Is there a true church?

[HisServant]

You have yet to demonstrate the falsehood of any of the doctrines discussed in the article above.

Do you truly not see how circuitous your claim is?


You've said nothing more than...
"I know the Catholic Church is a false church because Catholic doctrine is false.
I know that Catholic doctrine is false because the Catholic Church is a false church."

Round and round the mulberry bush...

Meaningless.

All you need to know about the Roman Catholic Church being false is its behavior... all its doctrines could be correct.. in the scope of the christian life, doctrines mean nothing in the face of someones conduct.

The Roman Catholic is today engaged in conduct unbecoming a Christian and sinful... and its doctrines prevent it from recognizing it and repenting of it.

Basically, it knows it has disqualified itself and now has hamstrung itself into not being able to admit it.

It really is quite comical...

 

[glassjester]

All you need to know about the Roman Catholic Church being false is its behavior... all its doctrines could be correct.. in the scope of the christian life, doctrines mean nothing in the face of someones conduct.

Do you believe they are?

 

[HisServant]

Do you believe they are?

No, I believe they have been bastardized over the centuries to the point where they no longer represent what Jesus and the Apostles taught.

Doctrinal development is the tool of Satan, because it doesn't believe in the sufficiency of scripture, nor does it give the respect scripture deserves as being inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Seriously, do you believe that the Holy Spirit was so inept in his inspiration that tomes needed to be created to expand on it and develop it?

I believe transubstiation was a pagan custom integrated into Romanism and it is false.

I believe that there is no such thing as a priest, bishop, cardinal or pope. The biblical office is simply that of presbytr and elder... the distinction lies in temporal spiritual gifts.

I believe that all those that aspire to be elders need to conform to the biblical test for them... they must be men of mature age, husband and father, so their relationship with their wife and child, along with the behavior of them can be tested to determine fitness for eldership.

And so on.... all of the Roman traditions integrated into the faith have corrupted it and are false.

 

[Prizebeatz1]

Yes. But that's hardly a controversial claim. Every denomination believes that the doctrines they teach are all true, therefore any varying doctrine taught by another denomination is necessarily false, hence all other churches are not "true."


But what does the Catholic Church actually teach regarding this claim?

Here's a short explanation:
http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/what-no-salvation-outside-the-church-means

I realize providing a link to an article is severely frowned upon here, so I'll provide some quotes from it, in order to summarize the main points.













The whole article is worth the read, for a full explanation. Thanks for being willing to actually discuss the topic. Really.

If we were to have a literal interpretation then it would make sense but some of us know better now.

 

[glassjester]

No, I believe they have been bastardized over the centuries to the point where they no longer represent what Jesus and the Apostles taught.

Can you provide an example of a Catholic doctrine that is contrary to the teachings of the first century Church?

Seriously, do you believe that the Holy Spirit was so inept in his inspiration that tomes needed to be created to expand on it and develop it?

If Scripture spelled out all Christian doctrine so plainly, there would not be tens of thousands of protestant denominations all claiming to teach "only" what's taught in Scripture.

Do you believe that Christ gave His apostles the authority to teach Christian doctrine? Do you believe that the apostles had the authority to name successors to continue to teach Christian doctrine after they died?

I believe transubstiation was a pagan custom integrated into Romanism and it is false.

And when would you say this "heretical" doctrine entered the formerly unpolluted catholic (little c) church?

I believe that there is no such thing as a priest, bishop, cardinal or pope. The biblical office is simply that of presbytr and elder... the distinction lies in temporal spiritual gifts.

What in particular do you not believe is true about priests or the pope?

 

[glassjester]

If we were to have a literal interpretation then it would make sense but some of us know better now.

And how do you determine which words of Scripture to interpret literally, vs. which parts to interpret by some other means?

Just whichever parts you especially like? Randomly? According to what a particular teacher says? Whichever parts agree with what you already believe?

 

[HisServant]

Do you believe that Christ gave His apostles the authority to teach Christian doctrine?

He gave them authority to be witnesses to his work on the cross, there is no doctrinal authority in that... as a matter of fact there is very little doctrine specified in the new testament. It seems that pretty much every christian has forgotten our mission to be witnesses... and witnesses can only talk about what they have seen.. they are barred from enhancing and developing their witness

Do you believe that the apostles had the authority to name successors to continue to teach Christian doctrine after they died?

God picks the successors, just like Jesus picked the Apostles... as a matter of fact the Apostles cast lots to decide Judas' replacement. Also, even when they did send someone, the receiving congregation was given the right of refusal if they were not satisfied with them.

