Who founded your denomination?????

[mrS4ntA]

Is it:

1. one? (no… non-denom, fueled by sola scriptura doctrine teaches things that contradict other denom or even other non-denom churches)
2. holy? (well, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt for this one)
3. apostolic (well, you claim no leader, so you cannot trace your church to the apostles)
4. catholic (is it universal? no.)

conclusion: not the church Christ founded.

 

[atenciom]

rod of iron:

I never said that I can’t believe Napoleon existed. I said that I cannot indisputably prove that he existed. There’s a big difference. As for Christ, I cannot indisputably prove that He exists, but I can believe He exists. You are confusing the two terms…

ROI: I see what you are saying. Indisputable proof (i.e. reason) is not available for certain things. If its not available, then we are left to exercise our belief (i.e. faith). The difference is that in reason, we must be present to say “it’s true”. In faith, we have to believe someone who was present to say “it’s true”. (more on the faith stuff later)
rod of iron:

Not at all. Perhaps, I have the belief (call it naive if you will) that Catholics, when they realize that there is no basis for many of their beliefs, will search out and find the truth.

ROI, Now this is where you get tripped up. You say that “Catholics have NO basis for many of their beliefs.” (we have been saying that we do have basis but we’ll argue that later.) At the same time, you can’t say “we have NO basis”. The stuff we have been quoting is SOME basis. You may not accept it but it still qualifies as SOME basis. But now, here is the tripped up part. You say that when we discover that we have no basis for our beliefs, we are supposed to “find the truth” (presumably the one that you know). Hello! You just admitted that you don’t know “the truth” about certain religious/historical things (like the existence of Jesus, etc) because you weren’t there. You only have “belief”. You can’t sit there and say, “Foolish Catholics, stop maintaining beliefs that you can’t indisputibly prove and start believing these other beliefs that I can’t indesputibly prove.” It’s like going from one frying pan to another.
rod of iron:

I didn’t say that. I said that you cannot know something to be indisputably factual unless you are there to witness it. But I must amend that statement to say that you can also know that something is indisputably factual if it has been revealed to you through the power of God, namely by the Holy Spirit. The pride seems to come forth when the Catholic church boldly and proudly boasts that Peter being in Rome and dying there are indisputable facts. If that fact could not be disputed, why am I able to dispute it?

But now you ammend your definition to say that if God reveals something to you, then you CAN know that is indisputably true. But again, all of your “truth” was not revealed to you by God. You believed the testimony of others. And so again, you are not in any better position than us. You cannot say, “come to THE truth” when you can’t say that you have THE truth.

(continued on next post)

 

[atenciom]

(continued from prev post)
rod of iron:

That seems to be the premise of the Catholic church. It claims that Peter being in Rome and dying there are indisputable facts, yet you cannot provide the indisputable evidence that led the church to that conclusion. You are saying, “You must accept what the church teaches even though the church can’t prove it.” I could likewise ask why you persist.

I never said that things cannot be known. You are putting words into my mouth. If you witness something for yourself, you will indisputably know it. But you can learn about things and know about them without witnessing them. I know that Australia exists, but I do not indisputably know where it is located because I have never been there. I knew that St. Petersburg, Russia, existed, but I did not know indisputably until I spent a week there on a trip I took a decade ago.

But believing something and knowing something are mutually exclusive ways of thinking. Both cannot be true at the same time.

Okay, so now we get to the “faith” part (because none of us was “there” during Jesus’ or Peter’s time). How do we know that Peter is in his tomb in Rome, that there is a succession of bishops, etc. We KNOW this because you are underestimating how faith is used in logic. People cannot be present for all things. Therefore we have to take the person’s word for it who was there. Therefore, we KNOW that Jesus existed because 1) some people said they saw Him. 2) they have no reason to lie. It is not indesputible truth that he existed but we KNOW he exitsted. Not only do we KNOW it, we REALLY know it. We know it enough to say “it is true” because in addition to someone claiming it to be true, there are all kinds of factors (similar to the ones why we know Jesus existed) that give those claims quite a bit of weight.

So what I’m saying is this: We KNOW that Peter is buried where we say he’s buried, that Jesus put him charge, etc for the same reasons you KNOW that Joseph Smith had in his possesion of some golden plates. Because someone who was “in the know” told you. But I would argue that the things we KNOW are stronger than the things you KNOW. In fact, these stronger things contradict your things. In other words, our “facts” are more probable than yours. That has been what all we’ve been saying in the past waazilllion posts. It is not probable that Peter was simply a loudmouth and that he only got extra attention. It is more probable that he had more importance than all the other apostles. So much importance that he was Jesus’ #1 guy. And we have a lot of probability (what you would call testimony) that is better than your contradicting testimony.
Martin

 

[Xavier]

Delgadoajj:

Xavier:

Please show me when this event took place (i.e. that Jesus founded the nondenominational church you attend). Could you elaborate on the circumstances, period in History, etc., etc.?

Thank you,

Jorge.

Mt 16:16
Upon Peters confession that Jesus was the Christ the Son of the living God.
All who confess Jesus as the Christ the Son of the living God are part of Christs’ Church.

Rom 10:**9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.”

Jesus has built His Church on that confession.

 

[Xavier]

The Greek word for church is ejkklhsiva which is a compound word made up of ejk which means out of or from and kalevw which means to call.
As christians we were called out of darkness into His light.
All Christians are part of the body of Christ therefore are members of His Church.

 

[Xavier]

1 Corinthians 12:12-13 12 For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ. 13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body–whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free–and have all been made to drink into F40 one Spirit.

 

[Delgadoajj]

Xavier:

I guess you must be Catholic, since you quoted the biblical scriptures that support the Catholic Church being the only True Church Christ founded. Good deal!!!

Jorge.

 

[MariaG]

I do not believe anyone said you are not part of the body of Christ.

We simply contest that your church was founded by Christ. Scripture clearly shows only ONE church was founded. Unfortunately, men have corrupted God’s word and desire for one church and have founded new churches, new denominations, (that would include “nondenominational”), that while part of the body of Christ, do not choose to be part of the Catholic church. Unless you can show me historically, that your church has existed since Pentecost, your claim is simply that, your claim with no merit. I can trace the Catholic Church from Pentecost to today. That would support my claim that the one church Christ founded is the Catholic church, the one church spoken about in Scripture.

 

[Xavier]

MariaG:

I do not believe anyone said you are not part of the body of Christ.

We simply contest that your church was founded by Christ. Scripture clearly shows only ONE church was founded. Unfortunately, men have corrupted God’s word and desire for one church and have founded new churches, new denominations, (that would include “nondenominational”), that while part of the body of Christ, do not choose to be part of the Catholic church. Unless you can show me historically, that your church has existed since Pentecost, your claim is simply that, your claim with no merit. I can trace the Catholic Church from Pentecost to today. That would support my claim that the one church Christ founded is the Catholic church, the one church spoken about in Scripture.

The RCC of today hardly resembles the church that existed at Pentecost.
All believers are part of Christs Church get over it!
Read 1 Corinthians Paul instructs how a orderly meeting should be. It resembles no mass Ive ever been to.

 

[MariaG]

Once again, being part of the body of Christ does not mean you go to the Church Christ established.

How about these verses on the church:

Mt 16:18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.

1 Tim 3:15 the church is the pillar and foundation of truth
Mt 18:17-18 this talk of the ppower of the church to discipline and legislate

Acts: 14:23 they appointed presbyters in each church

Jn 20:23 Jesus institutes confesssion

And lets look at 1 cor

1 Cor 12:28-29 God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, … There is a structure and a hierarchy.

There are the seeds of the church. Just because you think that it doesn’t look the way you think it should does not mean God would abandon the promises to His church. He said His church will prevail and it will teach all truth. These promises are about the church Christ founded. That church is the Catholic Church. Every other church was founded by a man who disagreed with the Catholic church and tried to say the Church no longer teaches the truth. This would contradict Scripture and would say God cannot keep the Church He established a “pillar and foundation of truth”. I prefer to believe God’s word as presented in the Bible and not by a man (Luther, Calvin, etc.) who thinks God cannot keep His promises about His church.
God Bless

 

[rod_of_iron]

MariaG:

I do not believe anyone said you are not part of the body of Christ.

