is substantiated by Scripture and by the one authorized to interpret it to its fullness. You have your own personal opinion which scripture speaks of as leading many to ruin. It lead those groups you mentioned above to ruin. I’m glad I’m influenced by the Church that Jesus founded. If you are going against the CC, you are going against Jesus Himself. I shudder to think what you are influenced by.

Quote:
That’s what you are doing and that’s what the Paulicians Donatists, Walednsians, have done; preach false gospels.

Again, a biased statement that carries no weight whatsoever for lack of substantiation.
Quote:
Do some searching on this forum and you will see where the many false claims made by you and many others have been refuted countless times.

My “biased” statement carries the weight of the Church that Jesus founded. This Church, who Jesus gave all authority to, found these sects to be heretical. I’m sorry but its your opinions that carry no weight and have no foundation because as you have stated many times you falsely claim “you have the Holy Spirit that indwells” in you. By what authority can you substantiate that your interpretations as being true? Please don’t say “By the Holy Spirit” because anybody can make that claim. You have nothing, absolutely nothing to back up your claims other than “God teaches me”. Simply by making such delusional statements does not make them true.

Quote:
Do some searching on this forum and you will see where the many false claims made by you and many others have been refuted countless times.

Why won’t you substantiate your claims? General statements don’t hold very much weight. If you are going to make a claim like my doctrinal stance has been refuted; be specific… which doctrines do I hold that have been refuted, and which post irrefutably deny my claims?

You have asked me and others to substantiate our claims, we have the backing of the Church that Jesus founded. You have the backing of the church that you founded which means zilch. You believe in something and claims its correct, well, use the search button and look for your claims or go to Catholic.com and look for The Eucharist, Mary, Priestly Celibacy, etc. there is no need for me to list all your false claims.

I’m dropping out of this thread.

May God Bless you and bring you to the fullness of Truth in the CC. We need more strong people like you.

 

[Odell]

Odell,
Of course not, Odell. If the church is built upon the foundation of the Apostles, how does the Catholic Church justify re-laying again that same foundation through the Papal office, Odell?

do you deny Peter as the head apostle. Because you believe in apostolic sucession it would only make sense for someone to replace Peters office if he was the head of the apostles. So what is your claim was or was he not?

We have the same foundation we have not re-layed it. You have.
If you wuold like to see some scripture on Peter just ask? Trust me there is more than the famus verse, you are Rock and I will give YOU the keys… Agian just ask it would be good for you web page.
If not I invite anyone who visits you page to start the thred. We have plenty of evidence that he was Pope.

Again, you have failed to answer the question I asked. By your act of side-stepping my question, I am getting the idea that you are afraid to answer that question on the grounds that you might be found disloyal to the Catholic Church… even if it means remaining loyal to Christ.

Answer it your self. I think Philty said it best.
Would you walk away from the teachings of Jesus Christ if those teachings meant straying from God? It has been revealed to me that your answer to this question is the same as Odells is to your question. Please let us know your answer and we will have Odells as well. God truly works in mysterious ways! We will all be interested to hear the answers, John…

Also you stated that by the Church claiming to have authority it makes people go against there conscience. But at the same time you state that the apostles did have this authority that the Catholic Church is claiming to have. So I would have to assume that you think that the apostles made everyone go against there own conscience. There is no logic behind this John.

Moral issues: Alcohol consumption, endorsement of immodest dress and rock and roll concerts (labor day picnics); conformity to the world.

you have been given some verses on Alcohol consumption but here is one to consider.
(Lk 7:33-34) “For John the Baptist came neither eating food nor drinking wine, and you said. He is possessed by a demon. The Son of Man came eating and drinking and you said. Look a glutton and a drunkard.” Jesus came eating and drinking wine. I believe Jesus being the model of how all Christians should live would not do something that we as Christians should not be doing. And they called Him a drunkard. I don’t think Jesus ever got drunk but this proves He did drink wine. Grape juice will not get you drunk I don’t care how much you drink. But you see that since Jesus drank wine they considered Him a drunkard. Just as our you do with us. Just because we have wine at Church does not prove we are not the true Church. It was good enough for Jesus so it is good enough for us. Give one verse that says otherwise you cant do it.

CONFORMITY TO THE WORLD (you mean contraception)!!!

Doctrinal issues: Celibacy of Priests (mockery of the sanctity of marriage and what it illustrates),

Nothing mocks the sanctity of marriage more so than CONTRACEPTION.

