Universal Church

[Imagican]

But 'A', what if those that have 'taught' this have simply altered the 'true' history of the 'creation' of this and in reality it is NOTHING more than a fabricated 'story'? For we KNOW what was offered by the apostles themselves and little more than this other than written words 'of others', that may or may NOT have any bearing on 'the truth'.

Then you will never know if the Bible is even the Word of God. That idea is based on a tradition passed down by the Catholic Church itself. Think about it and be careful on biting the hand that feeds you... In the end, Imagican, we must trust men (or not) on historical events that happened 2000 years ago.

Bite the hand that fed me??? You CAN'T be 'serious'? If I had fallen into the 'trap' of your religion or those that sprung from it then I would readily accept this statement. But if it had been left up to the Catholic leadership of 'their church', I wouldn't even be able to read The Word NOW.

While the Bible was established by the Catholics, (translated and written by), it was information obtained by them from OTHERS. There is not a single book of the Bible written by Catholics. Translated and transformed into a single work, but NOT originally written BY them.
HOW do you "KNOW" who was led by Christ and who wasn't? Merely because they were Catholic is supposed to be your guideline for rejecting their word???

Regards

And Fran, you don't even offer a valid argument. The information used to 'WRITE' the Bible was NOT penned by; What you call, Catholics. The original documents were written by JEWS. The apostles were EACH and EVERYONE, Jews.

That there have been Catholic LEADERS that have followed The Spirit is debatable. But the 'religion' itself is full of that which is easily refutable.

And I do NOT follow 'men' by accepting The Word. For those that have accepted it, TRULY, there is NO DOUBT that it IS the inspired Word of God. Offered through His Son and recorded by those that were CHOSEN to do this very job.

You would have me believe that the apostles STILL exist. I KNOW that this is simply NOT true. For the apostolic era ended when their jobs were fulfilled. That some of the power bestowed upon them was able to be passed on to others is EVIDENT in The Word. But indication is that ONLY for a generation or so AFTER the original apostles passed away.

I was NOT attempting to 'hijack' this thread. I was curious and then offered information in THIS direction.

MEC

 

[Imagican]

Mec,

Your logic is flawed my brother. You put all your trust into a book that was assembled by the Catholic Church, a book that in no form or manner states that it is the only source for those things pertaining to Christianity, and you reject the rest. So you simply do not believe the early writings of Catholics, which is the historical account of the Church setup by Christ, yet you trust that the Catholics accurately choose and assembled your New Testament. The problem, I feel is that you are misinformed on whole subject of Catholicism and do not know history. Now please don't try to convince us that you do know your history because you stated earlier that you didn’t know that catholic meant universal. I understand where you are coming from because I too came from the place you are now. Do you really think that the gates of hell prevailed against the church after the death of the last apostle, only to be beat back 1500 years later by Luther?

Peace

P.S.
Once I stopped looking at the Catholic Church through the blinders of misinformation learned from my protestant background and studied history, the truth that you seek became clear.

NO, A, I place my TRUST in God and His Son. The Word is NOT able to offer ANYTHING without The Spirit. No different than reading a piece of fiction to those that are not GIVEN understanding tthough DIVINE intervention, (and NEVER forget that Satan too possesses a 'form' of divinity).

You would insist upon and attempt to 'convince' me, (and others), that the CC is The Church, perpetually upholding that which was offered by God through Christ. Yet I am well aware of the falacy of such an arguement. For The Church is NOTHING other than the Body of Christ. And 'religion' has 'little' to do with it. Yet that is EXACTLY what the CC IS; a 'religion'. Created by men to lead men in the 'same' direction, (oft times for political and MOST times, monitary gain), as in MOST 'religions'.

I really don't want to start 'this' again. I have made HUNDREDS of posts in the past explaining the CC to any willing to face the 'truth'. I have no wish to debate this issue again. But I feel compelled to 'step in' when I see comments directed at those that do NOT follow the CC. Compelled to warn any and all willing to listen that 'religion' is NOT the 'answer' that they seek if they are honestly seeking the TRUTH.