We simply contest that your church was founded by Christ. Scripture clearly shows only ONE church was founded. Unfortunately, men have corrupted God’s word and desire for one church and have founded new churches, new denominations, (that would include “nondenominational”), that while part of the body of Christ, do not choose to be part of the Catholic church. Unless you can show me historically, that your church has existed since Pentecost, your claim is simply that, your claim with no merit. I can trace the Catholic Church from Pentecost to today. That would support my claim that the one church Christ founded is the Catholic church, the one church spoken about in Scripture.

Maria,

If you can trace the Catholic church from Pentecost until today, why don’t you do it? What doesn’t any of the Catholic church members on this forum do it? All I see are claims that this can be done. I have not yet seen it done. Put your money where your mouth is.

 

[rod_of_iron]

MariaG:

Mt 16:18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.

Ah, yes. I have covered this already, but it must have fallen upon deaf ears. This verse said that the gates of hell (i.e. death, or the grave) will not prevail against the church that Jesus built. The grave has not prevailed against Christ’s church. Jesus broke the bands of death so that death can have no sting and the grave can have no victory. But this verse you quote does not say that the will of man will not affect the church, nor does it say that Satan and his angels will not wage war against this church. The church Jesus was speaking aobut was the spiritual church, namely the Church of the Firstborn.

MariaG:

1 Tim 3:15 the church is the pillar and foundation of truth
Mt 18:17-18 this talk of the ppower of the church to discipline and legislate

Acts: 14:23 they appointed presbyters in each church

Again, the Bible speaks of the church, but there is no evidence that these verses speak of the church that has become the Roman Catholic church.

MariaG:

Jn 20:23 Jesus institutes confesssion

I see no mention of confession in that verse. There is no context that would even suggest this doctrine of confession. Jesus had just breathed on them and had given them the Holy Spirit. Then, the apostles were told that if they forgive someone’s sins, those sins will be forgiven those people they forgave, and if the apostles retained the sin, the sin would be retained. There is no condition mentioned where those people had to confess their sins before they were forgiven. This verse does not make sense in the way you are interpreting it.

MariaG:

1 Cor 12:28-29 God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, … There is a structure and a hierarchy.

I have asked in the past where the apostles are in the Catholic church. Even though the church claims that they became bishops, I do not see any evidence of this happening. But even if this did happen, I would like to ask where the prophets are in the Catholic church? I have been told that the pope is not a prophet. Where is the office of prophet in the Catholic church? I do not see it. Further, where is this office of teacher in the church? As far as I can see, the Catholic church fails concerning all three of these offices, since none of them can be found in the Catholic church. Yet, God has appointed all three in His church. It is quite odd not to find these appointed offices in the church that the Catholics claim Jesus built.

 

[rod_of_iron]

atenciom:

Okay, so now we get to the “faith” part (because none of us was “there” during Jesus’ or Peter’s time). How do we know that Peter is in his tomb in Rome, that there is a succession of bishops, etc. We KNOW this because you are underestimating how faith is used in logic. People cannot be present for all things. Therefore we have to take the person’s word for it who was there. Therefore, we KNOW that Jesus existed because 1) some people said they saw Him. 2) they have no reason to lie. It is not indesputible truth that he existed but we KNOW he exitsted. Not only do we KNOW it, we REALLY know it. We know it enough to say “it is true” because in addition to someone claiming it to be true, there are all kinds of factors (similar to the ones why we know Jesus existed) that give those claims quite a bit of weight.

All kinds of factors? What would they be?

atenciom:

So what I’m saying is this: We KNOW that Peter is buried where we say he’s buried, that Jesus put him charge, etc for the same reasons you KNOW that Joseph Smith had in his possesion of some golden plates. Because someone who was “in the know” told you.

It appears that you have just admitted that Joseph Smith possessed the plates of gold. If your knowledge of Peter comes by the same way as my knowledge that Joseph Smith possessed these plates, then not only are you telling me that I have knowledge of Peter’s burial and His role as bishop of Rome, but also you are declaring your knowledge of Joseph Smith possessing those plates.

atenciom:

But I would argue that the things we KNOW are stronger than the things you KNOW.

How can this be if we both gained our knowledge from “someone in the know” about those things that we each have knowledge about? If my knowledge is from someone who knew that Joseph Smith possessed the plates of gold, how could your knowledge from someone who knew where Peter was buried be any stronger? If each person that each of us relies on for our knowledge knew about the event they have passed on to us, how could your knowledge be stronger than mine? Can there be any knowledge stronger than knowing the truth?

atenciom:

In fact, these stronger things contradict your things.

How so, if we both have knowledge of a bit of truth?

atenciom:

In other words, our “facts” are more probable than yours. That has been what all we’ve been saying in the past waazilllion posts.

More probable? How do you figure?

atenciom:

It is not probable that Peter was simply a loudmouth and that he only got extra attention. It is more probable that he had more importance than all the other apostles. So much importance that he was Jesus’ #1 guy.

How it this more probable? I thing what you are really saying is that these claims fit better with what you want to believe and what the Catholic church teaches. But this does not make them any more certain without evidence to support those claims.

atenciom:

And we have a lot of probability (what you would call testimony) that is better than your contradicting testimony.

You have more testimony? In order for something to be legitimate testimony, the person testifying must witness this firsthand. Otherwise, it would be hearsay. What firsthand accounts do you have to support your claims about Peter?

 

[rod_of_iron]

atenciom:

ROI, Now this is where you get tripped up. You say that “Catholics have NO basis for many of their beliefs.” (we have been saying that we do have basis but we’ll argue that later.) At the same time, you can’t say “we have NO basis”. The stuff we have been quoting is SOME basis. You may not accept it but it still qualifies as SOME basis. But now, here is the tripped up part. You say that when we discover that we have no basis for our beliefs, we are supposed to “find the truth” (presumably the one that you know). Hello! You just admitted that you don’t know “the truth” about certain religious/historical things (like the existence of Jesus, etc) because you weren’t there. You only have “belief”. You can’t sit there and say, “Foolish Catholics, stop maintaining beliefs that you can’t indisputibly prove and start believing these other beliefs that I can’t indesputibly prove.” It’s like going from one frying pan to another.

What you still fail to see is that it was the Catholic Encyclopedia which claimed that Peter being the Bishop of Rome, as well as him dying and being buried in Rome are indisputable facts. If these facts are indisputable, as the encyclopedia claims, there must be indisputable evidence to prove this indisputably. How many times must I reiterate this???

On the other hand, I never claimed that anything I believe is an indisputably fact. Therefore, I am not obligated to prove what I believe, especially with indisputable evidence. The Catholic Encyclopedia, with its claim, has obligated itself to provide the indisputable proof. I simply am asking for this indisputable proof to be presented to me. The way you Catholics are dancing around this issue, I have serious doubts that any indisputable evidence does exist concerning what the Catholic Encyclopedia claimed about the matter.

 

[rod_of_iron]

Aris:

You are correct in that. There are a lot of Catholics seeking the truth. So far there has been more convincing evidence that the Catholic Church is the True Church and Bride of Christ.

And what is this convincing evidence that you claim exists? I am not yet convinced.

Aris:

1. Would you agree that the Bible is a basis for the Truth and that the Bible speaks Truth and can not be False?

If yes, then we can proceed. If not then, we do not have a common ground to answer the question of the thread. No need to read below.

I believe that Jesus is the Truth, as well as the Way and the Life. He is the only guaranteed Truth. The Bible is an inanimate object written by men who were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write it. I cannot say that God absolutely forced each of their hands to write exactly what God wanted written in the Bible. The Bible has a great deal of history recorded in it. Surely, God would not have to tell these writers about the history that they themselves experience. Of course, if you want to say that the writers of these books of the Bible did not actually experience what they wrote because the experiences were passed done through the generations to the men who actually recorded what is in the Bible, then I would question whether everything that was passed down via word of mouth was passed down without any embellishments or interpretation added.

