Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: CynicalBear

Did I say Roman Catholic church? No.

“He said “the body, the church”, small c. There is no Roman Catholic in there.”

He says EKKLESIA, which is “church” in Greek.

“Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.”

Ephesians says that Christ is the head of the church, just as a husband is the head of his wife. This means that there’s just one of them.

As for it being the RCC, the RCC along with the Orthodox Church are the only ones who go back that far. If it is true that Christ promised that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against his Church, then none of the protestant bodies can be his Church, because they were not in existence.

It has to be either the Catholic church or the Orthodox church because only they go back that far. And when, God willing, the Body is undivided between us and them, then you will have a choice to make yourselves.

Christ is the head of His Church. There is just one of them, not many, because Christ will not be made an adulterer. We are not meant to be divided. We are meant to be together. Our division does not proclaim Christ, but rather, denies him.


126 posted on 10/30/2011 10:47:52 AM PDT by BenKenobi (Honkeys for Herman! 10 percent is enough for God; 9 percent is enough for government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies ]


To: BenKenobi
>>As for it being the RCC, the RCC along with the Orthodox Church are the only ones who go back that far. If it is true that Christ promised that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against his Church, then none of the protestant bodies can be his Church, because they were not in existence.<<

Surely you’re not trying to tell me that Christ started the church in Rome are you? Actually wasn’t the RCC started in 1054 when they broke with the previous universal Church, sometimes known today as the Catholic-Orthodox Church?

Not only that, but there seems to be a problem with the line of succession espoused by the RCC.

From the Anti Nicene Fathers.

"Now concerning those bishops which have been ordained in our lifetime, we let you know that they are these:--James the bishop of Jerusalem, the brother of our Lord; upon whose death the second was Simeon the son of Cleopas; after whom the third was Judas the son of James. Of Caesarea of Palestine, the first was Zacchaeus, who was once a publican; after whom was Cornelius, and the third Theophilus. Of Antioch, Euodius, ordained by me Peter; and Ignatius by Paul. Of Alexandria, Annianus was the first, ordained by Mark the evangelist; the second Avilius by Luke, who was also an evangelist. Of the church of Rome, Linus the son of Claudia was the first, ordained by Paul [Anti Nicene Fathers, Volume VII, Book VI, Sec. IV, XLVI)Roberts, Alexander and Donaldson, James, Ante-Nicene Fathers: Volume VII:]

Papal succession occurrs after a pope's death right? Also, if Linus ordained by Paul, not Peter was bishop of Rome while Peter was alive, that would mean that Linus, not even an Apostle, had Papal supremacy over both Peter and Paul - two living Apostles.

Somethings not right with what the RCC is teaching you.

128 posted on 10/30/2011 11:23:28 AM PDT by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson