Zone1 How we know the Catholic Church (called such at least as early as 107 AD) did not fail

[kjw47]

That tells me that you refuse to actually read your own translation to honestly see what it says. Tell me, how can you put your faith in Jesus Christ to save your eternal soul if you also claim He doesn't have the power to forgive sin or grant eternal life?

What are you nuts. I have been through it many times. We are taught EVERY utterance from God, it never stops.
God gave Jesus all authority to forgive and grant life.

 

[forkintheroad7]

Do you have evidence that the Catholic Church went by that name in 107 AD?

Yes, there is evidence. Try studying early Church history. Why do you depend on people at the forum to do your homework 4 you?

OK, sorry.. I'm not snarky about your question here.. still kind of annoyed because of previous posters, not you.

So anyhow, yeh, there are archived documents that show the Church was called Catholic, at least as early as 107, probably earlier. You know how it is preserving documents that old.. But still, 107 AD is pretty ancient

 

[LeroyDumonde]

Yes, there is evidence. Try studying early Church history. Why do you depend on people at the forum to do your homework 4 you?

OK, sorry.. I'm not snarky about your question here.. still kind of annoyed because of previous posters, not you.

So anyhow, yeh, there are archived documents that show the Church was called Catholic, at least as early as 107, probably earlier. You know how it is preserving documents that old.. But still, 107 AD is pretty ancient

The person making the claim bears the burden of proof. Besides, I don't feel like searching through thousands of pages of early church texts to find the answer. In any case Merriweather gave me enough info that I was able to find the answer relatively easily.

 

[forkintheroad7]

The person making the claim bears the burden of proof. Besides, I don't feel like searching through thousands of pages of early church texts to find the answer. In any case Merriweather gave me enough info that I was able to find the answer relatively easily.

The answer to what?

I have a bzillion things on my mind, so can't help forgetting..

 

[LeroyDumonde]

The answer to what?

I have a bzillion things on my mind, so can't help forgetting..

Evidence that the word catholic was used in reference to the church in 107 AD.

 

[kjw47]

Yes, there is evidence. Try studying early Church history. Why do you depend on people at the forum to do your homework 4 you?

OK, sorry.. I'm not snarky about your question here.. still kind of annoyed because of previous posters, not you.

So anyhow, yeh, there are archived documents that show the Church was called Catholic, at least as early as 107, probably earlier. You know how it is preserving documents that old.. But still, 107 AD is pretty ancient

Jesus was never with Catholicism. They are the foretold great apostasy(2 Thess 2:3= the son of peredition. And all her protestant branches are included--They DO NOT listen to Jesus.

 

[Cougarbear]

No.

"And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven."

If you read that literally then you MUST include "dads" as Fathers as well.

The fact that you already acknowledge it can be used for "other men on Earth" validates my point. Period.

The word "Father" IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE can and does have multiple meanings and can be used to describe men as "Father" other than describing only God as "Father" - as you just confessed.

So that point is proven beyond any reasonable doubt and would win in any court in the United States.

Now if you stop being so stubborn and open up your mind and heart, I will explain the deeper and more Spiritual meaning of the phrase...

In the most FORMAL sense - during those times - the word "Father" was used to refer to the "Patriarchs of society", Elders, Prophets, The Law, and so forth.

When Jesus spoke those words he was telling them to no longer consider "The Patriarchs, the Elders, etc" as the "Be all, end all" to their faith. They were to be respected but his followers would need to follow his way which established their new "Father" in heaven. Their new "Father in Heaven" would be a combination of the Law, the Prophets AND the teachings of Jesus.

Thus "Fulfilling BUT NOT ABOLISHING THE LAW" To those that have ears, let them hear!

I promise you - this is EXACTLY what he meant. (Don't ask me how I know).

The point of the scripture is not to put a man in the place of Father in Heaven. Like a Pope who is known as Holy Father. There is only one Holy Father and that is Father in Heaven.

 

[forkintheroad7]

Jesus was never with Catholicism. They are the foretold great apostasy(2 Thess 2:3= the son of peredition. And all her protestant branches are included--They DO NOT listen to Jesus.

Believe what you want. It's what humans normally do

 

[kjw47]

Believe what you want. It's what humans normally do

How will they explain that the Pope and clergy allowed the young men to kill Catholic young men on the allied side for Adolf Hitler? All the while praying to the same God on both sides=pure hipocrisy--and lying to both sides and telling them that God was on their side?
The rev war, the civil war, and ww1 it occurred as well-The bloodguilt has amassed to the heavens.

 

[Cougarbear]

How will they explain that the Pope and clergy allowed the young men to kill Catholic young men on the allied side for Adolf Hitler? All the while praying to the same God on both sides=pure hipocrisy--and lying to both sides and telling them that God was on their side?
The rev war, the civil war, and ww1 it occurred as well-The bloodguilt has amassed to the heavens.

Why are you claiming to be judge and jury? Heck, your church claims only 144,000 will make it to heaven and you aren't included. You'll stay in the ground. Worry about your own sins...