Posted on 01/14/2012 8:23:15 PM PST by bibletruth
In the present dispensation there is only ONE true Church, which is called the Body of Christ separate and distinct from the prophesied, earthly kingdom of Christ vested in redeemed National Israel as a called-out nation or church, assembly or congregation, above all other nations.
& you, and a lot of Catholics are going to be shocked to find out just how far “the church” has lead you astray. The ridiculous (and biblically unsound) notion of purgatory being the least of your shocks.
Little Church”? Really, are you serious? That is so demeaning...
You personally may not be protesting the Catholic church or any other church for that matter, but that is EXACTLY where the term Protestant came from...those that protested at the time Catholic doctrine.
that would be the Reformed Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
All others are impostors. Just ask any priest of the Reformed Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and he will give you the straight skinny.
And they are unbiased, too, due to being a proper Priest of the correct Church.
• There is actually very little proof that Peter was even in Rome. Read Paul’s letter to the Romans in Romans 16: 1-15. He mentions everyone of note but nothing about or to Peter. Not only that but in Romans Paul is giving instructions in the faith if Peter was already the Bishop of Rome. If Catholics are right Peter would have been Paul’s superior. Yet Paul never mentions him in his letter to the church at Rome and gives them instructions in the faith. If Peter had been in Rome as it’s Bishop there certainly would have been mention and there would have been no need to “go over his bosses head” and give instruction in the faith.
There is no record in the Bible or elsewhere, of Peter issuing instructions to the diocese of Rome. What an amazing oversight by a supposedly infallible commander-in-chief! In addition to that, Paul wrote to Timothy from Rome.
2 Timothy 4:9-12 - "Do thy diligence to come shortly unto me: For Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world, and is departed unto Thessalonica; Crescens to Galatia, Titus unto Dalmatia. Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry. And Tychicus have I sent to Ephesus."
Where was Peter the supposed Bishop of Rome? Again in 2 Timothy Paul is giving instructions to Timothy. If Peter was the Supreme Pontiff of Rome why is Paul writing from Rome with no mention of Peter?
Then there is Irenaeus.
Irenaeus: "The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. . . . . To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus, was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Sorer having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth (SOURCE: Iraeneus Against Heresies, Volume I, Book III, Para 3)
Did you notice that it was Paul who made mention of Linus, not Peter? With no indication of Peter ever being in Rome nor any indication that Peter in fact was the head of the Apostles there can be no legitimate claim that Peter was the first Pope or that the RC was built on Peter.
| Gospel | John 1:35-42 © |
|---|
Do you really think that the Creator of man in His own image, happened to have a senior moment, where after Creation He said, “DOH!, I forgot how to communicate with man and that it could be removed from Me!”
His Word will endure and He doesn’t need anybody else for His Plan to succeed.
That is your belief! You may be the one who is shocked!
Again just like Liberals and Conservatives, you feel your side of the equation is the correct one.
Like Liberals, some of you seem to have to find ways to attack the Catholic Church. I think some people get their views from the Church of Saul Alinsky...
I thank God for preserving the scripture for me because He alone allowed men to preserve it for all posterity. For centuries the Catholics keep the scriptures in Latin and made feeble attempt to teach the masses of people Latin so that they could read God’s Word; rather, they hid the truth from so many until they formulated their very own doctrines and cannons and after a few hundred years were exposed with new German and English translations; they finally succumbed to the pressure God placed upon the Latin Bible to be freely translated into language that everyone could benefit from God’s Word. I only thank God for preserving the scripture because He alone allowed it to be preserved so that men and women could read it in their native tongue. Catholics only hid the truth, until they were finished killing and burning Christians at the stake (know your history). Those Catholics Monks were only used by God to keep scriptures copied from generation to generation - it was God who keep them alive and allowed them to be educated - to God be all the glory, not to man.
I would agree with you on that statement.
However, the debate we are having seems to focus on history, and history cannot be denied, only interpreted.
The “history” of the Church is recorded, documented, and actual and did not start to change until “MAN” changed it during the Protestant revolution.
If you were following the discussion you would have known we were talking about the passage in Matthew 16 not John 1.
Good point, an Apostle to the Gentiles.
mark for tomorrow
Who said Peter was in Rome at the time?
I merely stated that there was aPope ever since Peter, that cannot be denied. Logical and critical thinking would tell someone that there was a natural progression all the way up to the current Pope....starting at the time of Peter, which, is mentioned in the bible.
People who are not Cathoic and choose to believe a different version of events seem to never want to focus on tha verse “upon this rock you shall build my church and the gates of hell shall not pervail against it ...I confir you and you confirm your brethren”
Was a Pope throughout history, an actual living breathing person since that time!
The church changed quite a bit around 600 AD, especially with doctrinal positions which were built to reinforce a worldly institution rather than based upon God’s Plan.
You are confusing an earthly organization with the Church, the body of believers in Jesus Christ.
The term “protestant,” derived from the French
for “protesting”, refers primarily to churches whose theology is based on the principles of sola scriptura, i.e. that the Bible alone, and not the statements of church leaders, is the only source of doctrine. There were also forerunners of Protestantism, which predate Protestantism proper — such as the Waldensians and the Lollards. Ever heard of them? They rejected the traditions of the Roman Catholic Church. They are all dead now, Thanks to your mother church.
Oh really, what was that change?
Thats complete BUNK..
Ever heard of them? They rejected the traditions of the Roman Catholic Church. They are all dead now, Thanks to your mother church.
SO THEY PROTESTED? OMG.....
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.