Skip to comments.
How Old Is Your Church?
EWTN ^
| not given
| EWTN
Posted on 06/27/2009 10:01:54 AM PDT by Salvation
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180, 181-200, 201-220 ... 701-708 next last
To: Theo
No, Roman Catholicism wasnt founded in 33 AD. Roman Catholicism was founded much later, in ... ROME.She didn't say Roman Catholicism and didn't mean Roman Catholicsim.
She said Catholics, in the Catholic Church.
181
posted on
06/27/2009 2:12:04 PM PDT
by
Petronski
(In Germany they came first for the Communists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist...)
To: Salvation; All
If you are Catholic, you know that your religion was founded in the year 33 by Jesus Christ the Son of God, and it is still the same Church.
Seem rather petty (nay, even arrogant) to me, squabbling over who has the older or better religion and whatnot.
Especially considering the fact that what Christ wants is a personal relationship.
Congratulations to the Catholics though. (for whatever
that is worth)
182
posted on
06/27/2009 2:12:06 PM PDT
by
Fichori
To: Ruy Dias de Bivar
I asked a CofC preacher once if Eastern Orthodox Christians were saved since they practiced immersion baptism. he said NO, because one of his CofC preachers did not do the dipping.A preacher has no more authority than anybody else. ALL authority is held by Christ. (Matthew 28:18) If the guy didn't give book, chapter and verse in support of his position, I would not worry about what he said. We all would be well-served to search the scriptures for ourselves and not accept any religious claims without scriptural proof.
To: Mr Rogers
And repeating a claim (The Catholic Church was founded by Christ, circa AD 33) does not prove it.Repeating a claim does not prove it.
But history does.
184
posted on
06/27/2009 2:13:07 PM PDT
by
Petronski
(In Germany they came first for the Communists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist...)
To: Fichori
Especially considering the fact that what Christ wants is a personal relationship.
Where in the Scriptures does Christ talk about having a "personal relationship" with anyone?
185
posted on
06/27/2009 2:13:24 PM PDT
by
bdeaner
(The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? (1 Cor. 10:16))
To: Salvation
“a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven”
Umm...if I forgive someone, I don’t impose temporal punishment. If it removes punishment, then it removes the consequences of sin.
186
posted on
06/27/2009 2:13:55 PM PDT
by
Mr Rogers
(I loathe the ground he slithers on!)
To: Petronski
All those monks’ properties to plunder.
____________________________________
What would Catholic monks, sworn to poverty, be doing owning “properties” ????
To: Petronski
Then show the history. But to do that, you would have to show that Christ installed Peter as head of the Church - which all other denominations deny.
Based on scripture and history, I deny it as well. Acts 15:
“12 The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. 13 When they finished, James spoke up...19 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.”
Interesting. Peter was there, yet it was James who made the decision, based on testimony from Paul & Peter both.
It would seem history denies Peter was Numero Uno in the Church.
188
posted on
06/27/2009 2:19:13 PM PDT
by
Mr Rogers
(I loathe the ground he slithers on!)
To: bdeaner
Where in the Scriptures does Christ talk about having a "personal relationship" with anyone?
If you need to use quotes, then why did you ask the question?
You have not left me with the impression that you really want an answer.
189
posted on
06/27/2009 2:23:26 PM PDT
by
Fichori
To: bdeaner
One of the problems with evangelical Christianity is that we have perverted the meaning of Revelations 3. We talk of inviting Christ into our lives, when what we need is to be born again - to die with Christ to sin, and live with Christ as a new creation.
190
posted on
06/27/2009 2:25:57 PM PDT
by
Mr Rogers
(I loathe the ground he slithers on!)
To: Mr Rogers
HArdly ignorant — Baptists, Christian Scientists, both coming up with their own spin on things, so both the same. Neither are orthodox and both seem vaguel gnostic
191
posted on
06/27/2009 2:29:32 PM PDT
by
Cronos
(Ceterum censeo, Mecca et Medina delendae sunt + Jindal 2K12)
To: Colonel Kangaroo
We used to have lots of fun with CofC people here in the past. They haven’t been around in quite a while.
192
posted on
06/27/2009 2:29:36 PM PDT
by
Ruy Dias de Bivar
(A modern liberal is someone who doesn't care what you do so long as it is compulsory.)
To: Charles Henrickson
As a lutheran pastor, you need to be working to bring your flock into The Church instead of being outside.
193
posted on
06/27/2009 2:30:33 PM PDT
by
Cronos
(Ceterum censeo, Mecca et Medina delendae sunt + Jindal 2K12)
To: pburgh01
This thread is retarded and sad that some Catholic apologists have to resort to specious and vapid sophomoric argumentsAMEN!
194
posted on
06/27/2009 2:31:02 PM PDT
by
lonestar
(Obama is turning Bush's "mess" into a catastrophe.)
To: Mr Rogers; Charles Henrickson
And if you ask Charles, he'll say he's either ELCA or some other. In any case, the Lutherans and Anglicans are close to orthodoxy. They follow much of Apostolic Doctrine.
on the other hand, Baptists, Christian Scientists veer terribly close to heresy like the Jehovah's witnesses and mormon thoughts.
195
posted on
06/27/2009 2:33:14 PM PDT
by
Cronos
(Ceterum censeo, Mecca et Medina delendae sunt + Jindal 2K12)
To: wintertime
>>Hopefully you have seen my posts stating that a Christian’s ( Protestant and Catholic) **most** important mission is his **own** children. He second most important mission is the children of his congregation or parish.<<
Amen.
I was lead to Homeschool and I love it!
196
posted on
06/27/2009 2:33:44 PM PDT
by
netmilsmom
(Psalm 109:8 - Let his days be few; and let another take his office)
To: Cronos
As I said before, you are too ignorant to debate.
197
posted on
06/27/2009 2:34:21 PM PDT
by
Mr Rogers
(I loathe the ground he slithers on!)
To: Theo
No, Roman Catholicism wasnt founded in 33 AD. Roman Catholicism was founded much later, in ... ROME.
Really? When was this formed according to you?
198
posted on
06/27/2009 2:35:24 PM PDT
by
Cronos
(Ceterum censeo, Mecca et Medina delendae sunt + Jindal 2K12)
To: Petronski
That is true, there is the catholic church, but that is not the same as the Roman Catholic Church. They are two different things
To: Fichori
I figured you couldn’t come up with an answer. Nice dodge, though. ;)
200
posted on
06/27/2009 2:36:16 PM PDT
by
bdeaner
(The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? (1 Cor. 10:16))
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180, 181-200, 201-220 ... 701-708 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson