GCM Home | Your Posts | Rules | Donate | Bookstore | RSS | Facebook | Twitter

Author Topic: Contradictions  (Read 16278 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Insight

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2379
  • Manna: 50
    • View Profile
Contradictions
« on: January 24, 2012, 04:03:14 PM »
My intentions up front is to demonstrate from History the many contradictions that have existed in the RCC compared against their claims of primacy, infallibility etc.

Please resolve the following contradiction:

After the death of Pope Honorious I he was denounced as a heretic by the Sixth Council in AD 680. Pope Leo confirmed his condemnation. If as Pope Leo decreed, that Pope Honorious I was in fact a heretic, why was he leading the Church in the first place?

Quote

He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact; and he is to be considered to have been condemned in the sense in which Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who died in Catholic communion, never having resisted the Church, have been condemned." (quotations from the Catholic Encyclopedia)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Honorius_I



How does an RCC member compare such a man to the Apostle Peter, if as you all say these men (Popes) are in part infallible? If this is so and history including your Catholic documents are correct then a period of time your Church was lead by an Apostate? How do you know all Popes in RCC have not been heretics?

Insight


Christian Forums and Message Board

Contradictions
« on: January 24, 2012, 04:03:14 PM »

Elvisman

  • Guest
Re: Contradictions
« Reply #1 on: January 24, 2012, 04:14:57 PM »
My intentions up front is to demonstrate from History the many contradictions that have existed in the RCC compared against their claims of primacy, infallibility etc.

Please resolve the following contradiction:

After the death of Pope Honorious I he was denounced as a heretic by the Sixth Council in AD 680. Pope Leo confirmed his condemnation. If as Pope Leo decreed, that Pope Honorious I was in fact a heretic, why was he leading the Church in the first place?

Quote

He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact; and he is to be considered to have been condemned in the sense in which Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who died in Catholic communion, never having resisted the Church, have been condemned." (quotations from the Catholic Encyclopedia)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Honorius_I



How does an RCC member compare such a man to the Apostle Peter, if as you all say these men (Popes) are in part infallible? If this is so and history including your Catholic documents are correct then a period of time your Church was lead by an Apostate? How do you know all Popes in RCC have not been heretics?

Insight


The fact that a Pope may be a heretic has no bearing on the fact that the Church cannot be led into error.  
Jesus guaranteed that his Church would be led to ALL truth (John 16:12-15).
Pope Honorious I never made an erroneous Ex Cathedra statement on faith and morals.

If Charles Manson were elected Pope -the Church STILL could not declare error in matters of faith and morals.

No contradictions here, my anti-Catholic friend . . .
« Last Edit: January 24, 2012, 04:45:32 PM by Elvisman »

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Contradictions
« Reply #1 on: January 24, 2012, 04:14:57 PM »

Offline asachild

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 170
  • Manna: 5
    • View Profile
Re: Contradictions
« Reply #2 on: January 24, 2012, 04:53:22 PM »
Quote
If this is so and history including your Catholic documents are correct then a period of time your Church was lead by an Apostate?

I've been pondering similar thoughts, but from a slightly different angle.  The Scriptures make it clear that there are certain actions that prohibit one from inheriting the kingdom of God.  Scripture provides several lists of those actions.

There were church leaders, who by their actions proved that they were not inheritors of the kingdom of God. 

How can one who is outside the kingdom of God be its representative on earth?  What mechanism is available to the sheep who happen to find themselves led by a hireling wolf?  As I said, I've been pondering.

Regards,
AsAChild


Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • Legendary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
    • View Profile
Re: Contradictions
« Reply #3 on: January 24, 2012, 05:14:24 PM »
If I may. I just wanted to clarify something.

The doctrines of infallibility and ex cathedra are not arbitrary. The virtue only implies in very specific manners and only in an intended official capacity. Every thought the Pope has and every word he speaks is not an official proclamation of the Church. The Pope is still subject to the mysteries of God as we all are. As a theologian he may speculate on things and may be wrong in his speculation.




Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Contradictions
« Reply #3 on: January 24, 2012, 05:14:24 PM »

Offline Insight

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2379
  • Manna: 50
    • View Profile
Re: Contradictions
« Reply #4 on: January 24, 2012, 05:51:35 PM »
I cannot help notice how convenient your answers are to these condictions while I must say Elvis "takes the cake".

Quote

Pope Honorious I never made an erroneous Ex Cathedra statement on faith and morals.



So while this apostate led your beloved Church from 27 October 625 to 12 October 638 he not once spoke ex cathedra? although branded a heretic?

An observation thus far but one could presume our Roman Catholics like to make things up as they go along.

Like I said all too convenient for my liking.

Here is another contradiction regarding your Pope Vigilius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Vigilius) who after condemning certain books, at first removed his condemnation! (one has the liberty to condemn certain works) however, he went on to re-instated it, only to retract it a second time, and you guessed it dear reader re-instated it once again?

I believe there is a term for this...."a reed blowing in the wind".

By the way Elvis have you worked out the Melc Priesthood and its order?  I note you still claim Jesus belongs to another order to those he represents?  ::smile::

Insight

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Contradictions
« Reply #4 on: January 24, 2012, 05:51:35 PM »



Elvisman

  • Guest
Re: Contradictions
« Reply #5 on: January 24, 2012, 08:39:05 PM »
I cannot help notice how convenient your answers are to these condictions while I must say Elvis "takes the cake".

Quote

Pope Honorious I never made an erroneous Ex Cathedra statement on faith and morals.



So while this apostate led your beloved Church from 27 October 625 to 12 October 638 he not once spoke ex cathedra? although branded a heretic?

An observation thus far but one could presume our Roman Catholics like to make things up as they go along.

Like I said all too convenient for my liking.

Here is another contradiction regarding your Pope Vigilius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Vigilius) who after condemning certain books, at first removed his condemnation! (one has the liberty to condemn certain works) however, he went on to re-instated it, only to retract it a second time, and you guessed it dear reader re-instated it once again?

I believe there is a term for this...."a reed blowing in the wind".

By the way Elvis have you worked out the Melc Priesthood and its order?  I note you still claim Jesus belongs to another order to those he represents?  ::smile::

Insight


there are many Popes who never made Ex Cathedra statements.  What makes you think that Honorious I was any different, hmmm?

As for your little dig about the Priesthood of Jesus - I have explained this to you ad nauseam.  As I indicated earlier, my 2nd grade daughter had an easier time grasping this than you . . .

Elvisman

  • Guest
Re: Contradictions
« Reply #6 on: January 24, 2012, 08:45:03 PM »
I've been pondering similar thoughts, but from a slightly different angle.  The Scriptures make it clear that there are certain actions that prohibit one from inheriting the kingdom of God.  Scripture provides several lists of those actions.

There were church leaders, who by their actions proved that they were not inheritors of the kingdom of God. 

How can one who is outside the kingdom of God be its representative on earth?  What mechanism is available to the sheep who happen to find themselves led by a hireling wolf?  As I said, I've been pondering.

Regards,
AsAChild

I don't know why you're so baffled.  This is not without Biblical precedent.
The Scriptures ALSO tell us that wolves in sheep's clothing would appear from within the Church (Matt. 7:15, Rom. 16:17-27).

ALSO - what did Jesus say to the Apostles in John 6:70??
He said: “Did I not choose you twelve? Yet is not one of you a devil?

Offline Insight

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2379
  • Manna: 50
    • View Profile
Re: Contradictions
« Reply #7 on: January 24, 2012, 09:51:04 PM »
I cannot help notice how convenient your answers are to these condictions while I must say Elvis "takes the cake".

Quote

Pope Honorious I never made an erroneous Ex Cathedra statement on faith and morals.



So while this apostate led your beloved Church from 27 October 625 to 12 October 638 he not once spoke ex cathedra? although branded a heretic?

An observation thus far but one could presume our Roman Catholics like to make things up as they go along.

Like I said all too convenient for my liking.

Here is another contradiction regarding your Pope Vigilius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Vigilius) who after condemning certain books, at first removed his condemnation! (one has the liberty to condemn certain works) however, he went on to re-instated it, only to retract it a second time, and you guessed it dear reader re-instated it once again?

I believe there is a term for this...."a reed blowing in the wind".

By the way Elvis have you worked out the Melc Priesthood and its order?  I note you still claim Jesus belongs to another order to those he represents?  ::smile::

Insight


there are many Popes who never made Ex Cathedra statements.  What makes you think that Honorious I was any different, hmmm?

As for your little dig about the Priesthood of Jesus - I have explained this to you ad nauseam.  As I indicated earlier, my 2nd grade daughter had an easier time grasping this than you . . .


Hmmm you say...Another convenient sidesteep...well deflected Elvis!

Maybe your 2nd grade daughter can answer this puzzle which daddy has presented for us concerning the Priesthood???

Jesus has become the high Priest of another Order not based on the Old Test!

For it is witnessed of him, "You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek." (Hebrews 7:17)

Now being a total change in Law and Order we find the New Priesthood cannot be compared...

Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron? (Hebrews 7:11)

But as you say your Priests are establish after the type of the Old? How So? In terms of their practices etc? But that system was never to be replictated? Never to be followed as an ensample!

Can you not read Elvis? Verse 11 is telling you with great clarity your Priesthood is a fraud!

What is the answer?

Those who believe the simple Truth are able to take part in Christ' order which speaks to a better entirely New Covenant.

This makes Jesus the guarantor of a better covenant.  (Hebrews 7:22)

Of course the only way to access this covenant is to draw near through his Priesthood and become a part of its order.

Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost (even a hard core catholic like yourself who must  deny her sweet wine and many seductions) those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them. (Hebrews 7:25)

So the Royal Priesthood must be after the order of Melc or if you are able to provide another order (as you have suggested the Levitical Order) or another?

But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood , a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. (1 Peter 2:9)

Of course all of these Priests have been given a Royal Law to fulfill.

If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, "You shall love your neighbour as yourself," you are doing well. (James 2:8)

1. We have a High Priest after the Order of Melc

2. We have a Royal Priesthood with no segregation or hierarchy
 
3. We have a Royal Law to fulfil as Priests of the Most High (Yahweh) by whom we approach through our Mediator Jesus Christ who is our High Priest who offers to Him continually.

Maybe your daughter may provide a more coherent understanding of the Priesthood than you Levitical type scenario which has absolutely no scriptural support.  

If you persist with this ridiculous exegesis would you mind identifying what Tribe your Bishops and Cardinals belong too?

Insight

Offline Insight

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2379
  • Manna: 50
    • View Profile
Re: Contradictions
« Reply #8 on: January 24, 2012, 09:59:29 PM »
I cannot help notice how convenient your answers are to these condictions while I must say Elvis "takes the cake".

Quote

Pope Honorious I never made an erroneous Ex Cathedra statement on faith and morals.



So while this apostate led your beloved Church from 27 October 625 to 12 October 638 he not once spoke ex cathedra? although branded a heretic?

An observation thus far but one could presume our Roman Catholics like to make things up as they go along.

Like I said all too convenient for my liking.

Here is another contradiction regarding your Pope Vigilius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Vigilius) who after condemning certain books, at first removed his condemnation! (one has the liberty to condemn certain works) however, he went on to re-instated it, only to retract it a second time, and you guessed it dear reader re-instated it once again?

I believe there is a term for this...."a reed blowing in the wind".

By the way Elvis have you worked out the Melc Priesthood and its order?  I note you still claim Jesus belongs to another order to those he represents?  ::smile::

Insight


there are many Popes who never made Ex Cathedra statements.  What makes you think that Honorious I was any different, hmmm?

As for your little dig about the Priesthood of Jesus - I have explained this to you ad nauseam.  As I indicated earlier, my 2nd grade daughter had an easier time grasping this than you . . .


Hmmm you say...Another convenient sidesteep...well deflected Elvis!

Maybe your 2nd grade daughter can answer this puzzle which daddy has presented for us concerning the Priesthood???

Jesus has become the high Priest of another Order not based on the Old Test!