I believe that the Bible is reliable enough to lead us to the Truth, namely Jesus Christ. But I will not say that an inanimate object is inherently true of itself.

 

[Aris]

ROI,

You’ve just done it again. Beat around the bush. It doesn’t help me or the other Catholics you are trying to save.

So does the Bible speak truth or not?
Do you then believe that there is a better basis of truth?

Two, you have asked us to present proof.

We have shown you proof. The teachings of the Church. If you say, that it has diverged from the apostles please point out when this happened. What doctrine was this?

Proof? There is History which everyone can see, The Bible, The Official Church Teachings, and the writing of the Early Chruch Fathers.

Point out one teaching which you say is not from Christ and we will give you proof that it has been handed down to the apostles and to the Catholic Church.

I can not see the same thing for denominations and non-Catholic groups. Your history will go back at best to 1000AD.

If you say your church was founded by Christ then it should be found to exist at Christ’s death, 100AD, 500 AD, 1000AD, 1400AD, up to the present. Where is that in History?

Please present your proof.

I guess that is one reason you have not stated your denomination or your affiliation. Because by that, we can really know if your group was founded by Christ or by a false prophet.

 

[Luke24]

BobCatholic:

Agreed. Denominations are created by men.

There are only two religions on Earth that are founded by God.

Judaism and Catholicism. The latter is a fulfillment of the former.

The second one listed is a lie. The fact of the matter is that there are only two but one is called Judaism and in that you are correct, but the other part is wrong. The Christian church after it’s creation at Pentecost was referred to as “the way”, and later when they were first called Christians at Antioch that is where we get the name Christianity not catholocism.
Are you guys calling God a liar again?
Acts 24:14-15 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets: And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.
They in this verse is talking about the Jews by the way. Read the whole book.
This is out of Webster’s Dictionary and the Oxford says the same.
catholic
CATHOLIC, a.

1. Universal or general; as the Catholic church. Originally this epithet was given to the Christian church in general, but is now appropriated to the Romish church, and in strictness there is no Catholic church, or universal Christian communion. The epithet is sometimes set in opposition to heretic, sectary or schismatic.
2. Liberal; not narrow minded, partial or bigoted; as a catholic man.
3. Liberal; as catholic principles.
   Catholic epistles, the epistles of the apostles which are addressed to all the faithful, and not to a particular church.
   CATHOLIC, n. A papist.
   all formatting on this one is mine.

 

[asquared]

The document which proves that Jesus Christ founded the Catholic Church is called the New Testament. The supporting primary and secondary sources are all of recorded Western history.

 

[Duhawk83]

Let see LUKE24 you decided to use the Websters dictionary to define “Catholic”:

1. Universal or general; as the Catholic church. Originally this epithet was given to the Christian church in general, but is now appropriated to the Romish church, and in strictness there is no Catholic church, or universal Christian communion. The epithet is sometimes set in opposition to heretic, sectary or schismatic.
2. Liberal; not narrow minded, partial or bigoted; as a catholic man.
3. Liberal; as catholic principles.
Catholic epistles, the epistles of the apostles which are addressed to all the faithful, and not to a particular church.
CATHOLIC, n. A papist.
all formatting on this one is mine.

There you go again with the semantics and parsing of words. Is this a popular past time with evangelicals? Sure seems like it.

Anyway…Catholic comes from the greek katholikos which means universal. Was the early church universal…Yes it was! There was a common form of worship that if you read the church fathers was the mass. It is you protesting followers of men like Calvin, Knox and Luther who have to justify the legitimacy of your faiths by attacking the legitimacy of the “ONE TRUE CHURCH”.

Let go of the Catholic hate, embrace the truth see the light.

 

[Aris]

Let me point out a misconception.

The terms Catholic and Roman Catholic in particular were not appropriated by the Church or its members. They were also used by the Luther and others like him to distinguish themselves from the Church they broke away from.

In the final analysis, they broke off from the vine are therefore not the Church that Christ instituted.

They founded their denomination. How can someone say that Christ founded their church if there was a gap between them and the Apostles.