 

[Odell]

Eden,
The institution of marriage is sactified as an illustration of Christ and His Church. To forbid to marry is to symbolically relegate Christ and His Church as a meaningless relationship…

What the Church condemns as sinful is sexual activity that has been made deliberately sterile through artificial birth control. The sexual relationship between a husband and wife is an earthly image of the relationship that Christ and the Church share, and anything that deliberately distorts that relationship is sinful. The Church is considered the bride of Christ in the bible.

In (Eph 5: 31-32) the act of husband and wife is compared to the relationship of Christ and the Church or his bride.
It reads “ For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. This is a great mystery, but I speak in reference to Christ and the Church.” Jesus left His father and mother and became one flesh with his wife the church.

(This is the root of the teachings against divorce, adultery, and homosexuality as well.) Artificial birth control, by removing the procreative aspect of the sexual union, does indeed distort this image and is therefore sinful.

Furthermore, the marital act is a kind of spiritual and bodily embrace. It unites us as husband and wife, and we become one-flesh. One of the fundamentals of human sex is that we choose to respect each other’s dignity as human beings. Husbands should not be using wife’s as a mere means to his pleasure-seeking ends. This applies to the wife also. But in the use of contraception, you are suddenly severing that total giving of yourself to your spouse. Suddenly, the act which was open to God’s work (the potential to create life if God chooses to do so) becomes separateration from God; the use of the contraception creates sort of a barricade to God with a posted sign: “God is not allowed in our bedroom”. If the husband loves his wife totally as a human person then why not respect her natural fertility that God gave her. And same for the wives, respect what God has given you. And allow God back into the bedroom. NFP allows God back into the sexual act and it is the way God intended it to be, natural. Nature and God do not oppose.

If you or anyone else would like more on this topic feel free to start a thred.

By the way, if Jesus had married it would have been adultery to claim the Church as His bride. Paul, was celibate not by choice, but by necessity… as his former position with the Jews would have required him to be married, we can only assume that by some circumstance his wife left him (either by death, or as a result of his conversion).

Its funny how he had more than one passage talking about celibacy but you only responded to one of them. But read what he had to say in response about Paul I think he is more credible.

Also you stated all Churchs that have baptism by imersion are The True Church. I said but it is ok to not agree on the non esentals. Is this true is this what you believe?

Do you know how many denomintions believe in imersion, they all differ some where or another. That means all are wrong in at least one thing or another in what they teach. You really slhould think this over is this what Jesus left us?

 

[bibleapologist]

alexaustralia,

To be honest that type of question really is in the same lines as; can God create a meal big enough so he can’t eat it?

That is only in your opinion… and a result of your preconceived notions regarding the Catholic Church. I am asking you to step out of your preconceived notions, and answer the question from a nuetral standpoint.

Your bias concerning the Catholic Church is evident from the latter statement in that same post…

But if you still wish for a more direct answer if the “Father” revealed a truth opposite to the CC I will declare all Christianity false and that this “Father” is a totally different God. The God of Christianity is found in the Catholic Church. And the Church the God of Christianity intended to reveal himself to and to protect is the Catholic Church.

That is not a “nuetral” answer void of preconceived notions. That is an answer of someone who is loyal to an institution, and not necessarily loyal to Christ or the truth apart from that institution.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Philthy,

Originally Posted by ba
Let me ask you this… if the time came that you felt your walk with Christ was being hindered by practicing Catholicism… would you leave the Catholic Church?

Classic perspective on your psychological make-up. Translation: If you are experiencing a problem in your life, do you humbly consider your own failings - knowing full well the thousands of saintly people who have walked the very same path you are on - or do you look to blame others for your own failings?

I did not ask that question with the intent to place the blame of failed faith on the the follower… but on that which he is following, hence my statement “your walk with Christ was being hindered”. The person in question (as far as my question goes), is assumed to be a sincere seeker and follower of truth.

Would you walk away from the teachings of Jesus Christ if those teachings meant straying from God?

How does the trinity equate with the Chruch? Are you claiming that the Church is part of the trinity? Or are you claiming that there is no eternal trinity? I know the answer to these questions, I only asked them to show you the rediculous nature of your answer.

Of course, as per your answer to my question; the trinity is an immutable truth. And the Father and Christ, since they are one cannot contradict each other (we all agree on that). But, you are answering me with the preconceived notion that the Catholic church is one with the trinity; with the same immutability of truth as the trinity. I have one question regarding this thought… Where do you find that in the Bible?

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Philthy,

I dont agree. The origin of certain truth is revelation, but the means of communicating that truth to most people is, among other things, tradition. I see you making the same mistake you made when discussing the origin of Truth and the means God chooses to reveal that Truth…(Bible, chair of Peter, private revelation…)

What is not being argued here is the fact that God does in fact reveal truth through revelation… My statement you responded to was discerning the difference beween tradition, and revelation. God does in fact reveal truth through revelation (the root word of revelation is "reveal). But as far as teaching goes… it is not a revelation from God, but man… (which hopefully originated with God), and tradition is a revelation from the organization which holds to those traditions (which were hopefully born out of revelation from God).

But since man, and man’s works are not infallble. And truth sometimes gets perverted… God has given us His Holy Spirit to assist us in discerning the truth in those traditions and the teaching we receive from others. The Holy Spirit being the third person of the trinity of God, from whom comes immutable truth.

Therefore there will be no excuse for following a false teaching, the Holy Spirit and His immutable truth is available to everyone who is saved, and will give Him presidence by laying aside their preconceived notions about the truth in question.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

geezerbob,

Revelation, once passed on, becomes tradition. We have the revelations of Christ to those around Him, not just the apostles, which have been preserved and passed on to us through the scriptures and tradition by the Church.

Please refer to post #138 for my resonse to these statements.

How arrogant can one be to insist that his private revelations are correct while all the revelations that preceded him, including those directly from Christ, are wrong simply because they have been passed from one generation to another? Because the truth, as revealed by Christ and preserved by His Church, differ from the “truth” revealed to him in his private revelation

I am not contrasting the truth revealed to me with the scipture, or the teachings of Christ… in fact I have given examples from scripture (including the teachings of Christ) to substantiate my claim that the source of the truth I speak is the same source as the scripture… the Holy Spirit.

I am contrasting though, the revelation of truth that I have with the traditions and teaching of the Catholic Church, which you claim are from the same source of truth that I am claiming… Since our explications differ, it stands to reason that one of us is harboring preconceived notions…

If I were confronted with a teaching that differed from the truth as it were revealed to me by the Holy Spirit, I would defer the teaching or the teacher to embrace the source of the revelation… Can you say that? If the Catholic Church were that teacher, would you defer their teaching for the truth, or would you embrace your preconcieved notions?

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Odell,

Of course not, Odell. If the church is built upon the foundation of the Apostles, how does the Catholic Church justify re-laying again that same foundation through the Papal office, Odell?

do you deny Peter as the head apostle. Because you believe in apostolic sucession it would only make sense for someone to replace Peters office if he was the head of the apostles. So what is your claim was or was he not?

You misinterpreted my statement, I do not believe in apostolic succession… Apostolic succession is re-laying the foudation of the Apostles.

Answer it your self. I think Philty said it best.
Would you walk away from the teachings of Jesus Christ if those teachings meant straying from God? It has been revealed to me that your answer to this question is the same as Odells is to your question. Please let us know your answer and we will have Odells as well. God truly works in mysterious ways! We will all be interested to hear the answers, John…

Refer to post #139

Just because we have wine at Church does not prove we are not the true Church. It was good enough for Jesus so it is good enough for us. Give one verse that says otherwise you cant do it.

OK…

Pro 20:1 Wine [is] a mocker, strong drink [is] raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise.

Mar 15:23 And they gave him to drink wine mingled with myrrh: but he received [it] not.

Luk 1:15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb.

Eph 5:18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit; (a contrast between wine "proverbs 20:1, and submission to the Holy Spirit)

Deu 32:14 Butter of kine, and milk of sheep, with fat of lambs, and rams of the breed of Bashan, and goats, with the fat of kidneys of wheat; and thou didst drink the pure blood of the grape.

You also said…

CONFORMITY TO THE WORLD (you mean contraception)!!!

Quote:
Doctrinal issues: Celibacy of Priests (mockery of the sanctity of marriage and what it illustrates),

Nothing mocks the sanctity of marriage more so than CONTRACEPTION.

No, I don’t exclusively mean contraception. I don’t think it is wise to base the entirety of your Christian life on abstinence of ONE aspect of conformity to the world, although contraception is one of those areas that Christians have conformed.

Your right, contraception is a mockery of the sactity of marriage… procreation illustrates the work of the Holy Spirit in the “new birth”, just like the Abrahamic covenant illustrated the same new birth by evangelism… To practice contraception is to squelch the symbolism behind the work of the Holy Spirit.

John
www.gideonsword.net