For it is witnessed of him, "You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek." (Hebrews 7:17)

Now being a total change in Law and Order we find the New Priesthood cannot be compared...

Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron? (Hebrews 7:11)

But as you say your Priests are establish after the type of the Old? How So? In terms of their practices etc? But that system was never to be replictated? Never to be followed as an ensample!

Can you not read Elvis? Verse 11 is telling you with great clarity your Priesthood is a fraud!

What is the answer?

Those who believe the simple Truth are able to take part in Christ' order which speaks to a better entirely New Covenant.

This makes Jesus the guarantor of a better covenant.  (Hebrews 7:22)

Of course the only way to access this covenant is to draw near through his Priesthood and become a part of its order.

Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost (even a hard core catholic like yourself who must  deny her sweet wine and many seductions) those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them. (Hebrews 7:25)

So the Royal Priesthood must be after the order of Melc or if you are able to provide another order (as you have suggested the Levitical Order) or another?

But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood , a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. (1 Peter 2:9)

Of course all of these Priests have been given a Royal Law to fulfill.

If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, "You shall love your neighbour as yourself," you are doing well. (James 2:8)

1. We have a High Priest after the Order of Melc

2. We have a Royal Priesthood with no segregation or hierarchy
 
3. We have a Royal Law to fulfil as Priests of the Most High (Yahweh) by whom we approach through our Mediator Jesus Christ who is our High Priest who offers to Him continually.

Maybe your daughter may provide a more coherent understanding of the Priesthood than you Levitical type scenario which has absolutely no scriptural support.  

If you persist with this ridiculous exegesis would you mind identifying what Tribe your Bishops and Cardinals belong too?

Insight


For Teresa...notice what the New Royal Law is attributed too?  

Here it is again in case you missed "royal law according to the Scripture"

What need does one have for a Pope if the Scripture contains the Royal Law for a Royal Priesthood?

So plain in its understanding that it confounds the wise but the simple hearted understand the matter.

Have you got it yet Elvis & Teresa?

..or not?




Elvisman

  • Guest
Re: Contradictions
« Reply #9 on: January 25, 2012, 08:27:01 AM »
Hmmm you say...Another convenient sidesteep...well deflected Elvis!

Maybe your 2nd grade daughter can answer this puzzle which daddy has presented for us concerning the Priesthood???
Jesus has become the high Priest of another Order not based on the Old Test!
For it is witnessed of him, "You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek." (Hebrews 7:17)
Now being a total change in Law and Order we find the New Priesthood cannot be compared...
Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron? (Hebrews 7:11)
But as you say your Priests are establish after the type of the Old? How So? In terms of their practices etc? But that system was never to be replictated? Never to be followed as an ensample!
Can you not read Elvis? Verse 11 is telling you with great clarity your Priesthood is a fraud!
What is the answer?
Those who believe the simple Truth are able to take part in Christ' order which speaks to a better entirely New Covenant.
This makes Jesus the guarantor of a better covenant.  (Hebrews 7:22)
Of course the only way to access this covenant is to draw near through his Priesthood and become a part of its order.
Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost (even a hard core catholic like yourself who must  deny her sweet wine and many seductions) those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them. (Hebrews 7:25)
So the Royal Priesthood must be after the order of Melc or if you are able to provide another order (as you have suggested the Levitical Order) or another?
But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood , a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. (1 Peter 2:9)
Of course all of these Priests have been given a Royal Law to fulfill.
If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, "You shall love your neighbour as yourself," you are doing well. (James 2:8)
1. We have a High Priest after the Order of Melc
2. We have a Royal Priesthood with no segregation or hierarchy
3. We have a Royal Law to fulfil as Priests of the Most High (Yahweh) by whom we approach through our Mediator Jesus Christ who is our High Priest who offers to Him continually.
Maybe your daughter may provide a more coherent understanding of the Priesthood than you Levitical type scenario which has absolutely no scriptural support.  
If you persist with this ridiculous exegesis would you mind identifying what Tribe your Bishops and Cardinals belong too?

Insight

WOW.  
All I can say is, "WOW."

How many times am I going to have to explain to you that the NT Ministerial Priesthood is NOT based pn the Levitical Priesthood?  You seemed bright enough to be able to grasp what I was saying, but maybe not.

READ  C*L*O*S*E*L*Y, so I don't have to repeat myself a SIXTH time:
The NT Ministerial Priesthood is the FULFILLMENT of the old Levitical Priesthood.

A, NT FULFILLMENT is not equal to it's OT TYPE - it's a THOUSAND times better.
It has been PERFECTED and is FAR more glorious than the OT TYPE.

Your failure to see that the 3 OT priestly TYPES that were fulfilled by the NT priestly fulfillments is your problem.  It is all spelled out in Scripture.

Finally, your allusion to Heb. 7:11 is a pathetic attempt to discredit the NT Ministerial Priesthood simply goes to show your inability to comprehend what I have explained to you FIVE times.  
One LAST time:
Nobody ever said that perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood.

Got it now?
Yeah - I didn't think so . . .  ::frown::

P.S. - how about getting BACK ON TPOIC?

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • Legendary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
    • View Profile
Re: Contradictions
« Reply #10 on: January 25, 2012, 10:06:49 AM »
I cannot help notice how convenient your answers are to these condictions while I must say Elvis "takes the cake".

Quote

Pope Honorious I never made an erroneous Ex Cathedra statement on faith and morals.



So while this apostate led your beloved Church from 27 October 625 to 12 October 638 he not once spoke ex cathedra? although branded a heretic?

An observation thus far but one could presume our Roman Catholics like to make things up as they go along.

Like I said all too convenient for my liking.

Here is another contradiction regarding your Pope Vigilius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Vigilius) who after condemning certain books, at first removed his condemnation! (one has the liberty to condemn certain works) however, he went on to re-instated it, only to retract it a second time, and you guessed it dear reader re-instated it once again?

I believe there is a term for this...."a reed blowing in the wind".

By the way Elvis have you worked out the Melc Priesthood and its order?  I note you still claim Jesus belongs to another order to those he represents?  ::smile::

Insight



Again for the sake of accurately sticking to history it should be noted that Pope Honorius didn't assume the Chair of St. Peter as such, so you can't call him an "apostate" reigning from start to finish.

Offline asachild

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 170
  • Manna: 5
    • View Profile
Re: Contradictions
« Reply #11 on: January 25, 2012, 08:37:24 PM »
Quote
I don't know why you're so baffled.  This is not without Biblical precedent.
The Scriptures ALSO tell us that wolves in sheep's clothing would appear from within the Church (Matt. 7:15, Rom. 16:17-27).

ALSO - what did Jesus say to the Apostles in John 6:70??
He said: “Did I not choose you twelve? Yet is not one of you a devil?

Elvisman

  • Guest
Re: Contradictions
« Reply #12 on: January 26, 2012, 09:24:21 AM »
I don't think this applies.  When Jesus chose the 12 (and even including the 70 that went out) - the 'leaders' were limited to: healing the sick, deliverance, declaring the nearness of the kingdom of God, etc.

A very limited authority. 

When it came the time when for the disciples to become the apostles, with responsibility for the actual message, etc - Judas was not a part of them. 

If the leadership of the body was limited to the earlier responsibilities of the disciples, then no harm no foul, personal sanctification and walk before the Lord not so mission critical if you're delivering people from demonic entities, healing them, calling them to repentance.

Once the leadership is in the position of guidance, then the sanctification and holiness of those leading is absolutely a criteria and is mission critical. 

In Revelations 2:2 God says, "I know your works, your labor, your patience, and that you cannot bear those who are evil. And you *tested* those who say they are apostles and are not, and have found them liars."

"Cannot bear those who are evil."  "Tested those who say they are apostles."

Leaders can and do go wrong.  Leaders can and do start wrong.  God told us to test all things, we were not told to check our spirit, mind and discernment at the feet of whomever might be currently in charge, just because they are in charge - no matter how great their credentials.  God makes it clear in His Word what He considers evil.   

God chose Saul - knowing very well how he would turn out.  David was subject to Saul, because Saul was the God-anointed king.  David did not raise his hand to strike Saul, BUT he also didn't stay sitting around while Saul used him for target practice.  Nor did David pretend that what Saul was doing was right, even though Saul had been anointed by God for the position. 

David was a man after God's own heart.  When the time came and he was tested by his own son in a contest for the kingdom of Israel - look at how he handled the situation compared to Saul's responses. 

Regards,
AsAChild

All that being said, I don't understand how you think that leaders will be perfect.

The Church is the Body of Christ, and therefore, unable to espouse error in matters pertaining to salvation.  I disagree with you that the Scripture verses I presented do not apply.  Matt. 24:11 and 2 Pet. 2:1-3 also speak of false teachers and prophets who will "deceive many".

As for the authority of the Apostles being as limited as you say - I ALSO disagree with you.
Let's read what Jesus told the 70 before sending them out:

Luke 10:10-16
"Whatever town you enter and they do not receive you, go out into the streets and say, ‘The dust of your town that clings to our feet, even that we shake off against you.’ Yet know this: the kingdom of God is at hand. I tell you, it will be more tolerable for Sodom on that day than for that town. Whatever town you enter and they do not receive you, go out into the streets and say, ‘The dust of your town that clings to our feet, even that we shake off against you.’ Yet know this: the kingdom of God is at hand.  I tell you, it will be more tolerable for Sodom on that day than for that town.

Reproaches to Unrepentant Towns.  “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida!m For if the mighty deeds done in your midst had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would long ago have repented, sitting in sackcloth and ashes.  But it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgment than for you.  And as for you, Capernaum, ‘Will you be exalted to heaven? You will go down to the netherworld.’

AVZ

  • Guest
Re: Contradictions
« Reply #13 on: January 27, 2012, 02:10:41 AM »
Elvisman,

Hope I can share my thoughts about your earlier statement:
"Jesus HIMSELF chose a devil to be one of the first leaders of the Church . . ."

I am not sure if Jesus, while selecting the disciples, purposely selected Judas because he was a devil.
Even if Judas was a devil at that time already, it was Judas' choice to remain in that state.
Judas could have embraced the redemption offered by Jesus, but he chose not to do so.

The Bible teaches us that the devil has been given great powers. That even Judas went out and healed the sick doesn't mean that this power was given by God. Clearly Judas missed the trust and faith in Jesus necessary to do devine miracles, but rememer that even the devil has been given the possibility to do miracles that appear to be of God. The only way to determine the difference is to look at the person who performs the miracles and determine if the persons' life reflects a true christian attitude.

Note that it was written in the old testament that Jesus was going to be betrayed by His inner circle.
This had to come to pass.
Psalm 109:6 - Appoint an evil man to testify against him! May an accuser stand at his right side!
Psalm 41:9 - ​​​​​​​Even my close friend whom I trusted,he who shared meals with me, has turned against me.

After his betrayal, you see what Judas did...he regretted his actions. Even at that point Judas could have turned around and be redeemed!
Quite similar to the betrayal by Peter and his redemption. Look what Jesus said about Peter in Matthew 16: 22-23
"Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men."


There are two main differences here:
1) Jesus did not say that Peter was Satan like he did with Judas.
2) Peter adjusted his attitude (even though he still betrayed Jesus afterwards) and found redemption. Judas on the other hand committed suicide.


I would like to argue that Jesus did not choose a devil to be his disciple, rather than coose to fulfill the scriptures.
Even so, redemption was at all times within his grasp.


I strictly and fervently disagree with the second part of your statement that "...to be one of the first leaders of the Church".

I cannot remotely imagine a possible scenario where Jesus would purposely choose a devil to be the leader of the church. Not now and not then.
If a devil would ever be a church leader, he (or she) will be the choice of man!
God has given us all the attributes to determine if such a church leader is true or false.

Two bible verses come to mind:

1) 1 Thessalonians 5:21 - "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.''
2) Matthew 7:15-23 -  "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits..."

Judas was never a leader of the church. He did not receive the Holy Spirit which happened only after the death of Christ.
Only the Holy Spirit can lead us to produce good fruit. True church leaders are guided by the Holy Spirit, devils are not!