And when would you say this "heretical" doctrine entered the formerly unpolluted catholic (little c) church?

That is obvious... when Rome hijacked the faith.

What in particular do you not believe is true of priests or the pope?

They aren't mentioned any where in scripture and never even came on the scene until Rome got involved. It is common knowledge that when Rome became christian, it chiseled off the names of the old pagan gods from their temples and made them into churches and forced the priests and virgins to become christians... their actual conversion wasn't necessary, they were employed by the empire and did what they were told.

 

[Prizebeatz1]

And how do you determine which words of Scripture to interpret literally, vs. which parts to interpret by some other means?

Just whichever parts you especially like? Randomly? According to what a particular teacher says? Whichever parts agree with what you already believe?

Those are all good questions. I can't answer them for anyone else but as for me, I went to seek the answers for myself because the ones taught by most traditional churches leave much to be desired. They don't take the soul into account. That leaves people with unresolved self-hatred, shame and guilt. It's detrimental to society as lack of true self-worth is a social problem that affects us all.

 

[glassjester]

Those are all good questions. I can't answer them for anyone else but as for me, I went to seek the answers for myself because the ones taught by most traditional churches leave much to be desired. They don't take the soul into account. That leaves people with unresolved self-hatred, shame and guilt. It's detrimental to society as lack of true self-worth is a social problem that affects us all.

I'm not sure what you mean.

 

[glassjester]

He gave them authority to be witnesses to his work on the cross, there is no doctrinal authority in that... as a matter of fact there is very little doctrine specified in the new testament. It seems that pretty much every christian has forgotten our mission to be witnesses... and witnesses can only talk about what they have seen.. they are barred from enhancing and developing their witness

And what they were taught.

God picks the successors

And how is His choice communicated to us?

That is obvious... when Rome hijacked the faith.

Year?

They aren't mentioned any where in scripture and never even came on the scene until Rome got involved.

What Catholic doctrine regarding priests or popes do you think is false?

 

[HisServant]

And what they were taught.




And how is His choice communicated to us?




Year?





What Catholic doctrine regarding priests or popes do you think is false?

As far as how God would communicate the identity of a new Apostle... he doesn't. As a matter of fact the replacement the Apostles chose through gambling has pretty much been forgotten.. their choice was of no consequence.

Anyhow, the entire idea of Apostles died when the last of Jesus' chosen ones passed away... there is no need for them anymore.

Infallibility is false... the entire idea of a celibate clergy is no where in scripture and didn't exist even in the RCC until 1139... now the RCC has built all sorts of doctrine around that decision to make it something it wasn't.

Priests are nothing more than elders and are to abide by the requirements for elders as outlined in the New Testament... they are to be married, they are to work in the secular world, etc.

 

[Crucible]

It's the one true church of Rome :chuckle:

Amazing what two more words can do.

 

[Prizebeatz1]

I'm not sure what you mean.

Most of the traditional denominations do not know the importance of the soul as our true identity. It is eternal and infinite because it is one with God. It's been buried and rejected as insignificant and excluded in the Trinity yet it is the most important piece. The cornerstone the builders rejected. The soul is salvation in itself.

 

[glassjester]

Most of the traditional denominations do not know the importance of the soul as our true identity. It is eternal and infinite because it is one with God. It's been buried and rejected as insignificant and excluded in the Trinity yet it is the most important piece. The cornerstone the builders rejected. The soul is salvation in itself.

The human soul is very, very finite.

My soul is not God. You say yours is?

 

[glassjester]

As far as how God would communicate the identity of a new Apostle... he doesn't. As a matter of fact the replacement the Apostles chose through gambling has pretty much been forgotten.. their choice was of no consequence.

Anyhow, the entire idea of Apostles died when the last of Jesus' chosen ones passed away... there is no need for them anymore.

Except the apostles did appoint successors - not replacement apostles per se, but priests and bishops to preserve and pass on the teachings of the apostles.

http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/where-in-the-new-testament-are-priests-mentioned

Infallibility is false...

Please explain what you believe the Catholic Church teaches regarding infallibility, and why you believe it is false.

the entire idea of a celibate clergy is no where in scripture and didn't exist even in the RCC until 1139... now the RCC has built all sorts of doctrine around that decision to make it something it wasn't.



Priests are nothing more than elders and are to abide by the requirements for elders as outlined in the New Testament... they are to be married, they are to work in the secular world, etc.

There is no Catholic doctrine, let alone "all sorts" of doctrine, dictating that priests cannot be married. Rather, this is a church discipline in the Latin Rite, and is not practiced by all rites within the Catholic Church. There are even Roman Catholic priests that are married.

If you want to know the reasons behind this particular discipline within the Latin Rite, read more here: http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/WCRB.htm

 

[Prizebeatz1]

The human soul is very, very finite.

My soul is not God. You say yours is?

Misunderstanding and misinterpretation. The soul is one with God. That is what the story of Jesus is trying to tell us. The soul is timeless and unconditional in contrast to the traditional Holy Spirit which depends on conditions to be met in time (after Jesus breathes on the apostles). Notice how badly the personality needs to hang on to its beliefs. That reaching and grasping comes from the enemy but it's not an enemy that needs to be defeated. We just need to understand how it creates the illusion that our value is less than infinite and that we are apart from eternity. The same intensity with which we feel the need to hang on to our identity and its beliefs is the same intensity with which we are identified with the enemy. It avoids what is infinite and eternal at all costs because it feels it will be obliterated. It does its job so well because it is nearly undetectable. There is a reason it is depicted as a serpent.

Attachment to beliefs and the identity of who take ourselves to be is a war against God and we don't even know it. We are avoiding what is infinite and eternal. Let go of the need to hang on and what do we get? We get what's infinite and eternal in the form of what we take to be black spacious emptiness. We avoid it because we judge it as bad and it makes us feel worthless. We can't stop biting the forbidden fruit of judgement. So in my interpretation Jesus is symbolism for the soul which is the connection to our divinity and Satan is symbolism for the personality which includes attachment to a false identity and thus disconnection from the true identity.

 

[glassjester]

Misunderstanding and misinterpretation. The soul is one with God. That is what the story of Jesus is trying to tell us.


So in my interpretation Jesus is symbolism for the soul which is the connection to our divinity and Satan is symbolism for the personality which includes attachment to a false identity and thus disconnection from the true identity.

I agree that Jesus serves as a model (or symbol) for all men. In the same sense that Adam is the first man, and a sort of prototype of all men that followed him - fallen man. Jesus is the new Adam. In the gospel story, He is the hero, and we are called to pick up the cross and follow Him.

On the above, I believe that we are in agreement.
Here's where I disagree:

Jesus' life functions as myth and reality. He is God incarnate. He is the myth made fact. He is the Word made flesh. He is fully man and fully God.

He is a symbol, but He is not only a symbol.

But, in being one with the Father, Jesus did not lose His own identity. The Father and the Son are distinct persons.

 

[Prizebeatz1]

I agree that Jesus serves as a model (or symbol) for all men. In the same sense that Adam is the first man, and a sort of prototype of all men that followed him - fallen man. Jesus is the new Adam. In the gospel story, He is the hero, and we are called to pick up the cross and follow Him.

On the above, I believe that we are in agreement.
Here's where I disagree:

Jesus' life functions as myth and reality. He is God incarnate. He is the myth made fact. He is the Word made flesh. He is fully man and fully God.

He is a symbol, but He is not only a symbol.

But, in being one with the Father, Jesus did not lose His own identity. The Father and the Son are distinct persons.

I held the same beliefs for a long time. It was so important for me to be right about those beliefs that I traded the connection with my soul for it. The adversary will not advertise this. What it will promote is keeping us stuck in time. For example, I strived to get to heaven in the future. I overlooked the timeless present moment and thus missed the feeling of everlasting richness that is found exclusively right here and right now. The timelessness of the Alpha Omega is not a joke. It is reality. It cannot be duplicated by being right about our beliefs and hanging on to them for dear life. That is a substitute which will actually have the opposite effect. The personality becomes delusional as it looks for something where it cannot be found. It tends to try harder to hold onto its beliefs. The harder it tries the more worthless it feels. The true identity of the soul doesn't lift a finger yet is it is one with omnipotent power and strength. It is ageless and immortal, born pure of a virgin, omnipresent, unconditional, indivisible. Jesus's divinity points to our own divinity. We are one with God because of the soul.

 

[glassjester]

I held the same beliefs for a long time.

Do you believe that Christ literally rose from the dead?

 

[HisServant]

Except the apostles did appoint successors - not replacement apostles per se, but priests and bishops to preserve and pass on the teachings of the apostles.

http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/where-in-the-new-testament-are-priests-mentioned

Wow... an outright lie in the first sentence... priest does not come from the greek word presbtyros..... A first year greek student would know that.