Hello all from Chestertonrules

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Dec 19, 2009
27,513
128
0
71
#41
Jesus started a single Church. There have always been corrupt individuals in the Church, but the Church always teaches the truth as guided by the Holy Spirit.

If two churches teach contradictory doctrines then one or both is teaching falsehoods. Protestantism is full of falsehoods because it is full of contradictory teachings.

Study your church history. The Catholic Church was corrupt at the highest levels. Some people of conscience would have none of it, so they started their own churches. Thank goodness!
 
K

kenisyes

Guest
#42
You seem to want to make the case that apostolic succession was a later addition to the Church. That's not true.

The apostles appointed successors and we know who these people are. We know what they believed and how they worshiped.

Your assumptions are inconsistent with the historical record.
Peter appointed Linus as the bishop of Rome. That makes apostolic succession valid in Rome and anywhere Linus appointed anybody. Meantime, other apostles appointed other bishops elsewhere. By definition, any church has apostolic succession, because I Cor. 12:28 says a church must be started by an apostle. It's just not the same apostles. My assumptions are consistent with the historical record still occurring today. Yours are consistent for the church of Rome only, and you are reading them into the entire Church. I repeat, all I am concerned with is that you have said the Catholic Chruch is the ONLY true church.
 
F

Footie03

Guest
#43
Thanks! Later my brother......
 
F

Footie03

Guest
#44
If the Catholic Church is the only true Church, how does the First Christian Church in Jerusalem rate? It was set up by Peter, James and John. Is it or was it ever Catholic? It was run by James but ??? Biker Dave
 
Aug 28, 2013
183
3
0
#45
Peter appointed Linus as the bishop of Rome. That makes apostolic succession valid in Rome and anywhere Linus appointed anybody. Meantime, other apostles appointed other bishops elsewhere. By definition, any church has apostolic succession, because I Cor. 12:28 says a church must be started by an apostle. It's just not the same apostles. My assumptions are consistent with the historical record still occurring today. Yours are consistent for the church of Rome only, and you are reading them into the entire Church. I repeat, all I am concerned with is that you have said the Catholic Chruch is the ONLY true church.

Jesus only started one Church. Other Churches can have a large percentage of the truth, but only one can be led in the fullness of truth.

If two churches teach contradictory doctrines, then one or both are wrong. Do you think the Church Jesus started teaches any false doctrines?
 
Aug 28, 2013
183
3
0
#46
If the Catholic Church is the only true Church, how does the First Christian Church in Jerusalem rate? It was set up by Peter, James and John. Is it or was it ever Catholic? It was run by James but ??? Biker Dave

James was the Bishop of Jerusalem, but the Church is universal.

The Christians at Antioch were not members of a different universal Church, for example. The location of the Church is irrelevant. Peter was first located in Jerusalem, then moved to Antioch for a time, then settled in Rome. It is necessary that the Church be united in truth. There is no evidence of doctrinal disunity in the early Church. When questions arose they were taken to the leadership. All were united with the apostles under the leadership of Peter.
 
Aug 28, 2013
183
3
0
#47
If the Catholic Church is the only true Church, how does the First Christian Church in Jerusalem rate? It was set up by Peter, James and John. Is it or was it ever Catholic? It was run by James but ??? Biker Dave

Also, here's what the patriarch of Constantinople said about this question in about 387 AD:


And why, then, passing by the others, does He converse with Peter on these things? (John 21:15). He was the chosen one of the Apostles, and the mouth of the disciples, and the leader of the choir. On this account, Paul also went up on a time to see him rather than the others (Galatians 1:18). And withal, to show him that he must thenceforward have confidence, as the denial was done away with, He puts into his hands the presidency over the brethren. And He brings not forward the denial, nor reproches him with what had past, but says, 'If you love me, preside over the brethren ...and the third time He gives him the same injunction, showing what a price He sets the presidency over His own sheep. And if one should say, 'How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?,' this I would answer that He appointed this man (Peter) teacher, not of that throne, but of the whole world. (Chrysostom, In Joan. Hom. 1xxxviii. n. 1, tom. viii)
 
K

kenisyes

Guest
#48
Jesus only started one Church. Other Churches can have a large percentage of the truth, but only one can be led in the fullness of truth.

If two churches teach contradictory doctrines, then one or both are wrong. Do you think the Church Jesus started teaches any false doctrines?
You are using the word "church" two ways. There is only one church that is of Jesus, that is true. But this uses the word "church" to mean the universal church, or collection of all followers of Jesus. When you say two "churches", you are using the word to mean "denomination". Doctrines can easily appear to be contradictory, when in fact they are complementary. The classic example is the trinity, God is one, but God is three.
 
K

kenisyes

Guest
#49
There is no evidence of doctrinal disunity in the early Church.
Then who were the false apostles? And why does Paul need to upbraid the Corinthians for choosing one to be for Paul and another for Apollos? I will say again, you are quoting from a select group of evidence, chosen to be preserved by the Catholic Church, to substantiate their claim of being an unchallenged chain.

Not everyone accepts the following statement, but most historians believe it at least part way: Catholics ran the roman Empire from about 380 on. They took the Roman armies, burned other churches to the ground, and killed various pastors and bishops to get their churches out of the way. Look up Hypatia if you like, she is the most quoted example.

We certainly know the Vatican encouraged wars over doctrine, as the British/Irish conflict is still going on in our own day. I have read scholarly evidence that Gregory the Great threatened war with a French monastery over specific notes in specific chant melodies. I also know there is considerable evidence of witchcraft amulets used in Christian burials in the 400's, long after the Catholic Church was supposedly in control.

The roads to Ethiopia fell into disrepair in about 130. When helicopters got in there in 1934, they found the ancient church doing just fine, without ever having heard from the Pope. They now have several denominations, some in the US.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Aug 28, 2013
183
3
0
#50
You are using the word "church" two ways. There is only one church that is of Jesus, that is true. But this uses the word "church" to mean the universal church, or collection of all followers of Jesus. When you say two "churches", you are using the word to mean "denomination". Doctrines can easily appear to be contradictory, when in fact they are complementary. The classic example is the trinity, God is one, but God is three.

This is true. However, there are true contradictions among non Catholics.

For example: Once saved always saved or not?
Salvation by faith alone or not?
Baptism necessary for salvation or not?
Necessity of tongues as a sign of salvation or not?
etc.

These are not minor issues, but are central to salvation. Do you believe that the Church Jesus started, which is being led into all truth, will be confused on these and other important issues?
 
Aug 28, 2013
183
3
0
#51
Then who were the false apostles? And why does Paul need to upbraid the Corinthians for choosing one to be for Paul and another for Apollos? I will say again, you are quoting from a select group of evidence, chosen to be preserved by the Catholic Church, to substantiate their claim of being an unchallenged chain.

Not everyone accepts the following statement, but most historians believe it at least part way: Catholics ran the roman Empire from about 380 on. They took the Roman armies, burned other churches to the ground, and killed various pastors and bishops to get their churches out of the way. Look up Hypatia if you like, she is the most quoted example.

We certainly know the Vatican encouraged wars over doctrine, as the British/Irish conflict is still going on in our own day. I have read scholarly evidence that Gregory the Great threatened war with a French monastery over specific notes in specific chant melodies. I also know there is considerable evidence of witchcraft amulets used in Christian burials in the 400's, long after the Catholic Church was supposedly in control.

The roads to Ethiopia fell into disrepair in about 130. When helicopters got in there in 1934, they found the ancient church doing just fine, without ever having heard from the Pope. They now have several denominations, some in the US.

The fact that heresies and heretics exists in no way destroys or diminishes the doctrinal unity of the Church. In fact, it amplifies the truth.

The Church must proclaim and defend the truth. Jesus predicted that the truth would divide families and that the apostles would need swords. There is no evidence of the Roman armies destroying other Churches at the behest of the Church. In fact, doctrinal disputes were taken up at Church councils, not with swords. Heretics were excommunicated, not executed. How do you suppose we know of the heresies of Arianism, Donatism, Docetism, etc.?

Throughout Christian history the Church has been the pillar and foundation of the truth. Outside the Church you find multiple contradictory doctrines.
 
Last edited:
K

kenisyes

Guest
#52
This is true. However, there are true contradictions among non Catholics.

For example: Once saved always saved or not?
Salvation by faith alone or not?
Baptism necessary for salvation or not?
Necessity of tongues as a sign of salvation or not?
etc.

These are not minor issues, but are central to salvation. Do you believe that the Church Jesus started, which is being led into all truth, will be confused on these and other important issues?
Your logic is very confused. You state the proof that Catholic is the church Jesus started, is that it does not teach contadictory doctrine. I point out there is apparent contradiction within its own doctrine, and you respond by saying that other denominations contradict in doctrine among themselves. My point is that apparent contradiction in doctrine is normal, as we are all members of the body of Christ, so we all see life differently. The contradictions are only apparent from our point of view. Since that is true, you cannot use the issue of contradiction in doctrine to demonstrate that one church is superior to another.

No issue is central to salvation except Jesus and Him crucified. Everything else is a matter of perception.
 
K

kenisyes

Guest
#53
The fact that heresies and heretics exists in no way destroys or diminishes the doctrinal unity of the Church. In fact, it amplifies the truth.