The two stories teach us that even people who are so close to Jesus, are fallible.
We are talking about disciples who directly are in contact with Jesus on a daily basis, seeing miracles happening and performing miracles themselves, yet they were fallible.

You are absolutely correct when you say that leaders are not perfect.
You are also absolutely correct that leaders have received limited power.

This brings us however to a very difficult question.
If even the disciples themselves were not given the power to redeem people, or have knowledge who will be or is redeemed, how can the catholic church:

1) state that the pope is preserved from even the possibility of error when in his official capacity he solemnly declares or promulgates to the universal Church a dogmatic teaching on faith or morals, whilst in contrast you declare
1a) God can (purposely) select a church leader who in fact is a devil. (I am not saying the pope is a devil...but by your statement he could be)
1b) Any church leader is fallible.

2) declare Mary to be in heaven, even though
2a) no such powers have ever even been given to the disciples
2b) no evidence is found for this in the Scriptures
2c) this notion solely rest on a dogma as established in 1)

Offline asachild

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 170
  • Manna: 5
    • View Profile
Re: Contradictions
« Reply #14 on: January 27, 2012, 02:13:06 AM »
Quote

Quote Elvisman
All that being said, I don't understand how you think that leaders will be perfect.

I don't think leaders will be perfect.  It's because they aren't perfect, that they cannot be assigned infallibility.   There is a difference between occasional sin and ongoing, chronic sin.  Or the occasional trip and fall compared to a happy diving into flagrant, continuous sin.

OTOH, the Word makes it clear what leaders in the church should be.  

1 Tim. 3:2-
" A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous, one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God? not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil.  Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

Likewise deacons must be reverent, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy for money, holding the mystery of the faith with a pure conscience.  But let these also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons, being found blameless.  Likewise, their wives must be reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things. Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well."

If leaders were going to be protected by God to get it right in matters of  great importance, no matter what sins they might be mired in - then there's no need for requirements for leadership.

If God has spelled it out on what the requirement is of leaders, to ignore His clear directions and follow a leader who is in flagrant sin and can't even meet a majority of the requirements, is to march purposely blind behind a sheep-covered wolf to our own death and destruction.  To believe that the words/food that came from the sheep-covered wolf is a purposeful self-deception, IMO.

The warnings are throughout the Old and New Testament.  Beware.  There is no place in the Word that I recall where there is anything approaching a directive to believe that everything the church leaders proclaim will be true.  In fact, just the opposite.

2 Cor 11:13-
"For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light.  Therefore it is not great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works."

Quote
Quote Elvisman
The Church is the Body of Christ, and therefore, unable to espouse error in matters pertaining to salvation.  I disagree with you that the Scripture verses I presented do not apply.  Matt. 24:11 and 2 Pet. 2:1-3 also speak of false teachers and prophets who will "deceive many".

I'm sorry, I wasn't clear.  When I said "I don't think this applies" I was only addressing Judas as an example of an imperfect leader.  As far as we call tell, other than the occasional dips into the money bag, it wasn't until he had decided to betray Jesus and in doing so Satan entered into him - which occurred at the Last Supper - that he had gone fully rogue.

Quote
Quote Elvisman
As for the authority of the Apostles being as limited as you say - I ALSO disagree with you.
Let's read what Jesus told the 70 before sending them out:

Luke 10:10-16
"Whatever town you enter and they do not receive you, go out into the streets and say, ‘The dust of your town that clings to our feet, even that we shake off against you.’ Yet know this: the kingdom of God is at hand. I tell you, it will be more tolerable for Sodom on that day than for that town. Whatever town you enter and they do not receive you, go out into the streets and say, ‘The dust of your town that clings to our feet, even that we shake off against you.’ Yet know this: the kingdom of God is at hand.  I tell you, it will be more tolerable for Sodom on that day than for that town.

Reproaches to Unrepentant Towns.  “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida!m For if the mighty deeds done in your midst had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would long ago have repented, sitting in sackcloth and ashes.  But it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgment than for you.  And as for you, Capernaum, ‘Will you be exalted to heaven? You will go down to the netherworld.’