View Full Version : What is the true church??
Soundbear
08-16-2007, 11:39 AM
What is the true church??
I'd say it's a toss-up between the Jehovah's Witness or the Mormons.
Batman
08-16-2007, 12:52 PM
Under other circumstances I would laugh but since the Jehovah's Witnesses all but destroyed my family, I cannot appreciate that as humour. Sorry.
Sorry to hear that.
I'd be interested to hear the story if it's something you'd like to share, either in a thread or PM.
If not, that's very understandable, too.
You know I wouldn't have posted that if I knew someone had the negative experience you did /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif
From the guy who starts a thread called "Which is the true church?":
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
It would be nice to compare some important doctrines between religions. </div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In essentials, unity.
In non-essentials, liberty.
In all things, charity.
</div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I know you've defended differences of opinion between Roman Catholics as concerning matters not laid out as things RC's MUST believe.
Too bad you don't seem to be able to allow Protestants the same courtesy. Especially as you would find that the major tenets of their doctrines are the same as your own. </div></div>
Ladies and gentlemen, Barry Morris, hypocrite extraordinaire.
The Berean
08-16-2007, 05:28 PM
A hypocrite says one thing and does another. Maybe you better explain how this applies Speedy.
As far as the true church, it must be something beyond denomination. The Roman Catholics and most cults all claim to be it, but I doubt it.
A true believer, submitted to God, must be part of the true church, the Body of Christ.
Larimar
08-16-2007, 05:33 PM
I don't know which building is the correct building
but I will say my own opinion is that the true church is a temple-and that would be within Christ himself who resides in everyone who believes in him
The body is the true church, the true temple.
"Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body," (1 Cor. 6:19-20).
That's my opinion.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ConKat</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A hypocrite says one thing and does another. Maybe you better explain how this applies Speedy.
As far as the true church, it must be something beyond denomination. The Roman Catholics and most cults all claim to be it, but I doubt it.
A true believer, submitted to God, must be part of the true church, the Body of Christ. </div></div>
Jesus gave Peter the keys to the Church...not Scofield, not Martin Luther, not Billy Graham.
As to hypocrisy, you can see how Barry was talking about wanting to discuss things that religions had in common, and then strarts a thread in which he knows darn well arguments over who or what is the True Church would occur. That is hypocrisy, plain and simple.
I predicted after his brief moment of playing peace keeper and ecumenical leader who would soon devolve back into the old Barry; the one who always felt a false strength in numbers. I was, obviously, correct.
Rest assured, if Barry was on a board where there was one Protestant and six Catholics he would never ask such a question. Come to think of it, he'd never go on the board. He has enough troubles keeping up here, where other people carry his water for him constantly.
Soundbear
08-16-2007, 05:41 PM
I THINK you made a point.
The church is NOT a building. Which is why some churches will not use the term in reference to their meeting place.
As far as the rest, I think you've got it.
Thank you /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif
The Berean
08-16-2007, 05:53 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Jesus gave Peter the keys to the Church...not Scofield, not Martin Luther, not Billy Graham.
As to hypocrisy, you can see how Barry was talking about wanting to discuss things that religions had in common, and then strarts a thread in which he knows darn well arguments over who or what is the True Church would occur. That is hypocrisy, plain and simple.
</div></div>
To somebody who doesnt recognize the differecne between religion and the church, I suppose you would immediatly jump to that conclusion.
It is wrong of course.
Larimar
08-16-2007, 05:54 PM
Personally, the more I see different sects, lables and names-fights, arguements and seperations-the further I think people get from the true "church"
Christians Should (in my opinion, and I can be called wrong) be following Christ, their holy book, and God-not worrying about Sects, lables, and differences. The truth lies in our hearts not in a lecture a human gives in a building.
God is more than that in my opinion. It's so useless to argue who has the true "church"
Isn't the true church inside of you?
Can't you be anywhere and be with God?
Is there a correct Sect of Christianity?
Does it even matter?
Here is something beautiful to contemplate, (for those who believe this is true).
From Rev 21:
2 I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. 3And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. 4He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."
The dwelling of God is with men.
Right now, though God the Holy Spirit DOES dwell within his believers, in the culmination of all things, there will be no holding back. Justice, righteousness, holiness and purity, life to the fullest, joy unspeakable and unhindered access to Him...
Life, the way it was intended. Mankind with His creator in unbroken harmony.
The church ought to be a precursor of that.
"When Jesus and his disciples had finished eating, he asked, "Simon son of John, do you love me more than the others do?"
Simon Peter answered, "Yes, Lord, you know I do!"
"Then feed my lambs," Jesus said.
Jesus asked a second time, "Simon son of John, do you love me?"
Peter answered, "Yes, Lord, you know I love you!"
"Then take care of my sheep," Jesus told him.
Jesus asked a third time, "Simon son of John, do you love me?"
Peter was hurt because Jesus had asked him three times if he loved him. So he told Jesus, "Lord, you know everything. You know I love you."
Jesus replied, "Feed my sheep."
Was Jesus leaving sheep for Peter to tend? Of course not.
Sheep represent the weak; those in need of guidance. The early Christians of Jesus' newly-established Church certainly needed guidance, as we no doubt today need guidance, also.
Peter was given the instruction to feed Jesus' 'sheep' (His Church). The Roman Catholic Church traces its first priest to Peter.
Let's see what some Protestants have said about Peter:
ALBERT BARNES
(NINETEENTH-CENTURY PRESBYTERIAN)
"The meaning of this phrase may be thus expressed: ‘Thou, in saying that I am the Son of God, hast called me by a name expressive of my true character. I, also, have given to thee a name expressive of your character. I have called you Peter, a rock. . . . I see that you are worthy of the name and will be a distinguished support of my religion" [Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, 170].
JOHN BROADUS
( NINETEENTH-CENTURY CALVINISTIC BAPTIST)
"As Peter means rock, the natural interpretation is that ‘upon this rock’ means upon thee. . . . It is an even more far-fetched and harsh play upon words if we understand the rock to be Christ and a very feeble and almost unmeaning play upon words if the rock is Peter’s confession" [Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 356].
CRAIG L. BLOMBERG
( CONTEMPORARY BAPTIST)
"The expression ‘this rock’ almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following ‘the Christ’ in verse 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter’s name (Petros) and the word ‘rock’ (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the Rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification" [New American Commentary: Matthew, 22:252].
J. KNOX CHAMBLIN
( CONTEMPORARY PRESBYTERIAN)
"By the words ‘this rock’ Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter’s confession, but Peter himself. The phrase is immediately preceded by a direct and emphatic reference to Peter. As Jesus identifies himself as the builder, the rock on which he builds is most naturally understood as someone (or something) other than Jesus himself" ["Matthew" in Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, 742].
R. T. FRANCE
( CONTEMPORARY ANGLICAN)
"The word-play, and the whole structure of the passage, demands that this verse is every bit as much Jesus’ declaration about Peter as verse 16 was Peter’s declaration about Jesus. Of course it is on the basis of Peter’s confession that Jesus declares his role as the Church’s foundation, but it is to Peter, not his confession, that the rock metaphor is applied" (Gospel According to Matthew, 254).
HERMAN RIDDERBOS
( CONTEMPORARY DUTCH REFORMED)
"It is well known that the Greek word petra translated ‘rock’ here is different from the proper name Peter. The slight difference between them has no special importance, however. The most likely explanation for the change from petros (‘Peter’) to petra is that petra was the normal word for ‘rock.’ . . . There is no good reason to think that Jesus switched from petros to petra to show that he was not speaking of the man Peter but of his confession as the foundation of the Church. The words ‘on this rock [petra]’ indeed refer to Peter" [Bible Student’s Commentary: Matthew, 303].
DONALD HAGNER
( CONTEMPORARY EVANGELICAL)
"The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny [that Peter is the rock] in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock . . . seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy" (Word Biblical Commentary 33b:470).
Peter's Confession of Christ
13When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"
14They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
15"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"
16Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ,[a] the Son of the living God."
17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter,[b] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[c] will not overcome it.[d] 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[e] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[f] loosed in heaven." 20Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.
