Today's Excellent Church.

[Benson]

Acts 2 gives the narrative of how the Body of Christ His Church was brought into being by the coming of The Holy Spirit, according to Joel ch. 2 as cited by Apostle Peter.

Today, there are no features within modern Christendom which are a continuation of either Acts ch. 2, Joel ch. 2, The Jerusalem Messianic Church, or the Pauline Gentile Church.

This post remains very short because there is no other information in Scripture to authenticate the state of today's so called "Church." If one thinks the Church does exist today according to the foundation of the Apostles with Christ as the Cornerstone, tell us where on Earth it exists in the hearts of Men before God. No place in Paul's teaching says the Church is some intangibly perceived group of minds set upon faith in Christ.

[JehovahsWitness]

HAVE JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES EVERY CLAIMED TO BE INSPIRED PROPHETS?

No

If you say so, but again, I’m sure you can understand based on what I posted from their own publications, how it would appear they were acting as prophets.

I have responded to what you posted. If you have counterarguments kindly quote the part to are challenging and present your counterargument ie. You said XX but this cannot be true because of (a) (b) and (c).

Merely repeating a challenge that has been addressed is not debate.

JW

[RightReason]

Please tell me so I can understand why anyone joins a religion that at one time killed people for reading the Bible. Someone being wrong is one thing but to keep teaching the wrong thing like don't read the Bible or we will kill you, for centuries....how do you reconcile with that?

There is no need to reconcile such a thing because what you are saying is a lie. Again, what anti-Catholic propaganda site are you getting your information from. Is that lie coming from Watchtower? Let me guess you are referring to William Tyndale? If it was someone else, do tell. <sigh> Please know your history.

*******

Was William Tyndale burned at the stake for the heresy of translating the Greek New Testament into English in 1525?


Anyone familiar with the history of the Catholic Church, which for 2,000 years has been preserving and protecting the Word of God, recognizes how ludicrous this is. It is only by the authority of the Catholic Church, which collected the various books of Scripture in the fourth century, that we have a Christian Bible at all. And it is only because of the Church that the Bible survived and was taught for the many centuries before the printing press made it widely available. All Christians everywhere owe it a great debt for that.


So what was the real reason William Tyndale was condemned? Was translating the Bible into English actually illegal? The answer is no. The law that was passed in 1408 was in reaction to another infamous translator, John Wycliff. Wycliff had produced a translation of the Bible that was corrupt and full of heresy. It was not an accurate rendering of sacred Scripture.

Both the Church and the secular authorities condemned it and did their best to prevent it from being used to teach false doctrine and morals. Because of the scandal it caused, the Synod of Oxford passed a law in 1408 that prevented any unauthorized translation of the Bible into English and also forbade the reading of such unauthorized translations.


In fact, Tyndale was first tried for heresy in 1522, three years before his translation of the New Testament was printed. His own bishop in London would not support him in this cause.


Finding no support for his translation from his bishop, he left England and came to Worms, where he fell under the influence of Martin Luther. There in 1525 he produced a translation of the New Testament that was swarming with textual corruption. He willfully mistranslated entire passages of Sacred Scripture in order to condemn orthodox Catholic doctrine and support the new Lutheran ideas. The Bishop of London claimed that he could count over 2,000 errors in the volume (and this was just the New Testament).

And we must remember that this was not merely a translation of Scripture. His text included a prologue and notes that were so full of contempt for the Catholic Church and the clergy that no one could mistake his obvious agenda and prejudice. Did the Catholic Church condemn this version of the Bible? Of course it did.

The secular authorities condemned it as well. Anglicans are among the many today who laud Tyndale as the “father of the English Bible.” But it was their own founder, King Henry VIII, who in 1531 declared that “the translation of the Scripture corrupted by William Tyndale should be utterly expelled, rejected, and put away out of the hands of the people.”

So troublesome did Tyndale’s Bible prove to be that in 1543—after his break with Rome—Henry again decreed that “all manner of books of the Old and New Testament in English, being of the crafty, false, and untrue translation of Tyndale . . . shall be clearly and utterly abolished, extinguished, and forbidden to be kept or used in this realm.”

Ultimately, it was the secular authorities that proved to be the end for Tyndale. He was arrested and tried (and sentenced to die) in the court of the Holy Roman Emperor in 1536. His translation of the Bible was heretical because it contained heretical ideas—not because the act of translation was heretical in and of itself. In fact, the Catholic Church would produce a translation of the Bible into English a few years later (The Douay-Reims version, whose New Testament was released in 1582 and whose Old Testament was released in 1609).

Also, noteworthy is Tyndale had opposed King Henry VIII’s annulment of Catherine of Aragon, on the grounds that it was unbiblical. Henry would not tolerate the criticism, so he had him arrested and tried on trumped-up charges of heresy.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print ... les-heresy

As you see, a little more to the story than Watchtower probably relays.

BTW, "And Catholics don’t even have to accept everything a Pope says unless the Pope." This explains a lot about why Catholics are not unified and it's like many religions in one, thank you for this piece of info.

You again show you know very little regarding the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church has one unified teaching. And we are on every continent on the globe, in every country, region, culture, and yet teaching the same unified teachings. If you go to mass today in Germany, or Thailand, or Pittsburg or Kenya, or Toronto, or Japan, you would be hearing the exact same Bible passages and the same Catholic teachings. I am afraid you are a recipient of misinformation

[RightReason]

P

Absolutely not. Do you think His disciples took a finger or a toe of Jesus and actually ate it? No. Taking it literally and coming up with a false doctrine like transubstantiation is silly.

Your comment simply proves you do not understand what transubstantiation means. We are literally receiving Jesus’ Body and Blood in the Holy Eucharist, however the appearances of bread and wine remain. It’s what Christians refer to as a miracle! I’m sorry that you doubt Our Lord Jesus Christ’s words and that He is capable of such a thing.

Absolutely he is. That's John's context in his entire gospel.

Not quite. You don’t know Scripture as well as you might think you do. Certainly Our Lord sometimes spoke literally and sometimes metaphorically (quite frankly, as do all human beings). But if people were unclear about something, Jesus would typically clarify. He would try a different approach. But He didn’t do that in John 6. And He used words like, Truly, Truly I say to you . . . One really has to look at the context. How do you justify why the crowd was offended at His words? What is so offensive about someone metaphorically saying, “You must drink me in or I am the bread of life”? If someone is simply being poetic, those are not offensive words. The problem is they heard Him correctly. He was speaking literally and they didn’t like it. Nothing else makes sense. Please, please, pray about this tonight. Ask God to reveal to you the truth about this passage.

RightReason wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 3:08 pmAlso, anyone who knows Scripture would understand the parallels from the OT that Jesus was the spotless lamb for the sacrificial meal. It was always necessary to actually literally eat the sacrificial lamb.
Absolutely, but Jesus's sacrifice was of Himself on the cross. He is the Lamb of God, not the lamb of men.

What are you talking about? He was the spotless lamb who sacrificed Himself for us in the ultimate sacrifice. You should try to get a hold of this book

It is amazing, is all Scripture, and really brings it home.

RightReason wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 3:08 pmI beg you to read John 6 and really think about it. Meditate on it. There is no way around it.
Right back at you. Every word.

Just actually do it. And preface your reading of it with, “God, please reveal to me the meaning of this passage. Help me put aside what I already think I know and show me what you want me to know.”

RightReason wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 3:08 pmI am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

Yes, the manna that God fed the Israelites with in their wandering in the desert was a type, a shadow, of Christ. Cannibalism is not in view in either place. The Lord provides for His people.

But Jesus went on to say that your ancestors ate the manna, but still died. The bread He is offering is different. It has eternal life. And the cannibalism accusation just shows a lack of understanding. Cannibalism is eating the dead body of one’s enemy. Jesus isn’t dead. He’s alive. And He’s not our enemy. He’s our savior – so NOT cannibalism.

As I said, Jesus, in saying upon this rock," was referring directly to Peter's confession of Him as the Christ, not Peter himself.

Did you read anything I posted. Your Peter’s confession argument was debunked.

The rest of your post looks repetitive and there's no need to keep going back over the same things, so I'm stopping here.

Yes, I stopped short in responding to everything you said in this post, because it seems clear you are steeped in your beliefs and have no intention of listening to anyone who provides evidence debunking your views.

I appreciate your devotion to your church

Thanks. I’m devoted because it’s True. I wish you could put aside some of the things you might have been told and believed and see things with fresh eyes. I’m praying for you.

[2timothy316]

Please tell me so I can understand why anyone joins a religion that at one time killed people for reading the Bible. Someone being wrong is one thing but to keep teaching the wrong thing like don't read the Bible or we will kill you, for centuries....how do you reconcile with that?

There is no need to reconcile such a thing because what you are saying is a lie. Again, what anti-Catholic propaganda site are you getting your information from. Is that lie coming from Watchtower?

Ah so people accept the lies of the church...that is how people reconcile with their conscience.

I get my information for trusted sources like the encyclopedia. Who doesn't spin information in the RRCs favor.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Spanish-Inquisition
https://www.britannica.com/biography/William-Tyndale

Here's a nasty one. Guess who gets the credit for some the cruelest torture devices ever thought of?
https://historyofyesterday.com/the-six- ... 3c729f6d69

Why stop now RCC? Did people finally get sick of the false charges of heresy? The USA was even founded so that people could get away from the RCC and others. All of these atrocities and more...that is the side you want to be on? Well, you can have it. No has done more damage to the RCCs reputation than the RCC.

