ECT JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF FOUNDED THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

Cruciform

New member
12241178_841440052621372_8338756517800084598_n.png


Comments or Questions?
 

Nick M

Black Rifles Matter
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
True. But he did that in Genesis 12. And Abraham was not in Rome.
 

DAN P

Well-known member
You must have missed the future tense of Jesus' declaration in Matt. 16:18: "I WILL build my Church." Try again.


Hi and I see that YOU finally believe that " I WILL BUILD " is in the FUTURE TENSES and now when does that FUTURE TENSES become operative is your PROBLEM and the Future tense was not 2000 years , or 1500 years AGO as your timing is WAY OFF !!

dan p
 

john w

New member
Hall of Fame
12241178_841440052621372_8338756517800084598_n.png


Comments or Questions?

No, He did not. See all my posts on TOL, here, "www.fidelity.com," and Genesis-Revelation, here,"www.biblegateway.com,"not your "preferred man made doctrine."

So there. You've been teaching us that for years on TOL, shill-we learned that from you.


That is how you debate this Roman shill on TOL-just feed him back his own sophistry.
 

Nihilo

BANNED
Banned
Then he started the church with Paul Acts 9:6 KJV - Acts 9:15 KJV - Acts 13:2 -
The Holy Catholic faith is Pauline, indeed. The Catholic faith recognizes Romans-Philemon as unqualified Scripture, right up there with the Law and the Prophets.
 

Cruciform

New member
No denying he will rule from Jerusalem. Keep trying.
Nope, Mt. 16:18 says nothing whatsoever about Jesus "reigning from Jerusalem." Rather, Christ himself declares that he will "build his Church," which he then proceeds to do by choosing and appointing apostles, who then ordained bishops to carry on their (the apostles') own ministry of guiding and teaching the faithful in Christ's own name and by his very authority. Your ecclesiology is simply and hopelessly unbiblical as well as unavoidably unChristian.
 

Cruciform

New member
Hi and I see that YOU finally believe that " I WILL BUILD " is in the FUTURE TENSES...
I always have.

...and the Future tense was not 2000 years , or 1500 years AGO as your timing is WAY OFF !!
The opinions that you have been fed by your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect are noted. :yawn:
 

Cruciform

New member
Not true. If it were true, then today your Church would be preaching the Grace Gospel...
The Catholic Church has always declared the Christian Gospel handed on to her by Christ and the apostles, namely, that we are saved by grace through faith in the redeeming sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Indeed, Christ's one historic Church was preaching just that message for fifteen centuries before a single Protestant (non-Catholic) managed to stumble onto the scene.
 

turbosixx

New member
I find it odd that neither the "catholic" church nor it's members bear the name of the one who bought them.


As for Peter being the rock, Do you have ANY scripture supporting the notion that Peter was the rock and not Peter’s statement, “You are the Christ”?

Jesus being the Messiah is the foundation of all that we believe. Here are scriptures supporting Jesus Christ being the rock.

Dan. 2:34 You continued looking until a stone was cut out without hands, and it struck the statue on its feet of iron and clay and crushed them
1 Cor. 10:4 and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ.
Acts 4:10 let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead-by this name this man stands here before you in good health. 11 He is the stone which was rejected by you, the builders, but which became the chief corner stone.

If you look at the original Greek text, in Matt. 16, Peter's name is masculine and "this rock" is feminine which could not be Peter or it would be masculine. "This rock" is referring to Peter's statement that Jesus is the Christ just like in this verse where the Greek word for rock is also feminine.
I Cor.10:4 and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ.

Supporting scriptures reveal Peter to be more like a foundation of sand.
Matt. 16:23 But He turned and said to Peter, "Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me; for you are not setting your mind on God's interests, but man's."
Gal. 2:11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.
 

Cruciform

New member
As for Peter being the rock, Do you have ANY scripture supporting the notion that Peter was the rock and not Peter’s statement, “You are the Christ”?
There is significant biblical proof that Jesus was speaking specifically of Peter himself. If you message me, I'll be glad to provide it.
 
Top