Not to Luther, not to Hal Lindsey...to Peter.
Larimar
08-16-2007, 06:06 PM
sooo, wouldn't the true church have died out the day Peter did?
and only "guesses" to what's right been carried on no matter who took over?
The Berean
08-16-2007, 06:08 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DreamSpirit</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Personally, the more I see different sects, lables and names-fights, arguements and seperations-the further I think people get from the true "church"
Christians Should (in my opinion, and I can be called wrong) be following Christ, their holy book, and God-not worrying about Sects, lables, and differences. The truth lies in our hearts not in a lecture a human gives in a building.
God is more than that in my opinion. It's so useless to argue who has the true "church"
Isn't the true church inside of you?
Can't you be anywhere and be with God?
Is there a correct Sect of Christianity?
Does it even matter? </div></div>
DS, seems to me you have a better understanding that a lot of Christians I know.
Isn't the true church inside of you? Yes, or more properly the believer is part of the true church. Jesus and the Holy Spirit live inside us. We are His temple.
Can't you be anywhere and be with God? True, believers always are.
Is there a correct Sect of Christianity? Nobody knows it all.
Does it even matter? Something matters. "Depart from me I never knew you" isnt in the bible for nothing.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Is there a correct Sect of Christianity?
Does it even matter?</div></div>
Yes.
Look at what mankind does to things it is left in complete charge of. The results are not encouraging.
To believe God would simply let every man decide for himself what Scripture says is not only wrong, but very dangerous. Also, if this belief in sola scriptura actually worked then why are there so many different Protestant denominations? While they agree on some things, obviously they disagree on other important thing; why would you breakaway and start your own denomination if your argument with your former parishioner was only minuscule and not very important?
God does not leave it up to man to decide for himself what God says. Jesus established his church upon the primacy of Peter.
The Berean
08-16-2007, 06:12 PM
There is only one true church.
It encompasses all believers.
Denomination does not matter.
Color me un-impressed by your lengthy oration.
Larimar
08-16-2007, 06:15 PM
Mostly, this seems about power and control-Not about the original truth-Following Gods love, Jesus's path...
Do you really think Jesus would answer this question as simply as saying- (" X is the true church") I doubt it.
Our Protestant friends are going off the musings of men born after 1800 in many instances, added to the writings of Martin Luther, in the early-1500's.
That means the earliest writer they look to came along almost 1,500 year after Jesus.
What about the educated people who lived one and two hundred years after Jesus?
Let's see:
Tertullian
"Peter alone [among the apostles] do I find married, and through mention of his mother-in-law. I presume he was a monogamist; for the Church, built upon him, would for the future appoint to every degree of orders none but monogamists" [1 Tim. 3:2, 12]. (On Monogamy 8:4 [A.D. 213]).
Clement of Alexandria
"[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the pre-eminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? 'Behold, we have left all and have followed you'" [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28] (Who Is the Rich Man That is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 190]).
Origen
"Look at [Peter], the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church [Matt. 16:18]. And what does our Lord say to him? 'Oh you of little faith,' he says, 'why do you doubt?'" [Matt. 14:31] (Homilies on Exodus 5:4 [post A.D. 244]).
Cyprian
"Our Lord, whose commands we ought to fear and observe, says in the Gospel, by way of assigning the episcopal dignity and settling the plan of his Church: 'I say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they will be loosed also in heaven'" [Matt. 16:18-19]. From that time the ordination of bishops and the plan of the Church flows on through the changes of times and successions, for the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers. Since this has indeed been established by divine law, I marvel at the rash boldness of certain persons who have desired to write me as if they were writing letters in the name of the Church . . ." (Epistle to the Lapsed 33:(27):1 [A.D. 250]).
Cyprian
"And the Lord too, in the Gospel, when the disciples abandoned him while he was speaking, turned to the twelve and said, 'And do you too wish to go away?' Peter answered him saying, 'Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, and we believe and know that you are the Son of the living God' [John 6:66-69]. There speaks Peter, upon whom the Church would be built, teaching in the name of the Church and showing that even if a stubborn and proud multitude withdraws because it does not wish to obey, yet the Church does not withdraw from Christ. The people joined to the priest and the flock clinging to their shepherd are the Church. You ought to know, then, that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishop, and if someone is not with the bishop, he is not in the Church. They vainly flatter themselves who creep up, not having peace with the priests of God, believing that they are secretly in communion with certain individuals. For the Church, which is one and Catholic, is not split nor divided, but it is indeed united and joined by the cement of priests who adhere one to another" (Epistle to Florentius Pupi**** 66:(69):8 [A.D. 254]).
Cyprian
"For Peter, whom the Lord chose first and upon whom he built his Church, when Paul later disagreed with him about circumcision, did not claim for himself insolently or assume anything arrogantly, so as to say that he [Peter] held the primacy and that he ought rather to be obeyed by novices and those more recently arrived" (Epistle to Quintas 71:3 [A.D. 254-255]).
Cyprian
"On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251]).
Cyprian
"It is on one man that he [Jesus] builds his Church; and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles after his Resurrection, . . . nevertheless, in order that unity might be clearly shown, he established by his own authority a source for that unity, so that it may be clear that there is but one Church of Christ" (Ibid. 4; second edition).
Ephraim
"Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on Earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the first-born in my institution so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures" (Homilies 4:1 [post A.D. 338]).
Cyril of Jerusalem
"The Lord is loving toward men, swift to pardon but slow to punish. Let no man despair of his own salvation. Peter, the first and foremost of the apostles, denied the Lord three times before a little servant girl, but he repented and wept bitterly. Weeping is demonstrative of repentance from the depth of the heart, which is why he not only received the forgiveness of his denial, but also kept his apostolic dignity without forfeit" (Catechetical Lectures 2:19 [A.D. 350]).
Cyril
"In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis" [Acts 9:32-34] (Ibid. 17:27).
Now, why do our Protestant friends take as the gospel truth those that lived 1,500 year after Jesus, yet ignore the writings of those who were much, much closer to Jesus in at the very least a chronological sense?
Soundbear
08-16-2007, 06:21 PM
The Roman Catholics have caught themselves up in a contradiction.
They claim to be the one true church, the Body of Christ.
There can only be one true church, one Body of Christ.
Those who do not accept the leadership of the Pope and the the tenets of the Roman Catholic Church are NOT Roman Catholics and NOT part of the church.
The Pope calls those outside the Roman Catholic Church "separated bretheren".
But they CANNOT be bretheren if they are not part of the Church.
So either they ARE part of the Body of Christ or they are not.
If they are then the Body of Christ is something MORE than the Roman Catholic Church.
Which is what I believe.
Soundbear
08-16-2007, 06:24 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DreamSpirit</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mostly, this seems about power and control-Not about the original truth-Following Gods love, Jesus's path...
Do you really think Jesus would answer this question as simply as saying- (" X is the true church") I doubt it. </div></div>
Your understanding is acute.
Most churches do indeed exist because somebody wanted power and control. Doctrine is seldom the issue.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Roman Catholics have caught themselves up in a contradiction.
They claim to be the one true church, the Body of Christ.
There can only be one true church, one Body of Christ.
Those who do not accept the leadership of the Pope and the the tenets of the Roman Catholic Church are NOT Roman Catholics and NOT part of the church.
The Pope calls those outside the Roman Catholic Church "separated bretheren".
But they CANNOT be bretheren if they are not part of the Church.
So either they ARE part of the Body of Christ or they are not.
If they are then the Body of Christ is something MORE than the Roman Catholic Church.
Which is what I believe. </div></div>
This, of course, is completely wrong.
I would ask anyone who is interested as to what the Catholic Church believes as to how it has a relationship with its "separated brethren" to access the catechism of the Roman Catholic Church: Catechism of the Catholic Church (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm)
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Pope calls those outside the Roman Catholic Church "separated bretheren".
But they CANNOT be bretheren if they are not part of the Church. </div></div>
Let's take Barry's simplistic view to its logical extent:
You have a brother.
That brother leaves the family over a disagreement.
Is that brother no longer a part of your family? That, of course, is silly.
He is still part of your family, though separated.
What the C of the RCC says:
836 "All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God. . . . And to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God's grace to salvation."
1202 The diverse liturgical traditions have arisen by very reason of the Church's mission. Churches of the same geographical and cultural area came to celebrate the mystery of Christ through particular expressions characterized by the culture: in the tradition of the "deposit of faith," in liturgical symbolism, in the organization of fraternal communion, in the theological understanding of the mysteries, and in various forms of holiness. Through the liturgical life of a local church, Christ, the light and salvation of all peoples, is made manifest to the particular people and culture to which that Church is sent and in which she is rooted. The Church is catholic, capable of integrating into her unity, while purifying them, all the authentic riches of cultures.
2028 "All Christians . . . are called to the fullness of Christian life and to the perfection of charity" (LG 40 § 2). "Christian perfection has but one limit, that of having none" (St. Gregory of Nyssa, De vita Mos.: PG 44, 300D).
2791 For this reason, in spite of the divisions among Christians, this prayer to "our" Father remains our common patrimony and an urgent summons for all the baptized. In communion by faith in Christ and by Baptism, they ought to join in Jesus' prayer for the unity of his disciples.
855 The Church's mission stimulates efforts towards Christian unity. Indeed, "divisions among Christians prevent the Church from realizing in practice the fullness of catholicity proper to her in those of her sons who, though joined to her by Baptism, are yet separated from full communion with her. Furthermore, the Church herself finds it more difficult to express in actual life her full catholicity in all its aspects."
1474 The Christian who seeks to purify himself of his sin and to become holy with the help of God's grace is not alone. "The life of each of God's children is joined in Christ and through Christ in a wonderful way to the life of all the other Christian brethren in the supernatural unity of the Mystical Body of Christ, as in a single mystical person."
As you can see, listening to Barry will get you nowhere fast.
The Berean
08-16-2007, 06:54 PM
"in spite of the divisions among Christians, this prayer to "our" Father remains our common patrimony and an urgent summons for all the baptized. In communion by faith in Christ and by Baptism, they ought to join in Jesus' prayer for the unity of his disciples"
So in spite of their rejection of Rome and her authority, non-Roman Ctholic believers are part of the Body of Christ???
Yes.
If my brother disowns our family he is still my brother in the familial sense, because blood cuts across human-made divisions. With God, it is his spiritual transcendence, not blood, that keeps the ties.
If some of God's people stray from the Church left by Jesus they do not forfeit the fact they are still part of God's family and saved by the holy sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
It is Protestants who have always been hung up on decreeing who is saved and who is damned.
True Catholicism has always held out its hands to its separated brethren and said, "Come! Experience the FULLNESS of Jesus in the Church He left!!"
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> 2 I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. 3And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. 4He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."
The dwelling of God is with men</div></div>
Of course. Do you think Catholics believe God lives in a suite in the Vatican or St. Peter's Basilica?
But you have a problem here: That quote is from the Book of Revelations, which is the last book of the Bible, and one you believe tells how the world will end and usher in Jesus' Second Coming. Also, you are a Dispensationalist (or at the very least you subscribe to the views of the leading Dispensationalists), thus you believe God works in stages in human history.
Therefore, do you not believe the dispensation (stage) described in the quote you provided from the Book of Revelation is a stage yet to come? As such, this quote could hardly be used by you, because it describes how men WILL BE, (but are not yet as that stage has yet to arrive) living among God and He among them, as your dispensationalist views believe this has yet to happen.
Therefore, that Bible passage in this instance has no bearing, according to your stance.
The Berean
08-16-2007, 10:34 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> 2 I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. 3And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. 4He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."
The dwelling of God is with men</div></div>
Of course. Do you think Catholics believe God lives in a suite in the Vatican or St. Peter's Basilica?
But you have a problem here: That quote is from the Book of Revelations, which is the last book of the Bible, and one you believe tells how the world will end and usher in Jesus' Second Coming. Also, you are a Dispensationalist (or at the very least you subscribe to the views of the leading Dispensationalists), thus you believe God works in stages in human history.