[2timothy316]

BTW, "And Catholics don’t even have to accept everything a Pope says unless the Pope." This explains a lot about why Catholics are not unified and it's like many religions in one, thank you for this piece of info.

You again show you know very little regarding the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church has one unified teaching. And we are on every continent on the globe, in every country, region, culture, and yet teaching the same unified teachings. If you go to mass today in Germany, or Thailand, or Pittsburg or Kenya, or Toronto, or Japan, you would be hearing the exact same Bible passages and the same Catholic teachings. I am afraid you are a recipient of misinformation

It was a Catholic where I work that told me that her church is falling apart over the last election. Unified indeed...you don't talk to many other Catholics from around the world do you. You know there are there but don't know much about them.

Here is picture of unity from the Catholic church. I don't think many American or British Catholics were unified during WWII with German Catholics. They were killing each other. I guess you're going to tell me that was all 'misinformation' too. I'm not interested in Catholic cancel culture and modern day spins to cover over past atrocities.

[PinSeeker]

...Catholics don’t even have to accept everything a Pope says unless the Pope is speaking from the Chair of Peter.

This is eerily parallel to Mormons who wear special underwear.

Grace and peace to you, RR.

[RightReason]

It was a Catholic where I work that told me that her church is falling apart over the last election.

Ha, ha, ha . . . . if by division you mean Catholics being able to have different political views, I don’t consider that relevant. “Render unto Caesar what is Caesars.” When you mentioned being united, I thought you were talking about the teachings on faith and morals the Church teaches. And in that case, she is not divided.

If however, you are talking about individuals in the Church having different opinions or even internal squabbles, well . . . . that was even present in the early Church and we are told about it in Scripture. So, that is something that is nothing new, even in Jesus’ day and will probably always exist to a certain degree. The Church is in a constant battle fighting against the culture and other false religions trying to suck people into their faulty theology and ways. Which is why she continually proclaims and reminds the flock of the unchanging teachings of Jesus Christ.

Here is picture of unity from the Catholic church. I don't think many American or British Catholics were unified during WWII with German Catholics. They were killing each other. I guess you're going to tell me that was all 'misinformation' too.

You said it. JW’s all read from the same anti-Catholic literature. What page is that one on? Every JW I converse with brings up this ‘Catholics fight against Catholics’ smear. And my favorite, that Catholics did nothing to stop Hitler. <sigh> I understand this need JW’s have to keep slinging mud to see if anything will stick. It’s what people resort to when they have no reasonable and logical arguments left. You can’t respond to the Catholic Church being Christ’s established Church and it being the JW’s who came late to the scene, took our Bible, altered it, and created their own theology, so you simply shout, “Yeah, well whatabout that Catholic who fought for Germany!” Keep grasping, it’s a good distraction.

[RightReason]

...Catholics don’t even have to accept everything a Pope says unless the Pope is speaking from the Chair of Peter.

This is eerily parallel to Mormons who wear special underwear.

Grace and peace to you, RR.

Not sure if you realize from the chair of Peter is not literal. There is not a chair that if the Pope sits on, a spell is cast, and he can only speak truth.

The Latin phrase for the doctrine of Papal infallibility is ex cathedra, which translated means from the chair. It is an expression to denote unless the Pope speaks ex cathedra or makes an official declaration that something he’s about to say must be accepted Church doctrine, then it is not necessarily binding on believers.

Again, you seem to rely on a great deal of misinformation and false stereotypes regarding the Catholic church.

[PinSeeker]

...Catholics don’t even have to accept everything a Pope says unless the Pope is speaking from the Chair of Peter.

This is eerily parallel to Mormons who wear special underwear.

Grace and peace to you, RR.

Not sure if you realize from the chair of Peter is not literal. There is not a chair that if the Pope sits on, a spell is cast, and he can only speak truth.

The Latin phrase for the doctrine of Papal infallibility is ex cathedra, which translated means from the chair. It is an expression to denote unless the Pope speaks ex cathedra or makes an official declaration that something he’s about to say must be accepted Church doctrine, then it is not necessarily binding on believers.

I'm fully aware of all that, RightReason. The only "chair" that matters is the one Jesus sits in now, which is at the right hand of God the Father.

Again, you seem to rely on a great deal of misinformation and false stereotypes regarding the Catholic church.

No, I'm just not "taken in" and indoctrinated in it as you are. Which is a big part of what I was saying in this last post. Thanks be to God, I don't wear "special underwear" and am not taken in or influenced by it.

Grace and peace to you.

[2timothy316]

It was a Catholic where I work that told me that her church is falling apart over the last election.

Ha, ha, ha . . . . if by division you mean Catholics being able to have different political views, I don’t consider that relevant.

No as in her church is likely to shut down because they fought so much they are not showing up anymore, thus no money to pay the bills. If don't know this is going on, I don't see how much I can rely on your word about 'the truth' about the RCC.