Most debates in these types of forums are secondary topics.
The actual topic we should be discussing is AUTHORITY.
Let me give you an example.
I went to over 18 different denoms and non denoms of protestant bible believing churches. I asked each of these pastors, who claimed the Bible Alone as their authority, what baptism was, if it was necessary, how to perform it(immersion, pouring, sprinkling of water, no water at all), and if it removed the stain of original sin from ones soul or was it just symbolic in nature?
I received several different and contradictory answers from each pastor.
Which one of these pastors was correct in their interpretation of scripture as it pertains to the utmost important doctrine of Baptism? How do we know which one is correct? Is the definition of doctrine relative, and it does not matter what is true and what is not?
Each of these pastors would never back down from his/her own interpretation, and each would claim they are correct. This is the BIG question. Who is correct, and how do we know who is correct, and by what authority vested in the person interpreted gives them the ability and authority to make such claim as to what is deemed "true" and what is deemed "erroneous"?
This situation is almost always turned back on scripture, for when I ask them by what authority they believe this, they inevitably answer that they are being led by the Holy Spirit in their interpretation of scripture. So is the Holy Spirit a relativist? Does the Holy Spirit teach contradicting things from one church to another and each contradictory point of teaching is correct? In other words, when one church teaches that scripture says Baptism is not necessary, they are correct, and then when another teaches it is necessary, they are also correct? This would be ridiculous. God is of ORDER and UNITY, not Chaos and Division. God does not contradict Himself, for He is TRUTH, and Truth does not change.
BTW, the first person to part from everyone else in their understanding of baptism was John Calvin. Does that mean that everyone else, including the original "reformers" were wrong for the first 1600 years of Christianity? By what measuring stick can one prove this? The Bible? of course :)
Is there a church authority that has the authority of God on doctrinal matters? It seems the apostles decided doctrinal matters IN scripture, why would God all of a sudden change His mind and let the individual start deciding these matters for themselves? Who then can claim what heresy is, if everyone is right all of the time? There would be no heresy if this were so.
The circular argument used by most sola scripturists dos not wash, it only begs the question, again and again, "who/what is the authority on matters of doctrine and interpretation of scripture"?
In my reading of scripture, I have not found any proof text for sola scriptura. @ tim 3:15-17 is far from this, as it pertains to the OT scriptures(that timothy knew from infancy) and at the end it is "useful" for "every good work" and since good works don't save us, it must not be "necessary" as most claim. I mean the apostles didn't have a new testament, nor did they have the canon of the OT which was not decided until 382ad along with the new.
So what is your authority, and if it is scripture alone, where in scripture does God teach that scripture alone is the authority. and how can one prove his authority in interpreteing scripture?
peace, papist
And this is not the same as when one pope reinterprets what a previous pope says?
Pot. Kettle.
Kettle. Pot.
Get acquainted.
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Mon Apr 27, 2009 - 15:53:54
And this is not the same as when one pope reinterprets what a previous pope says?
Pot. Kettle.
Kettle. Pot.
Get acquainted.
Just because a pope says something, does not make it doctrine, in any way shape or form. I am not aware of any pope counteracting his predecessor in the chair of peter. Maybe you can give me an example?
Then maybe you can tell me how one can prove their authority for their interpretation of scripture. :)
peace, papist
: papist1 Mon Apr 27, 2009 - 16:19:38
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Mon Apr 27, 2009 - 15:53:54
And this is not the same as when one pope reinterprets what a previous pope says?
Pot. Kettle.
Kettle. Pot.
Get acquainted.
Just because a pope says something, does not make it doctrine, in any way shape or form. I am not aware of any pope counteracting his predecessor in the chair of peter. Maybe you can give me an example?
Then maybe you can tell me how one can prove their authority for their interpretation of scripture. :)
peace, papist
Not doctrine?
You put authority up as your argument, so by criticizing that authority, in its tendency to redefine what it meant in the past, I've drawn a parallel with the Protestant tendency to redefine what their authority (Sola Scriptura) has said in the past.
The argument is still valid. The analogy still holds. Are you really going to argue against the authority that you are putting forward? What I hear is that this is legitimate authority, but only kind-of, sometimes, and when it's convenient to the argument.
As to examples of popes contradicting prior popes...well, I thought you wanted to keep discussions of 15th century papal indiscretion out of this argument.
Off the top of my head and without actually looking it up...I believe that THE CHURCH, in council, at the behest of the pope and with his approval, anathematized not only Luther but all German Protestants as well as anyone "aiding and betting." JP @ Vatican (2? 3?) welcomes Protestants as true Christians.
Technically, that's a Pope & Council contradicting a Council which the Pope only tacitly endorsed, but the argument is the same:
Your authority redefines what its predecessors said, too.
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Mon Apr 27, 2009 - 16:51:56
: papist1 Mon Apr 27, 2009 - 16:19:38
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Mon Apr 27, 2009 - 15:53:54
And this is not the same as when one pope reinterprets what a previous pope says?
Pot. Kettle.
Kettle. Pot.
Get acquainted.
Just because a pope says something, does not make it doctrine, in any way shape or form. I am not aware of any pope counteracting his predecessor in the chair of peter. Maybe you can give me an example?
Then maybe you can tell me how one can prove their authority for their interpretation of scripture. :)
peace, papist
Not doctrine?
You put authority up as your argument, so by criticizing that authority, in its tendency to redefine what it meant in the past, I've drawn a parallel with the Protestant tendency to redefine what their authority (Sola Scriptura) has said in the past.
The argument is still valid. The analogy still holds. Are you really going to argue against the authority that you are putting forward? What I hear is that this is legitimate authority, but only kind-of, sometimes, and when it's convenient to the argument.
As to examples of popes contradicting prior popes...well, I thought you wanted to keep discussions of 15th century papal indiscretion out of this argument.
Off the top of my head and without actually looking it up...I believe that THE CHURCH, in council, at the behest of the pope and with his approval, anathematized not only Luther but all German Protestants as well as anyone "aiding and betting." JP @ Vatican (2? 3?) welcomes Protestants as true Christians.
Technically, that's a Pope & Council contradicting a Council which the Pope only tacitly endorsed, but the argument is the same:
Your authority redefines what its predecessors said, too.
How does something become official doctrine in the Catholic Church? Do you know?
peace, papist
The topic is not official doctrines of the Catholic church, papist, it's authority.
Remember back in the opening post when you framed that?
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Mon Apr 27, 2009 - 16:51:56
: papist1 Mon Apr 27, 2009 - 16:19:38
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Mon Apr 27, 2009 - 15:53:54
And this is not the same as when one pope reinterprets what a previous pope says?
Pot. Kettle.
Kettle. Pot.
Get acquainted.
Just because a pope says something, does not make it doctrine, in any way shape or form. I am not aware of any pope counteracting his predecessor in the chair of peter. Maybe you can give me an example?
Then maybe you can tell me how one can prove their authority for their interpretation of scripture. :)
peace, papist
Not doctrine?
You put authority up as your argument, so by criticizing that authority, in its tendency to redefine what it meant in the past, I've drawn a parallel with the Protestant tendency to redefine what their authority (Sola Scriptura) has said in the past.
The argument is still valid. The analogy still holds. Are you really going to argue against the authority that you are putting forward? What I hear is that this is legitimate authority, but only kind-of, sometimes, and when it's convenient to the argument.
As to examples of popes contradicting prior popes...well, I thought you wanted to keep discussions of 15th century papal indiscretion out of this argument.
Off the top of my head and without actually looking it up...I believe that THE CHURCH, in council, at the behest of the pope and with his approval, anathematized not only Luther but all German Protestants as well as anyone "aiding and betting." JP @ Vatican (2? 3?) welcomes Protestants as true Christians.
Technically, that's a Pope & Council contradicting a Council which the Pope only tacitly endorsed, but the argument is the same:
Your authority redefines what its predecessors said, too.
Not true.
A Catholic, who knows and believes what the church teaches, who later commits heresy unrepentantly, is excommunicated. All of the reformers are most likely not in heaven. thats just my take. They caused terrible division, and they were Christian heretics.
True, Christians in other denominations, who have never known the fullness of truth, nor purposefully left it or taught against it after once knowing it, still have the opportunity at salvation.
So your theory is false, and consistent Catholic teaching confirms this point.
Once again, a misunderstanding of Catholic teaching.
Bishop sheen once write that there are not 100 people who hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they believe the Catholic Church to teach.
You fit into that category. unfortunately.
peace, papist
: papist1 Tue Apr 28, 2009 - 06:17:16
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Mon Apr 27, 2009 - 16:51:56
: papist1 Mon Apr 27, 2009 - 16:19:38
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Mon Apr 27, 2009 - 15:53:54
And this is not the same as when one pope reinterprets what a previous pope says?
Pot. Kettle.
Kettle. Pot.
Get acquainted.
Just because a pope says something, does not make it doctrine, in any way shape or form. I am not aware of any pope counteracting his predecessor in the chair of peter. Maybe you can give me an example?
Then maybe you can tell me how one can prove their authority for their interpretation of scripture. :)
peace, papist
Not doctrine?
You put authority up as your argument, so by criticizing that authority, in its tendency to redefine what it meant in the past, I've drawn a parallel with the Protestant tendency to redefine what their authority (Sola Scriptura) has said in the past.
The argument is still valid. The analogy still holds. Are you really going to argue against the authority that you are putting forward? What I hear is that this is legitimate authority, but only kind-of, sometimes, and when it's convenient to the argument.
As to examples of popes contradicting prior popes...well, I thought you wanted to keep discussions of 15th century papal indiscretion out of this argument.
Off the top of my head and without actually looking it up...I believe that THE CHURCH, in council, at the behest of the pope and with his approval, anathematized not only Luther but all German Protestants as well as anyone "aiding and betting." JP @ Vatican (2? 3?) welcomes Protestants as true Christians.
Technically, that's a Pope & Council contradicting a Council which the Pope only tacitly endorsed, but the argument is the same:
Your authority redefines what its predecessors said, too.
Not true.
A Catholic, who knows and believes what the church teaches, who later commits heresy unrepentantly, is excommunicated. All of the reformers are most likely not in heaven. thats just my take. They caused terrible division, and they were Christian heretics.
True, Christians in other denominations, who have never known the fullness of truth, nor purposefully left it or taught against it after once knowing it, still have the opportunity at salvation.
So your theory is false, and consistent Catholic teaching confirms this point.
Once again, a misunderstanding of Catholic teaching.
Bishop sheen once write that there are not 100 people who hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they believe the Catholic Church to teach.
You fit into that category. unfortunately.
peace, papist
True, Christians in other denominations, who have never known the fullness of truth, nor purposefully left it or taught against it after once knowing it, still have the opportunity at salvation.
Why does this sound so arrogant and condesending? Who is the fullness ot truth and who is it that has this fullness. When the church was born on the day of pentecost and 120 believers were filled with the Holy spirit did they not have the fullness of truth or did they have to wait another three or four hundred years and be of the RCC to have the fullness. I guess they just had to settle for part of it. Darn the luck! It took over three hundred years untill the glass got full.
Just think when you RC's get to heaven and you are standing on some higher cloud you can look down at the poor Protestants that never got the fullness. Its just a darn shame. Good thing they still made to heaven thought.
: papist1 Tue Apr 28, 2009 - 06:17:16
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Mon Apr 27, 2009 - 16:51:56
Not doctrine?
You put authority up as your argument, so by criticizing that authority, in its tendency to redefine what it meant in the past, I've drawn a parallel with the Protestant tendency to redefine what their authority (Sola Scriptura) has said in the past.
The argument is still valid. The analogy still holds. Are you really going to argue against the authority that you are putting forward? What I hear is that this is legitimate authority, but only kind-of, sometimes, and when it's convenient to the argument.
As to examples of popes contradicting prior popes...well, I thought you wanted to keep discussions of 15th century papal indiscretion out of this argument.
Off the top of my head and without actually looking it up...I believe that THE CHURCH, in council, at the behest of the pope and with his approval, anathematized not only Luther but all German Protestants as well as anyone "aiding and betting." JP @ Vatican (2? 3?) welcomes Protestants as true Christians.
Technically, that's a Pope & Council contradicting a Council which the Pope only tacitly endorsed, but the argument is the same:
Your authority redefines what its predecessors said, too.
Not true.
A Catholic, who knows and believes what the church teaches, who later commits heresy unrepentantly, is excommunicated. All of the reformers are most likely not in heaven. thats just my take. They caused terrible division, and they were Christian heretics.
True, Christians in other denominations, who have never known the fullness of truth, nor purposefully left it or taught against it after once knowing it, still have the opportunity at salvation.
So your theory is false, and consistent Catholic teaching confirms this point.
You know, citations from the documents have actually been provided in an old thread...shall I dig it up?
We'll go with what you said...it was just a clarification. That clarification was needed because everyone seemed to think the church's official stand was otherwise. Probably the centuries of demonstrating it through their actions, but I digress...
Shall we discuss Limbo? Since you wanted examples.
Oh I know, I know, not ex cathedra, yadda yadda yadda...still a well-documented flip-flop from your authority. I suddenly feel the compulsion to remind you that the topic is not "official doctrines of the Catholic church" but rather AUTHORITY.
Once again, a misunderstanding of Catholic teaching.
Once again, a willful disregard of history, as is necessary to sustain the belief that the Catholic church has been consistent in its doctrines over the last 2K or so.
Bishop sheen once write that there are not 100 people who hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they believe the Catholic Church to teach.
You fit into that category. unfortunately.
You seem to know so much more about me than I myself do...lol.
I don't hate the Catholic church at all. Nor do I hate what the Catholic church teaches, for the most part. Actually, my beliefs on justification are far more Catholic than Protestant, for which I am occasionally raked over the coals here.
I don't believe that there should be a single authority acting on Christ's behalf as vicar/steward/head/king/WHATEVER over the church, and I have a distrinct dislike of edifices of any sort, therefore, I have not chosen to become a Catholic (or a Lutheran - Catholic Lite).
I actually explored the possibility of joining the Orthodox church, but I dislike their emphatic belief in mystery...that is to say, of holding a position to be true despite being unable to explain it in everyday parlance.
All I really want out of my theology is a position consistent with everyday experience which doesn't create other logical impossibilities. Your church doesn't have it, but neither do any of the others. ::tippinghat::
Hi all!
Papist is right, IMHO, in his initial post. Jarrod is right, too. Historically, the RCC has some problems with changing doctrine. So, you both are right (sort of) ::headscratch::.
: W_S
I don't hate the Catholic church at all. Nor do I hate what the Catholic church teaches, for the most part. Actually, my beliefs on justification are far more Catholic than Protestant, for which I am occasionally raked over the coals here.
I don't believe that there should be a single authority acting on Christ's behalf as vicar/steward/head/king/WHATEVER over the church, and I have a distrinct dislike of edifices of any sort, therefore, I have not chosen to become a Catholic (or a Lutheran - Catholic Lite).
Good thinking. The original church had no absolute rulers as the Pope has today. Peter was the head of the church, but he could be argued with--see Galatians 1, for example.
Back to the authority question. The answer is neither the Scriptures nor the Pope. The answer is the Church. The church is the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Tim 3:15). Who gave the Scriptures authority? The answer is clearly the Church, but most Protestants prefer to read their scriptures in the way they want to interpret it instead of in the context of the church.
So, what is the church? Is it you and me and other believers? No, the Church wouldn't be the pillar and foundation of the truth if it were. The church was established by Jesus Christ in Matthew 16:18 and passed down to us. The church is perhaps the most beautiful thing created by God. There are four of these churches that I know of today. Then, it's time to look at doctrine to see which is the one to be in.
I actually explored the possibility of joining the Orthodox church, but I dislike their emphatic belief in mystery...that is to say, of holding a position to be true despite being unable to explain it in everyday parlance.
Don't pass us by! I don't want to highjack this thread, so see the Orthodox thread for more detail.
All I really want out of my theology is a position consistent with everyday experience which doesn't create other logical impossibilities.
I'm not sure what you mean here, so I could be wrong in my next sentence. It sounds like you want to have all your questions answered. No church will do that, because "The wisdom of man is less than the folly of God." (1 Cor 1:25 - my paraphrase). Human language itself is not rich enough to explain God.
Your church doesn't have it, but neither do any of the others. ::tippinghat::
Papist is right here. If God is not the author of confusion, why would he make all these churches, none of which has the truth? Fortunately, the church is the pillar and foundation of the church. Papist just has the wrong church (but for 1000 years they were the western part of that true church).
Thanks for reading, especially if you disagree.
: trifecta Mon May 11, 2009 - 17:04:39
So, what is the church? Is it you and me and other believers? No, the Church wouldn't be the pillar and foundation of the truth if it were.
So...what is the church? You didn't answer your question to my satisfaction.
If it isn't the people (congregationalism), and it isn't a hierarchy that comes to a point at the top (popery), then it must be somewhere in between (aristocracy).
All I really want out of my theology is a position consistent with everyday experience which doesn't create other logical impossibilities.
I'm not sure what you mean here, so I could be wrong in my next sentence. It sounds like you want to have all your questions answered. No church will do that, because "The wisdom of man is less than the folly of God." (1 Cor 1:25 - my paraphrase). Human language itself is not rich enough to explain God.
I suppose I just think that if you're going to teach something (& especially to dogmatically insist on it), then you ought to have some idea what it means. After all, if there is no application, no profit to what is said or believed, then what's the point?
And, of course, what you say it means shouldn't contradict observation, or simple logic.
Papist is right here. If God is not the author of confusion, why would he make all these churches, none of which has the truth? Fortunately, the church is the pillar and foundation of the church. Papist just has the wrong church (but for 1000 years they were the western part of that true church).
Common sense suggests that God did not make all these churches, which I believe is your point anyway.
But perhaps it's not a question of him making them so much as preserving them. Perhaps He DOES keep making new churches because entropy, dogmatism, doctrinal corruption, and churchsploitation keep claiming the old ones. That certainly seems to fit common sense, and observation. And also the parable of the vine and its branches, what with all that trimming off the dead so the new can sprout and grow.
Someone said the tree of liberty must needs occasionally be refreshed by the blood of patriots and tyrants. Perhaps the True Vine must needs be refreshed occasionally by a mulch of reformers, and popes.
But really, to answer your earlier question, I think the church IS composed of people, as determined by how well they're listening, by their response to what they hear. If it isn't so, then why the "body of Christ" or the "temple of lively stones?" If not, why do the apostles refer to "the saved," "the church" and "those-who-are-believing" interchangeably?
Jarrod
PS. Churchsploitation...I just made that up.
The "Body of Christ" is the faithful, but it is not exclusively the faithful. It is also Christ. The NT is explicit in it's call for unity and orthodoxy. It is explicit in it's call for correct doctrine.
Titus 1:9 "Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers."
Mark 1:27 "And they were all amazed, insomuch that they questioned among themselves, saying, What thing is this? what new doctrine is this? for with authority commandeth he even the unclean spirits, and they do obey him. "
Acts 2:42 "And they continued steadfast in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers."
Romans 16:17 "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."
Now the question from the OP is where do we derive authority to decide what is "orthodoxy"? The NT is very clear on this. There are numerous examples of that authority, including at least one passage that I quoted, as being from the ministers of Christ's Holy Church. So then we ask, "who can be a minister?" Well, again, the NT is very clear. Why did St. Paul, appointed by our Lord, Himself, go to Jerusalem and be "ordained" by the laying on of hands? Throughout the NT letters, numerous examples are given as to the offices of the Church and the only proper way in which those offices are given. Our Lord did not become incarnate to write anything. He did, as the first act of His ministry after His baptism, appoint 12 rather ordinary men to lead His Church. The NT is quite clear as to the fact that this same authority was to be passed down in continual succession by the "laying on of hands" at ordination. That is the model.
How do Protestant's justify theirs? Where can they trace their authority back to? If their answer is that their authority derives from the authority of the Bible alone, or the authority was given them by the Holy Spirit alone, than my answer is to examine St. Paul. He too, was given such authority, but understood that our Lord had established a real, visible, Church, in which that authority had to be properly confirmed at ordination, by those who were already properly ordained themselves.
So again; Where do Protestants get theirs?
As opposed to your unbroken succession of popes...?
It only took me 2 searches on Google to dispose of that silly notion:
In its list of the popes, the Holy See's annual directory, Annuario Pontificio, attaches to the name of Pope Leo VIII (963–965) the following note:
At this point, as again in the mid-eleventh century, we come across elections in which problems of harmonising historical criteria and those of theology and canon law make it impossible to decide clearly which side possessed the legitimacy whose factual existence guarantees the unbroken lawful succession of the successors of Saint Peter. The uncertainty that in some cases results has made it advisable to abandon the assignation of successive numbers in the list of the popes.
The fact that you did not answer the very question I, and the OP referred to, is telling. You specifically posed the "unbroken line of Popes" as your argument., but that line is only a part of the total Apostolic Succession. Of course we Catholics understand that the Bishop of Rome had developed the responsibilities of what exactly that office entailed over time, but that has always been in concordance with what the mission of Our Lord has been, and in what He anointed St. Peter to fulfill. Your argument falls flat with the understanding that the Catholic Church accepts with complete authority the Holy Orders of, and the Holy Sacraments administered by, the Eastern Orthodox Churches. How does one explain that? It is that unshakable NT model that you question. However, the question remains.
Where do Protestants derive their authority?
: desertknight Tue May 12, 2009 - 16:55:14
The fact that you did not answer the very question I, and the OP referred to, is telling. You specifically posed the "unbroken line of Popes" as your argument., but that line is only a part of the total Apostolic Succession. Of course we Catholics understand that the Bishop of Rome had developed the responsibilities of what exactly that office entailed over time, but that has always been in concordance with what the mission of Our Lord has been, and in what He anointed St. Peter to fulfill. Your argument falls flat with the understanding that the Catholic Church accepts with complete authority the Holy Orders of, and the Holy Sacraments administered, by the Eastern Orthodox Churches. How does one explain that? It is that unshakable NT model that you question. However, the question remains.
Where do Protestants derive their authority?
Jesus.. there is no other authority for Christians.
And I have never seen the Pope act in a way that would be consistent with Jesus teachings... so if the shoe doesn't fit...
Jesus.. there is no other authority for Christians.
And I have never seen the Pope act in a way that would be consistent with Jesus teachings... so if the shoe doesn't fit...
Yes, our Lord is the ultimate authority, but you must clearly be opposed to, or ignorant of, the numerous examples in Holy Scripture of our Lord founding a visible Church, and in giving that authority to minister it, to mortal men and they in turn, passing it on through ordination, by the laying on of hands. Exactly as is practiced today by my Church.
I'm almost urged to wonder, do Protestants just ignore this? Do they defend this somehow?
: desertknight Tue May 12, 2009 - 16:55:14
The fact that you did not answer the very question I, and the OP referred to, is telling. You specifically posed the "unbroken line of Popes" as your argument., but that line is only a part of the total Apostolic Succession. Of course we Catholics understand that the Bishop of Rome had developed the responsibilities of what exactly that office entailed over time, but that has always been in concordance with what the mission of Our Lord has been, and in what He anointed St. Peter to fulfill. Your argument falls flat with the understanding that the Catholic Church accepts with complete authority the Holy Orders of, and the Holy Sacraments administered by, the Eastern Orthodox Churches. How does one explain that? It is that unshakable NT model that you question. However, the question remains.
Where do Protestants derive their authority?
I probably shouldn't speak for all Protestants, since I certainly don't represent, say...the Lutheran, or Anglican churches, but it seems to me you really don't understand.
I can't answer a question that doesn't make sense. You may as well ask me how I create air. I don't create air, so the question is inane.
Likewise, we DON'T derive authority one over another; we submit to God as equals. This is why we don't call anyone "father" or "mother" but instead opt for "brother" and "sister."
Where I am, the only authority that is exercised is that of an overseer. This "authority" is not positional, it is a function of experience. Those who are mature teach, and look in on those who are younger to correct them in behavioral issues, and that is only with their consent. If you do not wish to be taught by some certain elder, you may choose another. IF you don't think you have anything to learn from any of them, then you may devote yourself to service rather than study. If all you want to do is attend the song service, you're allowed (though I doubt you could really consider yourself a part of the church at that point).
There is a preacher/pastor, but the paradigm is not top-down authority. It works the other way...the pastor is accountable to the eldership, and the eldership is accountable to the membership.
The clergy does not "lord it over" the laity, rather they are their servers; their employees.
The pyramid is upside down.