The Church must proclaim and defend the truth. Jesus predicted that the truth would divide families and that the apostles would need swords. There is no evidence of the Roman armies destroying other Churches at the behest of the Church. In fact, doctrinal disputes were taken up at Church councils, not with swords. Heretics were excommunicated, not executed. How do you suppose we know of the heresies of Arianism, Donatism, Docetism, etc.?

Throughout Christian history the Church has been the pillar and foundation of the truth. Outside the Church you find multiple contradictory doctrines.
The Catholic church defines a heretic as anyone who disagrees with the Catholic church. Since that is the definition, it is not surprising that the Catholic church can maintain that what is says is true, and everyone else is false.

I agree that there is no definite evidence of the Catholic church taking armies to destroy the church. Even the evidence of Hypatia is questioned by some (the bishop ordered a yong woman skinned alive because she had a government post without being baptized). The Inquisition's condemnation of Galileo is an established fact. That the Inquisition put people to death for disagreeing with Rome is an established fact.

It is a circular argument that the church teaches the truth, and therefore anyone else is wrong. You cannot prove independently that what the church teaches is true.

WHen Peter used his sword, Jesus healed the ear or the high-priests servant. Who is healing the thousands of sodomized altar boys, protected by bishops' coverups?

I covered the circular argument of cntradictory doctrine above.

You are not answering any of my evidence. You just say the same thing over and over: "My church is right. Therefore you are wrong. Since you cannot be correct, I need not answer your proofs to the contrary." You prove you are right by saying you agree with your own books. You prove your books are not altered by saying you are right, so they could not have been altered. You say any history that does not agree is made up because the books you made up disagree.

Again, account for the false apostles, account for Hypatia, account for the churches that are not in communion with the Pope from the beginning. Account for Barnabas being an apostle. Account for the witchcraft in catholic cemeteries. Account for Acts 7 saying the church existed at Sinai. Account for the continuing Irish/British religious tension. You have not answered one single fact I have brought up. You just keep going in self-referential circles.
 
Aug 28, 2013
183
3
0
#54
Your logic is very confused. You state the proof that Catholic is the church Jesus started, is that it does not teach contadictory doctrine. I point out there is apparent contradiction within its own doctrine, and you respond by saying that other denominations contradict in doctrine among themselves. My point is that apparent contradiction in doctrine is normal, as we are all members of the body of Christ, so we all see life differently. The contradictions are only apparent from our point of view. Since that is true, you cannot use the issue of contradiction in doctrine to demonstrate that one church is superior to another.

No issue is central to salvation except Jesus and Him crucified. Everything else is a matter of perception.

There are no contradictory Catholic doctrines, your opinion is based on ignorance.(nothing personal)

You continue to ignore my point.

You say Christ crucified is all that matters for salvation. Do you believe in universal salvation?
 
Aug 28, 2013
183
3
0
#55
The Catholic church defines a heretic as anyone who disagrees with the Catholic church. Since that is the definition, it is not surprising that the Catholic church can maintain that what is says is true, and everyone else is false.

I agree that there is no definite evidence of the Catholic church taking armies to destroy the church. Even the evidence of Hypatia is questioned by some (the bishop ordered a yong woman skinned alive because she had a government post without being baptized). The Inquisition's condemnation of Galileo is an established fact. That the Inquisition put people to death for disagreeing with Rome is an established fact.

It is a circular argument that the church teaches the truth, and therefore anyone else is wrong. You cannot prove independently that what the church teaches is true.

WHen Peter used his sword, Jesus healed the ear or the high-priests servant. Who is healing the thousands of sodomized altar boys, protected by bishops' coverups?

I covered the circular argument of cntradictory doctrine above.

You are not answering any of my evidence. You just say the same thing over and over: "My church is right. Therefore you are wrong. Since you cannot be correct, I need not answer your proofs to the contrary." You prove you are right by saying you agree with your own books. You prove your books are not altered by saying you are right, so they could not have been altered. You say any history that does not agree is made up because the books you made up disagree.

Again, account for the false apostles, account for Hypatia, account for the churches that are not in communion with the Pope from the beginning. Account for Barnabas being an apostle. Account for the witchcraft in catholic cemeteries. Account for Acts 7 saying the church existed at Sinai. Account for the continuing Irish/British religious tension. You have not answered one single fact I have brought up. You just keep going in self-referential circles.

Much ignorance, bigotry, and propaganda in this post.

You are still ignoring the point. Jesus started a single Church. Of course the Church he started will teach truth. Churches teaching contradictory doctrines therefore cannot both be the Church Jesus started. Protestantism is full of contradictions. More to the point, most Protestant churches don't even claim to be the Church Jesus started.