God IS able to offer ANY that He chooses, UNDERSTANDING. He promised that a remnant would ALWAYS 'remain', (those able to discern the TRUTH regardless of the 'teachings' of men). For someone ABLE to follow God through His Son in the SAME regards as 'the apostles', there would be no NEED for a Bible even. But, since we have fallen SO far from The Truth, The Word is the closest that most WILL come to TRUE understanding.

But guys, YOU cannot save a 'single soul' through your 'religion'. And worshiping IT more than what matters MOST won't do it EITHER. God has offered Salvation through the death of His Son and there is not a SINGLE individual or group on this planet that can take away or add one tit of THIS TRUTH, (except to those that choose to allow it to happen).

God is my 'teacher' and YES, most of what is offered is through The Word. And JUST as Pharoah was 'used' by God to fulfill HIS will, so too was the CC used for MUCH the 'same' purpose. And we PLAINLY see that BOTH had their 'moment' only to LOOSE much of what they had been 'given' when it came time for a 'change'.

MEC

 

[A-Christian]

I have made HUNDREDS of posts in the past explaining the CC to any willing to face the 'truth'.

I thought you said in an ealier post that you have never even partcipated in the Mass. Now you say you can expalin the truth about the Church? Was that you that said that? I could be mistaken. And why is it that when discussing the universal church, you offer nothing in the regards to facts stated about the early church and those that wrote about it? You also seem very touchy. This thread is suppose to be a friendly discussion I thought. :D

 

[tblaine74]

MEC,

You are offering lots of statements, but little information that demonstrates anything. I have presented clear arguments in my original post. Are you going to consider them? If you want to place a "Catholic rhetoric" stamp on it and go your own way that’s fine. However, I don’t think anyone should be considering your statements until they begin to address the challenge that has been issued to you in the original post.

 

[francisdesales]

Bite the hand that fed me??? You CAN'T be 'serious'? If I had fallen into the 'trap' of your religion or those that sprung from it then I would readily accept this statement. But if it had been left up to the Catholic leadership of 'their church', I wouldn't even be able to read The Word NOW.

Funny, I can read the Word of God, and am Catholic. Frankly, I have no clue what you are talking about...

While the Bible was established by the Catholics, (translated and written by), it was information obtained by them from OTHERS. There is not a single book of the Bible written by Catholics. Translated and transformed into a single work, but NOT originally written BY them.

Where is your evidence for that claim? Every writer of the New Testament was a Jewish convert to Catholic Christianity. Are you trying to tell us that there was some OTHER form of Christianity that existed in the first century and just blew away without a wimper, while big, bad Catholicism took over - with nary a word said by the "former" Christians whose religion had been so perverted by these new Catholics?

A little bit of thought makes your stance seem that much more unlikely.

And Fran, you don't even offer a valid argument. The information used to 'WRITE' the Bible was NOT penned by; What you call, Catholics. The original documents were written by JEWS. The apostles were EACH and EVERYONE, Jews.

We'll see how valid my argument is in a few days... But before you dismiss my "argument", you should be prepared to offer a counter-argument that explains where we are today AND explains the history of how things developed.

The writers of the NT were Jews who converted to Catholicism. Jesus Himself sent the Apostles to form a universal (catholic) community, not just one based on nationalism. Every one of the documents of the NT were "penned" by these converts from Judaism to Catholicism. If you cared to read the writings of those first Christians, they called themselves "Catholic" because they had spread the Word of Christ to the World. How interesting that you find that there are TWO such religions co-existing in the first century!!! What is of further interest is that there is NO EVIDENCE of this "second" group that the Catholic Church supposedly supplanted or usurped...

This "other" group existed only in the imagination of people who cannot accept what history has given us.

That there have been Catholic LEADERS that have followed The Spirit is debatable. But the 'religion' itself is full of that which is easily refutable.

As was the "Jewish" religion. Yet, the Bible is built upon Judaism, whether you can easily "refute" it or not.

And I do NOT follow 'men' by accepting The Word. For those that have accepted it, TRULY, there is NO DOUBT that it IS the inspired Word of God.

Sure you do. You accept that the "Word" that you have is FROM GOD. You trust that the NT was written by men guided by God. You also trust that NO OTHER books or letters were ALSO written by God and not put into this collection. You base this trust on what the Catholic Church has taught for 2000 years, whether you realize it or not.

You would have me believe that the apostles STILL exist. I KNOW that this is simply NOT true.

The original twelve apostles have truly died and are with Christ in heaven. But the ministry of apostleship does exist. Whether you agree with that or not doesn't make it true or not. An "apostle" is one who is sent - sent by the Church, who is guided by the Holy Spirit. All of this according to the same book that you believe is the Word of God. Now, if you really believe that, perhaps you should take it for what it says.

But indication is that ONLY for a generation or so AFTER the original apostles passed away.

INDICATION??? Which?

That's funny, because Christ, being God, certainly knew that His Church would exist longer than a generation or two. God has and will continue to provide His community with apostles, evangelists, teachers, healers, and so forth, the ministries of the Holy Spirit. Jesus said that the Church was the Temple of the Spirit and would be guiding it for all time. Please explain to me where the Bible, or any Christian writing of the first millenium, makes your claim that God left His Church after a "few generations"...

That sounds like a tradition of Imagican's making.

You want to prove your position? Prove that there was another "correct" Christianity that co-existed when St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote my signature line in 107 AD, as he was being taken to the lions to die for Christ. Ignatius was Catholic - his beliefs were distinctively Catholic. Show me the writings of this "other" Christianity in tune with the Scriptures newly written...

Regards

 

[Imagican]

I have made HUNDREDS of posts in the past explaining the CC to any willing to face the 'truth'.

I thought you said in an ealier post that you have never even partcipated in the Mass. Now you say you can expalin the truth about the Church? Was that you that said that? I could be mistaken. And why is it that when discussing the universal church, you offer nothing in the regards to facts stated about the early church and those that wrote about it? You also seem very touchy. This thread is suppose to be a friendly discussion I thought. :D

Not 'touchy' at all A. And I most certainly did offer that I personally have NEVER attended a 'Mass'. What I offer I offer for instruction NOT simlply to 'degrade' or 'accuse'. In the hopes that perhaps a 'few' may be able to step 'outside' the boundaries of 'man-made' religions and instead look to that which IS offered from above.

And NO, A, I cannot explain ALL that is 'involved' in the CC. But I have done quite a bit of study concerning the history of the CC. And what I have found is 'just another man-made religion'. Words taken and distorted to offer 'man-made' understanding instead of simply following the The Word as 'offered'. A combination of previous pagan ritual and what they 'believed' was a 'following of Christ', (maybe, for we are TOTALLY unable to discern the truth of what lay in the hearts of those that created Catholocism. I wonder at times if these were not COMPLETELY aware of what they did and did it ON PURPOSE. Just as I have the same question concerning the likes of James Jones and David Koresh. For it is OBVIOUS that these KNEW that they were NOT following in The Spirit of God but a 'spirit' SEPARATE from the TRUTH).

Oh, and for this to be a 'friendly discussion' I must agree with or certainly NOT DISPUTE what you offer from your 'religion'? And if I don't agree with you, then it is "I" that am not 'friendly'?

I fault NO ONE for a 'lack' of understanding. But I am certainly able to 'see' when one offers that which does NOT pertain to The Truth. That there WILL be many that 'follow' such men that would lead them 'away' from the truth is unavoidable so long as we live on this world 'in the flesh'. For the flesh seeks that which is familiar and pleasing TO 'the flesh'.