: desertknight Tue May 12, 2009 - 17:14:39
Jesus.. there is no other authority for Christians.
And I have never seen the Pope act in a way that would be consistent with Jesus teachings... so if the shoe doesn't fit...
Yes, our Lord is the ultimate authority, but you must clearly be opposed to, or ignorant of, the numerous examples in Holy Scripture of our Lord founding a visible Church, and in giving that authority to minister it, to mortal men and they in turn, passing it on through ordination, by the laying on of hands. Exactly as is practiced today by my Church.
I'm almost urged to wonder, do Protestants just ignore this? Do they defend this somehow?
I'm not ignorant of anything.. I just decern whom are imposters and whom are the real thing.
You will know christians by their fruit... and there is no fruit in the Catholic Church or evident in the Pope.
As far as Jesus setting up a physical church... there is one obscure verse in the Bible that Catholics use to justify their position... yet there are 4 books that cover the ministry of Jesus.. and there is one mention to a 'possible church'... obviously, the importance of the Catholic church wasn't that important to the Holy Spirit because almost every other thing Jesus said or did was recorded in no less then the 4 books of the Bible.
God is not a God of confusion.. he would never have been that vague with something that important.
So the answer to your last question is.. why do we have to defend something that doesn't need defending? I am in no way accountable to the Roman Catholic Church in any way shape or form.
: WycliffLikewise, we DON'T derive authority one over another; we submit to God as equals. This is why we don't call anyone "father" or "mother" but instead opt for "brother" and "sister."
That is completely at odds with what Holy Scripture says. The proof of that is what you seem unable, or unwilling, to answer. The NT is unequivocal as to our Lord appointing His ministers and the authority they exercised and the passing of that very authority down to the Bishops and Presbyters of His Church. You say it is a question you can't answer. I say, have you no knowledge of this in your reading of the NT?
: TantorSo the answer to your last question is.. why do we have to defend something that doesn't need defending? I am in no way accountable to the Roman Catholic Church in any way shape or form.
Then there is about 1,600 years of your understanding of the very visible Christian Church that our Lord established, that you are missing.
The scripture does say to call no one 'father'.
And the entire premises of 'passing' on authority is no where to be found in scripture in the New Testament.. no where.
: desertknight Tue May 12, 2009 - 18:26:15
: TantorSo the answer to your last question is.. why do we have to defend something that doesn't need defending? I am in no way accountable to the Roman Catholic Church in any way shape or form.
Then there is about 1,600 years of your understanding of the very visible Christian Church that our Lord established, that you are missing.
Nope... 1600 years of going astray to be shed or reformed... it's amazing how the Catholic Church has strayed and invented its own doctrine.. its similarities to Jesus' ministry are nothing but coincidental anymore.
: Tantor Tue May 12, 2009 - 18:27:57
The scripture does say to call no one 'father'.
And the entire premises of 'passing' on authority is no where to be found in scripture in the New Testament.. no where.
Acts 6:6 "They presented these men to the apostles who prayed and laid hands on them."
Acts 13:3 "Then, completing their fasting and prayer, they laid hands on them and sent them off."
Acts 14:23 "They appointed presbyters 5 for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, commended them to the Lord in whom they had put their faith."
Acts 15:22 "Then the apostles and presbyters, in agreement with the whole church, decided to choose representatives and to send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. The ones chosen were Judas, who was called Barsabbas, and Silas, leaders among the brothers."
1 Tim. 4:14 "Do not neglect the gift you have, which was conferred on you through the prophetic word with the imposition of hands of the presbyterate."
1 Thes. 5:12-13 "Now we ask you, brothers, to respect those who work hard among you, who are over you in the Lord and who admonish you. Hold them in the highest regard in love because of their work. Live in peace with each other."
Heb. 13:17 "Obey your leaders and defer to them, for they keep watch over you and will have to give an account, that they may fulfill their task with joy and not with sorrow, for that would be of no advantage to you."
Deut. 17:10-11 "According to this decision that they give you in the place which the LORD chooses, you shall act, being careful to do exactly as they direct. You shall carry out the directions they give you and the verdict they pronounce for you, without turning aside to the right or to the left from the decision they hand down to you."
Still no pope.
But the authority they had were as servant leaders.. leaders commissioned to keep doctrinal standards.
Why has the Catholic Church strayed from the very thing that they say that they were charged with? Their power went to their heads.. instead of supporting the congregation the opted to rule over it with an iron fist.
Thank goodness they no longer have the political power it used to have or we would still be in the dark ages of ignorance.
: desertknight Tue May 12, 2009 - 18:22:57
: Wycliffes_ShillelaghLikewise, we DON'T derive authority one over another; we submit to God as equals. This is why we don't call anyone "father" or "mother" but instead opt for "brother" and "sister."
That is completely at odds with what Holy Scripture says.
What you mean is that it is at odds with the interpretation of the Bible that you have been taught.
What do you think this means?:
But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, [even] Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no [man] your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, [even] Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted. (Matthew 23:8-12)
Or these:
Mar 9:35 And he sat down, and called the twelve, and saith unto them, If any man desire to be first, [the same] shall be last of all, and servant of all.
Mar 10:44 And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all.
Or...
Mat 20:25-28 But Jesus called them [unto him], and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
The proof of that is what you seem unable, or unwilling, to answer.
I answered you succinctly: We DON'T derive authority one over another; we submit to God as equals.
The NT is unequivocal as to our Lord appointing His ministers and the authority they exercised and the passing of that very authority down to the Bishops and Presbyters of His Church. You say it is a question you can't answer. I say, have you no knowledge of this in your reading of the NT?
A presbyter is an elder. A bishop is an overseer. These are the same offices I have referenced in explaining to you how my church works. This apparently does not resonate with you (is it because they aren't wearing funny hats?), but it matches the Bible perfectly. But you chose to ignore that part of my post.
Perhaps you can show me where it refers to cardinals and archbishops in the Bible, because I don't remember that hierarchy in either Testament.
As to the laying on of hands by the elders/presbyters for ordination, this is a practice that we also follow. But it is not so much a delegation of authority, and is not a successorship in any way. It is a recognition of the gifts and calling of God for service, an opportunity to bless a laborer as he departs into the field, and a job recommendation for the ordained to take with him as he goes.
Jarrod
: TantorThank goodness they no longer have the political power it used to have or we would still be in the dark ages of ignorance
So now, your argument has changed. The Catholic Church is not ministered by just the Pope or any Pope. He is our chief Bishop, and certainly holds the "Keys to the Kingdom.", as Christ ordained, but as important as the chief Bishop is, he is but one Bishop in a Church that is governed by all of the Bishops and Presbyters with our Chief Bishop as our chief Shepard.
: WycliffWhat you mean is that it is at odds with the interpretation of the Bible that you have been taught.
What do you think this means?:
But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, [even] Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no [man] your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, [even] Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted. (Matthew 23:8-12)
I think it means that we are to recognize that our father in heaven is our true father, as every Catholic knows. Have you ever called your "dad" father? Do you not realize that even the Apostle Paul referred to himself as "father"? I guess he is damned as well...
: WycliffOr these:
Mar 9:35 And he sat down, and called the twelve, and saith unto them, If any man desire to be first, [the same] shall be last of all, and servant of all.
Mar 10:44 And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all.
This is clearly Christ's teaching that in order to be a true Christian one has to practice true humility. He is teaching that the lowliest beggar is worthy of our acceptance as a brother. Where in the world are you deriving that this has anything to do with what Holy Scripture clearly defines as the ordained offices of His Church?
: WycliffOr...
Mat 20:25-28 But Jesus called them [unto him], and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
Well, Our Lord tells us clearly what this means. "
But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant." "Let him be your minister", ...yet you say that is not so. It is a long standing observance that the Bishop of Rome, goes to confession, owns virtually nothing, practices penance and contrition, and washes the feet of the disciples.
: WycliffI answered you succinctly: We DON'T derive authority one over another; we submit to God as equals.
: DesertknightThe NT is unequivocal as to our Lord appointing His ministers and the authority they exercised and the passing of that very authority down to the Bishops and Presbyters of His Church. You say it is a question you can't answer. I say, have you no knowledge of this in your reading of the NT?
: WycliffA presbyter is an elder. A bishop is an overseer. These are the same offices I have referenced in explaining to you how my church works. This apparently does not resonate with you (is it because they aren't wearing funny hats?), but it matches the Bible perfectly. But you chose to ignore that part of my post.
I haven't ignored it at all. In fact, it is the very heart and core of the question. The Catholic Church is governed by the very Bishops, (overseers), Presbyters, (elders), and Deacons, (well, deacons or "servants"), as you say. That your argument boils down to "funny hats" is really telling. Is that all it's about?
: WycliffPerhaps you can show me where it refers to cardinals and archbishops in the Bible, because I don't remember that hierarchy in either Testament.
The position of Cardinal and Archbishop is not in the Bible nor is it a religious office that one is ordained to in the Church. Just as a secretary of the Chancellor, or the instructor of Sunday school is also not mentioned in the Bible and is also not an ordained office. The only ordained offices in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, are Bishop, Presbyter, and Deacon...just as in the NT.
: WycliffAs to the laying on of hands by the elders/presbyters for ordination, this is a practice that we also follow. But it is not so much a delegation of authority, and is not a successorship in any way.
Then that is in complete contradiction to Holy Scripture in the NT.
: WycliffIt is a recognition of the gifts and calling of God for service, an opportunity to bless a laborer as he departs into the field, and a job recommendation for the ordained to take with him as he goes. Jarrod
That is in complete agreement with Catholic doctrine.
I mean this in all honesty. Reading the Bible for a Protestant must be a tortured and convoluted thing. One must take out just one or two passages of Scripture, of course, one must never recognize it was the Catholic Church that compiled the Bible, then one must only choose those passages that will bolster the protestant argument. Hence, "Truly my Flesh is actual or true food. My Blood, truly drink.", is oh, well, just "symbolism". Sure...that is why our Lord made such a covenantual sacrament of it at His last supper. Sure He didn't really appoint ministers to be ordained in His one and true Church. Protestants are always having to argue against what scripture says. When Christ clearly appointed St. Peter as chief of the Apostles, it is "NO!, it actually needs to be interpreted as this...". When the NT obviously establishes that a real visible Church with earthly authority appointed over us is established by our Lord, it is "NO!,it needs to be interpreted as this!"...He really meant for there to be 30,000+ denominations, all preaching completely contradictory things, to "save" people. More like they "save" people from their bank accounts...
: desertknight Tue May 12, 2009 - 19:43:58
: TantorThank goodness they no longer have the political power it used to have or we would still be in the dark ages of ignorance
So now, your argument has changed. The Catholic Church is not ministered by just the Pope or any Pope. He is our chief Bishop, and certainly holds the "Keys to the Kingdom.", as Christ ordained, but as important as the chief Bishop is, he is but one Bishop in a Church that is governed by all of the Bishops and Presbyters with our Chief Bishop as our chief Shepard.
Actually, my argument hasn't changed at all. I take what Jesus said as the truth.. you need the funny man in the jewish hat to tell you what Jesus said... as if the Holy Spirit is not enough.
All I read are opinions and more opinions.. that you believe as the truth..
You have been a good little lacky... you certainly wouldnt want to have to think for yourself.
There is no chief bishop.. never has and never will be.. there is only Christ.. and he is not beholding to the Catholic Churches twisted and evil dogma. (Satan has done a admirable job of derailing the 'popular' romanized catholic church).
I wonder how many boys the Pope gets to molest before his fellow cardinals finally give in and tell the authorities. But then again he is the 'Don' of their religion (the Pope is the Don of the religious Mafia), they need to give him respect and kiss his ring... he can probably get away with it the rest of his life.
Thank goodness the world doesn't put up with him putting out hits on his enemies anymore.
: TantorYou have been a good little lacky... you certainly wouldnt want to have to think for yourself.
There is no chief bishop.. never has and never will be.. there is only Christ.. and he is not beholding to the Catholic Churches twisted and evil dogma. (Satan has done a admirable job of derailing the 'popular' romanized catholic church).
I wonder how many boys the Pope gets to molest before his fellow cardinals finally give in and tell the authorities. But then again he is the 'Don' of their religion (the Pope is the Don of the religious Mafia), they need to give him respect and kiss his ring... he can probably get away with it the rest of his life.
Thank goodness the world doesn't put up with him putting out hits on his enemies anymore.
...And there you have it. The ultimate Protestant argument. OMGosh! So sad. So pathetic. I actually will pray for you brother....
""Stop judging, that you may not be judged. For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you. Why do you notice the splinter in your brother's eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye?
...I guess this passage of Holy Scripture needs to be "interpreted" by Protestants as well...
: desertknight Tue May 12, 2009 - 20:40:41
I think it means that we are to recognize that our father in heaven is our true father, as every Catholic knows. Have you ever called your "dad" father? Do you not realize that even the Apostle Paul referred to himself as "father"? I guess he is damned as well...
Straight to the stock answer...
Ok, how bout now?
But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, [even] Christ; and all ye are brethren...Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, [even] Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted. (Matthew 23:8-12)
: WycliffOr these:
Mar 9:35 And he sat down, and called the twelve, and saith unto them, If any man desire to be first, [the same] shall be last of all, and servant of all.
Mar 10:44 And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all.
This is clearly Christ's teaching that in order to be a true Christian one has to practice true humility. He is teaching that the lowliest beggar is worthy of our acceptance as a brother. Where in the world are you deriving that this has anything to do with what Holy Scripture clearly defines as the ordained offices of His Church?
He's not saying that humility makes a leader. He's saying that service makes a leader. Serving makes one a leader because when you are the one doing things, people look to you.
It's so simple, how do you just ignore it like that?
: WycliffOr...
Mat 20:25-28 But Jesus called them [unto him], and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
Well, Our Lord tells us clearly what this means. "
But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant." [/quote]
Exactly. So if leadership is determined by service, what in the world does succession have to do with it?
"Let him be your minister", ...yet you say that is not so. It is a long standing observance that the Bishop of Rome, goes to confession, owns virtually nothing, practices penance and contrition, and washes the feet of the disciples.
...while controlling trillions in corporately owned assets and living in the worlds largest and most expensive home. Forgive me if I don't see a footwashing ceremony as a genuine expression of service, in light of this.
: DesertknightThe NT is unequivocal as to our Lord appointing His ministers and the authority they exercised and the passing of that very authority down to the Bishops and Presbyters of His Church. You say it is a question you can't answer. I say, have you no knowledge of this in your reading of the NT?
: WycliffA presbyter is an elder. A bishop is an overseer. These are the same offices I have referenced in explaining to you how my church works. This apparently does not resonate with you (is it because they aren't wearing funny hats?), but it matches the Bible perfectly. But you chose to ignore that part of my post.
I haven't ignored it at all. In fact, it is the very heart and core of the question. The Catholic Church is governed by the very Bishops, (overseers), Presbyters, (elders), and Deacons, (well, deacons or "servants"), as you say. That your argument boils down to "funny hats" is really telling. Is that all it's about?
Was it easier to focus in on an aside that was meant as a joke than to address the actual argument? Do better and I'll respond.
: WycliffPerhaps you can show me where it refers to cardinals and archbishops in the Bible, because I don't remember that hierarchy in either Testament.
The position of Cardinal and Archbishop is not in the Bible nor is it a religious office that one is ordained to in the Church. Just as a secretary of the Chancellor, or the instructor of Sunday school is also not mentioned in the Bible and is also not an ordained office. The only ordained offices in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, are Bishop, Presbyter, and Deacon...just as in the NT.
Oh, so you have the unordained guys running the show? And that's supposed to make it better?
: WycliffAs to the laying on of hands by the elders/presbyters for ordination, this is a practice that we also follow. But it is not so much a delegation of authority, and is not a successorship in any way.
Then that is in complete contradiction to Holy Scripture in the NT. [/quote]
How so? Back then, they ordained those who were meritorious and trustworthy. We do the same. It's not the ordination that makes the man a leader, it's his merit, his service, and his character. The ordination is simply a public recognition.
It's like a college degree. The piece of paper doesn't make me more educated, its just a recognition of what I have already done.
Jarrod
The truth is pathetic? That the 'church' murdered so many throughout the ages to keep the power in europe and the new world?.. that these 'bishops' that you call them covered up for so many sins of the priests?... they should have been appalled at what the priests did more then anyone and turned them over to the authorities without trying to cover it up.
If this is an example of the culture of the Catholic Church, then the world would be wise to forceably disband the Roman Catholic church for the good of humankind and Christendom.. at the very least the Pope should be making personal visits to the victims families and personally appologizing for the conduct of his priests and begging their forgiveness and ponying up and paying for all the counciling these young boys and men need to go through. Jesus has asked us to ask for forgiveness and pay back double for offenses christians make.
I might have done a few bad things in my life but molestation and murder arent on my list of offenses and actually makes me feel sick to the stomach when I think about such crimes.
And I think it is quite reasonable to examine a 'church' that I might be a part of to see if the Holy Spirt has been doing good works among them and that their history is consistent with Jesus' ministry before I would join such an institution. As a matter of fact, scripture tells us to not associate with people that have done what the Catholic Church has done.. flee from them... which is what every serious christian should be doing.
Personally, there is absolutely nothing the Catholic Church has to offer that is appealing to me in any way shape or form.. and its a shame.
Ok, how bout now?
But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, [even] Christ; and all ye are brethren...Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, [even] Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted. (Matthew 23:8-12)
What is the Sunday school teacher called in your church? What do you address the person who teaches your children? Every Protestant minister that I know of is referred to as a Rev. ___, meaning "The Revered One."
: WycliffHe's not saying that humility makes a leader. He's saying that service makes a leader. Serving makes one a leader because when you are the one doing things, people look to you.
It's so simple, how do you just ignore it like that?
I don't at all. Nor do I get your point. I have a Presbyter who is the head of my congregation...he leads us in orthodoxy, in the way of Christ. I have a Bishop, who is the overseer of him, who leads me well...he is the anointed leader of the Church of God, as ordained by Christ. Where is that in your church?
: WycliffExactly. So if leadership is determined by service, what in the world does succession have to do with it?
It had enough to do with it that our Lord, Jesus Christ instituted it that way. I can't believe you are ignorant of that fact. If you would like
Jarrod, I will be more than happy to post any number of Biblical references in support of it.
: Wycliff...while controlling trillions in corporately owned assets and living in the worlds largest and most expensive home. Forgive me if I don't see a footwashing ceremony as a genuine expression of service, in light of this.
I actually don't even really think you believe this. You are too smart of a guy. As you know the Pope does only live in a temporary basis, the very grand real-estate that the Church may own. The last Pope, HH John Paul II, when his will was read...owned nothing. Do you?
: WycliffWas it easier to focus in on an aside that was meant as a joke than to address the actual argument? Do better and I'll respond.
Nope. No aside was intended. This is the clear scripture of the NT as given and as my Church adheres to. How about yours?
: WycliffOh, so you have the unordained guys running the show? And that's supposed to make it better?
No again. They are not ordained offices and have no authority to administer the Sacraments unless they are ordained into the office of the Presbyter, at least.
: WycliffIt's like a college degree. The piece of paper doesn't make me more educated, its just a recognition of what I have already done.
You may think that, but that would be in complete contradiction to the Holy Scripture of the NT. Those positions are there, because our Lord, Jesus Christ, intended as so. I will pray for you.
: desertknight Tue May 12, 2009 - 22:23:21
What is the Sunday school teacher called in your church? What do you address the person who teaches your children?
Stephanie.
Every Protestant minister that I know of is referred to as a Rev. ___, meaning "The Revered One."
You must not know very many, and they must all come from "high church." I've never heard a minister called that, though I have seen it on a few signs.
The point of the verses is still the same - we are all equals before the Lord in position. Admittedly, everyone is not equal in effort or efficacy, but Jesus told His disciples not to seek to hold authority over others. We are to answer to God. Anyone who gets in between and takes the place of God is doing their follower a disservice, because they cannot be a leader and a counselor up to the caliber of God Himself.
: WycliffHe's not saying that humility makes a leader. He's saying that service makes a leader. Serving makes one a leader because when you are the one doing things, people look to you.
It's so simple, how do you just ignore it like that?
I don't at all. Nor do I get your point. I have a Presbyter who is the head of my congregation...he leads us in orthodoxy, in the way of Christ. I have a Bishop, who is the overseer of him, who leads me well...he is the anointed leader of the Church of God, as ordained by Christ. Where is that in your church?
So you don't even understand what I'm saying even?
In my church, we have a number of elders who each are responsible to oversee a small group of people, which they host at gatherings. These are not assigned as leaders over the people; the people choose where they want to be. The job of these elders as they host is to engage these people in normal conversations, learn about and share their lives, offer advice, recruit them for charitable service and works, and point the people to other resources within the church that can help them deal with problems or help to build their lives.
These elders take cues from the front office staff regarding events and such, but the monitoring of their behavior is largely the work of all the people they host and talk with, as communication is a two-way street. It isn't an interrogation, it's a conversation.
: WycliffExactly. So if leadership is determined by service, what in the world does succession have to do with it?
It had enough to do with it that our Lord, Jesus Christ instituted it that way. I can't believe you are ignorant of that fact. If you would like Jarrod, I will be more than happy to post any number of Biblical references in support of it.
Yes please. Likely, what you interpret as succession, I simply see as expansion.
: Wycliff...while controlling trillions in corporately owned assets and living in the worlds largest and most expensive home. Forgive me if I don't see a footwashing ceremony as a genuine expression of service, in light of this.
I actually don't even really think you believe this. You are too smart of a guy. As you know the Pope does only live in a temporary basis, the very grand real-estate that the Church may own. The last Pope, HH John Paul II, when his will was read...owned nothing. Do you?
What a British thing of you to say. You don't question whether its true or not, you only wish to know if I actually believe it?
Of course I do, its just a matter of using my eyes. What does it matter if I personally own nothing, when I corporately control a trillion in assets and don't have to make fiscal reports to any government?
: WycliffWas it easier to focus in on an aside that was meant as a joke than to address the actual argument? Do better and I'll respond.
Nope. No aside was intended. This is the clear scripture of the NT as given and as my Church adheres to. How about yours?
So you know my intentions better than I do? Why do you think I put it in parentheses? ::rolleyes::
: WycliffOh, so you have the unordained guys running the show? And that's supposed to make it better?
No again. They are not ordained offices and have no authority to administer the Sacraments unless they are ordained into the office of the Presbyter, at least.
Riiiiight. They just hold the purse-strings, form policy and marketing strategies at a higher level, and elect the pope. They're not running things at all...[/sarcasm]
: WycliffeStephanie.
Dishonest. You know you have called others "teachers", because we all have. So did St. Paul himself. I am just more honest than you about it. Why do Protestants have such a hard time with the truth?
The point of the verses is still the same - we are all equals before the Lord in position. Admittedly, everyone is not equal in effort or efficacy, but Jesus told His disciples not to seek to hold authority over others. We are to answer to God. Anyone who gets in between and takes the place of God is doing their follower a disservice, because they cannot be a leader and a counselor up to the caliber of God
I must respectfully disagree. Jesus specifically ordained ministers to be the charge of us in our journey to salvation. Why would he appoint his 12 Apostles? OK, so just those 12 you say, but no, the NT is specific about their passing on of their authority by the act of ordination, by the laying on of hands. Why do you make no comment on this?
These elders take cues from the front office staff regarding events and such, but the monitoring of their behavior is largely the work of all the people they host and talk with, as communication is a two-way street. It isn't an interrogation, it's a conversation.
No priest monitors my conversation or regulates my relationship with God. He is strictly there as the anointed, through ordination, as a Presbyter, to the preaching of the Gospel and the celebration of Holy Eucharist.
Yes please. Likely, what you interpret as succession, I simply see as expansion.
That is in complete contradiction to the Bible and I am wiling to debate you on that point at any time.
Of course I do, its just a matter of using my eyes. What does it matter if I personally own nothing, when I corporately control a trillion in assets and don't have to make fiscal reports to any government?
Every single quarter, in every single parish, throughout the entire word, every Catholic parish is required under Canon law to make a report to the exact penny of all of their finances. It is done as a mater of Canon law. I have the current total receipts of my parish at hand now and am willing to post them. How is your church with this issue?
Riiiiight. They just hold the purse-strings, form policy and marketing strategies at a higher level, and elect the pope. They're not running things at all...[/sarcasm]]
Nope. they are not. The only consecrated leaders of the Church are Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons.
: papist1 Mon Apr 27, 2009 - 07:03:38
Most debates in these types of forums are secondary topics.
The actual topic we should be discussing is AUTHORITY.
Let me give you an example.
I went to over 18 different denoms and non denoms of protestant bible believing churches. I asked each of these pastors, who claimed the Bible Alone as their authority, what baptism was, if it was necessary, how to perform it(immersion, pouring, sprinkling of water, no water at all), and if it removed the stain of original sin from ones soul or was it just symbolic in nature?
I received several different and contradictory answers from each pastor.
Which one of these pastors was correct in their interpretation of scripture as it pertains to the utmost important doctrine of Baptism? How do we know which one is correct? Is the definition of doctrine relative, and it does not matter what is true and what is not?
Each of these pastors would never back down from his/her own interpretation, and each would claim they are correct. This is the BIG question. Who is correct, and how do we know who is correct, and by what authority vested in the person interpreted gives them the ability and authority to make such claim as to what is deemed "true" and what is deemed "erroneous"?
This situation is almost always turned back on scripture, for when I ask them by what authority they believe this, they inevitably answer that they are being led by the Holy Spirit in their interpretation of scripture. So is the Holy Spirit a relativist? Does the Holy Spirit teach contradicting things from one church to another and each contradictory point of teaching is correct? In other words, when one church teaches that scripture says Baptism is not necessary, they are correct, and then when another teaches it is necessary, they are also correct? This would be ridiculous. God is of ORDER and UNITY, not Chaos and Division. God does not contradict Himself, for He is TRUTH, and Truth does not change.
BTW, the first person to part from everyone else in their understanding of baptism was John Calvin. Does that mean that everyone else, including the original "reformers" were wrong for the first 1600 years of Christianity? By what measuring stick can one prove this? The Bible? of course :)
Is there a church authority that has the authority of God on doctrinal matters? It seems the apostles decided doctrinal matters IN scripture, why would God all of a sudden change His mind and let the individual start deciding these matters for themselves? Who then can claim what heresy is, if everyone is right all of the time? There would be no heresy if this were so.
The circular argument used by most sola scripturists dos not wash, it only begs the question, again and again, "who/what is the authority on matters of doctrine and interpretation of scripture"?
In my reading of scripture, I have not found any proof text for sola scriptura. @ tim 3:15-17 is far from this, as it pertains to the OT scriptures(that timothy knew from infancy) and at the end it is "useful" for "every good work" and since good works don't save us, it must not be "necessary" as most claim. I mean the apostles didn't have a new testament, nor did they have the canon of the OT which was not decided until 382ad along with the new.
So what is your authority, and if it is scripture alone, where in scripture does God teach that scripture alone is the authority. and how can one prove his authority in interpreteing scripture?
peace, papist
Mike123
At the beginning of this thread the question was who is our authority. You argue that Protestants lean on different interpretations. Some will say Christ some the Bible and some will say the Holy Spirit is the authority.
The Catholics say that authority comes from the passing down of the authority from bishop to bishop by the laying on of hands giving us a visible person who is ordained. One who is physical and earthly.
Catholics will argue that Jesus appointed 12 to be the visible authority with Peter the head authority, the pope of the early church, and from them other bishops succeeded them to be the charge of the church, thus the unbroken chain of authority leading all the way to the papacy that did not exist before 500 AD. Certain Bishops after 100 AD stressed the importance of obeying the Bishops. This would be consistent with scripture according to the RCC, however the papacy is quick to use this to justify themselves and use it with an intimidating power over the church.
So Catholics say it is this unbroken chain of bishop authority over the course of four more centuries that gives the papacy its authority. A question comes to my mind. Before Peter was Crucified Catholics look to Him as the first pope. That is to say that he was the head chief authority even over the other apostles, or you might want to say that the other 11 were under bishops. Before Peter was finally taken who did he appoint to take his position to be head bishop over all other bishops? Paul had his Timothy and Ignatius was one of Johns. As far as I know there was no head pope after Peter until the fifth century when the bishops of Rome somehow got themselves appointed pope of all Christiandom. And that was only the west.
How is that Peter left this vast void of 400 years with no Pope to be head bishop over all bishops and the churches throughout Asia. And why is it then the bishops of the east would not recognize the bishops of Rome in their self appointment. Three to four hundred years with no official supreme pope, and yet they claim to be the authority that sits on peters throne. And of course I do not believe Peter ever sat on a throne. How do you explain this void and suddenly the bishops of Rome claim to have the authority of Peter.
The starting question was about Baptism and how or what or who gives such authority and who determines how baptism is supposed to be done. Who is the official authority for one to baptize. The poster might do well to answer the question that I have brought up before questioning the authority of others. The Pharisees questioned Jesus, by what authority do you do these things. Jesus replied by saying by what authority did John the Baptist , baptize. John was respected as a prophet among the people. Who made him a prophet. Was it the Pharisees? The Pharisees could not answer. Jesus said then neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things. The RCC claims to have the only true prescribed ordained authority and way to baptize, but John the Baptist did not do baptism according to the RCC. He did not do it by any religious authority of his day nor did he answer to any authority but the one given him of God. So why does the poster question the authority of others to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost? I say they do it by the same authority that John baptized. And who shall deny anyone to be baptized if his heart is moved by God to be baptized?
: desertknight Wed May 13, 2009 - 16:57:48
: WycliffeStephanie.
Dishonest. You know you have called others "teachers", because we all have. So did St. Paul himself. I am just more honest than you about it. Why do Protestants have such a hard time with the truth?
You don't have to believe me I suppose, but that simply makes you incredulous, not me wrong/lying.
The point of the verses is still the same - we are all equals before the Lord in position. Admittedly, everyone is not equal in effort or efficacy, but Jesus told His disciples not to seek to hold authority over others. We are to answer to God. Anyone who gets in between and takes the place of God is doing their follower a disservice, because they cannot be a leader and a counselor up to the caliber of God
I must respectfully disagree. Jesus specifically ordained ministers to be the charge of us in our journey to salvation. Why would he appoint his 12 Apostles? OK, so just those 12 you say, but no, the NT is specific about their passing on of their authority by the act of ordination, by the laying on of hands. Why do you make no comment on this?
I thought the ball was in your court? I'm still waiting on the verses you promised about succession in the Bible. You say they are overwhelming evidence for succession, but I don't remember this in my Bible.
Yes please. Likely, what you interpret as succession, I simply see as expansion.
That is in complete contradiction to the Bible and I am wiling to debate you on that point at any time.
This is your chance. Please provide the verses.
Of course I do, its just a matter of using my eyes. What does it matter if I personally own nothing, when I corporately control a trillion in assets and don't have to make fiscal reports to any government?
Every single quarter, in every single parish, throughout the entire word, every Catholic parish is required under Canon law to make a report to the exact penny of all of their finances. It is done as a mater of Canon law. I have the current total receipts of my parish at hand now and am willing to post them. How is your church with this issue?
The weekly budget is published in each Sunday's bulletin of events, though this is beside the point and a diversion from the original line of questioning.
Riiiiight. They just hold the purse-strings, form policy and marketing strategies at a higher level, and elect the pope. They're not running things at all...[/sarcasm]]
Nope. they are not. The only consecrated leaders of the Church are Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons.
Consecrated schmonsecrated. They still hold the purse-strings, form policy and marketing strategies at a higher level, and elect the pope. They're running things.
: WycliffI thought the ball was in your court? I'm still waiting on the verses you promised about succession in the Bible. You say they are overwhelming evidence for succession, but I don't remember this in my Bible.
This is your chance. Please provide the verses.
Acts 6:6 "They presented these men to the apostles who prayed and laid hands on them."
Acts 9:15-17 "But the Lord said to him, "Go, for this man is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before Gentiles, kings, and Israelites, and I will show him what he will have to suffer for my name." So Ananias went and entered the house; laying his hands on him, he said, "Saul, my brother, the Lord has sent me, Jesus who appeared to you on the way by which you came, that you may regain your sight and be filled with the holy Spirit."
Acts 13:2-3 "While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the holy Spirit said, "Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them. Then, completing their fasting and prayer, they laid hands on them and sent them off."
Acts 14:23 "They appointed presbyters for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, commended them to the Lord in whom they had put their faith."
Acts 15:24-26 "Since we have heard that some of our number (who went out) without any mandate from us have upset you with their teachings and disturbed your peace of mind, we have with one accord decided to choose representatives and to send them to you along with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, who have dedicated their lives to the name of our Lord Jesus Christ."
1 Tim. 4:14 " Do not neglect the gift you have, which was conferred on you through the prophetic word with the imposition of hands of the presbyterate."
1 Tim. 5:22 "Do not lay hands too readily on anyone, and do not share in another's sins. Keep yourself pure."
Tit. 1:5 " For this reason I left you in Crete so that you might set right what remains to be done and appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed you." In not one single example of the NT, is there
any reference to anyone holding proper authority in the Church after the origional Apostles, without first having been so given that authority, by the power of the Holy Spirit, through the laying on of hands at ordination, by those who are already properly ordained themselves, going back to the original Apostles chosen by Christ.
The prime example? Even St. Paul, who was chosen by Christ personally on the road to Damascus, went to Jerusalem to be ordained by the laying on of hands. In Acts 15, There is a dispute in the church with those who claimed authority. St. Paul makes it clear that they have no mandate from him or any of the other properly ordained ministers of the church and sends replacements.
Where do Protestants derive their ministerial authority given this?
: DesertKThe only consecrated leaders of the Church are Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons.
: WcliffConsecrated schmonsecrated. They still hold the purse-strings, form policy and marketing strategies at a higher level, and elect the pope. They're running things.
You need to go back and read your original statement. Your inference was that
unordained members of the Catholic Church were "running things". That is nonsense. Only the ordained clergy have any governing authority in the Church, as God intended. Whether they may be the Secretary of State for the Vatican or the Chancellor, or a Primate;
all are ordained. The Church worldwide is "run" by her Bishops and Presbyters at the Diocesan level.
You need to go back and read your original statement. Your inference was that unordained members of the Catholic Church were "running things". That is nonsense. Only the ordained clergy have any governing authority in the Church, as God intended. Whether they may be the Secretary of State for the Vatican or the Chancellor, or a Primate; all are ordained. The Church worldwide is "run" by her Bishops and Presbyters at the Diocesan level.
You would be right Night what you say is true. but I have more light to shed on this but I do not have time at this moment but will get back on this when i have time. the question is not so much succsession but how it is wrongly used by the Papacy.
mike123
: desertknight Sat May 23, 2009 - 15:20:10
: WycliffI thought the ball was in your court? I'm still waiting on the verses you promised about succession in the Bible. You say they are overwhelming evidence for succession, but I don't remember this in my Bible.
This is your chance. Please provide the verses.
Acts 6:6 "They presented these men to the apostles who prayed and laid hands on them."
This describes the ordination of the first DEACONS. Do you now consider deacons to be apostolic successors? I think not. The deacons job was to distribute the food that was kept in common and for charities. They did not exercise authority over their fellow Christians; they served them.
Acts 9:15-17 "But the Lord said to him, "Go, for this man is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before Gentiles, kings, and Israelites, and I will show him what he will have to suffer for my name." So Ananias went and entered the house; laying his hands on him, he said, "Saul, my brother, the Lord has sent me, Jesus who appeared to you on the way by which you came, that you may regain your sight and be filled with the holy Spirit."
This laying on of hands was for the purpose of healing. Further, Ananias was neither an apostle nor an apostolic successor, so this clearly does not describe any sort of successorship.
Acts 13:2-3 "While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the holy Spirit said, "Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them. Then, completing their fasting and prayer, they laid hands on them and sent them off."
Now this genuinely describes the ordination of an apostle. Notice the language "for the work to which I have called them." That carries a meaning identical to the meaning of the word "apostle."
However, where is the successorship? Those laying hands on them are not apostles, they are simply the elders of the church at Antioch. Further, apostolic successors are, by definition, not apostles, but bishops/overseers.
So yes, this describes ordination, but it has nothing to do with "apostolic succession." Further, it describes ordination as being the power of the presbytery, not of a single bishop.
You seem to have confused ordination for apostolic succession, with its implicity hierarchy and authority. Ordination doesn't carry such a connotation. Ordination is part of the church and the Bible. Apostolic succession is nowhere in sight.
Acts 14:23 "They appointed presbyters for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, commended them to the Lord in whom they had put their faith."
You're closer here, but again notice that it is a multiplicity of presbyters who are being selected, not a single "trustee" of doctrine, or a single authority over the rest of the church. I would further argue that the function of "appointing" the presbytery is one that only happens at the instantiation of a new church because there is no existing presbytery to ordain others. Further, presbyter means ELDER, which is not a term that implies hierarchy so much as indicating a mentoring relationship.
Acts 15:24-26 "Since we have heard that some of our number (who went out) without any mandate from us have upset you with their teachings and disturbed your peace of mind, we have with one accord decided to choose representatives and to send them to you along with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, who have dedicated their lives to the name of our Lord Jesus Christ."
This is the ruling of the council of Jerusalem. It does describe ordination as a "letter of recommendation" which is the same way I described it earlier. However, there is nothing here to suggest that those who went stayed on as authorities. They were simply preachers in the original sense of the word - they published a message.
1 Tim. 4:14 " Do not neglect the gift you have, which was conferred on you through the prophetic word with the imposition of hands of the presbyterate."
Again, the prebytery laid hands on...not a single apostle or successor. This is just an ordination in the normal sense. Further, the "gift" here should not presupposed to be authority, which is an office, not a gift.
1 Tim. 5:22 "Do not lay hands too readily on anyone, and do not share in another's sins. Keep yourself pure."
This isn't even about ordination, much less succession.
Tit. 1:5 " For this reason I left you in Crete so that you might set right what remains to be done and appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed you." [/color]
See previous comments about establishment of new churches.
In not one single example of the NT, is there any reference to anyone holding proper authority in the Church after the origional Apostles, without first having been so given that authority, by the power of the Holy Spirit, through the laying on of hands at ordination, by those who are already properly ordained themselves...
Exactly my point. But where are the descriptions of Cardinals or Metropolitans or Archbishops? And yet these are positions held in the RCC. You say they aren't ordained, and that's probably rightfully so. But they are still holding authority, though perhaps not "proper authority" as you say above.
...going back to the original Apostles chosen by Christ.
And that's what you've still failed to demonstrate. There is no successorship here in the sense of a single bishop being put in charge, or of that office being passed down from one to the next. Rather, presbyters (of all sorts) are ordained by the entire presbytery, and the office of bishop is in the Bible held by more than one person within each church. There is a multiplicity of bishops in each church; not a 1-to-1 successorship.
Where do Protestants derive their ministerial authority given this?
I already answered this question twice. We don't seek to hold authority over our fellow christians. Christ is the head, and we are the body, composed of various members but nonetheless interdependent. Does my elbow exercise authority over my knees? Neither do we exercise authority over each other.
: DesertKThe only consecrated leaders of the Church are Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons.
: WcliffConsecrated schmonsecrated. They still hold the purse-strings, form policy and marketing strategies at a higher level, and elect the pope. They're running things.
You need to go back and read your original statement. Your inference was that unordained members of the Catholic Church were "running things". That is nonsense. Only the ordained clergy have any governing authority in the Church, as God intended. Whether they may be the Secretary of State for the Vatican or the Chancellor, or a Primate; all are ordained. The Church worldwide is "run" by her Bishops and Presbyters at the Diocesan level.
You just need to understand my original post. The point is is that the hierarchy of the RCC contains a number of positions which are glaringly absent from the Bible and early church. I don't really care whether y'all ordain them or not, or give them legitimate titles in addition to their illegitimate titles, they are additions to the church that comprise a hierarchy which is not found in Scripture. There are no archbishops or cardinals present in the Bible.
That these positions exercise authority beyond that of ordinary overseers and presbyters is obvious. Your attempts to claim that they do not is disingenuous.
: WycliffThis describes the ordination of the first DEACONS. Do you now consider deacons to be apostolic successors? I think not. The deacons job was to distribute the food that was kept in common and for charities. They did not exercise authority over their fellow Christians; they served them.
I am fully aware that they were ordaining Deacons, and what the role of deacons are. I am making the point that I did when I said, "In not one single example of the NT, is there any reference to anyone holding proper authority in the Church without first having been so given that authority, by the power of the Holy Spirit, through the laying on of hands at ordination,
by those who are already properly ordained themselves, going back to the original Apostles chosen by Christ."
Not one. Not ever. Even Paul, had to be ordained. So where do Protestants get their authority?
This laying on of hands was for the purpose of healing. Further, Ananias was neither an apostle nor an apostolic successor, so this clearly does not describe any sort of successorship.
I'll give you that one. My bad. What I meant to quote in reference to my statement was...
: desertknightEven St. Paul, who was chosen by Christ personally on the road to Damascus, went to Jerusalem to be ordained by the laying on of hands.
Acts 13:2-3 "While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the holy Spirit said, "Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them." "Then, completing their fasting and prayer, they laid hands on them and sent them off." However, where is the successorship? Those laying hands on them are not apostles, they are simply the elders of the church at Antioch. Further, apostolic successors are, by definition, not apostles, but bishops/overseers.
So yes, this describes ordination, but it has nothing to do with "apostolic succession." Further, it describes ordination as being the power of the presbytery, not of a single bishop.
.
It is you who are missing the point. The power of the Bishop and succession is through the power of the priesthood, held by all Bishops, and their power to ordain others. No Bishop is so without being a priest, who is properly ordained and no one is ordained to the presbytery without being so by a validly ordained member or members of that priesthood themselves. Paul clearly indicates that this is one of the prime responsibilities of a Bishop. Surly you get that, don't you? The NT is very clear in passage after passage pertaining to it. That is why whether they were ordaining deacons as in Acts 6 or in Paul's commissioning Timothy as Bishop, (Tim 1:6), and Timothy's subsequent ordaining of presbyters, it is clear that the succession through ordination is what is mandatory, and that validity can only come from succession. If you will simply provide one, single example of someone, anyone, holding authority in the Church in Scripture, without that authority being passed down, through those already validly ordained themselves, I will concede the point. I just think you are missing that
this is the Apostolic Succession.
Again, the presbytery laid hands on...not a single apostle or successor. This is just an ordination in the normal sense. Further, the "gift" here should not presupposed to be authority, which is an office, not a gift.
This would be completely consistent with current and past Catholic belief and practice. At every ordination, in every circumstance I can think of, multiple priests and the Bishop are present. All lay on hands in ordination. It is practice, but not necessary, as Paul clearly states to Timothy when he commissions he, (not plural), to "ordain Presbyters for the churches." Bishops have the power to ordain by themselves, it is virtually always done in conjunction with the available "Presbytery" however.
This isn't even about ordination, much less succession.
If it isn't, then you have an interpretation of it that is completely at odds with every Catholic and Protestant source I can find. What do you think it is about then? Please cite your source.
See previous comments about establishment of new churches.
I have, and I have no idea how you are saying it is in disagreement with my point. Yes, Presbyter means elder. A Catholic priest
is a presbyter or elder. Yes he mentors. OK, so what? And he is only validly ordained by a Bishop, (overseer), and joins the body of the presbyteriate. And your point was?
Your problem Wycliff will be solved and I will concede the argument if you can show me one, single, solitary, example in NT Scripture in which there is a Bishop or Presbyter or Deacon that is valid
without the proper "mandate" through ordination going back to the original Apostles. Show me just one, and I will shut up about it. So again, where do Protestants derive their authority?
: DesertknightIn not one single example of the NT, is there any reference to anyone holding proper authority in the Church after the original Apostles, without first having been so given that authority, by the power of the Holy Spirit, through the laying on of hands at ordination, by those who are already properly ordained themselves...
: WycliffExactly my point.
What? What is exactly your point here?
You've lost me. So if a Bishop of a big city is called a Metropolitan, or a Bishop who serves in special commission is called a Cardinal, all bets are off? How's that? So when ever a Bishop has been commissioned to some specific task...he is no longer valid? How does that work? The only "authority" that they hold is through their ordination. That they be further assigned to special task by their superiors is not an invalidation of anything.
And that's what you've still failed to demonstrate. There is no successorship here in the sense of a single bishop being put in charge, or of that office being passed down from one to the next. Rather, presbyters (of all sorts) are ordained by the entire presbytery, and the office of bishop is in the Bible held by more than one person within each church. There is a multiplicity of bishops in each church; not a 1-to-1 successorship.
Your posing two different arguments. The last first. Most parishes have more than one Presbyter, just as in the early Church. Most Dioceses have more than one Bishop, in fact, all of them do as far as I know, just as in the early Church. Both Bishops and the Presbyters in every Diocese meet and make decisions in groups, except in single priest parishes. That is standard. It is not necessary however. If it were, why would Paul say to Timothy, "For this reason, I remind you to stir into flame the gift of God that you have through the
imposition of my hands. One is apparently enough.
There clearly was a hierarchy, or Timothy would be considered as the equal of Peter. The Presbyters that Timothy ordains would be considered the equal of him. Clearly this was not the case. Passages such as this show us Timothy the Bishop...
1 Tim. 1:3 " As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies...."So what is your objection? To your first point,of course, there is succession, as there is no other possible way to confer validity. I again make the challenge. If you can demonstrate one, single, solitary case in NT scripture, of one, single, example of the authority of the Church in it's Bishops, Presbyters or Deacons being "valid" without, not just ordination, but the ordination by those with the mandate to do so, (That is the key that you seem to constantly overlook.
That is the Apostolic Succession mandated by Holy Scripture.), then I will concede. Where do Protestants get their authority?
I already answered this question twice. We don't seek to hold authority over our fellow christians.
Then that is completely contradictory with the NT model of the Church.
1 Thess. 5:12 "We ask you, brothers, to respect those who are laboring among you and who are over you in the Lord and who admonish you",
Titus 2:15 "Say these things, (Timothy). Exhort and correct with all authority. Let no one look down on you.
Heb. 13:17 "Obey your leaders and defer to them, for they keep watch over you and will have to give an account, that they may fulfill their task with joy and not with sorrow, for that would be of no advantage to you."
1 Peter 5:5 "Likewise, you younger members, be subject to the presbyters,"
You just need to understand my original post. The point is is that the hierarchy of the RCC contains a number of positions which are glaringly absent from the Bible and early church.
You are making an argument where there is none. Every "position" you refer to is held by a valid Bishop of the Church. That they may be further tasked with some special mission or office or whatever, is of no consequence. There are only Bishops and Presbyters, assisted by Deacons, who run the Church.
That these positions exercise authority beyond that of ordinary overseers and presbyters is obvious.
Yes, and irrelevant. If the Church wishes to appoint some Bishops for a special commission, so be it.
Are you saying that ordination = apostolic succession ?
If you are, well, every church ordains its ministers. So the question on which your argument rests "where do Protestants get their authority?" would seem to be undermined somewhat.
Since I do not consider you a great fool, I am assuming that is NOT the case. There must be something more than simply ordination, yes? You claim an unbroken transmission from the origin of the church to the present day.
I am tempted to ask you...do you not see that your succession is also the succession of the various Protestant factions? All the founders of those same factions (ok not all, but most) came from the Catholic church, where they were...bishops, presbyters, deacons.
But, I'd like to strike my former question because asking it would imply that there is a legitimate answer to your question. There is no legitimate answer, because it is still a flawed question. One cannot answer HOW one does XXX, when the person in question doesn't do XXX. My answer remains - we don't do that - we aren't trying to exercise authority over each other.
The overseer (bishop if you must) is the servant of the people - your own theology admits as much. It is his service to them to oversee them, not a writ of mandate that he exercises over them. He does not "lord it over them." The shepherd serves the sheep, and not vice versa.
Now I'm sure you can point out some powermongering preachers who are like that, but in that behavior they pit themselves against their doctrine, which is that we are not to usurp the authority of Christ, but rather that when we serve each other according to Christ's example, he exalts us. By serving, we lead.
Do not make the mistake of thinking that we have borrowed "servant leadership" from philosophers, pop culture, or the army of MBA's that assaults our countries. It is rather the other way around. Isn't this what Jesus taught? The first shall be last, and the last shall be first; if you want to be great, be the servant of all. Isn't it His example? What is your example? The Roman military?
I think the point where we lose each other is in our definitions:
To you, ordination involves a transfer of authority from one to another, or from many to one. The ordained exercises authority over those under him (for their own benefit).
To me, and many like me, ordination is not a bestowal, it is a recognition of what has already been bestowed by God. And that which is bestowed is not a writ, not a mandate, but a gift and a calling for service.