Catholics are confidient in proclaiming the truth because the Church was built and is protected by Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
 
K

kenisyes

Guest
#56
You are missing the point. The Catholic Church is NOT, I repeat NOT the church Jesus started (actually built onto). It is one part of that church. They rewrote the books to prove they are the same church, but that is not true. They are only a part. You read only their books (you still refuse to respond to my evidence), so you only think what they have told you. God's truth is beyond any complete earthly expression, except by all of us acting together. That is where the contradictions come from, our refusal to act together. God is love before God is truth, and any statement that "we are right and you are wrong" is so unloving as to be untruthful automatically. Catholic pride has already produced the dark ages, the plagues, the crusades, the inquisition, and the organized sodomization of altar boys. You either need to answer my objections, or stop saying that your church is right and everyone else is wrong.
 
Aug 28, 2013
183
3
0
#57
You are missing the point. The Catholic Church is NOT, I repeat NOT the church Jesus started (actually built onto). It is one part of that church. They rewrote the books to prove they are the same church, but that is not true. They are only a part. You read only their books (you still refuse to respond to my evidence), so you only think what they have told you. God's truth is beyond any complete earthly expression, except by all of us acting together. That is where the contradictions come from, our refusal to act together. God is love before God is truth, and any statement that "we are right and you are wrong" is so unloving as to be untruthful automatically. Catholic pride has already produced the dark ages, the plagues, the crusades, the inquisition, and the organized sodomization of altar boys. You either need to answer my objections, or stop saying that your church is right and everyone else is wrong.

Your opinion is based on half truths and outright lies.

You will never find God in his fullness if this is what you seek.
 
Aug 28, 2013
183
3
0
#58
Also, I don't see a question in your post. What do you want answered?
 
K

kenisyes

Guest
#59
Your opinion is based on half truths and outright lies.

You will never find God in his fullness if this is what you seek.
The trouble with that is that I have Catholic education through masters degree and 10 years full time paid ministry in the Catholic. I had to leave after they refused to grow with what God was doing. This is all based on additional research I did to determine who was right and who was wrong. I assure you, it is all correct, and the fullness I have now exceeds what I ever knew as a Catholic.

This research is personal but relevant. The pastors I worked for:
1. Preached it is a sin to read the Bible unless he is there to explain it to you, and probably sold black market babies.
2. Was ejected from his ministry by the bishop because he hired people who did not have a masters degree.
3. Fired me for being too intelligent and then asked me to remain as a prophet at my own expense.
4. Met me for my interview coming out of a porno shop, and had to be institutionalized after he fired the entire parish staff. He was also involved with the NJ diocese that was linked to the altar boy brothel scandal about twenty five years ago.
5. Blew up at me for allowing the parish secretary to know how much money he was paying me (apparently it was under-the-table somehow).
6. Had his homosexual lover living in the rectory.
That's all of them. Not a Godly situation in the bunch. this is the fulness of God you speak of?
By their fruits you will know them.
 
Aug 28, 2013
183
3
0
#60
The trouble with that is that I have Catholic education through masters degree and 10 years full time paid ministry in the Catholic. I had to leave after they refused to grow with what God was doing. This is all based on additional research I did to determine who was right and who was wrong. I assure you, it is all correct, and the fullness I have now exceeds what I ever knew as a Catholic.

This research is personal but relevant. The pastors I worked for:
1. Preached it is a sin to read the Bible unless he is there to explain it to you, and probably sold black market babies.
2. Was ejected from his ministry by the bishop because he hired people who did not have a masters degree.
3. Fired me for being too intelligent and then asked me to remain as a prophet at my own expense.
4. Met me for my interview coming out of a porno shop, and had to be institutionalized after he fired the entire parish staff. He was also involved with the NJ diocese that was linked to the altar boy brothel scandal about twenty five years ago.
5. Blew up at me for allowing the parish secretary to know how much money he was paying me (apparently it was under-the-table somehow).
6. Had his homosexual lover living in the rectory.
That's all of them. Not a Godly situation in the bunch. this is the fulness of God you speak of?
By their fruits you will know them.

You post half truths and lies about the Church. Is that what you mean by an education? You have just regurgitated anti Catholic propaganda.


1) I don't believe you. In fact, I think you are making this up.
2) I see a trend developing. This is starting to make sense! .In reality, though, almost all priest have a minimum of a masters degree and most are PhDs.
3) Too funny.
5) If this guy was a pervert that is not a representation of the Church. He was violating church teaching and is not relevant to the teaching or validity of the Church.
6)Ditto

So you knew a pervert heretic. That doesn't give you the right to regurgitate anti Catholic lies and bigotry.

Jesus is the truth. You should pursue the truth, not dwell on the sins of the fallen and disgraced.