Who founded your church?

[Brakelite]

explain matt 16:18 Jn 20:21-22 and eph 2:20

Your right separation of church and state is immoral, the state requires the churches influence to be just and moral

It's a fact that the innate nature and goal of Catholicism is a union of church and state. Which is why several times I have mentioned that Catholicism cannot abide the constitution which separates church and state in line with biblical principles. The two are never to be mixed and God does not condone such a union which was one reason why He established the United States as a free republic, and why so many canned to America from Europe... To escape the tyranny of royal and papal authority. If you want to know God's perspective on church start unions, read scripture. I suggest you start perhaps with 2Chronicles26.

 

[farouk]

I would rather ask ‘ who founded the kingdom ‘ !!!! So, for me, the OP is a mute question and it’s irrelevant xx
Rita

@Barbara Rita, Ephesians 1 gloriously declares that the Lord Jesus is 'head over all things to the church, which is His body'.

 

[Brakelite]

You, and no one else, cannot define who or where are the true body of believers.
That is a superfluous and pretentious term, that carries very little weight because by definition alone, it defines no boundaries. The only way to delineate a body of believers is to stipulate its parameters by creed, and thus, by denomination.
So, the false church always categorizes itself as the undefinable 'true body of believers', of which no one has any tangible record of the unadulterated apostolic tradition, in order to prove its authenticity.
Just to make the claim incriminates oneself as to their naiveté, ignorance and pretense.

I disagree. God Himself identified the church even of these last days. This church would a global organisation. They would be abused and persecuted for righteousness sake. Though this church would grow greatly, it would be unpopular with other churches... Even to the point of being called a cult. He did so deliberately, specifically, and linked them to the final preaching of the gospel. The Bible tells us (for those who claim the name of Christ and still believe in the Bible) that the time is coming that the only denominations when Jesus comes will be those who have accepted the mark of the beast and are worshiping according to the government dictates. They are the daughters of the Mother, Babylon the Great. Because they have left the truth, they have become harlots in the same character as their mother from whom they originally came. This will leave only a small minority, a united movement who resist the majority traditions and pressures of the NWO. If they were at any stage a denomination, it has long been annulled by government decree due to their practicing their religion according to the Bible, and the Bible only. Teaching the true gospel, they will be accused of hate speech, hated of all nations for Christ’s sake, and be considered the execration of society. Accused of being the cause of God’s judgments falling upon the earth, they will in the end be sentenced to death. This is they who keep the commandments of God and have the faith of Jesus.(Revel. 12:17; 14:12) They are the only ones patiently waiting for Christ’s coming.

 

[amigo de christo]

Jesus founded His Church 2000 years ago. St. Ignatius, 1st century Bishop of Antioch and student of the Apostle John, referred this this ONE Church as "The Catholic Church" in his Letter to the Smyrnaeans at the beginning of the 2nd century.
MEN founded all of the Protestant splinter sects in the 16th century and beyond.

That's just a fact of history . . .

Both peter and mary will judge that roman catholic church . Peter never was no pope over that . And mary gonna say , yall should have been
praying to God , not me or men .

 

[amigo de christo]

Into Christ, thats where men need be,

Joh 15:4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.
Joh 15:5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.
Joh 15:6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

Problem is, He is consistently bypassed and left out.

Yes HE is bypassed and left out by many . I mean we got popes and protestants alike telling folks all paths are valid . Talk about rejecting JESUS
and the one true gospel . IF JESUS even told the jews who rejected him , ye are of your father the devil , believe me
he would say the same about any who reject HIM as the ONLY name that saves . I worry that many are falling for this pope
and this false all inclusive gospel . I mean even paul said , IF WE , OR EVEN AN ANGEL preach any other gosple let him be accursed .
PHEW WEE this ecumincalism IS DANGEROUS STUFF .

 

[Brakelite]

Yes HE is bypassed and left out by many . I mean we got popes and protestants alike telling folks all paths are valid . Talk about rejecting JESUS
and the one true gospel . IF JESUS even told the jews who rejected him , ye are of your father the devil , believe me
he would say the same about any who reject HIM as the ONLY name that saves . I worry that many are falling for this pope
and this false all inclusive gospel . I mean even paul said , IF WE , OR EVEN AN ANGEL preach any other gosple let him be accursed .
PHEW WEE this ecumincalism IS DANGEROUS STUFF .

Yep. There are as many roads that lead to heaven these days as there are roads that lead to Rome.

 

[mjrhealth]

Yep. There are as many roads that lead to heaven these days as there are roads that lead to Rome.

No only one just not walked by many.

 

[mjrhealth]

Ih.

Yes there is clearly a hierarchy, Him Us, still to this day denied because men care more for their religion than they do for Him, and every time you come here and deceive the masses you separate yourself from Him even more. He is the truth, the corner stone rejected even to this day.

 

[mjrhealth]

By "men" do you mean Catholics? By "religion" do you mean Christianity? How am I "deceiving the masses?"

Catholism is a religion like all mens religions, Maybe its time you asked Jesus, instead of men.. or is it the truth you are afraid of.

 

[Marymog]

Please people... Will you learn the difference between "mute" and "moot"! Sheesh!

Hi FHII,

Look at you!!! Reading my post so diligently that you noticed a common mistake made by a majority of people....Good for you!!

Your pointing out that the wrong word was used is a mute point to me. There are times I wish I had a moot button on this website so I could silence some people.

Mary

 

[Marymog]

WRONG.

Not only does Irenaeus list ALL of the Popes from his time (circa 180 AD) all the way back to Peter in his Against Heresises - Tertullian's De Pudicitia (circa 220 AD) excoriates Pope Callixtus I, referring to him as "Pontifex Maximus" and "Bishop of Bishops".

Let's not forget that Pope Victor dealt with the Quartodecimen controversy at the Council of Rome, which he presided over in 193 AD.
ALL of these instances were HUNDRES of years before your fictitious date of the "groundwork being laid" for the Papacy.

Nice try - but History proves you wrong . . .

Thanks for the Christian history lesson. Maybe someday people like @Backlit and others on this forum will realize that "To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant."

The information (Christian history) is out there and its soooo easy to access but yet they all ignore it.....They deny their own Christian history....

What I find fascinating is if we Catholics quote 1st or 2nd century writings showing what Christians were thinking, practicing, believing etc Protestants then say 'well that just proves that the NT is right because it says there were wolves amongst them'. Simply amazing....

They are unable to provide ANY evidence that 1st century Christianity was practicing, believing, teaching what they are arguing for but yet they claim that they belong to a NT Church........Fascinating!!!

Mary

 

[Marymog]

Catholism is a religion like all mens religions, Maybe its time you asked Jesus, instead of men.. or is it the truth you are afraid of.

You fascinate me mjrhealth with your unorthodox thinking!

Let me see if I have your theory correctly. You say we are supposed to ask Jesus instead of men.

What if I was to tell you that I did ask Jesus and that he led me to the Catholic Church! Do you believe me?

How do you know what 'truth' is? How is truth revealed to you?

Curious Mary

 

[Marymog]

There is such an irony of how you Catholics defend your faith and discredit others, by claiming that your opponents church has been established by the precepts and authority of men. And yet, every single one of your arguments that support your position, are based on historical events that are precipitated and substantiated by logic and events, that are entirely extraneous to Biblical authority - that is, the acts and decisions of unbridled men. Your entire history is not Bible based at all, but in defiance of it. If you are to claim apostolic succession, and even dare to concede to tradition, if you therefore do not demand a corroboration with Scripture, you must at least not have an antagonism with it. Papal primacy and infallibility, are satanic derived, bombastic and oppressive tactics, that have lead your 'fathers' into the most disgraceful acts of hedonism and licentiousness. For example, ever heard of the Borgias?

Hi DNB,

I have heard of Borgias! How does Borgias fit into your theory that The Church that Christ established with 12 men as it's leader who made decisions that were binding on all Christians isn't led by men? Or is your theory that The Church isn't led by Catholic men?

Curious Mary

 

[Marymog]

Justinian's Code laid the legal and prophetic
foundation for the rise of the Papacy.
AD March 533: Justinian's letter to John reads:
"Justinian: victor, pius, fortunate, ever Augustus, to John, the most holy Archbishop and patriarch of the noble city of Rome. Paying honor to the Apostolic See and to Your Holiness, as always has been and is our desire, and honoring your Blessedness as a father, we hasten to bring to the knowledge of Your Holiness all that pertains to the condition of the churches , since it has always been our great aim to safeguard the unity of your Apostolic See and the position of the holy churches of God which now prevails and abides securely without any disturbing trouble. Therefore we have been sedulous to subject and unite all the priests of the Orient throughout its whole extent to the See of Your Holiness. Whatever questions happen to be mooted at present , we have thought necessary to be brought to Your Holiness' knowledge, however clear and unquestionable they might be, and though firmly held and taught by all the clergy in accordance with the doctrine of Your Apostolic See; for we do not suffer that anything which is moored to Your Holiness, however clear and unquestionable, pertaining to the state of the churches, should fail to be known to Your Holiness, as being the head of all the churches. For as we have said before, we are zealous for the increase of the honor and authority of your See in all respects."

Justinian's Code in the edicts of the "Novellae;" in the preamble of the ninth it states:
"that the elder Rome was the founder of the laws; so was it not to be questioned that in her was the supremacy of the pontificate." In the 131st; chap. II, on the ecclesiastical titles and privileges it states: "We therefore decree that the most holy Pope of the elder Rome is the first of all the priesthood, and that the most blessed Archbishop of Constantinople, the new Rome, shall hold the second rank after the holy Apostolic chair of the elder Rome."
Pagan Rome, not the Apostles not Christ, laid the legal political and prophetic foundation for the establishment of the Papacy. 533ad was the date of the legal granting of civil and religious power to the bishop of Rome.
There is a twist to all this however, because Rome at that time was under an occupying power, and enemies to the Byzantine emperor, it was necessary that the city be liberated before the pontiff could exercise his new found authority. Legal authority is issues unless it could be put into effect right? This is where prophecy comes to the fore. This took place in 538ad when Bellisarius defeated the Goths and that Arian kingdom could no longer exercise power over the bishop, for until that time the Gothic king Theodosius had the final say on appointing bishops. So you can mark 538ad on your prophetic calendar.

Are you being serious? This is your evidence of an official document from the Roman Empire that gave birth to the Catholic Church?

Oh goodness.....You do know that The Church was called "Catholic" long before your "official document"?? And the history of it's Popes is well documented BEFORE your "official document"??

Who taught you this stuff???

Curious Mary

 

[Reggie Belafonte]

Mary is the Church, Christ Jesus is the head there of.
Without Mary there would be no Jesus, Mary is the Body, our Spiritual Mother the Church in a way and that we say yes ! to God, as she did in fact, just as we do abide in the Holy Spirit in Jesus as his body the Church.
Without Mary there would be no Church in Jesus Christ Spirit.

I am not talking about the stupid Mary worship that many clowns I have seen in the RCC do with excessive devotion to her that is in fact blasphemy in idolising her. that is not even true RCC doctrine but I have seen such madness.

Mary was the first Saint and then came the other Great Saints in Jesus Christ.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Both peter and mary will judge that roman catholic church . Peter never was no pope over that . And mary gonna say , yall should have been
praying to God , not me or men .

On the other hand - it might be Jesus who will ask YOU:
Why did you reject me?

He said of His Church:
Luke 10:16
Whoever listens to YOU listens to ME. Whoever rejects YOU rejects ME. And whoever rejects ME rejects the ONE who sent ME."

 

[BreadOfLife]

Of course. The church vaunted it's own imaginary status as ruler of the world for a long time before the actual state power conceded and legally conferred upon the Pope civil authority. That was the beginning of what the Catholic Church always identified herself as and is today actively working towards again... Universal civil and religious authority over all mankind. Total papal supremacy. Temporarily taken away in 1798, but reinstated at least for the Vatican city in 1929. But one small city of a couple thousand people isn't enough for Rome. Europe wasn't enough during the dark ages. Don't worry BoL. Your day will come. Feudalism, slavery, tyranny is coming again... Keep up the good work and you too may have a seat at the table.

Just so long as you realize that I destroyed your LIE about the "groundwork being laid" for the Papacy in 533 AD.
Oh - and the Pope's God-given Authority (Matt. 16:18-19) has never been "taken away".

Study your history nextime and you won't get humiliated . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

To excoriate is to criticize, does that not undermine your point - yet contradict the appellations?

Nope.

Tertullian went into heresy. He DID excoriate Pope Calixtus I - but he recognized his Papal Authority in his rant.

 

[theefaith]

Have you trouble-checked today yet? No? Well, then, let's trouble-check--Golleee!

hello doll!


you like pearly onions? Then twang my buds!

 

[BreadOfLife]

There is such an irony of how you Catholics defend your faith and discredit others, by claiming that your opponents church has been established by the precepts and authority of men. And yet, every single one of your arguments that support your position, are based on historical events that are precipitated and substantiated by logic and events, that are entirely extraneous to Biblical authority - that is, the acts and decisions of unbridled men. Your entire history is not Bible based at all, but in defiance of it. If you are to claim apostolic succession, and even dare to concede to tradition, if you therefore do not demand a corroboration with Scripture, you must at least not have an antagonism with it. Papal primacy and infallibility, are satanic derived, bombastic and oppressive tactics, that have lead your 'fathers' into the most disgraceful acts of hedonism and licentiousness. For example, ever heard of the Borgias?

The fact that there have been some bad Popes doesn't detract from Papal Authority. Those men will be judged by God.
One of the original leaders of the Church was a Devil (Judas) - and he was hand-picked by Jesus.

As for Scripture not being "in line" with Papal authority - you don't know your Bible very well.
In Acts 1 - Peter and the Apostles get together to choose a successor for Judas.
Acts 1:20 states:
"Let another take his office".

The Greek word used here for "office" is Episkopay - which means BISHOPRIC. The OFFICE of Bishop is successive, as we see in Scripture.

As for Peter and the Papacy - if Peter wasn't in charge . . .
a. Tell me WHY Jesus singled out Peter when He gave him the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven (Matt. 16:18-19) if did not put him in charge.

b. Tell me WHY Jesus asked Peter and Peter alone to feed His lambs and tend His sheep (John 21:15-19) if did not put him in charge.

c. Tell me WHY Jesus said that He prayed for Peter ALONE to strengthen the others and bring them back to faith (Luke 22:31-32) if did not put him in charge.

d. Tell me WHY Peter called "Protos" (First) in the Gospel (Matt. 10:2) if he was not in charge??

e. Tell me WHY Peter's name occurs first in all lists of apostles (Matt. 10:2; Mk 3:16; Luke 6:14; Acts 1:13) if he was not in charge??

f. Tell me WHY Peter is specified by an angel as the leader and representative of the apostles (Mark 16:7) if he was not in charge??

g. Tell me WHY Peter takes the lead in calling for a successor for Judas (Acts 1:22) if He was not in charge??

h. Tell me WHY Peter is the first person to speak (and only one recorded) after Pentecost, making him the first Christian to preach the Gospel in the Church (Acts 2:14-36) if he was not in charge??

i. Tell me WHY Peter works the first miracle of the Church Age, healing a lame man (Acts 3:6-12) if he was not in charge??

j. Tell me WHY Peter utters the first anathema (Ananias and Sapphira) affirmed by God (Acts 5:2-11) if He was not in charge??

k. Tell me WHY Peter is the first person after Christ to raise the dead (Acts 9:40) if he was not in charge??

l. Tell me WHY Cornelius is told by an angel to seek out Peter for instruction in Christianity (Acts 10:1-6) if he was not in charge??

m. Tell me WHY Peter's name is mentioned more often than all the other disciples put together if He was not in charge??

His name is mentioned 191 times (162 as Peter or Simon Peter, 23 as Simon and 6 as Cephas). John is the next with only 48 mentions, and Peter is present 50 percent of the time we find John in the Bible.