So when you quote me a dozen examples of ordination, you think you have proved succession to me, because to you, ordination and succession are nearly identical.
But to me, all you've proved is the practice of ordination, which is already known to me as something other than what you're saying it is.
It is you who are missing the point.
Yes, I'm missing your point, and you are missing mine, because neither of us can suddenly redefine words into a radically different view.
The NT is very clear in passage after passage pertaining to it.
I think so, and yet we don't agree.
That is why whether they were ordaining deacons as in Acts 6 or in Paul's commissioning Timothy as Bishop, (Tim 1:6), and Timothy's subsequent ordaining of presbyters, it is clear that the succession through ordination is what is mandatory, and that validity can only come from succession.
That's silly. Deacons didn't (don't) exercise any authority whatsoever, they served food and performed physical tasks for the betterment of the local community. As far Timothy's appointment of presbyters, I've already argued that such was only necessary because there was a vacuum in existence.
If you will simply provide one, single example of someone, anyone, holding authority in the Church in Scripture, without that authority being passed down, through those already validly ordained themselves, I will concede the point.
Another question that assumes your premise. Why should I give an example of someone utilizing top-down authority, when I don't believe that is how the church works at all?
But if I might adjust your question to my paradigm, I CAN name some who were recognized and sought out as leaders among the churches and in spiritual matters, and for which the Scriptures provide no record of an ordination:
Aquila (& Priscilla), Apollos, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen, John Mark, Aristarchus, Demas (though he later apostacized), and Luke the physician and author. That was about 3 minutes of research.
I assume you'll argue that since most of these traveled with Paul, they were in some way ordained by him. But that isn't how Paul describes them. Paul called them his "fellow-laborers."
This isn't even about ordination, much less succession.
If it isn't, then you have an interpretation of it that is completely at odds with every Catholic and Protestant source I can find. What do you think it is about then? Please cite your source.
I did a long word study on the imposition of hands throughout the Bible, from which I would define it much more broadly than you have here.
Nonetheless, I'm going to give you this point. If we take it in a narrow sense, this could be the meaning. Taken in a broader sense, ordination could still be part of the meaning.
So again, where do Protestants derive their authority?
We don't derive authority. We submit to Jesus, who holds all authority. If He sees fit to honor one person, so be it, but that gravitas is voluntarily recognized by others. It isn't an exercise of title or station that is mandated in the church.
Jarrod
: WycliffAre you saying that ordination = apostolic succession ?
No.
I am tempted to ask you...do you not see that your succession is also the succession of the various Protestant factions? All the founders of those same factions (ok not all, but most) came from the Catholic church, where they were...bishops, presbyters, deacons.
Uh, no. I don't take you to be a fool either, but you aren't serious are you? Not only are they not traceable in any way back to Martin Luther or others, it would be an anathema for them to even suggest it. It is a doctrine that Protestants oppose. So first, you need to try to convince them why it is important, all 35,000+ sects of them, then explain it to us, but come on...seriously.
To me, and many like me, ordination is not a bestowal, it is a recognition of what has already been bestowed by God. And that which is bestowed is not a writ, not a mandate, but a gift and a calling for service.
That would be consistent with Catholic belief.
But to me, all you've proved is the practice of ordination, which is already known to me as something other than what you're saying it is.
No. I have proven that ordination is only valid according to scripture, when the one doing the ordaining, is himself, validity ordained, thus Apostolic Succession. Bishops having that task. You know it, or you wouldn't have put forward your claim of Protestant succession. You have also, glaringly, as much as conceded as you can't offer a single, solitary, scriptural example to the contrary.
Yes, I'm missing your point, and you are missing mine, because neither of us can suddenly redefine words into a radically different view
Gibberish. I understand your point completely. You just don't have a good argument.
I think so, and yet we don't agree.
If that is so, then as I have said before...win the argument! I am ready to concede defeat any time you actually come up with a single, solitary, scriptural example that is contrary to what I have stated. It isn't just my opinion. It is the very definition of Apostolic Succession that is held by we Catholics and the Orthodox churches.
That's silly. Deacons didn't (don't) exercise any authority whatsoever, they served food and performed physical tasks for the betterment of the local community. As far Timothy's appointment of presbyters, I've already argued that such was only necessary because there was a vacuum in existence.
Yes, yes, I know fully what Deacons did, and as I explained in some detail last time..irrelevant! The point is that no one, including deacons, have legitimate authority in the Church without ordination by those who are already legitimately ordained themselves to empower them. I don't know how much more plain English I can write that in. Please site your source that Timothy was only given such power because of a "vacuum" in existence. I would like to know where you are getting that.
Another question that assumes your premise. Why should I give an example of someone utilizing top-down authority, when I don't believe that is how the church works at all?
Aquila (& Priscilla), Apollos, Simeon called **badword**, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen, John Mark, Aristarchus, Demas (though he later apostacized), and Luke the physician and author. That was about 3 minutes of research.
Oh, then you should have in another three minutes where they have the power of Bishop, or Presbyter without Paul having ordained them to it. I don't know whether they do or not, but I know when I've won an argument. ::smile::
We don't derive authority. We submit to Jesus, who holds all authority. If He sees fit to honor one person, so be it, but that gravitas is voluntarily recognized by others. It isn't an exercise of title or station that is mandated in the church.
That would be contrary to what Holy Scripture says...
John 20:21 "Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."Just posted this on another thread, but it fits here too.
: desertknight Tue May 26, 2009 - 22:41:06
I am tempted to ask you...do you not see that your succession is also the succession of the various Protestant factions? All the founders of those same factions (ok not all, but most) came from the Catholic church, where they were...bishops, presbyters, deacons.
Uh, no. I don't take you to be a fool either, but you aren't serious are you? Not only are they not traceable in any way back to Martin Luther or others, it would be an anathema for them to even suggest it. It is a doctrine that Protestants oppose. So first, you need to try to convince them why it is important, all 35,000+ sects of them, then explain it to us, but come on...seriously.
Seriously, my point is valid. But you're right it isn't important to us, and no, I didn't say that it was. In fact, you seem to have omitted the part where I asked to strike the question because it assumed that too much of your question made sense...
To me, and many like me, ordination is not a bestowal, it is a recognition of what has already been bestowed by God. And that which is bestowed is not a writ, not a mandate, but a gift and a calling for service.
That would be consistent with Catholic belief.
That's not even consistent with your post here, where you argue that succession IS the only way that ordination can be legitimate.
If you truly believed that ordination was a recognition of what was already present, then you would have to believe the person was valid even without the ordination. That's just the logical consequence of the argument.
But maybe it is consistent with Catholic belief. After all, catholic belief doesn't have to be consistent with catholic belief, so if it agrees with part but not all, what harm done?
But to me, all you've proved is the practice of ordination, which is already known to me as something other than what you're saying it is.
No. I have proven that ordination is only valid according to scripture, when the one doing the ordaining, is himself, validity ordained, thus Apostolic Succession. Bishops having that task. You know it, or you wouldn't have put forward your claim of Protestant succession. You have also, glaringly, as much as conceded as you can't offer a single, solitary, scriptural example to the contrary.
Did you read my post? I gave you a whole list of names...
I think so, and yet we don't agree.
If that is so, then as I have said before...win the argument! I am ready to concede defeat any time you actually come up with a single, solitary, scriptural example that is contrary to what I have stated. It isn't just my opinion. It is the very definition of Apostolic Succession that is held by we Catholics and the Orthodox churches.
I think I already have won the argument since I've given you more than one single solitary scriptural example, but you seem to have some sort of ability to ignore that fact...
Please site your source that Timothy was only given such power because of a "vacuum" in existence. I would like to know where you are getting that.
He was sent to Crete, a new territory for Christianity. That a vacuum existed there is just history.
Another question that assumes your premise. Why should I give an example of someone utilizing top-down authority, when I don't believe that is how the church works at all?
Aquila (& Priscilla), Apollos, Simeon called **badword**, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen, John Mark, Aristarchus, Demas (though he later apostacized), and Luke the physician and author. That was about 3 minutes of research.
Oh, then you should have in another three minutes where they have the power of Bishop, or Presbyter without Paul having ordained them to it. I don't know whether they do or not, but I know when I've won an argument. ::smile::
...but apparently not when you've lost one. Priscilla and Aquila's home was the seat of the church in their city, which makes them probable elders. That's as doubtful as it gets.
Apollos was TEACHING in the church, and BAPTIZING...he was an elder at least, and maybe more, because they didn't let just anyone BAPTIZE. At least, that's the teaching of the Catholic church, I believe. Only the ordained are allowed to minister sacraments, yes?
Simeon, Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen are listed in Acts 13:1 as "prophets and teachers." How many prophets do you suppose weren't also reckoned as presbyters? I seem to recall the Didache putting a special place for the prophets right at the top of the local church.
John Mark, Aristarchus, and Demas all carried on the work of apostles. But I'm sure they never acted as elders in the churches they helped found.
And Luke...he only wrote the 3rd gospel. He formulated part of the official doctrine of the church. You know, when they created the canon, they only let in books that came from apostles and Jesus brothers? Oh, yeah, and Luke. But I'm sure he was never viewed as an elder in the church.
Sheesh. I'm beginning to think you don't know what a presbyter is.
We don't derive authority. We submit to Jesus, who holds all authority. If He sees fit to honor one person, so be it, but that gravitas is voluntarily recognized by others. It isn't an exercise of title or station that is mandated in the church.
That would be contrary to what Holy Scripture says...[/quote]
Submit yourselves, one to another...
But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant...
The first shall be last...
and a hundred other places.
: WycliffIn fact, you seem to have omitted the part where I asked to strike the question because it assumed that too much of your question made sense...
I don't have a question. Holy Scripture is quite clear to me.
That's not even consistent with your post here, where you argue that succession IS the only way that ordination can be legitimate.
I'm starting to think that you do
not know what Apostolic Succession is. It has nothing to do with the calling of the Holy Spirit. It has nothing to do with an individuals ordination as such. It has
everything to do with whether the person doing the ordaining, can validly do so. i.e., was
he properly ordained by someone who was properly ordained by someone who, etc., etc., ...Get it? This is extremely easy to understand and is very clear in Scripture. Again, where do Protestants derive their authority?
But maybe it is consistent with Catholic belief. After all, catholic belief doesn't have to be consistent with catholic belief, so if it agrees with part but not all, what harm done?
Another unsupported, unreferenced, cheap shot. You know, it doesn't upset me. It just lets me know I've won with you. ::smile::
Did you read my post? I gave you a whole list of names...
Yes. Did you read mine? Just tell me which one become a Bishop, Presbyter or Deacon, without being ordained by a legitimate person, and you've won!
I think I already have won the argument since I've given you more than one single solitary scriptural example, but you seem to have some sort of ability to ignore that fact...
Oh good gosh! You are kidding, right? So your example is that Priscilla, for example, for YOUR example, is a Bishop or Presbyter of the Church? And where may I find that in Scripture? LoL.
probable elders. That's as doubtful as it gets.
Ah! yes, truth! A definite....maybe, but no proof, however.
Apollos was TEACHING in the church, and BAPTIZING
I will stick with Apollos as a representative example. In 1 Cor. 3:5, Paul refers to Apollos as a Minister of the Church, so clearly he is one. My argument is how did he become one? Your saying that as your example, Apollos was a Presbyter of Paul's, whom Paul simply neglected to ordain. The same Paul who went to Jerusalem to be ordained himself, after being called by Christ directly. That is no argument at all. If your argument is that Apollos was almost certainly ordained by Paul, or another with legitimate authority, then you have agreed with me, not refuted my argument. This is a really simple argument. Maybe you should just look up Apostolic Succession on Wiki.
Only the ordained are allowed to minister sacraments, yes?
Yes. Where are you finding that Apollos was
not ordained? Your saying that Paul allowed him to baptise others without ordination? Is that your argument? Even Luther didn't believe that, who called Apollos a Bishop. Please show me where someone who is
not ordained, is allowed to Baptize. I can give you numerous examples of Scripture stating the unassailable argument of legitimate ordination by one who has legitimate authority to do so, being the
only model in Scripture that is valid.
and a hundred other places.
Cite them. ::clappingoverhead::
: desertknightIf you will simply provide one, single example of someone, anyone, holding authority in the Church in Scripture, without that authority being passed down, through those already validly ordained themselves, I will concede the point.
You have accepted that one of the persons I have offered as example, Apollos, was in fact, a bishop. (Actually, you haven't denied any but one of them as church authorities...and I'll happily give you Priscilla if only to move the debate along.)
Where are you finding that Apollos was not ordained?
I don't believe that falls on me to prove me that he was NOT ordained. I've played your game and given you the example you asked for, which you've acknowledged is a legitimate candidate.
I believe it now falls on you to demonstrate that he WAS ordained (by someone else who was legitimately ordained themselves). I do not believe that there is anything there to support that supposition.
There is only your assumption that what your church teaches now has always been the case, and so it MUST have been done at some point. Probably maybe. But we'll keep that argument in the other thread.
Actually, I've given you better than half a dozen examples, which would seem to scream out that what I've given you isn't just a solitary "exception to the rule."
I'll be waiting for your demonstration that Apollos either wasn't a bishop, or was ordained. Otherwise, I expect you to hold true to what you have said:
: desertknightIf you will simply provide one, single example of someone, anyone, holding authority in the Church in Scripture, without that authority being passed down, through those already validly ordained themselves, I will concede the point.
: wycliffYou have accepted that one of the persons I have offered as example, Apollos, was in fact, a bishop. (Actually, you haven't denied any but one of them as church authorities...and I'll happily give you Priscilla if only to move the debate along.)
No. I said that Martin Luther said he was a Bishop. It has nothing to do with the argument however. I said in challenges repeatedly to you...
: desertknightJust tell me which one became a Bishop, Presbyter or Deacon, without being ordained by a legitimate person, and you've won!
Now your response is what in legal terms, is arguing "facts not in evidence". You are mentioning several people who may or may not have been Bishops, Presbyters or Deacons, and then as they are mentioned only in passing in Scripture and we know little of them, you are stating that because their ordination is also not mentioned, that this
proves that one does not have to be ordained by proper authorities in order to hold those offices. Well of course that is total nonsense. You haven't "proven" anything. I have. In order for your argument to be valid we must believe St. Paul was called by Christ directly, and still went to Jerusalem to be ordained by the Apostles. He in turn ordained Timothy by the laying on of hands and then confirmed him as a Bishop. He subsequently gave Timothy specific instructions as a Bishop to ordain Presbyters in the churches of various cities, even cautioning Timothy to "not lay hands on to quickly", given the importance and position of the office of Presbyter. Now we know this to be absolutely factual. Your model is that Apollos, who may very well have been a Presbyter, but who's ordination, as well as pretty much every thing else about him, is not mentioned in Scripture, and given that, you have declared him to have been
unordained, in some, magical, not cited or mentioned even in passing, way, in Scripture. Your argument is, "I have no evidence, and there-in
is my evidence!" Nonsense.
You know very well that it is nonsense and that the NT is very clear on the holding of Apostles as Christ's chosen leaders and that they carefully selected and ordained by the laying on of hands, those who were chosen to exercise Christ's authority in His Church, those they ordained, having that proper authority, ordained others. Case closed. So where do Protestants get their authority?
If your just interested in playing silly word games, there are dozens of sites on-line where you can do that.
Either concede the point or make some attempt at an actual argument based on evidence that can be examined.
::eatingpopcorn:
This is better than going to the movies...clash of the Titans indeed....
I can be unbiased here and so far...
sorry Wycliff, I think Desertknight is running circles around you...
: desertknight Thu May 28, 2009 - 01:08:20
Now your response is what in legal terms, is arguing "facts not in evidence". You are mentioning several people who may or may not have been Bishops, Presbyters or Deacons, and then as they are mentioned only in passing in Scripture and we know little of them, you are stating that because their ordination is also not mentioned, that this proves that one does not have to be ordained by proper authorities in order to hold those offices. Well of course that is total nonsense. You haven't "proven" anything. I have. In order for your argument to be valid we must believe St. Paul was called by Christ directly, and still went to Jerusalem to be ordained by the Apostles. He in turn ordained Timothy by the laying on of hands and then confirmed him as a Bishop. He subsequently gave Timothy specific instructions as a Bishop to ordain Presbyters in the churches of various cities, even cautioning Timothy to "not lay hands on to quickly", given the importance and position of the office of Presbyter. Now we know this to be absolutely factual. Your model is that Apollos, who may very well have been a Presbyter, but who's ordination, as well as pretty much every thing else about him, is not mentioned in Scripture, and given that, you have declared him to have been unordained, in some, magical, not cited or mentioned even in passing, way, in Scripture. Your argument is, "I have no evidence, and there-in is my evidence!" Nonsense.
You know very well that it is nonsense and that the NT is very clear on the holding of Apostles as Christ's chosen leaders and that they carefully selected and ordained by the laying on of hands, those who were chosen to exercise Christ's authority in His Church, those they ordained, having that proper authority, ordained others. Case closed. So where do Protestants get their authority?
If your just interested in playing silly word games, there are dozens of sites on-line where you can do that.
Either concede the point or make some attempt at an actual argument based on evidence that can be examined.
Concede that they were ordained? Why would I do that? There's absolutely no evidence that they were ordained.
Now then, as a logical rule, it is impossible to absolutely PROVE a negative premise, such as "prove that they were NOT ordained." This is why I wanted you to prove the positive premise, that they WERE ordained.
Nonetheless, since you have declined the honor of providing such evidence (since, of course, it doesn't exist), I shall endeavor to more perfectly present a case that Apollos, our designated exemplar, was already practicing the functions of a bishop before ever he was ordained (if in fact he was ever ordained at all!).
About Apollos, of whom you claim that we know next-to-nothing, we actually know quite a bit:
He was a Jew, from Alexandria, and was already an adherent of the teachings of John the Baptist when he met the church at Ephesus. (Acts 18)
He was allowed to teach in the Jewish synagogue at Ephesus (therefore, he was recognized as a Rabbi). (Acts 18)
He was baptizing with John's baptism in the city of Ephesus, at which time he was ignorant of Christ's existence completely. (Acts 18) Paul subsequently found many people who had been baptized only with John's baptism when he returned to Ephesus. (Acts 19).
We also know that Paul was not present at Ephesus when Apollos was there teaching & baptizing. (Acts 18)
We know that Apollos was convinced at Ephesus of Christianity, and then left to take the message to Corinth and the rest of Achaia (Northern Greece). (Acts 18)
We also know that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul was traveling back to Ephesus. (Acts 19)
Further, many of the Corinthians claimed to be "of Apollos," in OPPOSITION to others who said they were "of Paul." This Paul immediately ties to the practice of baptism. (1Cor 1)
And, Paul considers all of these who were at Corinth to be Christians, whether of Paul or Apollos, or Cephas. (1Cor 3)
So we have someone who was already a teacher within Judaism, already accustomed to baptizing his converts, who, upon his own conversion, traveled to a new place, where he continued to convert people (this time to Christianity), and some of these converts saw fit to stylize themselves as "his" adherents, rather than the (apostle) Paul's.
Given the facts that,
(a) Paul ties this dissent to baptism, and
(b) the Bible reliably demonstrates that Paul and Apollos were not acquainted before the time in which Apollos was preaching in Corinth,
I conclude that Apollos was baptizing believers in Corinth before he ever met an apostle. And, that the apostle didn't have issues with with the legitimacy of those baptisms.
Looking forward to the response,
Jarrod
: broach972 Thu May 28, 2009 - 12:59:02
::eatingpopcorn:
This is better than going to the movies...clash of the Titans indeed....
I can be unbiased here and so far...
sorry Wycliff, I think Desertknight is running circles around you...
Hi broach! ::wave::
I'm not so sure about unbiased...I sort of expect that conclusion from you, since your background and doctrine resembles his more than mine. Nonetheless, you are probably between the two of us in position.
Feel free to add. I'm sure we could probably use an arbitor that is somewhere between us.
Wycliff, the Essenes all "baptized", but that is not the point. You keep dancing around the fact that because there are no facts in evidence that it somehow, in complete contradiction to common sense, "proves" your case. Nonsense. The NT model is very clear. I even think you know it is, but just can't stand loosing an argument. Why do I suspect this? Because you never, for a single moment, acknowledge or answer any of my examples, that Holy Scripture clearly records, of the models of Churchly office and ordination. You keep insisting that I am to actually believe that although Paul went to Jerusalem, after being called personally by Christ, to be ordained, although he in turn, ordained others, including Timothy, and confirmed him as a Bishop, although Timothy was given orders to go and ordain Presbyters for the churches of various cities, and to use caution when exercising such great power, that somehow, without a scrap of evidence, we are to believe that your examples were mysteriously exempt from all this. Pleazzze. Come on. Even you know better. If you don't, than I have misjudged you.
: desertknight Thu May 28, 2009 - 16:25:18
Wycliff, the Essenes all "baptized", but that is not the point.
I think you misunderstood? I am not saying that he baptized into John, and that's that. He
also baptized as a Christian before any sort of ordination occured. It's the example you've been asking for.
You keep dancing around the fact...
No, I addressed it directly. I think you've missed something.
...that because there are no facts in evidence...
I've just presented you with a long list of facts, followed by a conclusion reached from those facts. I can republish it as a formal logical argument if it would make it easier?
...that it somehow, in complete contradiction to common sense, "proves" your case. Nonsense. The NT model is very clear. I even think you know it is, but just can't stand losing an argument. Why do I suspect this? Because you never, for a single moment, acknowledge or answer any of my examples, that Holy Scripture clearly records, of the models of Churchly office and ordination. You keep insisting that I am to actually believe that although Paul went to Jerusalem, after being called personally by Christ, to be ordained, although he in turn, ordained others, including Timothy, and confirmed him as a Bishop, although Timothy was given orders to go and ordain Presbyters for the churches of various cities, and to use caution when exercising such great power, that somehow, without a scrap of evidence, we are to believe that your examples were mysteriously exempt from all this. Pleazzze. Come on. Even you know better. If you don't, than I have misjudged you.
This seems to me like a case of "since I can't uphold my stance on this point, I'm going to reform my argument around a different point."
I will wait for you to address my exegesis of the Biblical events of Acts 18-19.
: WycliffHe also baptized as a Christian before any sort of ordination occured. It's the example you've been asking for.
Please cite your exact scriptural reference to where Apollos was conducting baptisms in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, (a formula that
every Christan denomination requires as mandatory.).
I've just presented you with a long list of facts, followed by a conclusion reached from those facts. I can republish it as a formal logical argument if it would make it easier?
No, you keep insisting that the lack of "fact" is somehow proof of your argument.
Please cite your
exact scriptural example of Apollos, or anyone else, Baptizing in the name of Christ, without being properly ordained to do so.
I will wait for you to address my exegesis of the Biblical events of Acts 18-19.
Of course your kidding, right? OK, mystery solved. I should have read through Acts 18-19
before I wrote the first part of this post. In Acts 18, neither Apollos, nor Priscilla and Aquila, are in any way, in any form, described as having conducted any of the responsibilities reserved for either Bishops or Presbyters. Teaching, by the way, is conducted by Catholic laypersons all the time, in every Catholic college and Sunday school, every week.
In Acts 19, Paul specifically has to re-baptize, or to more accurately put it, as Scripture does, to
Baptize the one, true time, properly, i.e., the "baptisms" conducted by Apollos,
if he did so, as Paul states, are
not valid. (It actually says nothing of Apollos having baptized anyone BTW.)
Why in world would you pick something from Scripture that so obviously supports my case?
: desertknight Thu May 28, 2009 - 17:19:39
: WycliffHe also baptized as a Christian before any sort of ordination occured. It's the example you've been asking for.
Please cite your exact scriptural reference to where Apollos was conducting baptisms in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, (a formula that every Christan denomination requires as mandatory.).
The primary verse is this:
1Cr 1:12-14 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
Here, the believers in Corinth are divided, some claiming "of Paul" some "of Apollos." This Paul links to baptism and therefore, conversion. This should not be difficult for you to grasp, as you have stated the equivalence of baptism and conversion in a separate thread.
I've just presented you with a long list of facts, followed by a conclusion reached from those facts. I can republish it as a formal logical argument if it would make it easier?
No, you keep insisting that the lack of "fact" is somehow proof of your argument.
I did initially point out the utter lack of ordinations among a number of persons, which is not a proof, though it is still valid as evidence. I have since moved on to make a positive argument. Perhaps you could join me in that argument?