Therefore, do you not believe the dispensation (stage) described in the quote you provided from the Book of Revelation is a stage yet to come? As such, this quote could hardly be used by you, because it describes how men WILL BE, (but are not yet as that stage has yet to arrive) living among God and He among them, as your dispensationalist views believe this has yet to happen.
Therefore, that Bible passage in this instance has no bearing, according to your stance. </div></div>
Cute the way you tell us what we belieev.
Wrong though.
The Berean
08-16-2007, 10:37 PM
"If some of God's people stray from the Church left by Jesus they do not forfeit the fact they are still part of God's family and saved by the holy sacrifice of Jesus Christ."
Thank you very much.
So it looks like Barry is right. You dont have to be a Roman Catholic to get into heaven.
Not only that, onece one is in the family, you cant lose your salvation.
What did RWGR say?? Cut print, or game and match or something??
/ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif
The Berean
08-16-2007, 10:39 PM
Or is it now time to claim you dont understand?? I can never keep your tactics in order, sorry
/ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif
You are missing out on the Fullness of Jesus by staying away. The truth is out there, but your ego and pride stands in the way.
If that's good enough for you, explain it to Jesus, not me. I'm the least of your worries.
The Berean
08-16-2007, 10:46 PM
Color me un-impressed by your lengthy oration.
So you figure we only have, say, 50 percent of the Holy Spirit, or 75 percent of Christ living in us, or we are half-brotheres in the family???
I dont think that makes a lot of sense, any more than your mystical "fullnes".
Again, you create a strawman just to knock him down.
What do you think you are accomplishing by creating what I say and then refuting it? Do you think people are blind to what was really said?
Larimar
08-16-2007, 10:49 PM
How many other religions have as many diverse sects and different beliefs as do the Christians?
None, I would think.
Those differences come from Protestantism.
Larimar
08-16-2007, 10:51 PM
I dunno Parrotty dude...
You said that we are missing out on the "fullness" of Jesus..meanin we half only a bit-or a half..that doesn't make much sense...not to me anyways..hum?
Larimar
08-16-2007, 10:52 PM
How come all other religions have been able to stand so strong in their unity for centuries upon centuries where Christians and Catholics can't seem to keep together?
The Berean
08-16-2007, 10:53 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Again, you create a strawman just to knock him down.
What do you think you are accomplishing by creating what I say and then refuting it? Do you think people are blind to what was really said? </div></div>
Excuse me Speedy, but I didnt use you tactic of misquoting. If "fullness of Jesus" doesn't mean thaose things to you, perhaps you could explain what it DOES mean
Well, it shouldn't make too much sense right away...it's new for you. It's theology you haven't been exposed to.
Look it up. Read some Catholic apologists, especially those who are former Protestants.
Do it to prove me wrong, if you wish. If that's your motivation to do so, that's alright.
But look into it.
Check out the bulletin board on the link. It's full of Protestants or former Protestant. They probably have many of the same questions you do.
As I say, if for nothing else do it to prove me wrong.
LINK (http://www.chnetwork.org/)
Soundbear
08-16-2007, 10:58 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DreamSpirit</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How come all other religions have been able to stand so strong in their unity for centuries upon centuries where Christians and Catholics can't seem to keep together? </div></div>
Just so you know, DS. Speedy is the only Catholic I don't get along with. I have many Roman Catholic friends, and I work for them on a regular basis.
Speedy just likes to argue. Other Roman Catholics get along much better with their Protestant counterparts.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DreamSpirit</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How come all other religions have been able to stand so strong in their unity for centuries upon centuries where Christians and Catholics can't seem to keep together? </div></div>
Islam broke into Shi'ite and Sunni sects soon after Mohhamed. Most other religions I know of have different sects.
Again, the Protestants ("protest") left the Catholic Church. It is they who have splintered into 40,000 different denominations today.
The RCC has remained steadfast. Your argument is with the Reformation, I believe.
Larimar
08-16-2007, 11:02 PM
Prove you wrong on what?
I'm just asking b.c you seemed so anxious to show how the RCC stands tall still after so many other institutes have fallen, in your other thread-and yet Christians are also one of the only Religions to split apart so much(yes there's like one or two other religions also). It's really not so fascinating when I remember that.
I'm not here to prove you wrong on anything at all. I'm just questioning you, if anything maybe you should critically think some more. I may not have a huge education or understanding on theology that perhaps you have..but sometimes it takes simple questions to reveal big answers.
I don't mind if you don't agree at all. I still do not think there is a true church standing today.
Jesus would tear those Gold figures down if he was physically with us today. Or do you deny that ?
Okay guys, Barry is on his character assassination kick again, he'll add nothing to the conversation.
He doesn't want you to look deep into Catholic theology, either; so he'll attack me to try to dissuade you from doing so.
The Berean
08-16-2007, 11:03 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well, it shouldn't make too much sense right away...it's new for you. It's theology you haven't been exposed to.
Look it up. Read some Catholic apologists, especially those who are former Protestants.
Do it to prove me wrong, if you wish. If that's your motivation to do so, that's alright.
But look into it.
Check out the bulletin board on the link. It's full of Protestants or former Protestant. They probably have many of the same questions you do.
As I say, if for nothing else do it to prove me wrong.
LINK (http://www.chnetwork.org/)
</div></div>
Oh, Speedy, I wish you could answer for yourself.
If all else fails, send them to some website where if they search for a week they might find something related to the question.
BTW, Ive been exposed to a lot of theology. Mostly better than yours.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Christians are also one of the only Religions to split apart so much. It's really not so fascinating when I remember that.</div></div>
Again, your argument is with Protestantism. Why the RCC still stands has nothing to do with that.
Larimar
08-16-2007, 11:06 PM
Barry, it's okay I was raised in a Catholic family-and They are wonderful people who aren't so full of pride and judgements. If you are worried about how I see the catholic and pope-I question things, but I don't think any less of them in reality.
The Berean
08-16-2007, 11:06 PM
Your response to Barry is funny.
You have to send Me to a website because YOU cant answer!!!
Hes certainly right about you getting along - with anyone.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ConKat</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well, it shouldn't make too much sense right away...it's new for you. It's theology you haven't been exposed to.
Look it up. Read some Catholic apologists, especially those who are former Protestants.
Do it to prove me wrong, if you wish. If that's your motivation to do so, that's alright.
But look into it.
Check out the bulletin board on the link. It's full of Protestants or former Protestant. They probably have many of the same questions you do.
As I say, if for nothing else do it to prove me wrong.
LINK (http://www.chnetwork.org/)
</div></div>
Oh, Speedy, I wish you could answer for yourself.
If all else fails, send them to some website where if they search for a week they might find something related to the question.
BTW, Ive been exposed to a lot of theology. Mostly better than yours. </div></div>
Again, character assassination.
What are you gaining by this, besides proving you are nervous when defending your faith?
Are you angry I can go to a website and have all your questions answered? That is something you cannot do, and it bugs you.
Larimar
08-16-2007, 11:08 PM
"Again, character assassination."
And calling me a silly and juvenile wasn't?
And can I ask how well it is you guys have felt you have done helping people see the Protestant side?
Attacking Catholics everytime a question is asked about your faith won't exactly get converts knocking on your church doors /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif
Soundbear
08-16-2007, 11:10 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DreamSpirit</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Barry, it's okay I was raised in a Catholic family-and They are wonderful people who aren't so full of pride and judgements. If you are worried about how I see the catholic and pope-I question things, but I don't think any less of them in reality. </div></div>
I have every respect for the late Pope John Paul II. A more godly man probably never lived. And my RC friends are closer to Jesus than most of my Baptist friends.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DreamSpirit</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"Again, character assassination."
And calling me a silly and juvenile wasn't? </div></div>
No, because I knew you were issuing a knee-jerk reaction, and you could do better. You even admitted you knew very little of the wealth/power combination as it relates to former superpowers in world history; yet that didn't stop you from making wealth and power your first answer.