But know this: there IS truth to be obtained through The Spirit. And that in itself offers the TRUTH of man's desire to follow 'other men'. That this USUALLY ends up as men following other men that simply 'think' that have discovered the Truth.

We could hash it out again. Me offering the myriad instances of the CC most CERTAINLY not following The Spirit. The murders performed in the 'name of Christ'. The torturing of ANY that refused to accept or spoke out against what the CC attempted to 'force feed' those under it's control. The adultery and fornication of those in even the most 'sacred' of positions in the CC. Resulting in illegitimate leaders perpetuating the same. I could go on and on but suffice is to say that the examples offered were CERTAINLY not in The Spirit of Christ.

And then you could offer that NO ONE is perfect. That the instances to which I refer were isolated and performed by 'individuals'. That even though there was SO MUCH corruption INSIDE the CC, the institution was STILL The Church.

Back and forth, back and forth we could go. But for what?

I would suggest to any interested that they do EXACTLY what you have accused me of NOT doing. DO your homework. Study the history of the CC and then compare their teachings and actions to what we have been offered through The Word. if it matters enough to discuss it or have an opinion of it's validity, it is most certainly important enough to study it's history to be able to discern FOR YOURSELF if it is accurate or askew.

MEC

 

[Imagican]

fran,

What I refer to is the Catholic 'idea' for HUNDREDS upon HUNDREDS of years that the 'layman' was UNABLE to read and discern what had been offered in writtings. How 'the church' attempted to murder and imprison ANY that made efforts to offer The Word in writting to any. This isn't hidden or obscure history, this is COMMON KNOWLEDGE.

MEC

 

[Imagican]

fran,

YES, that is exactly what I am offering. There have been and are right this very minute, Christians that have NEVER nor will they EVER write a single word concerning Christianity.

What was offered by the 'true' apostles 'was ENOUGH'. For this is EXACTLY what is indicated throughout the NT. We were WARNED by the apostles that there would come those that would alter the words that they offered into a 'design or their OWN'. So, that there are early writtings that were used to create the illusion that the CC was The Church comes as no surprise to me. For there are MANY ancient writtings that predate those of the apostles concerning MANY different 'religions'. That doesn't offer ANY sort of 'proof' that these were TRUTH.

I read, think, and type rather quickly. But with the two of you offering as much as you have in dispute of my words, please bear with me and I will 'try' to address as much as I can.

Guys, there has NEVER been a true 'following' of Christ, since His death, that has followed Him WITHOUT practicing the example that He offered in the Gospels. And the CC has openly proven, throughout history, that they were NOT following His example. They 'created' MUCH pagentry and ritual that had absolutely NOTHING to do with the teachings of Christ. I could offer lots and lots of examples of that which I speak, but for MOST that have done even a cursory study of this 'religion', they ALREADY KNOW of that to which I refer, (and I believe that the two of you DO as well. It's just that YOU, who follow such a 'religion' would offer even rediculous defense of such behavior). And this does NOT even include their disregard for their neighbors so far as the force used to perpetuate their teachings. Condoning and ordering the murder of those that spoke out, (as I do this very moment), against the teachings they offered that were COMPLETELY contrary to The Word and The Spirit.

It took hundreds and hudreds of years of mankind being controlled by the CC before they began to LOOSE their ability to contain their 'religion'. By the time of Martin Luther they no longer had the POWER to simply MURDER those that 'spoke out'. It was TIME for a change. If they could have simply ordered his murder that IS exactly what they would have done. Unfortuanately for them, their time had 'run out' and Luther was able to openly SHOW 'some' of the falacy of the CC.

MEC

 

[Imagican]

fran,

Oh contrare. There is MUCH evidence that you would deny for the 'sake' of 'religion'.

For example. There were letters written by Paul to churches in Italy OUTRIGHT stating that they, AFTER being introduced to The Spirit, having begun to RETURN to their previous pagan ways. Ever read Corinthians? Romans? Hmmm.........shall I go on?

Rome, or Italy was NOT the ONLY place that the apostles taught.

Look guys, we were offered through The Word that a 'true' following of Christ would NEVER be accomplished by the masses. That there would always remain a 'remnant' is quite obviously a pure and simple statement PROVING the validity of their NEVER being a 'massive group' of those that would TRULY follow Christ. Straight is the gate and narrow is the way that leadeth unto life and few there be that find it, is YET another offering of The Word which COMPLETELY contradicts the 'notion' that the 'largest religion' on the planet could come even 'close' to The Truth.

Even as others were 'already' perverting The Word throughout the KNOWN world, DURRING the time that the apostles were STILL ALIVE just goes to show what would SOON after become rampant. Satan HATES Christ and 'the world' LIVES for him and NOT Christ. The 'world' follows that which it 'desires'. And Christ is NOT what the 'world' desires.

There may well have been individuals that were members of the CC, (most I believe would have been those that 'appeared' to follow Catholocism rather than actual 'members), that were truly inspired by The Spirit. But MOST of these when speaking the TRUTH were put to death or imprisoned, tortured into confession that they were WRONG.

And in this respect, there WAS what you refer to as 'another Church'. For church is NOT in reference to a 'building' or 'religion' but The Body of those that truly allow Christ to dwell within their hearts.

MEC

 

[Imagican]

Yes, God's relationship with man 'began' with the Hebrews, (those that would later become known as 'Jews'). Yet we have the words of Christ Himself that this 'religion' became perverted to the extent that even those IN CONTROL had lost almost all inkling of the 'truth' by the time of His ministry on this planet.

There is LITTLE doubt that the Jews followed the 'same' path as the CC. Beginning with knowledge of 'truth' yet choosing to follow it in 'their OWN way'. So that after time, the truth became so obscure that they followed 'teachings' of men rather than that offered through the prophets.

fran, HOW many times did God threaten to 'wipe these people off the face of the earth'? How many times did He 'knock them DOWN' to the point those 'left' were SLAVES to other peoples?

So, you see; just because God loved these people was NOT ENOUGH for them to follow Him instead of choosing 'self' instead.

But, I can assure you, that just as the 'time of Christ' had John the Baptist, so too did each generation have a 'few', (or at least ONE), that was truly inspired by God. Indication is that at times, there may have been ONLY ONE that was 'truly' following the will of God. His messengers were NOT MANY. For JUST as Christ was spurned by 'the people in general', so too were the prophets that preceeded Him.

MEC

 

[Imagican]

NO, fran, only from 'your perception' is your accusation true. For I do NOT trust the 'men' that wrote the Bible, I trust that words that they wrote by the inspiration of The Spirit. For The Spirit that inspired these words is the SAME Spirit that guides me through them in understanding. I do NOT place my faith in Paul, or Peter, or ANY of the apostles. I place my faith in The Spirit that guided these in their words and understanding. For that SAME Spirit exists today and IS able to offer the 'same understanding' to those whose hearts are able to accept it.

MEC

 

[Imagican]

Fran, that is YOUR definition of apostle, (or that which has been taught you by 'your church'). My understanding of apostle certainly does not 'agree' with yours.

The apostles were APPOINTED for ONE purpose. And that purpose was to BEGIN The Church. And so long as a 'remnant' remains, there is NO REASON to 're-start' The Church. So, there has been NO NEED for aposltes since their PURPOSE was accomplished.

The exact DAY that ended the apostolic era? Not able to discern this. But you can be assured that it was hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of years ago. Most likely not more than 50-100 years after Christ's death. For the 'formation of The Church' WAS their ONLY purpose. No need for apostles to MAINTAIN it. That is the job of The Spirit which is passed on from generation to generation.

MEC

 

[Imagican]

Nice try fran, (to attempt to make my words mean something other than what was offered). NO, The Church HAS continued and WILL continue until 'the end'. But what YOU consider to BE The Church and what I accept as The Church are OBVIOUSLY two separate entities. For, as I have offered MANY MANY times previous; The Chruch is NOT 'a church', (or religion), but those that ARE a ''part" of The Body.

And as ANY 'body'. It takes 'parts' to BE complete. But those parts are 'finite' and most certainly not infinite. They ARE discernable and distinct in purpose.

But ALL that profess a 'belief' in Christ are NOT a 'part of The Body'. For as has ALSO been offered; Satan IS able to mimic Christ and even God Himself. And for those that are unable to discrern the 'difference', Satan IS a 'perfect substitute'.

As I have plainly stated previous, I accuse NO ONE. I simply offer truth in understanding so that those 'truly' seeking God through His Son are able to discern through The Spirit what IS and what IS NOT 'truth'. I CANNOT offer Christ or God to anyone. Only my testimony and understanding. It's up to the individual to 'let go' of this earth and the flesh and accept that which IS of The Spirit into their hearts.

MEC

 

[Imagican]

These last posts were in response to the 'different' paragraphs which you offered in dispute of my previous post. I just figured if I addressed them individually, we wouldn't have to deal with one 'so long'.

I'll get back to you on the Saint thing. But as I have stated previous, there is little doubt that there have been individuals of the CC that HAVE followed The Spririt rather than simply the 'religion'.

I will reply soon to your last paragraph.

MEC

 

[Imagican]

That was easy enough. St. Ignatius of Antioch.

Fran, I have already offered that there was ALREADY dissention that existed while Christ yet lived. And MUCH MORE immediately after His death. We even have the MISUNDERSTANDING of Peter in that he didn't even realize that the 'gift' was given to ALL, (both Jew and Gentile).

Look, The Word was given NOT to be 'made' a 'god of' in itself. The Word was given in order to expose the hearts of the hearers to The Spirit.

St Ignatius' writtings are considered by MOST to be MOSTLY altered and therefore of little 'true' value so far as 'truth' is concerned. In my understanding, no more or no less important than the one's you are reading right this very moment.

True or false, the ONLY way to discern is to 'compare' them to what IS offered 'in The Word' and then allow The Spirit to verify. If one chooses to follow 'men', then I guess it's quite easy to find reassurance by 'some spirit'. For as I have stated over and over again: 'Satan too is able to offer 'feelings' to those that are lured by his deceit. In other words, some will offer that they KNOW something 'because' fo the 'feeling' that they were 'given', insisting that this 'feeling' was offered BY GOD. Satan TOO is able to offer this 'same type feeling' to those that aren't able to discern the difference. And if one is NOT being led BY The Spirit in truth, then there is absolutely no way to distinguish 'it' from a 'feeling' offered by God Himself.

I assume that you too can safely assume that Paul 'believed' that the 'feelings' that led him to BELIEVE that he was following the 'will of God' when he sought out and arrested Christians. It took DIRECT intervention by the Spirit of Christ Himself to 'point out' to Paul that he was NOT doing that which was inspired by God, but following the leadership of men that most likely had NO communion with God whatsoever. For it is quite obvious that God would NOT have those that 'truly believed in and followed HIS WILL, to go out and imprison or murder those that followed His Son.

We do NOT battle with flesh and blood folks, but the battle is one of the spiritual realm that we have little defense against without understanding of the 'natures' of 'different' spirits. The Word was designed for 'just this purpose'. But there is ORDER needed in order to discern. One cannot simply read it and understand it without guidance. And there must also be Faith in that it IS TRUE.

Fran, you offer that the writtings of St Ignatius' words were PART of The Word. That couldn't be further from the truth. That is Catholic dogma like MOST other that is 'used' to influence in this particular 'faith'. But this 'faith' is a faith in a 'religion' and that is exactly what it teaches.

I, on the other hand, have little faith in 'religion'. For it is NOT 'religion' that saves but the state of one's heart that matters. And religion can NOT 'form' this in any 'positive manner'. It's the relationship that IS able to offer that which is NEEDED to fulfill God's Will to repentance and Salvation.

So, in conclusion, the words of Ignatius mean NOTHING to me. Really have no need to even read them. For The Spirit has already convicted the 'religion' that you insist upon folllowing. And if Ignatius is the Father of this 'religion', then you can imagine how I would view his writtings.

Oh, and if what you offer is 'truth', then please direct me to the use of the word 'Catholic' in The Word.
MEC

 

[tblaine74]

MEC,

You stated:

“What was offered by the 'true' apostles 'was ENOUGH'. For this is EXACTLY what is indicated throughout the NT.â€Â

Using nothing more than the NT, and some elementary logic, I have proven that the Church is the body of truth, and that it cannot be divided. To this point you have not refuted this. Yet you continue to speak your mind without considering the logical implications of the proofs, which you have not refuted. Where is the (undivided) Church of Christ?

You stated:

“The Chruch is NOT 'a church', (or religion), but those that ARE a ''part" of The Body.â€Â

Will you consider some logic? Those “that ARE a “part†of The Body†must necessarily (and in near redundancy) be part of "A" Body. A Body is not "A" Body if it is divided. It is multiple bodies. Where is the (undivided) Body of Christ?

 

[tblaine74]

MEC,

You stated:

“For the 'formation of The Church' WAS their ONLY purpose. No need for apostles to MAINTAIN it.â€Â

If this were true, the NT would be much smaller. If this were true, why would Paul have written letters to churches that were already formed? It is very clear that he was attempting to “maintain†A teaching.

Romans 16:17-18 (New International Version): “I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them.¢â‚¬Â

 

[A-Christian]

Mec,

We all are aware of the horrific acts committed by some medieval popes, but the Churches teaching on Christ and salvation was not altered during those times. It was the same in the beginning as it is now and has never changed despite the behavior of some within the Church. Don't you find it odd that those evil men did not alter the teaching of Christ and salvation? You would think that had not the Holy Spirit been involved, surely those certain evil Catholics would have altered their teachings. They could not; the Holy Spirit kept that from happening. Men commit evil in all faiths and denominations just as they do outside of religion. Christ did not build his Church on perfect men because such do not exist.

As far as bible burning and such, my friend, you need to learn the specifics of such actions to understand the Church's position. We could start a separate thread on that but let me just say here that it's not what you think.

But let’s get back on the topic of this thread about what the universal church is.
One thing that Francis and I keep bringing up is your lack of evidence to support your claims that the Catholic Church is not the universal church, at the same time you dismiss the writings of men that were appointed by the apostles, into certain offices. This just does not seem scholarly.

Lets go back to Frans siggy:

Francis wrote in an earlier post:
“You want to prove your position? Prove that there was another "correct" Christianity that co-existed when St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote my signature line in 107 AD, as he was being taken to the lions to die for Christ. Ignatius was Catholic - his beliefs were distinctively Catholic. Show me the writings of this "other" Christianity in tune with the Scriptures newly written...â€Â


Now let’s look at one thing that Ignatius wrote. Remember, he knew the apostle John for 40 years and was appointed as a bishop to Antioch by Peter himself. This is recorded history MEC, not fabrication. Also, more than one of the earliest ecclesiastical writers have given credibility, though apparently without good reason, to the legend that Ignatius was the child whom the Savior took up in His arms. The Church does not take a position on this point. A Church that twisted the truth probably would claim the legend as truth I would think. O.k., on to the quote:

"Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains [i.e., a presbyter]. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).

Now, you said earlier that anything written by Ignatius means nothing to you, yet you also have no evidence to refute these type writings of the earliest Christians in support of your claim that the real Christians coexisted with what is obviously Catholics. This once again, does not seem to be the actions of the scholarly but as those of someone in denial. I may have asked before but do not remember; Have you read the writings of the earliest Christians, starting with those that knew the apostles and even ordained by the apostles? I ask this because it is very important to the topic of this thread. If you once again deny the significance of the historical writings of such men without even looking at them, well I suppose that beyond this post I shall not persist with you on this topic, a topic that is so crucial to how you and every other protestant form opinions on such an important thing as the Body of Christ. After all, why form your opinions from anti-Catholic authors of book and blogs when you can go straight to the early fathers of the Church? I have a nice library of anti-Catholic books. I devoured their contents like a hungry wolf at one point in my journey. I finally read the writings of the earliest Christians and then my opinions started to change. Once that happened, other things started to happen; I started seeing verses in scripture with a new light. Things that Catholics did that I thought were strange and ridiculous at the least and soul endangering at the most, gradually started to seem not so strange. I found my self saying “of course!†this finally now makes sense of certain scriptural passages. The universal Church is the only way to learn of the beliefs of the earliest Christians. Why do you think that so many of their writings have been preserved brother? If there is a more accurate way to discern what the early Christians believed about Christ and scripture, please, for sake of everyone on this board, present it.

MEC, my brother in Christ, the universal Church is not anything like you assume. If you are wrong on this…then you missed it big in the sense that you are denying Christ’s Church and spreading misinformation about her. Who is more likely to deceive you, the Church of history, unchanging and strong, backed up through the ages, from the beginning, with proof of what the earliest Christians were taught by the apostles…..or the teachings of men that have only existed for two or three hundred years, sometime much less. Also, remember, you are part of the Body of Christ in more ways than you realize.

Merry Christmas to you my friend. I sincerely mean that.
Peace be with you and your’s.

A

 

[A-Christian]

Oh, and if what you offer is 'truth', then please direct me to the use of the word 'Catholic' in The Word.

And once again, please show me in the Word that the Word is the only source of all that the apostles taught.

Merry Christmas again MEC :D

 

[francisdesales]

fran,

Oh contrare. There is MUCH evidence that you would deny for the 'sake' of 'religion'.

Imagican,

I asked you to show me this "other" orthodox and biblical Christian church that "competed" with the Catholic Church of the first century. We KNOW that the Catholic Church existed at the VERY LEAST at 107 AD. You have posted a whole lot of smoke and mirrors and - sorry to say - a lot of babbling - that never once address this question. If you cannot show me any evidence otherwise, then it becomes rather obvious that the Catholic Church WAS INDEED the same community of followers of Christ that wrote the Bible and you are just in denial of historical reality. Nothing personal, but you have already shown me your lack of historical knowledge before in past threads...

Rather than saying "there is MUCH evidence", I would appreciate if you would actually SHOW it. Please keep your "proofs" in one post, rather than spreading it out in 5 different posts and filling it in with stuff that has nothing to do with the matter at hand. We call this "smoke and mirrors".

As to one point that you claim above, I would like to clarify. I never ONCE said that the words of Ignatius of Antioch were the "Word of God". However, they are of historical value. Historians take the writings of men of the past as true witness, unless they are proven unreliable by other writings. The writings of Ignatius, at the very least, indicate that there WAS a Catholic Church. By his other writings that I do not include in my signature line, it seems evident that HE makes the connection between himself and the Catholic Church AND the Church of the Apostles. Now, if this was false and an invention, where are the contrary writings of Ignatius time from the "true" Church of Christ??? Would a man go to the lions willingly for Chrsit and still be considered a liar??? You need to do some serious thought on this issue, MEC, because your point of view is senseless when one takes into consideration Ignatius' plight and his words (which are not refuted by any contemporary writer). His words are HISTORICALLY acceptable.

A person does not die willingly for a lie he invent, MEC... Stand in front of a lion's cage and consider your point of view...

Now, if you can show otherwise, please provide. Otherwise, you, being an honest person, should recant all of your accusations. I wouldn't want you to be accused of being a false prophet.

Regards