Please cite your exact scriptural example of Apollos, or anyone else, Baptizing in the name of Christ, without being properly ordained to do so.
I have provided a citation for the first part above. The demonstration that he was not ordained at the time of those baptisms can be demonstrated by comparing the locations listed for Apollos and Paul throughout Acts 18 & 19. Simply put, they were at no point in the same place at the same time.
I will wait for you to address my exegesis of the Biblical events of Acts 18-19.
Of course your kidding, right? OK, mystery solved. I should have read through Acts 18-19 before I wrote the first part of this post. In Acts 18, neither Apollos, nor Priscilla and Aquila, are in any way, in any form, described as having conducted any of the responsibilities reserved for either Bishops or Presbyters. Teaching, by the way, is conducted by Catholic laypersons all the time, in every Catholic college and Sunday school, every week.
You've missed the argument. I'm talking about the people AT CORINTH that he baptized, not those IN EPHESUS.
Those in Ephesus he did not baptize as Christians, because, during most of his time in Ephesus, he wasn't a Christian. He was an adherent of John, and the converts he won, he won from the Pharisaic sect into John's group - the "Baptizers" for lack of a better name.
In Acts 19, Paul specifically has to re-baptize, or to more accurately put it, as Scripture does, to Baptize the one, true time, properly, i.e., the "baptisms" conducted by Apollos, if he did so, as Paul states, are not valid. (It actually says nothing of Apollos having baptized anyone BTW.)
Why in world would you pick something from Scripture that so obviously supports my case?
You've just refuted that the baptisms at Ephesus were valid. I said as much in my first post on the subject. I knew you didn't understand from your response...
Now move forward...what changed at Ephesus? Apollos did. He went from "Jewish Baptizer" to Christian.
And, where did Apollos go afterward? Corinth, and then through Northern Greece.
Now, please bring in the passage from
Corinthians that I've cited above, and connect the dots.
: WycliffThis Paul links to baptism and therefore, conversion. This should not be difficult for you to grasp, as you have stated the equivalence of baptism and conversion in a separate thread.
Say what you want of it, but it has nothing to do with supporting your argument. It says
nothing about Apollos, or anyone else for that matter, properly baptizing, (and there is no such thing as an "improper" baptism. It either is, or it isn't.). The only issue in question is did Apollos, or anyone else for that matter, baptize into Christ anyone, without being properly ordained to do so. The only evidence you cited in Acts 19, says exactly the opposite. Paul had to properly baptize those who thought they already were, and Apollos having baptized anyone, is never mentioned.
Perhaps you could join me in that argument?
No. I will not Jerrod, because you will not acknowledge the only valid model of Churchly office and authority, that Holy Scripture provides. You keep insisting that it does not, somehow, really exist.
I have provided a citation for the first part above.
Actually, I can't find any place in either Acts 18 or 19 where it mentions Apollos having baptized anyone at all. Am I missing it? Please correct me if I'm wrong.
You've missed the argument. I'm talking about the people AT CORINTH that he baptized, not those IN EPHESUS.
It is you who are missing something. There is no mention, whatsoever, of Apollos baptizing anyone in Corinth. Please show me where you are finding this. The only mention of baptisms in Corinth are specific to the actions of St. Paul. Where are you getting this about Apollos?
Now, please bring in the passage from Corinthians that I've cited above, and connect the dots.
There are no "dots" to connect. The passage of Corinthians is a call, ironically here, to end the divisions caused by attachments to incorrect doctrine, and to commitment to Christ and His true Church. The Church is He, not anyone else. It makes no commentary at all on the discussion at hand. If you can show me where in your passage of Corinthians, that Apollos is described as having conducted the responsibilities of either a Bishop or Presbyter,
without being properly ordained, I will understand your point, and concede. Those passages say no such thing, however. The only example Paul gives, is that it is only proper to consider that we are baptized in Christ's name, not in the name of anyone else. It, and Holy Scripture, is totally silent as to whether Apollos was a Presbyter or Bishop. He is mentioned no where in Scripture as having baptized anyone. He may have been, but we don't know, and if he was, it says nothing about when he may have been ordained. Holy Scripture, however, is crystal clear that it is a requirement to have proper ordination, by those who are authorized to do so, from Christ's mandate given His Apostles, and of that authority being passed on, from Him, to them, to us, through an unbroken line. So...where do Protestants get their authority?
It's not something that it says outright, its a conclusion. I layed it out in a logical fashion, twice, but you don't get it because you don't want to get it.
Apollos went to Corinth for the purpose of evangelism, and suddenly there were people claiming to be "of Apollos," which Paul instantly links to baptism. Hmmmm.
Are logical conclusions not allowed? If it has to say it in so many words or it didn't happen... then I've won by default, because it doesn't say they were ordained.
If you want to "conclude" that Apollos was eventually made a Presbyter or a Bishop, sure. You could conclude that. Conclusion, if intelligent, should be logical, however. So I "conclude", given the ample evidence from the NT model, that Apollos was ordained, in precisely the same way, for the precisely the same reason, (from all of the examples that we do NOT have to make conclusions about in the NT.), that every other Bishop or Presbyter was. So on what basis are you concluding that Paul had to be, Timothy had to be, the Presbyters that Timothy em-placed all had to be...but Apollos, is somehow, mysteriously, exempt from what even St. Paul was not? Can you show me, in any single place, anywhere, at any time, that, that model is not correct in NT scripture? If not, then the only logical "conclusion", if Apollos was a Bishop or Presbyter, which scripture is silent on, is that he became one, through the exact method that every other example in the NT did.
Conclusion #1: Apollos baptized people into Christ at Corinth.
What facts lead to this conclusion?
1. There were believers at Corinth claiming to be "of Apollos."
2. They were claiming this in opposition to those claiming to be "of Paul."
3. Paul links those claiming to be "of Paul" with his baptizing people at Corinth.
Do you accept that these facts support the conclusion I have deduced from them? Yes / No
Are there other facts that you feel should be introduced?
If you agree that this conclusion follows from the facts, please proceed to:
Conclusion #2: Apollos was not ordained at the time he was in Corinth.
What facts lead to this conclusion?
1. Apollos declined to stay at Ephesus, and therefore was not eligible to be a bishop, or part of the presbytery, or a deacon there.
2. Apollos did not stay at Corinth, and therefore was not eligible to be a bishop, or part of the presbytery, or a deacon there.
3. It can be demonstrated that Apollos and Paul were not in the same location at any point from the time of Apollos conversion to the time at which he was in Corinth.
Does that not follow logically? It is of course, possible that another apostle was met at Corinth or elsewhere who could have ordained him, but it seems improbable, all things considered.
I shall add a supposition:
Supposition #1: The work that Apollos was performing was not the work of one attached to a particular church or city, but rather it is the work of an apostle or evangelist, being itinerant in nature, and focused primarily upon winning converts through discourse, first in the synagogue, and second in the market.
: WycliffConclusion #1: Apollos baptized people into Christ at Corinth.
There is no actual proof of that, but for the purposes of your argument, lets say he did.
Conclusion #2: Apollos was not ordained at the time he was in Corinth.
There is definitely no record of this assertion. Why would you assume that to be the case? No record in scripture indicates anything, whatever, about it, but let's proceed...
1. Apollos declined to stay at Ephesus, and therefore was not eligible to be a bishop, or part of the presbytery, or a deacon there.
Where are you getting that? From what we do know of Apollos, he was a preacher, and not necessarily a Presbyter. He did not need to "belong" in any way with Ephesus to be ordained into
any office there, nor would he have to be. There are plenty of Presbyters today who have no assignment to a particular diocese or parish. It's quite common. Given his role as an evangelist, if he was further a Presbyter, he could be ordained and sent off to any assignment. Acts 18 speaks of him desiring to go to Achaia, i.e., Corinth, and "the brothers encouraged him and wrote to the disciples there to welcome him." (Acts 18:27). Which disciples were written to? Were any authorized to ordain him? Timothy and Silas were both in Greece at the time, for that very purpose. If not, almost none sailed directly to any city then, as it was always a circuitous route. Could he have stopped off anywhere, including Caesarea, or some other location to be ordained? It's all just as possible under your model, and far more likely then just flatly stating that somehow he was mysteriously
exempt from ordination, when no one else, including St. Paul, was.
Apollos did not stay at Corinth, and therefore was not eligible to be a bishop, or part of the presbytery, or a deacon there.
Irrelevant as per my previous answer. Where are you coming up with this "eligibility" requirement from? There is no such thing. Timothy was a Bishop and was sent in almost continuous travel to various cites of the Aegean region. Timothy may very well have been the one who ordained Apollos, if Apollos was.
Paul links those claiming to be "of Paul" with his baptizing people at Corinth.
He says exactly the opposite. In answer to the division in the crowd saying, "I am of Paul!", Paul says, " I give thanks (to God) that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius.", so clearly, the crowd shouting out who they were for had little to do with who actually baptized them. Paul is "linking" baptism to what he says only to remind them to not have divisions amongst them and remember that they were baptized in Christ. So there goes
that "deduction" of yours.
It can be demonstrated that Apollos and Paul were not in the same location at any point from the time of Apollos conversion to the time at which he was in Corinth.
That's possible, but not certain by any means. The NT was not written until some time after the events and not as a chronology. We are engaging in pure speculation. Apollos may well have been ordained by Paul or Timothy or Silas or another, and it is simply not recorded. We just don't have very much information on Apollos as he is scarcely mentioned at all. Again, only and purely for the sake of argument, lets proceed.
It is of course, possible that another apostle was met at Corinth or elsewhere who could have ordained him, but it seems improbable, all things considered.
Ah, big wrench in your theory there. Assuming Apollos was a presbyter, why do you think it takes Paul or another "Apostle" to ordain him? Acts 18 clearly states that both Timothy and Silas met Paul there. There is no reason not to assume that one of them had ordained Apollos a presbyter. That was the specific purpose of Timothy's mission to Greece, to ordain Presbyters for the churches, but somehow, you insist, that in Apollo's case, for some unknown reason, it was deemed unnecessary.
Supposition #1: The work that Apollos was performing was not the work of one attached to a particular church or city, but rather it is the work of an apostle or evangelist, being itinerant in nature, and focused primarily upon winning converts through discourse, first in the synagogue, and second in the market.
He may very well have simply preached and won converts that were later baptized by whatever local Presbyters were available. Acts clearly states that his "preaching" was faulty at first and he had to be given instruction. Paul in Acts 19 encounters those who were in the same stage of faith that Apollos may have been early on, "knowing only the baptism of John", but that was not a baptism. Paul specifically tells them so and baptizes them, (re-baptize if you like, but not technically correct.).
Now the problem with what you have said here, is what you have not said. Why did you make no comment on the fact that whether Apollos was, or was not a Presbyter, the fact remains that in every single example given in the NT where we
don't have to do any supposing or deducing, all Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons are ordained in precisely the same way, in precisely the same manner. Why was ordination required of even St. Paul himself, but, mysteriously, not of Apollos? It is there that your theory falls flat. There is just no getting around that. Why would Paul send Timothy throughout Greece to ordain Presbyters, but in the case of Apollos, well, it just isn't required for him. That makes 0 sense. I logically,
as we are purely engaging in deduction and supposition, would have to conclude that even if Apollos were a Presbyter,
and he may very well not have been, then at some point, he would not be considered valid without ordination, just as Paul himself had to be.
There is not one, single, solitary, example in Scripture, of anyone, receiving the office of either Bishop, Presbyter, or Deacon, without having been properly ordained, by one who has the mandate from the Apostles to do it, by the imposition of hands. Not one. Now I can just as easily, and far more logically, deduce that Apollos was indeed met in Corinth by the Christian community there, and was dully ordained by either Timothy or Silas, who were in Greece proper, for that specific purpose, ordaining him to the Presbytery and leaving him in Corinth, as per his wishes, before he moved on. Now if you can just demonstrate the logic of your theory in relation to what I have just laid out as absolute fact in regards to the requirement of ordination, then we can proceed. Can you show me, in any single place, anywhere, at any time, that, that model is not correct in NT scripture? Oh, and where do Protestants derive their authority?
: desertknight Fri May 29, 2009 - 18:58:01
: WycliffConclusion #1: Apollos baptized people into Christ at Corinth.
There is no actual proof of that, but for the purposes of your argument, lets say he did.
No, no actual proof, but it is a logical conclusion. Actually, I found a verse which I believe settles the matter:
1Cr 3:5 Who then is Paul, and who [is] Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?
I hadn't realized it on the first pass, but the Greek for "ministers" is diakonoi. It's just not translated as deacon, so I missed it before.
1. Apollos declined to stay at Ephesus, and therefore was not eligible to be a bishop, or part of the presbytery, or a deacon there.
Where are you getting that? From what we do know of Apollos, he was a preacher, and not necessarily a Presbyter. He did not need to "belong" in any way with Ephesus to be ordained into any office there, nor would he have to be. There are plenty of Presbyters today who have no assignment to a particular diocese or parish. It's quite common. Given his role as an evangelist, if he was further a Presbyter, he could be ordained and sent off to any assignment. Acts 18 speaks of him desiring to go to Achaia, i.e., Corinth, and "the brothers encouraged him and wrote to the disciples there to welcome him." (Acts 18:27).
That's a misunderstanding of your church on my part. I've never heard of someone being a presbyter but not attached to the church he is a presbyter of. In Protestant churches, this title is generally used to refer only to those who are responsible for running the business parts of the local congregation. Deacon and overseer/pastor are also titles that are only attached to those that are part of a local congregation.
((Aside from the argument: We do ordain itinerants such as evangelists, but they are ordained with the title "minister," not presbyter. Actually, "minister" is usually the only title given, or ordained, a reflection of the Protestant idea of that leadership is just a function of service. Some groups ordain with the title pastor or bishop, but in my neck of the woods we generally look at those with some suspicion. I'm sure this doesn't apply to Lutherans and Anglicans, who we generally don't view as being Protestant anyway.))
Paul links those claiming to be "of Paul" with his baptizing people at Corinth.
He says exactly the opposite. In answer to the division in the crowd saying, "I am of Paul!", Paul says, " I give thanks (to God) that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius.", so clearly, the crowd shouting out who they were for had little to do with who actually baptized them. Paul is "linking" baptism to what he says only to remind them to not have divisions amongst them and remember that they were baptized in Christ. So there goes that "deduction" of yours.
Read a few more verses down, where he listed another few people, then a household, and then says he doesn't remember who else he might have baptized. Nonetheless, I think this point is settled.
It can be demonstrated that Apollos and Paul were not in the same location at any point from the time of Apollos conversion to the time at which he was in Corinth.
That's possible, but not certain by any means. The NT was not written until some time after the events and not as a chronology. We are engaging in pure speculation.
That's actually not true in this case. Acts is the only book of the NT that is written as a historical document, and in this case it gives a clear chronology which places Paul elsewhere during this timeframe.
Apollos may well have been ordained by Paul or Timothy or Silas or another, and it is simply not recorded. We just don't have very much information on Apollos as he is scarcely mentioned at all. Again, only and purely for the sake of argument, lets proceed.
He could have been at some point, but it wasn't by Paul prior to arriving in Corinth. And the information isn't that sketchy here...we're dealing with a very short timeframe...a few months at most. Wouldn't it be irregular for a brand new convert to be ordained? You know...don't lay hands on suddenly? All the time before that is accounted for. As for the "trip" from Ephesus to Corinth...it's a straight shot by boat. There are no roads in between.
It is of course, possible that another apostle was met at Corinth or elsewhere who could have ordained him, but it seems improbable, all things considered.
Ah, big wrench in your theory there. Assuming Apollos was a presbyter, why do you think it takes Paul or another "Apostle" to ordain him? Acts 18 clearly states that both Timothy and Silas met Paul there. There is no reason not to assume that one of them had ordained Apollos a presbyter. That was the specific purpose of Timothy's mission to Greece, to ordain Presbyters for the churches, but somehow, you insist, that in Apollo's case, for some unknown reason, it was deemed unnecessary.
I had assumed that an itinerant new believer would not be placed as a presbyter because, well...that isn't ever done. Except we don't share that point of doctrine. This is also why I specifically noted that Apollos did not remain at the churches either at Ephesus or Corinth. His "moving on" would disqualify him from all being an elder in my way of thinking.
Now, a very important question...can a deacon be itinerant in the Catholic Church?
Now the problem with what you have said here, is what you have not said. Why did you make no comment on the fact that whether Apollos was, or was not a Presbyter, the fact remains that in every single example given in the NT where we don't have to do any supposing or deducing, all Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons are ordained in precisely the same way, in precisely the same manner.
There are no examples of a bishop being ordained within the Scriptures that I was able to find. Acts 20:28 is the closest:
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. At any rate, if there is some that I've missed, it's irrelevant, as there is nothing saying that Apollos was a bishop.
I found one example in the Bible of presbyters/elders being ordained with the laying on of hands (Acts 14), and another that hints at it without specifically mentioning the imposition of hands (Titus 1). I also found the apostle Peter, and John the author of 2 & 3 John claiming to be elders. I also found about 4000 (I'm exaggerating) references to elders used for the members of the Sanhedrin. If I may suppose for a moment, I suppose that the churches' elders mirrored the Jewish elders in function. That would make them responsible for presiding in judiciary functions among the church, and running business functions. These do not appear to be functions that Apollos undertook.
As to deacons, which in light of 1Cor 3:5, seems to be the most important for the question at hand:
There is only one example of deacons being ordained with the laying on of hands within the Scriptures (in Acts 6). Conversely, 2Cor 3:6 And Colossians 1 show ministers being created by God without mention of how such a thing may have happened. Actually, much of 2Cor is addressed to those ministers (diakonoi) in Corinth. Especially note chapter 6:
2Cr 6:4 But in all [things] approving ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses,
2Cr 6:5 In stripes, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labours, in watchings, in fastings;
2Cr 6:6 By pureness, by knowledge, by longsuffering, by kindness, by the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned,
2Cr 6:7 By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left,
2Cr 6:8 By honour and dishonour, by evil report and good report: as deceivers, and [yet] true;
2Cr 6:9 As unknown, and [yet] well known; as dying, and, behold, we live; as chastened, and not killed;
2Cr 6:10 As sorrowful, yet alway rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, and [yet] possessing all things.
This indicates that a minister, or deacon if you prefer, is such because of their service. (That is in agreement with my previously stated position that ordination is simply a recognition of what is already there.) That is, the church is not a succession so much as a meritocracy.
The word
deacon is used 30 times in Greek (using Textus Receptus). A list can be found
here. You'll have to scroll down a bit. There is very little to promote the idea of a deacon as an authority of any sort over anyone. Rather, the emphasis is on servitude of the lowest sort. See especially Matt 20:25-26, in which Jesus puts forward leadership and deacon-ship in a lovely contrast, after taking a nice shot at the top-down authority the RCC seems to hold as necessary:
Mat 20:25 But Jesus called them [unto him], and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.
Mat 20:26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister (diakonos);
Why was ordination required of even St. Paul himself, but, mysteriously, not of Apollos? It is there that your theory falls flat. There is just no getting around that.
Required?... I mean, he
was ordained at Antioch by the elders there, but he didn't exactly go seek it out. Actually, he was making converts well before his ordination, in several places: Damascus, Judea, Asia Minor, Antioch. He apparently didn't let the fact that nobody had laid hands on him stop him from preaching or teaching or serving the church in any way.
Anyway, Paul made no ado over ordination...but a lot of ado over the Lord's personally commissioning him on the road to Damascus. Unless you're considering that his ordination? You find this very important...are we talking about the same event here?
Why would Paul send Timothy throughout Greece to ordain Presbyters, but in the case of Apollos, well, it just isn't required for him. That makes 0 sense.
Obviously he would send him for the benefit of the (languishing) churches there that were having problems with internal divisions. How does that require one guy who Paul didn't even meet until after the fact be one of those ordained? That doesn't follow at all to me. By the way, can you bcv me where Timothy was ordained by Paul? I'm having some difficulty finding the passage, which I would like to see.
There is not one, single, solitary, example in Scripture, of anyone, receiving the office of either Bishop, Presbyter, or Deacon, without having been properly ordained, by one who has the mandate from the Apostles to do it, by the imposition of hands. Not one.
So now
you're arguing from an absence of information? That was my point. If there was no ordination...how could there be a record of an ordination? This very absence supports my point.
At any rate, there aren't very many instances in the scripture of ANYONE receiving these "offices," as I've shown above. And there are a couple at least, who are listed in these "offices" without any record of ordination. And there are more still who are shown to be discharging the functions ascribed to these offices, without any record of ordination.
Now I can just as easily, and far more logically, deduce that Apollos was indeed met in Corinth by the Christiain community there, and was dully ordained by either Timothy or Silas, who were in Greece proper, for that specific purpose, ordaining him to the Presbytery and leaving him in Corinth, as per his wishes, before he moved on.
There's a couple of problems with that theory. One, I believe those two were actually in Asia Minor at this time. See 1Tim 1. Two, he did not "wish" to be left in Corinth, as his stated intention was to continue into Achaia, that is, northern Greece. Corinth is not in Achaia. Can a deacon be itinerant in your hierarchy?
Now if you can just demonstrate the logic of your theory in relation to what I have just laid out as absolute fact in regards to the requirement of ordination, then we can proceed. Can you show me, in any single place, anywhere, at any time, that, that model is not correct in NT scripture?
Requirement of ordination? You've showed no such thing. You've only showed that ordination as a practice existed. If you want to show it as a requirement, you need to show where someone was rejected, specifically because they weren't properly ordained. Please show me that.
I've never said that ordination was not a practice of the church. It very obviously was and has continued to be so. But what I've said is that it is not a successorship. Rather, that it was merely a recognition of the work that was already being performed. I've provided a number of verses supporting that, including examples of people ministering without being ordained.
Oh, and where do Protestants derive their authority?
Again, we don't derive authority over others. We seek to minister to them. We seek to put ourselves UNDER people, not OVER people. Ironically, or perhaps by design, serving people causes these people to look towards one for guidance.
Mat 20:25 But Jesus called them [unto him], and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.
Mat 20:26
But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister (diakonos);
Rather than keep dragging this on
ad nauseum, let me make some points that we know from Holy Scripture are irrefutable. We know for fact that the Lord picked, and charged His Apostles to act in His name, "as the Father has sent me, so I also send you." We know for a fact that they in turn, passed this authority on through the process of ordination by the imposition of hands. That is indisputable. We know for a fact that those men in turn ordained others in exactly the same manner. Now whether Apollos was, or was not a Bishop/Presbyter cannot be definitively proven by NT scripture. We can only deduce that he might have been, but in doing that it is far more logical for me to deduce that if he was, he was also ordained, just as everyone else was that we do positively know of, in numerous examples from the NT. No matter how many times you frame it, or we debate it point by point, it does not change the basic illogicality of your argument that, as just one example, Paul went to Jerusalem to be ordained. He ordains Timothy. At some point Timothy was given charge, (made a Bishop), and given specific instruction by St. Paul to travel to various cities and ordain Presbyters in various church communities. Timothy is even cautioned to, "not lay on hands to quickly, "when choosing which men to ordain. Now this is fact. It is beyond dispute. But you argue, that because Apollos's ordination is not specifically mentioned, (and neither is a single act he performed that would have required it.), that is somehow, "proof", that ordination was, mysteriously, not required of this one man. Now you have never explained why, let alone that it is factually true, and I have given as ironclad argument as you can make, that it would be totally and completely nonsensical and illogical, to state that St. Paul, called by Christ directly, went to be ordained by proper authority, but Apollos, is again, mysteriously, exempt. I think we have beaten this poor, dead horse into the ground, and you have failed to "prove" anything, including the logic of your argument as a deduction. Many of the Apostles and their activities are quite unknown to us, except by tradition and extra-Biblical text, except for Peter, and possibly John, so that we know little of Apollos or Titus or Silas is not surprising, it does not however, bring into question what we do know definitively on this subject.
Acts 14:23 "They
appointed presbyters for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, commended them to the Lord in whom they had put their faith.
Acts 15:23-25 "This is the letter delivered by them: "The apostles and the presbyters, your brothers, to the brothers in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia of Gentile origin: greetings. Since we have heard that some of our number (who went out)
without any mandate from us have upset you with their teachings and disturbed your peace of mind, we have with one accord decided to choose representatives and to send them to you along with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,"
Titus 1:5 "For this reason I left you in Crete so that you might set right what remains to be done and
appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed you,"
Heb. 13:7 "
Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.
The NT is clear that the authority to ordain came from the Apostles, who consecrated Bishops who ordained Presbyters to lead the Christian communities. Yes, those Bishops and Presbyters were there to serve, but their authority as the accountable vicars of Christ was to be obeyed and respected. You are attempting to muddy the waters with shifting the argument to the role of deacons or other non-issues from that which I have outlined above and I have no desire to engage in such silliness just for the purpose of debating. Yes, there is a link between the "elders" of the Jewish faith and the Church. Yes Deacons are assistants to Presbyters and not "authorities" over the faithful. I have no idea why you sidelined into that. No one is claiming a Deaconal succession. Ordaining by the imposition of hands is cited 5 times in the NT, not once, and the appointing of Presbyters is cited more times than that. Where are you getting that Presbyters are just "found", indigenously, in Christian communities? Please cite your Biblical reference for such belief. The NT is specific that they are appointed, and valid, only if they have a "mandate" from a Bishop, who received their authority from the Apostles. "Through the imposition of my hands.", Paul said. And if ordination were to have been mentioned only once, what is the standard? If mentioned only once, it doesn't really count? LoL. The same goes for the ordaining of Deacons. It is the same today with them. When you said, "I've provided a number of verses supporting that, including examples of people ministering without being ordained,"... implying that this includes Bishops/Presbyters, (but of course, you were cleverly, not specific in that.).", really, ??? Where? You have done nothing of the kind. Just name one, single, solitary person, in the entire NT, who is named as a Bishop or Presbyter, who you can prove was
not ordained. Just one. Just site one, single, solitary, verse of NT Scripture that says that. Now, can people "minister", without being a Presbyter of Bishop? Of course! That is not the issue. People can minister in teaching, preaching, caring for the poor, casting out demons, etc., without ordination. All of the "religious", (Nuns and brothers), are not ordained. Most teachers in Catholic schools and Catholic evangelist, are not ordained. The issue is can they be Bishops/Presbyters
without being ordained by those who have the authority of the Apostles, (i.e., the Presbyters that Timothy ordained can by traced through Timothy to Paul through the authority that Paul said he "gave to you through the imposition of my hands.").
THAT is the model that you have utterly failed to disqualify, or to prove an alternative to.
The NT is quite clear. You were given one challenge by me...
: desertknightJust tell me which one become a Bishop, Presbyter or Deacon, without being ordained by a legitimate person, and you've won!
You have failed to provide that. You have failed to "prove" anything. Case closed.
You can always tell when someone has lost an argument because instead of addressing what was said, they simply restate their original case and make rhetorical arguments instead of logical ones.
As for the example, Apollos, I've won. I've demonstrated he was a deacon, which would make him ordained, even in your convoluted paradigm of rules and regs. I've demonstrated him discharging a function you reserve to the bishop/presbyter, even though he is not specifically listed as such, and probably wasn't ever considered one! Yet Paul has no problem with what he's done. I've showed that there was no way he could have been ordained by the apostle between the time of his conversion and the time in which he began discharging the aforementioned functions.
Your argument has dwindled gradually as I've refuted your points one at a time. You have two arguments left...one is to speculate what might have happened that isn't recorded. But that is no argument at all. The other is to say "show me where it says he wasn't ordained." But of course, there is no record that "on the 25th of May, such-and-such was NOT ordained." Things that don't happen aren't recorded.
But if you prefer to look at this macroscopically, since the example isn't going well for you, then yes, "ministering" can be done by the unordained (your example was nuns). Now, I hate to break it to you, but that IS PERFORMING THE OFFICE OF A DEACON. The word is diakonos, deacon, in Greek. So, yes, you're right, anyone can do that. No ordination required. That's the point! One's actions make them what they are in the church, nothing else.
Won? Well let's see...
I've demonstrated he was a deacon, which would make him ordained, even in your convoluted paradigm of rules and regs.
OK, so show me the proof of your argument that he was
not ordained. Simple enough, and the crux of your case. Where do you get that simply claiming that you know he was
not ordained, based solely on it's not being mentioned, is "proof" of anything? That is just the silliest "reasoning" there is. It is far more logical to assume that if he was a Deacon, then he would have almost certainly been ordained, as other deacons we know of in the NT
were!
I've demonstrated him discharging a function you reserve to the bishop/presbyter,
Please cite the Scripture where this is demonstrated. What "function" are you talking about?
I've showed that there was no way he could have been ordained by the apostle between the time of his conversion and the time in which he began discharging the aforementioned functions.
If he was ordained, who said it was the Apostle Paul that did it? I simply suggested he
may have, as well as many others. Others, clearly, could have. It was the very purpose of the mission of Timothy and Silas, who were in northern Greece, as you, yourself, put Achaia, but curiously, my lack of evidence, you claim to be no proof at all, whilst your lack of evidence, is definitively so. How odd. In Acts 18, they are reported as coming down from northern Greece in order to meet Paul. There are other possibilities as well.
Your argument has dwindled gradually as I've refuted your points one at a time.
How is that possible when you have not answered one, single, solitary question? You have never answered this one...
: DesertknightJust tell me which one become a Bishop, Presbyter or Deacon, without being ordained by a legitimate person, and you've won!
Now your
only answer to this is to claim that Apollos,
and he is your only example, was, somehow, mysteriously, not ordained, or required to, when even Paul himself was, as well as everyone else that is
actually identified as either a Bishop or Presbyter. Of course, you cannot point to even the slightest scrap of actual proof for your claim that Apollos was not, instead, you argue that as it is not mentioned,
and neither is his being even a Presbyter, then somehow, that is "proof" that he deffinately wasn't ordained. I honestly thought you were a fairly intelligent person, but if you seriously think that is somehow an argument worth anything, or that it constitutes "proof" of anything, then it is really pointless to debate you. I have way over-estimated you. I really don't mean to be hurtful, but if you put forth the argument you have with me in any kind of formal debate..you would be the object of a total breakdown in laughter and derision. That a complete lack of evidence is "proof" of anything is just the silliest thing I have heard in awhile. It is total non-sense.
Things that don't happen aren't recorded.
Then anyone with any concept of common sense or honesty cannot possibly claim that it is a "fact" that he was not. Everything that we know of others in similar positions in the NT,
were ordained! A topic that you are utterly silent on.
But if you prefer to look at this macroscopically, since the example isn't going well for you, then yes, "ministering" can be done by the unordained (your example was nuns).
My examples are clearly, explicitly, described in NT scripture. They require no "deducing" or "supposing" of any kind. How bout' yours?
Now, I hate to break it to you, but that IS PERFORMING THE OFFICE OF A DEACON. The word is diakonos, deacon, in Greek. So, yes, you're right, anyone can do that. No ordination required.
In some areas, like teaching, caring for the poor; absolutely. No problem. In other areas, as in the assistance to the Presbyters in the sharing of some of his duties; no. And in both cases, pretty much irrelevant. As just one example, Deacons have traditionally been the "lectors", or readers, during the Mass. They routinely delegate that duty to lay people in almost every church. No problem, and no issue. The only point is that the NT gives us clear example of the office of Deacon being an ordained office. I guess it's just another case where you consider either scripture wrong, or your own "deductions" about it to be more legitimate than the
actual examples that are given in the NT.
Your entire argument rest on the single person of Apollos, who may, or may not have been a Presbyter. We don't know. I have searched the internet and there is nothing definitive about him. Whether he was or not, there is also no information about him as to his ordination, one way or the other, and yet you claim this is "proof". How silly. Really, your a smart guy, I thought at least, and you must know that saying there is no proof, somehow "proves" something, is just silly or dishonest. We have ample examples from the NT on the fact of ordination being the mark of office, "through the imposition of my hands", Paul said, and you are continually mute on this fact. I am beginning to doubt that you really believe what you are arguing for that reason.
: desertknight Mon Jun 01, 2009 - 16:22:20
I've demonstrated he was a deacon, which would make him ordained, even in your convoluted paradigm of rules and regs.
OK, so show me the proof of your argument that he was not ordained. Simple enough, and the crux of your case. Where do you get that simply claiming that you know he was not ordained, based solely on it's not being mentioned, is "proof" of anything? That is just the silliest "reasoning" there is.
Strawman. That hasn't been my argument, or the extent of my argument. At one point you asked me to name someone who wasn't ordained in Scripture, and I gave you a list of names. From that single fact you've created this whole line of argumentation, which you then claim is the ONLY THING I've said. If that were true, you wouldn't even be able to say the other things you said in this same post.
It is far more logical to assume that if he was a Deacon, then he would have almost certainly been ordained, as other deacons we know of in the NT were!
Yes, this is the extent of your argument. To paraphrase - Once upon a time, they ordained the first deacons, so, therefore, all deacons that ever existed must have been ordained.
I've given examples of others besides Apollos, such as Phoebe, who I don't believe even qualifies for ordination in your church, but you just ignore those for some reason.
I've also written multiple paragraphs, a short paper really, citing multiple verses on the nature of diakonia in the New Testament being a matter of leadership by service, but these you do not so much as acknowledge. You might respond to the opposing point of view that I've presented. But instead you sit and claim that I've never made another argument. Prepostorous.
I've demonstrated him discharging a function you reserve to the bishop/presbyter,
Please cite the Scripture where this is demonstrated. What "function" are you talking about?
Again? Baptism. 1Cor 1. We did this to death.
If he was ordained, who said it was the Apostle Paul that did it? I simply suggested he may have, as well as many others. Others, clearly, could have. It was the very purpose of the mission of Timothy and Silas, who were in northern Greece, as you, yourself, put Achaia.
The point is that, barring some sort of amazing coincidence, he wasn't ordained at that time. Try to follow the events in Acts 18 & 19 with me...I'll spell it out:
The others you refer to were in Macedonia months prior to this, and then traveled through Achaia to Corinth. Now, I know you're getting really excited right now because they were in Corinth, but try to keep reading They joined Paul at Corinth and traveled through Cenchrea, Ephesus, Caesarea, went "up" to Jerusalem, and end in Antioch. That all happened BEFORE Apollos shows up in Ephesus, hundreds of miles away from them.
Those who met Apollos were Priscilla and Aquila, because Paul had left them in Ephesus, as the text specifically says. Maybe a map would help?
http://www.ephesuskusadasi.com/images/paul_s_missionary_journeys.jpg <-plug that into your browser and follow the purple line through Acts 18, and then the yellow line through Acts 19.
All of Paul's traveling companions, including Timothy, were with Paul, save Aquila and his wife, until Paul returned to Ephesus many months later (and found those Apollos baptized with John's baptism). Then, Paul and his companions stayed in Ephesus for 2 years (19:10) before Paul finally sent them back into Macedonia while he traveled through Ionia. There is a window of about 2.5 years here during which Apollos could not have been in contact with Paul or any of his cohorts, because they were on a different continent.
It is during this period, probably while Paul is at Ephesus, that he writes to Corinth, and gives them a stern lecture about creeping sectarianism, saying that whether they are "one of his" converts, or one "of Apollos'" converts, they were all Christians, and boy it's a good thing I didn't baptize more of you while I was there.
Your argument has dwindled gradually as I've refuted your points one at a time.
How is that possible when you have not answered one, single, solitary question?
You began this post by ceding that Apollos was a deacon...nuff said.
Now your only answer to this is to claim that Apollos, and he is your only example, was, somehow, mysteriously, not ordained, or required to, when even Paul himself was, as well as everyone else that is actually identified as either a Bishop or Presbyter.
And you conveniently leave out deacon suddenly...could it be that you're starting to see it? Also, I started with six examples, and you chose Apollos because he was the "best argument." You also dismissed Priscilla, and I ceded that point.
Of course, you cannot point to even the slightest scrap of actual proof for your claim that Apollos was not, instead...
You mean other than the 2 1/2 year chronology I've presented over and over showing that everybody who could would be qualified to do it was on a different continent?
...you argue that as it is not mentioned, and neither is his being even a Presbyter, then somehow, that is "proof" that he deffinately wasn't ordained. I honestly thought you were a fairly intelligent person, but if you seriously think that is somehow an argument worth anything, or that it constitutes "proof" of anything, then it is really pointless to debate you.
This is the same strawman you stated at the beginning of this post.
I have way over-estimated you. I really don't mean to be hurtful, but if you put forth the argument you have with me in any kind of formal debate..you would be the object of a total breakdown in laughter and derision.
Ridiculing someone's argument is an excellent rhetorical device, but I find your claim that you aren't trying to be hurtful a bit disingenuous.
That a complete lack of evidence is "proof" of anything is just the silliest thing I have heard in awhile. It is total non-sense.
Yes, that is silly. Why did you invent it? I never stated a lack of evidence as proof. I did point out a lack of evidence. You can tell the difference I'm sure, but it's easier to pretend that this is the extent of the argument I've made.
Things that don't happen aren't recorded.
Then anyone with any concept of common sense or honesty cannot possibly claim that it is a "fact" that he was not. Everything that we know of others in similar positions in the NT, were ordained! A topic that you are utterly silent on.
I don't think I ever said that. And I haven't been silent about ordination at all. Yes, people were ordained and still are. God bless 'em! I'm not arguing against ordination as a practice here.
The argument that I keep making, which you keep ignoring, is that ordination doesn't CONFER authority, it RECOGNIZES that authority which is GENERATED BY SERVICE.
Now, I hate to break it to you, but that IS PERFORMING THE OFFICE OF A DEACON. The word is diakonos, deacon, in Greek. So, yes, you're right, anyone can do that. No ordination required.
In some areas, like teaching, caring for the poor; absolutely. No problem. In other areas, as in the assistance to the Presbyters in the sharing of some of his duties; no. And in both cases, pretty much irrelevant. As just one example, Deacons have traditionally been the "lectors", or readers, during the Mass. They routinely delegate that duty to lay people in almost every church. No problem, and no issue.
Of course its no issue. Everybody loves to be served, and one doesn't need a certification to serve. That's kind of my point, actually, though you don't see it I guess. The church ordains those who serve already. It doesn't ordain those who don't serve, and then they're allowed. Meritocracy, not hierarchy.
Your entire argument rest on the single person of Apollos, who may, or may not have been a Presbyter.
Nah it rests on Jesus statement - whoever will be great among you, let him be the servant. Maybe you'd like to do an exegesis of that passage? It would give us something other than Apollos, who, while an excellent exemplar, is getting a bit tiresome. (Yes, I dislike repeating myself too).
One other thing...I like historical accuracy. You keep stating that Paul went to Jerusalem to be ordained. I don't remember this event. AFAIK Paul was ordained at Antioch. Could you BCV me the Jerusalem event? I looked but did not find it. 2nd request.
That hasn't been my argument, or the extent of my argument. At one point you asked me to name someone who wasn't ordained in Scripture, and I gave you a list of names. From that single fact you've created this whole line of argumentation, which you then claim is the ONLY THING I've said. If that were true, you wouldn't even be able to say the other things you said in this same post.
No, you gave me some names of people of who we don't know whether they were ordained, or even holders of office necessarily, who may or may not have been ordained at some time, but to you that is "proof".
Yes, this is the extent of your argument. To paraphrase - Once upon a time, they ordained the first deacons, so, therefore, all deacons that ever existed must have been ordained.
Yes. It's called logic and common sense. Why would the Apostle Paul be ordained? Why would he ordain Timothy? Why would he send Timothy to ordain specifically? Why did the other Apostles insist on ordination into churchly office, when of course, it is all so unnecessary? Why was Apollos exempt? Your model is also one that even most Protestant denominations do not accept. Your argument is nonsensical.
I've also written multiple paragraphs, a short paper really, citing multiple verses on the nature of diakonia in the New Testament being a matter of leadership by service, but these you do not so much as acknowledge. You might respond to the opposing point of view that I've presented. But instead you sit and claim that I've never made another argument. Prepostorous.
You haven't. You have not named one, single, solitary, person, who was even a Deacon, who you can prove was
not ordained. Don't think so? Then name one. The absence of information is not "proof" of anything. It is a silly and nonsensical argument to make.
Again? Baptism. 1Cor 1. We did this to death.
1. There is nothing in 1 Cor 1. that says he baptized. In fact, in every single site on-line that I could find, including every Protestant one, Apollos is not listed or referenced in any of them, as having
ever baptized anyone. They all simply list him as an eloquent and skilled preacher. BTW, there is no evidence that Peter was ever in Corinth to baptize then either, ("I am of Cephas!"). You are missing the point that Paul made when he said, "I am thankful that I never baptized any of you except..." I have not found any biblical reference interpretation on-line that makes the same equation that you do, i.e., that "I am of Apollos!", refers to his having baptized anyone. 2. FYI, Deacons can, and have always been able to, baptize. That is not reserved for Bishops and Presbyters only.
The point is that, barring some sort of amazing coincidence, he wasn't ordained at that time.
You have absolutely no knowledge of that.
They joined Paul at Corinth and traveled through Cenchrea, Ephesus, Caesarea, went "up" to Jerusalem, and end in Antioch. That all happened BEFORE Apollos shows up in Ephesus, hundreds of miles away from them. There is a window of about 2.5 years here during which Apollos could not have been in contact with Paul or any of his cohorts, because they were on a different continent.
Oh, but as it turns out, Apollos was very much in contact with Paul, Paul's third journey took place over the period of many years. Paul's stay in Ephesus alone, according to the scholarly sources I could find, lasted for over two years, as you point out. You are arguing that no one, including Paul, could have
ever ordained Apollos, who who had gone to Achaia and Corinth, and undoubtedly as an evangelist, elsewhere, during the end of Paul's second journey and during his third, (The end of Acts 18, and Acts 19), when we don't even know where Apollos was for that entire time. Ah, but this is the problem of the chronology of the Bible and who wrote what. While Luke wrote Acts 19, and yes, when Paul arrives back at Ephesus, Apollos is in Corinth, but Apollos apparently didn't stay there. As you put it, "It's a straight shot from Ephesus to Corinth." Sure enough, and I should have caught it before, that is the exact time that the Biblical experts confirm Paul's writing of 1 Corinthians. Now the problem for your theory is that Paul writes this,
1 Cor. 16:12 "Now in regard to our brother Apollos, I urged him strongly to go to you with the brothers, but it was not at all his will that he go now. He will go when he has an opportunity." Now, Paul clearly wrote 1 Cor. in Ephesus. He was there only twice where it would have been. Every Biblical source I could find says that it was written during the time Luke was recording events of Acts 18, chronologically. There is no other time he could have, as in Acts 19, he arrives back in Ephesus when Apollos is in Corinth and yet by verse 19:21 Paul is preparing to leave, which he does after the disturbance breaks out by the end of Acts 19. He clearly didn't write 1 Cor. then. That leaves very little other possibility. Every source I could find, says that Apollos was clearly with Paul during this time. Either the chronology of events in Acts 18 concerning Apollos and Paul simply fails to mention it, or Apollos, evidently spent some time visiting Paul back in Ephesus. If you can find any other source that says differently, I would like to see it. BTW, I found no source, anywhere, Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant, that ever refers to Apollos as a Bishop, Presbyter or Deacon. If you can find one that does, I would love to see it. They all simply list him as a an evangelist. They, Timothy and Silas, did not accompany Paul on that journey after Ephesus. Paul sent Timothy back to Greece in Acts 19:22, along with Erastus. Paul also sent Timothy to Corinth in 1 Cor. 4:17, when he may very well have met Apollos at that time. In addition he sent him to Thessalonica in Greece as well. Timothy and Silas or Erastus may not have even been the only ones in Greece who had the authority to ordain, I am simply pointing out that they could have. The NT contains six letters of Paul's to Timothy. Those letters comprise many, many, years of time and cover six separate places in Greece that Timothy was conducting his Episcopal mission in. We don't even know where Silas and Erastus could have been during this entire time. During that period of many years, Apollos could very well have been ordained by any number of them, or others who we do not know of. To say he was definitely
not ordained, during that period of many years, is nonsensical and without merit.
All of Paul's traveling companions, including Timothy, were with Paul
Not true. In Acts 18, Paul meets Timothy after Timothy came down from northern Greece. In Acts 19:22 Timothy and Erastus are sent back to Greece from Ephesus. We have no idea where Silas was. Timothy was also sent from Paul back to Corinth, specifically to straighten out problems there as is referenced in 1 Cor.
You began this post by ceding that Apollos was a deacon...nuff said.
I never said that he wasn't. I said that we don't know definitively. It is still a dodge of my challenge however. I will repeat it for the dozenth time...
: desertknightJust tell me which one become a Bishop, Presbyter or Deacon, without being ordained by a legitimate person, and you've won!
All these posts later...and you still have never answered that challenge. There is no proof that Apollos, or anyone else that was a Bishop, Presbyter or Deacon, was
not ordained.
And you conveniently leave out deacon suddenly...could it be that you're starting to see it? Also, I started with six examples, and you chose Apollos because he was the "best argument." You also dismissed Priscilla, and I ceded that point
Not at all. I will even, for the sake of argument, accept that Apollos was a Deacon. Now all you have to do is prove he was one, without the same process of other deacons described in the NT;
ordination. I haven't dismissed Priscilla, I just refrain from claiming "proof" of anything that I have no information about. You might try that. You will come across as much more credible if you do.
You mean other than the 2 1/2 year chronology I've presented over and over showing that everybody who could would be qualified to do it was on a different continent?
Everybody? LoL, Oh gosh, really? Everybody? Please. You have proven nothing of the kind. Please see above. Believe me, this caused me an exhaustive and educational search of the events on the Web, and most of the "experts", unlike yourself, know as little of the actual events surrounding Apollos or Priscilla or others mentioned, as I admit to. It is pure guesswork. You should shine your deductive reasoning on them... ::smile:: BTW, Titus, who is indisputably a Bishop, was in Corinth at the time that Apollos was there, (2 Cor. 8:6).
This is the same strawman you stated at the beginning of this post.
You obviously have no idea what a "strawman" argument is. Please point out one, single, inaccurate statement I made in this paragraph of mine that you reference here, that constitutes a "strawman" argument. I have not stated anything concerning your argument that is inaccurate. I don't do that.
Ridiculing someone's argument is an excellent rhetorical device, but I find your claim that you aren't trying to be hurtful a bit disingenuous.
That is only because you fail to understand that claiming that you can state a "fact" about something, based on the total lack of evidence of same, is silly and dishonest.
The argument that I keep making, which you keep ignoring, is that ordination doesn't CONFER authority, it RECOGNIZES that authority which is GENERATED BY SERVICE.
Holy Scripture flatly disagrees...
2 Tim 1:6 "For this reason, I remind you to stir into flame the gift of God 5 that you have through the imposition of my hands."
Acts 14:23 "They appointed presbyters for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, commended them to the Lord in whom they had put their faith."
Tit. 1:5 "For this reason I left you in Crete so that you might set right what remains to be done and appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed you."
1 Tim. 4:14 " Do not neglect the gift you have, which was conferred on you through the prophetic word with the imposition of hands of the presbyterate."
Acts 15:24-26 "Since we have heard that some of our number (who went out) without any mandate from us have upset you with their teachings and disturbed your peace of mind, we have with one accord decided to choose representatives and to send them to you,"Obviously, the Presbyteriate was an appointed and ordained ministry. Your claim of authority being "generated by service" is flatly unbiblical. The only thing that Scripture says that "generates" one to be ordained is the calling of the Holy Spirit.
One other thing...I like historical accuracy. You keep stating that Paul went to Jerusalem to be ordained. I don't remember this event. AFAIK Paul was ordained at Antioch.
Your correct. My bad. Now if you could only answer...why was Paul required, (Yes, required, unless you think it was done unnecessarily.), to be ordained? Timothy ordained? Paul is very specific that Timothy's authority comes from the "imposition of my hands". The Presbyters that Timothy ordained were obviously required to be, otherwise, why Paul's instructions to do exactly that? Why is every single, solitary, Bishop, Presbyter and Deacon, that we know held office without dispute from scripture,
ordained into that office, by the imposition of hands, by
only those who have the proper authority to do so, and yet, lil' ole' Apollos must have been a special fellow indeed. In his case, you say, "ordination? No need for that!". Why and what are you basing that on? Just the lack of evidence? That is no argument and not proof. The NT is crystal clear on the churchly offices of Bishop, Presbyter and Deacon and just as clear on the validity of such office being traceable to Apostolic authority. Again...case closed.
