MARK 6:3 DID JESUS HAVE BROTHERS AND SISTERS ?

[Nondenom40]

Agree.

Plus the discussion must first settle on what or who The Church are!!

First things first...it is NOT the 'established , organized church'.


Jesus and His believing followers were, and still are The Church.
Everything else is ordered by man.

The 'word' church has many mentions ...but it is always a living anointed group of believers who's Head is God Himself. Don't you think?

Absolutely. The true church is the ekklesia. All of the called out ones, which are all born again where ever they are. There simply was nothing like the rcc until centuries later.

 

[Nondenom40]

Well, @"ByGrace" gave you a like.

But I don't even know what you're talking about.
Maybe you could explain better?

You said this;

One church MUST go back to the beginning.
If you think there's a break in the line of the catholic church
WHERE do you think it is?
I can't find it.

This has nothing to do with being right or wrong..I also don't agree with all Catholic doctrine, but history is history.

And that church does have some really nice teachings BTW.

Now if by catholic church as in universal, i'd agree. If by catholic you meant roman catholic then i disagree. It sounded to me like you meant roman catholic. And i also disagree that that church as any 'really nice teachings.' Any church that blasphemes God on a daily basis doesn't have any good teachings.

 

[GodsGrace]

I hope he does.
I agreed with him and posted to him... #597
So we await his next post

Yes.
MAYBE I'll understand that one!

 

[GodsGrace]

You said this;

Now if by catholic church as in universal, i'd agree. If by catholic you meant roman catholic then i disagree. It sounded to me like you meant roman catholic. And i also disagree that that church as any 'really nice teachings.' Any church that blasphemes God on a daily basis doesn't have any good teachings.

Listen to this:
It doesn't matter what you want to call a rose,,,,it's still a rose.

Call it the Roman Catholic Church (of which there is no such thing- but I know what you mean).

Now it goes back hundreds of years and becomes:
The Catholic Church (let's say 325 AD and prior to)

Before that it becomes The Universal church, which is how the word CATHOLIC came about.

BEfore that it was the Christian church ...first called this at Antioch. Acts 11:26

Before that it was The Way....Acts 24:14

So.....we have:

THE WAY
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH
THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH ERGO
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
THE "ROMAN" CATHOLIC CHURCH

O.K.
Where is the break in the line?

 

[Nondenom40]

Listen to this:
It doesn't matter what you want to call a rose,,,,it's still a rose.

Call it the Roman Catholic Church (of which there is no such thing- but I know what you mean).

Now it goes back hundreds of years and becomes:
The Catholic Church (let's say 325 AD and prior to)

Before that it becomes The Universal church, which is how the word CATHOLIC came about.

BEfore that it was the Christian church ...first called this at Antioch. Acts 11:26

Before that it was The Way....Acts 24:14

So.....we have:

THE WAY
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH
THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH ERGO
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
THE "ROMAN" CATHOLIC CHURCH

O.K.
Where is the break in the line?

Of course there is a roman catholic church. Its the latin rite of that branch. There are zero distinctly roman catholic doctrines of dogmas in the bible. None. So youre asking about a break, i'd be asking for the teaching. What they teach today is found nowhere in the bible. To be apostolic you'd need to find those doctrines and dogmas in the pages of the n.t. You can't and they can't. Which means its a separate entity from the true church.

 

[Helen]

Of course there is a roman catholic church. Its the latin rite of that branch. There are zero distinctly roman catholic doctrines of dogmas in the bible. None. So youre asking about a break, i'd be asking for the teaching. What they teach today is found nowhere in the bible. To be apostolic you'd need to find those doctrines and dogmas in the pages of the n.t. You can't and they can't. Which means its a separate entity from the true church.

Yes, It is an 'organization', ( as are most protestant ones ) and has nothing to do at all with God Glorious Church which is made of His blood washed believing followers.

....H

 

[Marymog]

The CC is the only church that can trace its roots back to Peter.
And I believe the Orthodox church too.
This is plain simple history.

The Protestant churches BROKE AWAY from the original church.

(isn't ILK a nasty word?)

Hi GG,

Ilk: a type of people or things similar to those already referred to

 

[Helen]

Hi GG,

Ilk: a type of people or things similar to those already referred to

Goodness where have you been?
I hope you are well.

 

[Marymog]

Goodness where have you been?
I hope you are well.

All is well, thank you. Mission trip to Honduras, Belize and Mexico. Very fulfilling experience if you ever get the chance. Makes one realize how blessed we are here in the States.

Respectfully, Mary

 

[Helen]

All is well, thank you. Mission trip to Honduras, Belize and Mexico. Very fulfilling experience if you ever get the chance. Makes one realize how blessed we are here in the States.

Respectfully, Mary

Sounds good.
But I doubt that you are 77 ?
I used to love to travel...I hate it now...

Be blessed....H

 

[epostle]

Of course there is a roman catholic church. Its the latin rite of that branch. There are zero distinctly roman catholic doctrines of dogmas in the bible. None. So youre asking about a break, i'd be asking for the teaching. What they teach today is found nowhere in the bible. To be apostolic you'd need to find those doctrines and dogmas in the pages of the n.t. You can't and they can't. Which means its a separate entity from the true church.

This is trolling. Try contributing and following the thread with intelligent comments instead of the usual meaningless flaming zingers.

 

[GodsGrace]

Hi GG,

Ilk: a type of people or things similar to those already referred to

Yeah, I know what it means.
I hate how it sounds.

 

[GodsGrace]

Of course there is a roman catholic church. Its the latin rite of that branch. There are zero distinctly roman catholic doctrines of dogmas in the bible. None. So youre asking about a break, i'd be asking for the teaching. What they teach today is found nowhere in the bible. To be apostolic you'd need to find those doctrines and dogmas in the pages of the n.t. You can't and they can't. Which means its a separate entity from the true church.

Hey,
Are you still around?
I just saw the above...sorry about that.

I'd be very happy to give you some history lessons.
And they ARE HISTORY lessons...not catholic church lessons.
It just so happens that the cc has always been around.

 

[Marymog]

Every single church/belief system out there claims to be Christ's original true church. Nothing is unique about Catholic's claims there.
Many churches also claim to be the literal structured one too. Nothing is unique about Catholic's claims there either.
Pointing to political dominance over men as prove of God's Righteousness makes no sense.
Pointing to disagreements between different Christian schools isn't remotely "proof" that any one position is right.
The "I'm just right and you're wrong" is probably the worse argument there could be out there.

As a person who's thoroughly honestly studied Catholicism (aka butt in their pews, studying their beliefs from their teachers for months), it is a strong Christian faith. But playing any of the other cads to "prove" it is... no. There's no need for that strong Christian faith to rely on such weak cards.

Granted, Catholicism is hardly unique for being one to have individuals therein to rely on weaker cards when in reality their collective teachings are a strong faith.

Hi JD,

Jesus established a (singular) Church: Matthew 16:18.

We are to go to The Church (singular) to settle our differences when our brother sins against us and The Church has the final authority to decide if we are to be treated as a pagen or tax collector: Matthew 18:17

The Church (singular) is the pillar and foundation of truth: 1 Timothy 3:15

In 107 AD Igantius called that Church "Catholic": See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. —Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch 8

In your opinion which church is that "Catholic" church 1900 years later?

Curious Mary

 

[epostle]

Absolutely. The true church is the ekklesia. All of the called out ones, which are all born again where ever they are. There simply was nothing like the rcc until centuries later.

The Catholic Church... defines doctrinal development as a growth of depth and clarity in the understanding of the truths of divine revelation. It is important to understand that the substantial or essential truths at the core of each doctrine remain unchanged. Only the subjective grasp of men increases. This increase is the result of the prayerful reflection of the Church, theological study and research (often occasioned by heretical challenges), practical experience, and the collective wisdom of the Church’s bishops and popes, especially when joined in Ecumenical Councils.