You seem bent on attacking people now, too. Maybe we can continue tomorrow.
Larimar
08-16-2007, 11:11 PM
There was a Pope who claimed to believe that Animals have souls -and I respected him, was this the same pope? I'll have to double check.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And my RC friends are closer to Jesus than most of my Baptist friends. </div></div> /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/shocked.gif
Okay...you don't go anywhere until you explain that one!! :
Larimar
08-16-2007, 11:13 PM
"You seem bent on attacking people now, too. Maybe we can continue tomorrow. "
Who am I attacking? you asked why they are still standing? Isn't that asking opinions?
I think it has to do with wealth and power-if you don't that's fine, but that's not attacking anyone at all.
The Berean
08-16-2007, 11:14 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Are you angry I can go to a website and have all your questions answered? That is something you cannot do, and it bugs you. </div></div>
Are you kidding??
Theres a bazillion anti-catholic sites out there, and sites that teach truth.
I just believe in learning for myself, not "parroting" some website, or using the "catechism" with thousands of obscure entries as a backstop.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think it has to do with wealth and power </div></div>
But how do we reconcile that with the fact just a few posts ago you said you knew very little of the wealth/power association in world history as it relates to world superpowers?
How do you explain entities MUCH more powerful and rich than the RCC declining and dying? Why has the RCC outlasted these entities?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ConKat</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Are you angry I can go to a website and have all your questions answered? That is something you cannot do, and it bugs you. </div></div>
Are you kidding??
Theres a bazillion anti-catholic sites out there, and sites that teach truth.
I just believe in learning for myself, not "parroting" some website, or using the "catechism" with thousands of obscure entries as a backstop. </div></div>
That says a lot.
Very, very telling.
Thanks for being truthful.
Larimar
08-16-2007, 11:19 PM
"But how do we reconcile that with the fact just a few posts ago you said you knew very little of the wealth/power association in world history as it relates to world superpowers?"
I said I didn't know b.c I was being truthful in letting you know this wasn't a factual claim it was my "opinion" it needs not be based on anything at all. You'd be making more sense right now if I had claimed my views were fact, but I never once did that. So how it gets back to me attacking anything is beyond me. At least I have the maturity to let people know that I'm not standing on a soap box with "facts" and how much i Truly know about anything-you'll never get to know.
Do you think opinions are strengthened when background information is used to form them?
Larimar
08-16-2007, 11:22 PM
Are you trying to preach how people should talk and express themselves now?
Of course I believe that informed opinions are better then uninformed ones, and again I never claimed to have an informed opinion, I let you know straight out that I didn't know. You are making mountains here where there are not any. You are trying to justify an attack on me -of character- instead of swallowing your pride and saying sorry.
So very Christian of you.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I just believe in learning for myself, not "parroting" some website, or using the "catechism" with thousands of obscure entries as a backstop.</div></div>
If the RCC is wrong, as you claim, then it doesn't matter who is providing the information...me, the Catechism, a website...it doesn't matter, because if the information is fundamentally wrong then it should be easy for you to show us.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DreamSpirit</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are you trying to preach how people should talk and express themselves now?
Of course I believe that informed opinions are better then uninformed ones, and again I never claimed to have an informed opinion, I let you know straight out that I didn't know. You are making mountains here where there are not any. You are trying to justify an attack on me -of character- instead of swallowing your pride and saying sorry.
So very Christian of you. </div></div>
So we can end this by saying as of this time it cannot be explained why the RCC still stands today, yet other vastly more powerful and rich entities throughout history have vanished.
Or, do you want to say it is explained by your uninformed opinion it is money and power?
I ask in an honest manner.
starterwiz
08-20-2007, 02:49 PM
Perhaps for the same reason that there are still KISS fans.
Some people just follow with closed minds.
Hmmmm...still not any answers worth much at all.
Wonder why that is...
starterwiz
08-20-2007, 03:17 PM
That's only 'cause you haven't heard the answer you want to hear yet.
I haven't heard much at all, but a self-admitted uninformed opinion and a few knee-jerk responses here and there.
Powered by vBulletin™ Version 4.0.7 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.