Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
That is such a lie. Pope as you mentioned, calls evangelicals "separated brothers" while evangelicals call the Catholic church, "whore of babylon" and call Catholics "Mary worshipers", "Idol worshipers", etc. As well as slander the Pope, and spread misleading information about Catholic beliefs that are completely untrue. And then evangelicals go and attack catholic statues and harass Catholics with some crap labeled "the truth". Luckily any intelligent Catholic who actually takes time to read this "truth" about Catholicism, will just laugh and tell you to go learn what Catholics actually believe.
I think it would make sense had the authority Christ gave to His apostles been passed on to successors and the Church continue to function under divinely-authorized leadership and direction. Of course the Catholic Church claims that this did, in fact, happen. They claim that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome (or Pope), and that succession has continued in an unbroken line ever since. Whether Peter was ever a bishop in Rome or not is beside the point. There were bishops all over the place, and a bishop is not the same thing as a apostle. There was never any directive given by Christ to His apostles or any record of a decision by the apostles as a whole making the Bishop of Rome the head of the Church. The truth of the matter is that the Catholic Church was not the Church Jesus Christ established.
For the most part, no. They do say that Catholics are wrong, but I haven't heard them say it is heretical. That is something that I have seen primarily with Catholics.
Galileo, was he not considered a heretic for his ideas? Yep, and now the Catholic church accepts what he said. Just one example. Paul also would have been a heretic as he gave authority to women to preach.
Look at Vatican II.
And how distant is Catholicism from the original movement? They are not Jews (the followers of Jesus were). Priests can't marry (Peter was, and was suppose to be the first Pope). The OT laws are not followed (as Jesus commanded, and his first followers did). Women can be clergy (even though Paul gave authority to a variety of women).
And if you read the NT you see many Gentiles coming to the faith. And there being no more distinction. Not to mention the Church as spiritual Israel.
Your right. And celibacy did not become a discipline for awhile after. It could still be changed.
Judaizers were spoken against in Acts
Thats bs. Prove it.
No because you can go and read and follow it as it grew in history. Your logic sucks, outside of the horrible examples you tried gave. But that seems to be typical of you. Misleading and lieing to suit your ideas.
No, it is where you're wrong, Jacob. You are interpreting those verses in quite a different way than Jesus meant them and than His own apostles would have understood them. Furthermore, you have not even begun to address the rest of my post -- which is the basis for my rejection of Catholicism (which I'd choose over Protestantism any day of the week).
Gentiles were not entering into the original movement though. They were entering into the offshoot by Paul. As doppelganger stated, Paul admits to changing that (well the entry of individuals who do not follow the dietary laws and do not get circumcised).
Just pointing out how it differs from the early church. Paul even defended the right of people to marry.
By Paul. However, that ignores what Jesus said, and what the earliest movement was doing.
I meant can't be clergy, but I don't think that is what you are challenging.
Now that was uncalled for. I'm not being misleading, and I'm not lying. I don't call you a liar when you're mistaken. And I don't think I am mistaken here, as you haven't been able to show that.
Not even true. It was St. Peter who first witnessed the Holy Spirit coming to Gentiles. Then it was St. Peter who took charge and settled the dispute of the laws and Gentile in Acts. Not St. Paul. In fact St. Paul took second to St. Peter. The first concil of Jerusalem showcased not only St. Peters leadership (which reinforces the qoute I gave Katzpur) but that it was he whole discredited the Judaizers.
St. Paul also proposed celibacy and advocated it to people. Your point being?
1 Corinthians 1:11 said:
1 Corinthians 16:3 said:
You and I have had this discussion before, Jacob. At one point, on another thread, I asked you what the phrase "the gates of hell" would have meant. You never actually responded. Instead, you interpreted the entire statement ("the gates of hell shall not prevail against it") and you did so in light of what it means to you personally. I wanted to know what you believe just the phrase, "the gates of hell" to mean? Does it mean the forces of Satan? Does it mean the powers of evil? What does it mean -- that one phrase, "the gates of hell"? What would it have meant to a first-century Jewish follower of Jesus Christ?