Like many Christian doctrines, the idea of doctrinal development is based on much implicit or indirect scriptural evidence. The best indications are perhaps Mt. 5:17, 13:31-2, Jn. 14:26, 16:13, 1 Cor. 2:9-16, Gal. 4:4, Eph. 1:10, 4:12-15. Furthermore, doctrine clearly develops within Scripture (“progressive revelation”). Examples: doctrines of the afterlife, the Trinity, the Messiah (eventually revealed as God the Son), the Holy Spirit (Divine Person in the New Testament), the equality of Jews and Gentiles, bodily resurrection, sacrifice of lambs evolving into the sacrifice of Christ, etc. Not a single doctrine emerges in the Bible complete with no further need of development.

In general, whenever Scripture refers to the increasing knowledge and maturity of Christians and the Church, an idea very similar to doctrinal development is present. Holy Scripture, then, is in no way hostile to development. It is only Protestant presuppositions – not always so “biblical” – which preclude development for fear of “excess.”

The Canon of Scripture itself is an example of developing doctrine.

On what grounds, then, can we receive the Canon today except on the authority of the Church in the 5th century? These facts cause insuperable problems for Protestantism and its guiding principle of “Scripture Alone,” but are not a difficulty in the least for Catholics, who believe in Tradition, Church Authority, and development – all crucial elements in the very human process of selection of the biblical Canon.

The Church is called the “Body” of Christ often (e.g., Eph. 1:22-3), and is compared to a seed which grows into a tree (Mt. 13:31-2). Seeds and bodies grow and expand. Yet Protestants tend to see Church and Doctrine as more like a statue, subject to pigeon droppings (i.e., so-called Catholic “corruptions”!). This robs the metaphors of Christ of their essential meaning. It is impossible to claim that no development occurred in Church history, or that it ceased after the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 5th century, etc. (all arbitrary human traditions). The Bible is not absolutely clear in every part, and requires the developing wisdom of the Church.

Doctrines agreed upon by all develop, too. The Divinity or Godhood of Christ was only finalized in 325, and the full doctrine of the Trinity in 381.The dogma of the Two Natures of Christ (God and Man) was proclaimed in 451. These decisions of General Councils of the Church were in response to challenging heresies. Why should Protestants accept these authoritative verdicts, but reject similar proclamations on Church government, the Eucharist, Mary, Purgatory, etc.?

Although understanding increases, the essential elements of doctrines exist from the beginning. Today’s Church shouldn’t be expected to look like the primitive Church if it is a living, vibrant, spiritual organism. But even the early Church looks like a small “Catholic tree.” It doesn’t look like a Protestant “statue,” doomed to be increasingly corrupted by an encroaching, “diabolical” Catholicism, as is imagined by millions of Protestants unacquainted with the early Church and the oldest source materials after the New Testament, such as the writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch (d.c. 110) and St. Clement of Rome (d.c.101).

John Henry Cardinal Newman (1801-1890), the great English convert to Catholicism, who is widely regarded as one of the most profound religious thinkers of his time, wrote in his Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (1845), the one indispensable work on this subject:

One thing at least is certain; whatever history teaches . . . at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this. And Protestantism . . . as a whole, feels it, and has felt it. This is shown in the determination . . . of dispensing with historical Christianity altogether, and of forming a Christianity from the Bible alone . . . To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.

If anything must be described, then, as a corruption of primitive, pure Christianity, it is Protestantism, not Catholicism, since it introduced a radically new mode of Christian authority which was a 180-degree departure from the established Christian Tradition: that of subjective, private judgment, tied in with the unbiblical, unhistorical, and unreasonable notion of “Scripture Alone.” Protestantism is much more of a corruption, if that word is defined as an essential change of direction or philosophy of an institution or a set of beliefs (in this case theological and spiritual).

One might say that an automobile was “corrupt” if the owner decided that it ran better with no muffler, no shocks, no air or fuel filters, half of its spark plugs, watered-down gas, no rear brakes, one headlight, no heat, three quarts low on oil, with half of its radiator coolant, etc. Corruption can consist of “subtraction” as well as “addition.” Protestantism’s charges against Catholicism, closely scrutinized, only come back to incriminate itself.

By and large, Protestantism merely asserts “sola Scriptura” without much consideration of the seriously-flawed implications of the same, and judges all doctrines accordingly. Therefore, those which are deemed to be either outright unbiblical or insufficiently grounded in Scripture to be authoritative, are jettisoned: the Marian doctrines, Purgatory, Penance, the papacy, etc. Apart from the question of Tradition as a legitimate carrier (alongside and in harmony with Scripture) of Christian belief, much more biblical support can be found in Scripture for these “Catholic” doctrines than Protestants suppose.

One simply needs to become familiar with Catholic biblical apologetic arguments. The idea of doctrinal development is a key, in any case, for understanding why the Catholic Church often appears on the surface as fundamentally different than the early Church. Thoughtful Protestants owe it to themselves and intellectual honesty to ponder this indispensable notion before lashing out at the allegedly “unbiblical excesses” of Catholicism.

Development of Doctrine: A Corruption of Biblical Teaching?

 

[GodsGrace]

Hi JD,

Jesus established a (singular) Church: Matthew 16:18.

We are to go to The Church (singular) to settle our differences when our brother sins against us and The Church has the final authority to decide if we are to be treated as a pagen or tax collector: Matthew 18:17

The Church (singular) is the pillar and foundation of truth: 1 Timothy 3:15

In 107 AD Igantius called that Church "Catholic": See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. —Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch 8

In your opinion which church is that "Catholic" church 1900 years later?

Curious Mary

Yes. I like @Jane_Doe22 but we just don't care to learn some church history, do we?

The CC IS THE ORIGINAL CHURCH!!
And I'm not even catholic.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

Hi JD,

Jesus established a (singular) Church: Matthew 16:18.

We are to go to The Church (singular) to settle our differences when our brother sins against us and The Church has the final authority to decide if we are to be treated as a pagen or tax collector: Matthew 18:17

The Church (singular) is the pillar and foundation of truth: 1 Timothy 3:15

In 107 AD Igantius called that Church "Catholic": See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. —Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch 8

In your opinion which church is that "Catholic" church 1900 years later?

Curious Mary

Mary, I do respect theCatholic Church. But your missionary efforts really taint the otherwise positive experiences I've had.

 

[Marymog]

Mary, I do respect theCatholic Church. But your missionary efforts really taint the otherwise positive experiences I've had.

Translation: I don't have an answer to your legitimate point which is backed up by Scripture and Christian history so I will go on believing what I can't back up with Scripture or facts.

 

[Marymog]

Mary, I do respect theCatholic Church. But your missionary efforts really taint the otherwise positive experiences I've had.

Hi JD,

You say you respect the CC but when I repeat the teachings of the CC somehow I am tainting you???

What do you respect about the CC?

Can you quote a passage from Scripture that tells us NOT to be missionaries????? I can quote several that tells us to be missionaries.

I practice what Scripture preaches.....do you?

Curious Mary

PS...I have a feeling you won't answer those questions but time will tell.

 

[GodsGrace]

Hi JD,

You say you respect the CC but when I repeat the teachings of the CC somehow I am tainting you???

What do you respect about the CC?

Can you quote a passage from Scripture that tells us NOT to be missionaries????? I can quote several that tells us to be missionaries.

I practice what Scripture preaches.....do you?

Curious Mary

PS...I have a feeling you won't answer those questions but time will tell.

You're a missionary?