: papist1 Tue Apr 28, 2009 - 06:17:16
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Mon Apr 27, 2009 - 16:51:56
: papist1 Mon Apr 27, 2009 - 16:19:38
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Mon Apr 27, 2009 - 15:53:54
And this is not the same as when one pope reinterprets what a previous pope says?
Pot. Kettle.
Kettle. Pot.
Get acquainted.
Just because a pope says something, does not make it doctrine, in any way shape or form. I am not aware of any pope counteracting his predecessor in the chair of peter. Maybe you can give me an example?
Then maybe you can tell me how one can prove their authority for their interpretation of scripture. :)
peace, papist
Not doctrine?
You put authority up as your argument, so by criticizing that authority, in its tendency to redefine what it meant in the past, I've drawn a parallel with the Protestant tendency to redefine what their authority (Sola Scriptura) has said in the past.
The argument is still valid. The analogy still holds. Are you really going to argue against the authority that you are putting forward? What I hear is that this is legitimate authority, but only kind-of, sometimes, and when it's convenient to the argument.
As to examples of popes contradicting prior popes...well, I thought you wanted to keep discussions of 15th century papal indiscretion out of this argument.
Off the top of my head and without actually looking it up...I believe that THE CHURCH, in council, at the behest of the pope and with his approval, anathematized not only Luther but all German Protestants as well as anyone "aiding and betting." JP @ Vatican (2? 3?) welcomes Protestants as true Christians.
Technically, that's a Pope & Council contradicting a Council which the Pope only tacitly endorsed, but the argument is the same:
Your authority redefines what its predecessors said, too.
Not true.
A Catholic, who knows and believes what the church teaches, who later commits heresy unrepentantly, is excommunicated. All of the reformers are most likely not in heaven. thats just my take. They caused terrible division, and they were Christian heretics.
True, Christians in other denominations, who have never known the fullness of truth, nor purposefully left it or taught against it after once knowing it, still have the opportunity at salvation.
So your theory is false, and consistent Catholic teaching confirms this point.
Once again, a misunderstanding of Catholic teaching.
Bishop sheen once write that there are not 100 people who hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they believe the Catholic Church to teach.
You fit into that category. unfortunately.
peace, papist
A Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope
Treatise Compiled by the Theologians Assembled at Smalcald - 1537
http://bookofconcord.org/treatise.php
::eatingpopcorn:
: desertknight Mon Jun 01, 2009 - 21:55:30
No, you gave me some names of people of who we don't know whether they were ordained, or even holders of office necessarily, who may or may not have been ordained at some time, but to you that is "proof".
Proof was your thing from the get go. I have stated all along that a negative premise (that XXX never happened) is by definition not absolutely provable. I have nonetheless offered evidence to try to establish a likelihood that Apollos was recognized in the function of one of your 3 "ordained offices," Bishop, Presbyter, and Deacon, and to establish the unlikelihood that he was ordained before he began excercising the functions of said office. In short, I have argued on your terms from the get go.
Why would the Apostle Paul be ordained?
The Apostle Paul was ordained in Acts 13 due to a word of prophecy specifically commissioning Paul to do certain work. In short, God needed to tell Paul to go, because he was contentedly sitting at Antioch rather than going "to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel." Interestingly, Paul is recorded as completing a ministry (diakonia) in Acts 12, right before that.
Why would he ordain Timothy?
Paul and the presbytery laid hands on Timothy to impart an unspecified gift because there was a specific word of prophecy that directed such to be done. Paul later urged him to exercise that gift and study more. Authority is not what is being spoken of as being transmitted by the imposition of hands here, it seems.
Why would he send Timothy to ordain specifically?
Paul didn't send Timothy to ordain anyone to my knowledge. He sent Titus...ummmm...he
left Titus...in Crete to "set in order the things that are wanting," which including the appointing of elders in every city, because the Cretans were permeated with Judaizers, and "deceivers," who were teaching aberrant doctrines "for filthy lucre's sake." In short, there was a specially bad problem with false teachers in Crete fleecing the flock, so it was necessary to have someone go through town by town and sort out the good guys from the bad guys. Interestingly, the Greek words Paul uses do not indicate that this "ordination" was done with any imposition of hands, or by the mutual consent of the presbytery or congregations. It's a simple selection by a committee of 1; not an election.
If I may digress a bit.... I believe that this is because the laying on of hands is for the transmission of something. Here we agree. But you think it is authority that is transmitted. However, I would counter that what is transmitted is a spiritual gift for ministry. Much of the book of 1 Corinthians deals with a number of such gifts. While it may be that the gift(s) - or rather, the exercise of the gift(s) - causes one to be seen as authoritative, this does not necessarily mean that authority itself is what has been transmitted.
Such a gift appears to be what Paul is speaking of to Timothy in the prior section, though what the gift is, is not mentioned.
The most common thing to be transmitted by the imposition of hands, though, was health. Oftentimes, this was done because the person in question was ill. However, it was also done occasionally to those who were well, as a blessing. For instance, when one was leaving, such as in the example of Paul's ordination above.
Why did the other Apostles insist on ordination into churchly office, when of course, it is all so unnecessary?
I don't recall any of the apostles ever insisting on ordination...unless of course you're referring to this:
Luke 9:49 And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us. 50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid [him] not: for he that is not against us is for us.
Could you show me where they insisted on ordination? Yes, please show me where anyone in the NT ever insisted on being ordained. This particular belief seems to be exactly the opposite of all of Jesus teachings in the gospels on service and leadership.
Why was Apollos exempt? Your model is also one that even most Protestant denominations do not accept. Your argument is nonsensical.
Exempt from being recognized as a leader by the local presbytery? I'm sure that at some point, somebody probably "ordained" good ol' Apollos, whether it was with a vote of confidence or a prayer of blessing. It might even have been accompanied by the bestowal of a gift via the imposition of hands. I am sure that it did not hold the pomp of the modern ritual. I'm pretty sure that it was after he had already been leading by action for a while.
What I've been attempting to demonstrate is that Apollos (and really, everyone in the NT) did not have to wait to "get their ordination" to make converts, to cast out demons, to baptize, to exhort, to commend, to mentor, correct, lead, or serve their fellows. Those who WERE RECOGNIZED via ordination, were recognized specifically because of what they were doing. Ordination, like all certifications, follows after what one has accomplished; it does not precede it.
I've also written multiple paragraphs, a short paper really, citing multiple verses on the nature of diakonia in the New Testament being a matter of leadership by service, but these you do not so much as acknowledge. You might respond to the opposing point of view that I've presented. But instead you sit and claim that I've never made another argument. Prepostorous.
You haven't. You have not named one, single, solitary, person, who was even a Deacon, who you can prove was not ordained. Don't think so? Then name one. The absence of information is not "proof" of anything. It is a silly and nonsensical argument to make.
That's not even what I was talking about here. I'm talking about the defining of the word deacon as a servant, I'm talking about this:
Mat 20:25 But Jesus called them [unto him], and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. 26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister
I'm talking about how leadership in the church is not defined by a succession, but by service. I'm talking about how leadership in the church is not exercised as an authority that compels.
Long post continued...
your 3 "ordained offices
You mean the
Church's don't you?
Bishop: Acts of the Apostles 20:28
Epistle to the Philippians 1:1
First Epistle to Timothy 3:2
Epistle to Titus 1:7
First Epistle of Peter 2:25
Presbyter: Acts 11:30 and 15:22, and 14:23.
1 Tim. 1:3 and Titus 1:5, Titus 2:15
and
Deacon: Acts 6:5-6 1 Timothy 3:8-13
The Apostle Paul was ordained in Acts 13 due to a word of prophecy specifically commissioning Paul to do certain work. In short, God needed to tell Paul to go, because he was contentedly sitting at Antioch rather than going "to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel." Interestingly, Paul is recorded as completing a ministry (diakonia) in Acts 12, right before that.
No Catholic would have a problem with that necessarily. Many priests were men who were called for a specific ministry. Every priest fulfills a Diaconate before being ordained as a Presbyter. Your only omission is that the NT is very clear that their is a "Presbyterate". Not just individuals performing an individual mission.
Paul and the presbytery laid hands on Timothy to impart an unspecified gift because there was a specific word of prophecy that directed such to be done. Paul later urged him to exercise that gift and study more. Authority is not what is being spoken of as being transmitted by the imposition of hands here, it seems.
2 Tim. 1:6 "For this reason, I remind you to stir into flame the gift of God 5 that you have through the imposition of my hands."
Acts 14:23 "They appointed presbyters for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, commended them to the Lord in whom they had put their faith."
1 Tim. 4:14 " Do not neglect the gift you have, which was conferred on you through the prophetic word with the imposition of hands of the Presbyterate."
I don't recall any of the apostles ever insisting on ordination...unless of course you're referring to this:
Luke 9:49 And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us. 50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid [him] not: for he that is not against us is for us.
Nope. Not at all. Any layperson can cast out demons. That is Catholic orthodoxy. Lay people have a number of
charisms that do not require ordination. What I am talking about is the clear and indisputable existence of a "Presbyteriate", that the Apostles ordered in their organization of the visible Church of Christ on earth. Ordination by the imposition of hands, by those who have been properly ordained, is clearly and repeatedly demonstrated as the means of transmission of that authority. The oddity here with you, is that although no Protestant body has proper authority, they
all mimic the rites of ordination in the consecration of their pastors, because, unlike you, they all recognize from the reading of NT scripture that it was the sign of consecrating a minister of a congregation. Your the first person that I have run into, who doesn't accept even the Protestant interpretation.
1 Tim. 5:22 "Do not lay hands too readily on anyone, and do not share in anther's sins. Keep yourself pure."
1 Peter 5:1 "So I exhort the presbyters among you, as a fellow presbyter and witness to the sufferings of Christ and one who has a share in the glory to be revealed."
I'm talking about how leadership in the church is not defined by a succession, but by service. I'm talking about how leadership in the church is not exercised as an authority that compels.
As I've explained before, succession is not one Bishop passing off the baton to his successor as in a race, it is defined by one, single question. Who has the authority to "ordain" ? That question is clearly and consistently answered by the NT.
Only those who have been ordained by someone who's own authority can be traced back to the authority that our Lord charged His Apostles with. They are all one Presbyterate. Paul was ordained, he ordained Timothy, Timothy ordained Presbyters. It's that clear, and beyond dispute.
They joined Paul at Corinth and traveled through Cenchrea, Ephesus, Caesarea, went "up" to Jerusalem, and end in Antioch. That all happened BEFORE Apollos shows up in Ephesus, hundreds of miles away from them. There is a window of about 2.5 years here during which Apollos could not have been in contact with Paul or any of his cohorts, because they were on a different continent.
Oh, but as it turns out, Apollos was very much in contact with Paul, Paul's third journey took place over the period of many years. Paul's stay in Ephesus alone, according to the scholarly sources I could find, lasted for over two years, as you point out. You are arguing that no one, including Paul, could have ever ordained Apollos, who who had gone to Achaia and Corinth, and undoubtedly as an evangelist, elsewhere, during the end of Paul's second journey and during his third, (The end of Acts 18, and Acts 19), when we don't even know where Apollos was for that entire time. Ah, but this is the problem of the chronology of the Bible and who wrote what. While Luke wrote Acts 19, and yes, when Paul arrives back at Ephesus, Apollos is in Corinth, but Apollos apparently didn't stay there. As you put it, "It's a straight shot from Ephesus to Corinth." Sure enough, and I should have caught it before, that is the exact time that the Biblical experts confirm Paul's writing of 1 Corinthians.
You've repeated what I said...thank you for actually reading the account and tracing out the route. I do know how much time that takes. I'm not sure how much this helps your argument, but at least you've admitted that Apollos had already been in Corinth for some time before Paul (and his posse) returned even to Ephesus, where they stayed for an extended time.
Now the problem for your theory is that Paul writes this,
1 Cor. 16:12 "Now in regard to our brother Apollos, I urged him strongly to go to you with the brothers, but it was not at all his will that he go now. He will go when he has an opportunity."
Now, Paul clearly wrote 1 Cor. in Ephesus. He was there only twice where it would have been. Every Biblical source I could find says that it was written during the time Luke was recording events of Acts 18, chronologically. There is no other time he could have, as in Acts 19, he arrives back in Ephesus when Apollos is in Corinth and yet by verse 19:21 Paul is preparing to leave, which he does after the disturbance breaks out by the end of Acts 19. He clearly didn't write 1 Cor. then. That leaves very little other possibility. Every source I could find, says that Apollos was clearly with Paul during this time. Either the chronology of events in Acts 18 concerning Apollos and Paul simply fails to mention it, or Apollos, evidently spent some time visiting Paul back in Ephesus. If you can find any other source that says differently, I would like to see it.
Thank you for pointing out that Apollos returned to Ephesus after his time in Corinth. I had missed that in the chronology.
However, this isn't a problem at all for my argument. In fact, it could be considered a feature. ::smile:: It closes the open time frame definitively, instead of leaving it open through the rest of Paul's 3rd journey.
Remember, its' still BEFORE that happened in 1Cor 1 & 3...before Apollos got back to Ephesus to have a meet and greet with Paul and crew...that he left behind a bunch of converts in Corinth.
BTW, I found no source, anywhere, Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant, that ever refers to Apollos as a Bishop, Presbyter or Deacon. If you can find one that does, I would love to see it. They all simply list him as a an evangelist.
Ok, no problem. I think I actually referenced it earlier:
1Cr 3:5 Who then is Paul, and who [is] Apollos, but the ministers (deacons (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1249&t=KJV)) by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?
They, Timothy and Silas, did not accompany Paul on that journey after Ephesus. Paul sent Timothy back to Greece in Acts 19:22, along with Erastus.
You're confusing Paul's first stop in Ephesus with his second stop. They went with him the first time (before Apollos arrived). They did not go with him the 2nd time, which is after the writing of 1 Corinthians.
Paul also sent Timothy to Corinth in 1 Cor. 4:17, when he may very well have met Apollos at that time. In addition he sent him to Thessalonica in Greece as well. Timothy and Silas or Erastus may not have even been the only ones in Greece who had the authority to ordain, I am simply pointing out that they could have.
I'm sure by that time he had met Apollos, since they were both in Ephesus prior to the time when 1 Corinthians was written. But, he was not there when Apollos went to Corinth initially, because he was with Paul, on his way to Jerusalem and then Antioch.
The NT contains six letters of Paul's to Timothy.
Just the 2 that bear his name, I thought? What others are you referring to?
Those letters comprise many, many, years of time and cover six separate places in Greece that Timothy was conducting his Episcopal mission in. We don't even know where Silas and Erastus could have been during this entire time. During that period of many years, Apollos could very well have been ordained by any number of them, or others who we do not know of. To say he was definitely not ordained, during that period of many years, is nonsensical and without merit.
You don't seem to understand. I don't have to prove that Apollos was never ever ordained ever.
I only have to demonstrate (or at least show a reasonable probability) that Apollos was already performing functions the RCC reserves to those who are ordained, before he had an opportunity to be ordained.
The window of time to examine starts at Apollos conversion, and ends at the time that Apollos returned to Ephesus and met Paul and company (again, thank you for pointing out that ending limiter).
All of Paul's traveling companions, including Timothy, were with Paul
Not true. In Acts 18, Paul meets Timothy after Timothy came down from northern Greece. In Acts 19:22 Timothy and Erastus are sent back to Greece from Ephesus. We have no idea where Silas was. Timothy was also sent from Paul back to Corinth, specifically to straighten out problems there as is referenced in 1 Cor.
Well they were during the time I'm talking about. You're using a different time frame. They all went with Paul on his trip to Jerusalem (save Priscilla and Aquila) and later returned to Ephesus. The reason is simple...they were attending the feast at Jerusalem, which was the legal mandate for Jews, as well as the single largest gathering of Jews, and therefore the best evangelistic opportunity to the Jewish people, to be had in the ancient world.
: desertknightJust tell me which one become a Bishop, Presbyter or Deacon, without being ordained by a legitimate person, and you've won!
All these posts later...and you still have never answered that challenge. There is no proof that Apollos, or anyone else that was a Bishop, Presbyter or Deacon, was not ordained.
I've answered it over and over, but you keep disputing little points of evidence here and there, so I've been walking you through the historical aspect of Acts, and correlating it to the other epistles Paul wrote. Thank you for that. I honestly have to say that the learning I've gained over the course of this argument will help me better understand my Bible.
You mean other than the 2 1/2 year chronology I've presented over and over showing that everybody who could would be qualified to do it was on a different continent?
Everybody? LoL, Oh gosh, really? Everybody? Please. You have proven nothing of the kind. Please see above. Believe me, this caused me an exhaustive and educational search of the events on the Web, and most of the "experts", unlike yourself, know as little of the actual events surrounding Apollos or Priscilla or others mentioned, as I admit to. It is pure guesswork. You should shine your deductive reasoning on them... ::smile::
Perhaps I should. Do I have permission to quote you if I want to publish? ::wink:: Don't worry, it won't be a fair representation of the argument at all. ::crackup::
BTW, Titus, who is indisputably a Bishop, was in Corinth at the time that Apollos was there, (2 Cor. 8:6).
2 Corinthians was written waaaaaaay later. You're totally out of the time frame we're talking about here.
This is the same strawman you stated at the beginning of this post.
You obviously have no idea what a "strawman" argument is. Please point out one, single, inaccurate statement I made in this paragraph of mine that you reference here, that constitutes a "strawman" argument. I have not stated anything concerning your argument that is inaccurate. I don't do that.
You claimed that the only evidence I brought was an argument from silence. That's a bad characterization of my argument. I've brought forth a detailed chronology corresponding the events of Acts 18 & 19 to 1 Corinthians 1 & 3, that now includes cross references to several other chapters. I've demonstrated that Apollos is referred to as a diakonos in the Bible.
I've also created an alternative explanation of the practice of ordination, centering on the axiom that ORDINATION IS A RECOGNITION OF AUTHORITY WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN ESTABLISHED BY WORKS OF SERVICE. I've anchored this axiom on the words of Jesus in Matthew 20:25-26. You still haven't so much as acknowledged this argument, which has nothing to do with Apollos at all.
I've also questioned what is necessary for a proper ordination, questioning whether or not the laying on of hands is necessary for ordination, and whether an appointment by one man is equivalent to an ordination by the presbytery. What says the RCC?
To boil this all down and say that it is simply an argument based on what-is-not-written is to create a strawman. Don't do that anymore; it's not an honest argument.
The argument that I keep making, which you keep ignoring, is that ordination doesn't CONFER authority, it RECOGNIZES that authority which is GENERATED BY SERVICE.
Holy Scripture flatly disagrees...
2 Tim 1:6 "For this reason, I remind you to stir into flame the gift of God 5 that you have through the imposition of my hands."
Acts 14:23 "They appointed presbyters for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, commended them to the Lord in whom they had put their faith."
Tit. 1:5 "For this reason I left you in Crete so that you might set right what remains to be done and appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed you."
1 Tim. 4:14 " Do not neglect the gift you have, which was conferred on you through the prophetic word with the imposition of hands of the presbyterate."
Acts 15:24-26 "Since we have heard that some of our number (who went out) without any mandate from us have upset you with their teachings and disturbed your peace of mind, we have with one accord decided to choose representatives and to send them to you,"
[/quote]
Acts 14:23 & Titus 1:5 don't contradict what I said; they simply show that people were ordained. I'm not anti-ordination here. Ordination is a good thing. I just disagree with you on what ordination does and doesn't do.
ITim 4:14 & 2Tim 1:6 talk about the gift Timothy was given for ministry. This was probably at the time of ordination based on what we know, but what does it have to do with my argument above?
Finally, Acts 15:24 doesn't include the ordination of any people. If you read the rest of the chapter, what was "ordained" were the decrees that were sent with the messengers.
Obviously, the Presbyteriate was an appointed and ordained ministry. Your claim of authority being "generated by service" is flatly unbiblical. The only thing that Scripture says that "generates" one to be ordained is the calling of the Holy Spirit.
How is it unbiblical when I keep citing verses supporting it? If you want to make that claim, you need to also address the verses I've cited in support of that position. Matthew 20:25 is your starting place. Have at it.
One other thing...I like historical accuracy. You keep stating that Paul went to Jerusalem to be ordained. I don't remember this event. AFAIK Paul was ordained at Antioch.
You're correct. My bad. Now if you could only answer...why was Paul required, (Yes, required, unless you think it was done unnecessarily.), to be ordained? Timothy ordained?
Already answered this at the beginning of this post.
Paul is very specific that Timothy's authority comes from the "imposition of my hands."
No...he says that "the gift" came in that manner. He does not say what the gift is. Can you establish that the gift was authority? Paul exhorts him to practice that gift, like he studies, to keep it sharp. Does that make sense if the gift is authority? Nooooo....
The Presbyters that Timothy ordained were obviously required to be, otherwise, why Paul's instructions to do exactly that?
Again, that's Titus, not Timothy, and I already answered this in this post as well.
I'll have to finish later...I need to eat.
I'm going to end my part in the debate. I think we have exhausted the topic and I don't think there is any common ground as you believe your reasons why I have it wrong and I believe that you are just ignoring what, to me, is just so blatantly obvious from NT scripture. I also think we have sidetracked into a discussion of the Diaconate that is fruitless and almost completely unrelated to the interest I had in this thread, or it's topic. The Church's definition of the Diaconate, although substantially the same for 2,000 years, has changed somewhat and is also slightly different in the East, as opposed to the West. For that reason, Apollos may very well have been a Deacon, or he may simply have been performing a ministry as an evangelist. Either could be correct. That you insist that during a time frame, that Apollos could not have been ordained, is simply unfounded. We do not know. At that time, had he been ordained by just Presbyters, it would have been acceptable, and we simply do not know the whereabouts of others as there is just no record of their day to day activities. We simply don't know who may have been in contact with him, that could have ordained him. In any event, I don't consider it terribly important.
I think the basic differences are simply going to remain. I view the reality of Apostolic Succession the way all of Christendom did for over 1,500 years. I know of no text in existence, from the early Church, that teaches anything different from that or doubts it in any way. The Church for it's first several centuries had no New Testament to examine. What manuscripts that existed, did, in few copies and along side dozens of other texts that wound up not being included by the Catholic Church in the Biblical cannon that became the NT. It was vital for believers in the early Church to know that their Bishop had the authority of the Apostles. It is just as vital for them today.
"It is possible, then, for everyone in every Church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted Bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times: men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about. For if the Apostles had known hidden mysteries which they taught to the elite secretly and apart from the rest, they would have handed them down especially to those very ones to whom they were committing the self-same Churches. For surely they wished all those and their successors to be perfect and without reproach, to whom they handed on their authority.
It is necessary to obey those who are the Presbyters in the Church, those who, as we have shown, have succession from the Apostles; those who have received, with the succession of the Episcopate, the sure charism of truth according to the good pleasure of the Father. But the rest, who have no part in the primitive succession and assemble wheresoever they will, must be held in suspicion."
Saint Irenaeus, Against Heresies 180 AD.
As a Catholic, it is comforting to be able to read the writings of one of our Bishops from over eighteen centuries ago, and be in full accord with him today. The Holy Spirit has kept the promises of Christ.
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Tue Jun 02, 2009 - 20:05:29
: desertknight Mon Jun 01, 2009 - 21:55:30
No, you gave me some names of people of who we don't know whether they were ordained, or even holders of office necessarily, who may or may not have been ordained at some time, but to you that is "proof".
Proof was your thing from the get go. I have stated all along that a negative premise (that XXX never happened) is by definition not absolutely provable. I have nonetheless offered evidence to try to establish a likelihood that Apollos was recognized in the function of one of your 3 "ordained offices," Bishop, Presbyter, and Deacon, and to establish the unlikelihood that he was ordained before he began excercising the functions of said office. In short, I have argued on your terms from the get go.
Why would the Apostle Paul be ordained?
The Apostle Paul was ordained in Acts 13 due to a word of prophecy specifically commissioning Paul to do certain work. In short, God needed to tell Paul to go, because he was contentedly sitting at Antioch rather than going "to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel." Interestingly, Paul is recorded as completing a ministry (diakonia) in Acts 12, right before that.
Why would he ordain Timothy?
Paul and the presbytery laid hands on Timothy to impart an unspecified gift because there was a specific word of prophecy that directed such to be done. Paul later urged him to exercise that gift and study more. Authority is not what is being spoken of as being transmitted by the imposition of hands here, it seems.
Why would he send Timothy to ordain specifically?
Paul didn't send Timothy to ordain anyone to my knowledge. He sent Titus...ummmm...he left Titus...in Crete to "set in order the things that are wanting," which including the appointing of elders in every city, because the Cretans were permeated with Judaizers, and "deceivers," who were teaching aberrant doctrines "for filthy lucre's sake." In short, there was a specially bad problem with false teachers in Crete fleecing the flock, so it was necessary to have someone go through town by town and sort out the good guys from the bad guys. Interestingly, the Greek words Paul uses do not indicate that this "ordination" was done with any imposition of hands, or by the mutual consent of the presbytery or congregations. It's a simple selection by a committee of 1; not an election.
If I may digress a bit.... I believe that this is because the laying on of hands is for the transmission of something. Here we agree. But you think it is authority that is transmitted. However, I would counter that what is transmitted is a spiritual gift for ministry. Much of the book of 1 Corinthians deals with a number of such gifts. While it may be that the gift(s) - or rather, the exercise of the gift(s) - causes one to be seen as authoritative, this does not necessarily mean that authority itself is what has been transmitted.
Such a gift appears to be what Paul is speaking of to Timothy in the prior section, though what the gift is, is not mentioned.
The most common thing to be transmitted by the imposition of hands, though, was health. Oftentimes, this was done because the person in question was ill. However, it was also done occasionally to those who were well, as a blessing. For instance, when one was leaving, such as in the example of Paul's ordination above.
Why did the other Apostles insist on ordination into churchly office, when of course, it is all so unnecessary?
I don't recall any of the apostles ever insisting on ordination...unless of course you're referring to this:
Luke 9:49 And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us. 50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid [him] not: for he that is not against us is for us.
Could you show me where they insisted on ordination? Yes, please show me where anyone in the NT ever insisted on being ordained. This particular belief seems to be exactly the opposite of all of Jesus teachings in the gospels on service and leadership.
Why was Apollos exempt? Your model is also one that even most Protestant denominations do not accept. Your argument is nonsensical.
Exempt from being recognized as a leader by the local presbytery? I'm sure that at some point, somebody probably "ordained" good ol' Apollos, whether it was with a vote of confidence or a prayer of blessing. It might even have been accompanied by the bestowal of a gift via the imposition of hands. I am sure that it did not hold the pomp of the modern ritual. I'm pretty sure that it was after he had already been leading by action for a while.
What I've been attempting to demonstrate is that Apollos (and really, everyone in the NT) did not have to wait to "get their ordination" to make converts, to cast out demons, to baptize, to exhort, to commend, to mentor, correct, lead, or serve their fellows. Those who WERE RECOGNIZED via ordination, were recognized specifically because of what they were doing. Ordination, like all certifications, follows after what one has accomplished; it does not precede it.
I've also written multiple paragraphs, a short paper really, citing multiple verses on the nature of diakonia in the New Testament being a matter of leadership by service, but these you do not so much as acknowledge. You might respond to the opposing point of view that I've presented. But instead you sit and claim that I've never made another argument. Prepostorous.
You haven't. You have not named one, single, solitary, person, who was even a Deacon, who you can prove was not ordained. Don't think so? Then name one. The absence of information is not "proof" of anything. It is a silly and nonsensical argument to make.
That's not even what I was talking about here. I'm talking about the defining of the word deacon as a servant, I'm talking about this:
Mat 20:25 But Jesus called them [unto him], and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. 26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister
I'm talking about how leadership in the church is not defined by a succession, but by service. I'm talking about how leadership in the church is not exercised as an authority that compels.
Long post continued...
lol
the heirarchy of the church are our servants as well as our leaders, just as Jesus stated, that the leader among you is the greatest servant.
wow, what wycliffian planet did you drop down from?
peace, papist
: papist1 Mon Jul 27, 2009 - 22:20:39
the heirarchy of the church are our servants as well as our leaders, just as Jesus stated, that the leader among you is the greatest servant.
wow, what wycliffian planet did you drop down from?
peace, papist
That was never in dispute in this thread.
The discussion here was about where ecclesiastical authority comes from.
I maintained the point that authority was a consequence of servanthood, in opposition to the RCC's belief in authority as a result of apostolic succession.
If you have something to add, please do. If you just didn't want to miss posting in every thread on the first page of this forum, by all means continue down that path instead.
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Tue Jul 28, 2009 - 18:51:38
: papist1 Mon Jul 27, 2009 - 22:20:39
the heirarchy of the church are our servants as well as our leaders, just as Jesus stated, that the leader among you is the greatest servant.
wow, what wycliffian planet did you drop down from?
peace, papist
That was never in dispute in this thread.
The discussion here was about where ecclesiastical authority comes from.
I maintained the point that authority was a consequence of servanthood, in opposition to the RCC's belief in authority as a result of apostolic succession.
If you have something to add, please do. If you just didn't want to miss posting in every thread on the first page of this forum, by all means continue down that path instead.
The church would agree with you that authority is a consequence of servanthood.
Jesus gave the church apostles to serve and guide and feed the sheep and lambs and asked peter to be his earthly shepherd of this flock(His whole flock, lambs and sheep).
As a result, these servants of Christ and His flock are equally leaders and have the promise from Christ that the gates of hell shall never prevail against them, and they have not.
Jesus, as He sent these bishops out two by two told them "he who hears you, hears me, and he who rejects you, rejects me, showing that they had his authority in what they preached.
peace, papist
: papist1 Sat Aug 01, 2009 - 01:29:39
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Tue Jul 28, 2009 - 18:51:38
: papist1 Mon Jul 27, 2009 - 22:20:39
the heirarchy of the church are our servants as well as our leaders, just as Jesus stated, that the leader among you is the greatest servant.
wow, what wycliffian planet did you drop down from?
peace, papist
That was never in dispute in this thread.
The discussion here was about where ecclesiastical authority comes from.
I maintained the point that authority was a consequence of servanthood, in opposition to the RCC's belief in authority as a result of apostolic succession.
If you have something to add, please do. If you just didn't want to miss posting in every thread on the first page of this forum, by all means continue down that path instead.
The church would agree with you that authority is a consequence of servanthood.
Jesus gave the church apostles to serve and guide and feed the sheep and lambs and asked peter to be his earthly shepherd of this flock(His whole flock, lambs and sheep).
As a result, these servants of Christ and His flock are equally leaders and have the promise from Christ that the gates of hell shall never prevail against them, and they have not.
Jesus, as He sent these bishops out two by two told them "he who hears you, hears me, and he who rejects you, rejects me, showing that they had his authority in what they preached.
peace, papist
And how does that pertain to ordination, papist?
Specifically, my contentions here have been that ordination does not confer authority, and that ordination merely recognizes authority that is derived from service.
: papist1 Mon Apr 27, 2009 - 07:03:38
Most debates in these types of forums are secondary topics.
The actual topic we should be discussing is AUTHORITY.
Let me give you an example.
I went to over 18 different denoms and non denoms of protestant bible believing churches. I asked each of these pastors, who claimed the Bible Alone as their authority, what baptism was, if it was necessary, how to perform it(immersion, pouring, sprinkling of water, no water at all), and if it removed the stain of original sin from ones soul or was it just symbolic in nature?
I received several different and contradictory answers from each pastor.
Which one of these pastors was correct in their interpretation of scripture as it pertains to the utmost important doctrine of Baptism? How do we know which one is correct? Is the definition of doctrine relative, and it does not matter what is true and what is not?
Each of these pastors would never back down from his/her own interpretation, and each would claim they are correct. This is the BIG question. Who is correct, and how do we know who is correct, and by what authority vested in the person interpreted gives them the ability and authority to make such claim as to what is deemed "true" and what is deemed "erroneous"?
This situation is almost always turned back on scripture, for when I ask them by what authority they believe this, they inevitably answer that they are being led by the Holy Spirit in their interpretation of scripture. So is the Holy Spirit a relativist? Does the Holy Spirit teach contradicting things from one church to another and each contradictory point of teaching is correct? In other words, when one church teaches that scripture says Baptism is not necessary, they are correct, and then when another teaches it is necessary, they are also correct? This would be ridiculous. God is of ORDER and UNITY, not Chaos and Division. God does not contradict Himself, for He is TRUTH, and Truth does not change.
BTW, the first person to part from everyone else in their understanding of baptism was John Calvin. Does that mean that everyone else, including the original "reformers" were wrong for the first 1600 years of Christianity? By what measuring stick can one prove this? The Bible? of course :)
Is there a church authority that has the authority of God on doctrinal matters? It seems the apostles decided doctrinal matters IN scripture, why would God all of a sudden change His mind and let the individual start deciding these matters for themselves? Who then can claim what heresy is, if everyone is right all of the time? There would be no heresy if this were so.
The circular argument used by most sola scripturists dos not wash, it only begs the question, again and again, "who/what is the authority on matters of doctrine and interpretation of scripture"?
In my reading of scripture, I have not found any proof text for sola scriptura. @ tim 3:15-17 is far from this, as it pertains to the OT scriptures(that timothy knew from infancy) and at the end it is "useful" for "every good work" and since good works don't save us, it must not be "necessary" as most claim. I mean the apostles didn't have a new testament, nor did they have the canon of the OT which was not decided until 382ad along with the new.
So what is your authority, and if it is scripture alone, where in scripture does God teach that scripture alone is the authority. and how can one prove his authority in interpreteing scripture?
peace, papist
No matter who tell one anything about God, they are to ask Jesus if it is right or wrong.
(1 Corinthians 2:716)
: Giver Fri Aug 07, 2009 - 11:35:49
: papist1 Mon Apr 27, 2009 - 07:03:38
Most debates in these types of forums are secondary topics.
The actual topic we should be discussing is AUTHORITY.
Let me give you an example.
I went to over 18 different denoms and non denoms of protestant bible believing churches. I asked each of these pastors, who claimed the Bible Alone as their authority, what baptism was, if it was necessary, how to perform it(immersion, pouring, sprinkling of water, no water at all), and if it removed the stain of original sin from ones soul or was it just symbolic in nature?
I received several different and contradictory answers from each pastor.
Which one of these pastors was correct in their interpretation of scripture as it pertains to the utmost important doctrine of Baptism? How do we know which one is correct? Is the definition of doctrine relative, and it does not matter what is true and what is not?
Each of these pastors would never back down from his/her own interpretation, and each would claim they are correct. This is the BIG question. Who is correct, and how do we know who is correct, and by what authority vested in the person interpreted gives them the ability and authority to make such claim as to what is deemed "true" and what is deemed "erroneous"?
This situation is almost always turned back on scripture, for when I ask them by what authority they believe this, they inevitably answer that they are being led by the Holy Spirit in their interpretation of scripture. So is the Holy Spirit a relativist? Does the Holy Spirit teach contradicting things from one church to another and each contradictory point of teaching is correct? In other words, when one church teaches that scripture says Baptism is not necessary, they are correct, and then when another teaches it is necessary, they are also correct? This would be ridiculous. God is of ORDER and UNITY, not Chaos and Division. God does not contradict Himself, for He is TRUTH, and Truth does not change.
BTW, the first person to part from everyone else in their understanding of baptism was John Calvin. Does that mean that everyone else, including the original "reformers" were wrong for the first 1600 years of Christianity? By what measuring stick can one prove this? The Bible? of course :)
Is there a church authority that has the authority of God on doctrinal matters? It seems the apostles decided doctrinal matters IN scripture, why would God all of a sudden change His mind and let the individual start deciding these matters for themselves? Who then can claim what heresy is, if everyone is right all of the time? There would be no heresy if this were so.
The circular argument used by most sola scripturists dos not wash, it only begs the question, again and again, "who/what is the authority on matters of doctrine and interpretation of scripture"?
In my reading of scripture, I have not found any proof text for sola scriptura. @ tim 3:15-17 is far from this, as it pertains to the OT scriptures(that timothy knew from infancy) and at the end it is "useful" for "every good work" and since good works don't save us, it must not be "necessary" as most claim. I mean the apostles didn't have a new testament, nor did they have the canon of the OT which was not decided until 382ad along with the new.
So what is your authority, and if it is scripture alone, where in scripture does God teach that scripture alone is the authority. and how can one prove his authority in interpreteing scripture?
peace, papist
No matter who tell one anything about God, they are to ask Jesus if it is right or wrong.
(1 Corinthians 2:716)The hidden wisdom of God which we teach in our mysteries is the wisdom that God predestined to be for our glory before the ages began. It is a wisdom that none of the masters of this age have ever known, or they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory, we teach what scripture called the things that no eye has seen and no ear has heard, things beyond the mind of man, all that God has prepared for those who love him. These are the very things that God has revealed to us through the Spirit, for the Spirit reaches the depths of everything, even the depths of God After all, the depths of a man can only be known by his own spirit, not by any other man, and in the same way the depths of God can only be known by the Spirit of God. Now instead of the spirit of the world, we have received the Spirit that comes from God, to teach us to understand the gifts that he has given us. Therefore we teach, not in the way in which philosophy is taught, but in the way that the Spirit teaches us: we teach spiritual things spiritually. An unspiritual person is one who does not accept anything of the Spirit of God: he sees it all as nonsense; it is beyond his understanding because it can only be understood by means of the Spirit. A spiritual man, on the other hand, is able to judge the value of everything, and his own value is not to be judged by other men. As scripture says; who can know the mind of the Lord, so who can teach him? But we are those who have the mind of Christ.
In a Church service Paul tells us that two or three prophets should speak and the rest should attend to them. In this case the Holy Spirit may give someone a better understanding or way to explain what God wanted people to understand.
What it all comes to is we are to let God teach us not man.
All here claim that God is guiding them. That is not the question.
The question is the means by which God reaches us with His Truth.
Where in the NT does it say that we need a book with everything in it, and thats it?
Did the apostles operate that way?
Did the people always go to a book to find their answers, or did they go to the church leaders Jesus appointed?
The answer is emphatically, no. The Bible never claims to be the sole authority, it never shows us that it is somehow the sole authority, and the people within the NT did not operate in this fashion concerning their concerns about doctrine and the like. They went to the church.
There was a chuirch long before there was a book called the Bible.
peace, papist
: papist1 Sun Aug 09, 2009 - 16:28:20
: Giver Fri Aug 07, 2009 - 11:35:49
: papist1 Mon Apr 27, 2009 - 07:03:38
Most debates in these types of forums are secondary topics.
The actual topic we should be discussing is AUTHORITY.
Let me give you an example.
I went to over 18 different denoms and non denoms of protestant bible believing churches. I asked each of these pastors, who claimed the Bible Alone as their authority, what baptism was, if it was necessary, how to perform it(immersion, pouring, sprinkling of water, no water at all), and if it removed the stain of original sin from ones soul or was it just symbolic in nature?
I received several different and contradictory answers from each pastor.
Which one of these pastors was correct in their interpretation of scripture as it pertains to the utmost important doctrine of Baptism? How do we know which one is correct? Is the definition of doctrine relative, and it does not matter what is true and what is not?
Each of these pastors would never back down from his/her own interpretation, and each would claim they are correct. This is the BIG question. Who is correct, and how do we know who is correct, and by what authority vested in the person interpreted gives them the ability and authority to make such claim as to what is deemed "true" and what is deemed "erroneous"?
This situation is almost always turned back on scripture, for when I ask them by what authority they believe this, they inevitably answer that they are being led by the Holy Spirit in their interpretation of scripture. So is the Holy Spirit a relativist? Does the Holy Spirit teach contradicting things from one church to another and each contradictory point of teaching is correct? In other words, when one church teaches that scripture says Baptism is not necessary, they are correct, and then when another teaches it is necessary, they are also correct? This would be ridiculous. God is of ORDER and UNITY, not Chaos and Division. God does not contradict Himself, for He is TRUTH, and Truth does not change.
BTW, the first person to part from everyone else in their understanding of baptism was John Calvin. Does that mean that everyone else, including the original "reformers" were wrong for the first 1600 years of Christianity? By what measuring stick can one prove this? The Bible? of course :)
Is there a church authority that has the authority of God on doctrinal matters? It seems the apostles decided doctrinal matters IN scripture, why would God all of a sudden change His mind and let the individual start deciding these matters for themselves? Who then can claim what heresy is, if everyone is right all of the time? There would be no heresy if this were so.
The circular argument used by most sola scripturists dos not wash, it only begs the question, again and again, "who/what is the authority on matters of doctrine and interpretation of scripture"?
In my reading of scripture, I have not found any proof text for sola scriptura. @ tim 3:15-17 is far from this, as it pertains to the OT scriptures(that timothy knew from infancy) and at the end it is "useful" for "every good work" and since good works don't save us, it must not be "necessary" as most claim. I mean the apostles didn't have a new testament, nor did they have the canon of the OT which was not decided until 382ad along with the new.
So what is your authority, and if it is scripture alone, where in scripture does God teach that scripture alone is the authority. and how can one prove his authority in interpreteing scripture?
peace, papist
No matter who tell one anything about God, they are to ask Jesus if it is right or wrong.
(1 Corinthians 2:716)The hidden wisdom of God which we teach in our mysteries is the wisdom that God predestined to be for our glory before the ages began. It is a wisdom that none of the masters of this age have ever known, or they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory, we teach what scripture called the things that no eye has seen and no ear has heard, things beyond the mind of man, all that God has prepared for those who love him. These are the very things that God has revealed to us through the Spirit, for the Spirit reaches the depths of everything, even the depths of God After all, the depths of a man can only be known by his own spirit, not by any other man, and in the same way the depths of God can only be known by the Spirit of God. Now instead of the spirit of the world, we have received the Spirit that comes from God, to teach us to understand the gifts that he has given us. Therefore we teach, not in the way in which philosophy is taught, but in the way that the Spirit teaches us: we teach spiritual things spiritually. An unspiritual person is one who does not accept anything of the Spirit of God: he sees it all as nonsense; it is beyond his understanding because it can only be understood by means of the Spirit. A spiritual man, on the other hand, is able to judge the value of everything, and his own value is not to be judged by other men. As scripture says; who can know the mind of the Lord, so who can teach him? But we are those who have the mind of Christ.
In a Church service Paul tells us that two or three prophets should speak and the rest should attend to them. In this case the Holy Spirit may give someone a better understanding or way to explain what God wanted people to understand.
What it all comes to is we are to let God teach us not man.
All here claim that God is guiding them. That is not the question.
The question is the means by which God reaches us with His Truth.
Where in the NT does it say that we need a book with everything in it, and thats it?
Did the apostles operate that way?
Did the people always go to a book to find their answers, or did they go to the church leaders Jesus appointed?
The answer is emphatically, no. The Bible never claims to be the sole authority, it never shows us that it is somehow the sole authority, and the people within the NT did not operate in this fashion concerning their concerns about doctrine and the like. They went to the church.
There was a chuirch long before there was a book called the Bible.
peace, papist
The Bible is the Written Word of God, and as such anything that contradict that Word is not of God. The Church contradicts the written Word of God. So it must not be of God.
Christians are all given the Holy Spirit. It is each person's responsibility to listen to the Holy Spirit and do what he tells us.
What others say is not something we are held responsible for. We are going to be judge on how we lived the Word of God. The Holy Spirit will guide us.
Galatians 5:16"Let me put it like this if you are guided by the Spirit you will be in no danger of yielding to self-indulgence....
This is a really interesting thread. I agree with the Catholic/Orthodox point of view that Jesus built a Church and that he hand-picked Apostles and that he gave these Apostles significant powers. So these were not just nice people, they had real God given authority. I also agree that the Church was careful about valid Apostolic succession so not every lunatic can claim to represent Christ's church on earth.
Having said that, unfortunately for the Catholic/Orthodox churches, the Apostolic chain somewhere, somehow became corrupted. Unfortunately, some Bishops and some Popes, throuout history, were corrupt and immoral. I believe the Catholic church acknowleges that. So I think it's fair for all faithful to not blindly obey any ordained priest/bishop because we know that, despite valid ordination, corrupt priests/bishops/popes do exist.
So on that point, I think Protestants are right that "valid" ordination is not sufficient and maybe God decides to use as servants people without valid ordination. We can not dismiss offhand every Protestant minister, as we can not accept offhand every Catholic/Orthodox priest.
In one area though I completely agree with Catholics/Orthodox and that is core dogma. The dogmas of the Protestant churches are all over the place and for me despite some corrupt popes the core dogmas of the Catholic/Orthodox churches are, well, "Orthodox"
: Angelos Tue Aug 18, 2009 - 10:42:31
This is a really interesting thread. I agree with the Catholic/Orthodox point of view that Jesus built a Church and that he hand-picked Apostles and that he gave these Apostles significant powers. So these were not just nice people, they had real God given authority. I also agree that the Church was careful about valid Apostolic succession so not every lunatic can claim to represent Christ's church on earth.
Having said that, unfortunately for the Catholic/Orthodox churches, the Apostolic chain somewhere, somehow became corrupted. Unfortunately, some Bishops and some Popes, throuout history, were corrupt and immoral. I believe the Catholic church acknowleges that. So I think it's fair for all faithful to not blindly obey any ordained priest/bishop because we know that, despite valid ordination, corrupt priests/bishops/popes do exist.
So on that point, I think Protestants are right that "valid" ordination is not sufficient and maybe God decides to use as servants people without valid ordination. We can not dismiss offhand every Protestant minister, as we can not accept offhand every Catholic/Orthodox priest.
In one area though I completely agree with Catholics/Orthodox and that is core dogma. The dogmas of the Protestant churches are all over the place and for me despite some corrupt popes the core dogmas of the Catholic/Orthodox churches are, well, "Orthodox"
I agree, but it is so sad; close just isn't good enough. There a so few, if any, of the elders of either Church that walk in the Spirit of the Lord. The Churches are not walking in the Word of God, and because of that people are blindly trying to follow God with out the help of the Holy Spirit.
: papist1 Mon Apr 27, 2009 - 07:03:38
Most debates in these types of forums are secondary topics.
The actual topic we should be discussing is AUTHORITY.
Let me give you an example.
I went to over 18 different denoms and non denoms of protestant bible believing churches. I asked each of these pastors, who claimed the Bible Alone as their authority, what baptism was, if it was necessary, how to perform it(immersion, pouring, sprinkling of water, no water at all), and if it removed the stain of original sin from ones soul or was it just symbolic in nature?
I received several different and contradictory answers from each pastor.
Which one of these pastors was correct in their interpretation of scripture as it pertains to the utmost important doctrine of Baptism? How do we know which one is correct? Is the definition of doctrine relative, and it does not matter what is true and what is not?
Each of these pastors would never back down from his/her own interpretation, and each would claim they are correct. This is the BIG question. Who is correct, and how do we know who is correct, and by what authority vested in the person interpreted gives them the ability and authority to make such claim as to what is deemed "true" and what is deemed "erroneous"?
This situation is almost always turned back on scripture, for when I ask them by what authority they believe this, they inevitably answer that they are being led by the Holy Spirit in their interpretation of scripture. So is the Holy Spirit a relativist? Does the Holy Spirit teach contradicting things from one church to another and each contradictory point of teaching is correct? In other words, when one church teaches that scripture says Baptism is not necessary, they are correct, and then when another teaches it is necessary, they are also correct? This would be ridiculous. God is of ORDER and UNITY, not Chaos and Division. God does not contradict Himself, for He is TRUTH, and Truth does not change.
BTW, the first person to part from everyone else in their understanding of baptism was John Calvin. Does that mean that everyone else, including the original "reformers" were wrong for the first 1600 years of Christianity? By what measuring stick can one prove this? The Bible? of course :)
Is there a church authority that has the authority of God on doctrinal matters? It seems the apostles decided doctrinal matters IN scripture, why would God all of a sudden change His mind and let the individual start deciding these matters for themselves? Who then can claim what heresy is, if everyone is right all of the time? There would be no heresy if this were so.
The circular argument used by most sola scripturists dos not wash, it only begs the question, again and again, "who/what is the authority on matters of doctrine and interpretation of scripture"?
In my reading of scripture, I have not found any proof text for sola scriptura. @ tim 3:15-17 is far from this, as it pertains to the OT scriptures(that timothy knew from infancy) and at the end it is "useful" for "every good work" and since good works don't save us, it must not be "necessary" as most claim. I mean the apostles didn't have a new testament, nor did they have the canon of the OT which was not decided until 382ad along with the new.
So what is your authority, and if it is scripture alone, where in scripture does God teach that scripture alone is the authority. and how can one prove his authority in interpreteing scripture?
peace, papist
Holy baptism washes away sins . all sins---- past present and future. not just the stain of original sin.
why
sola scripture
it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out why
Your word is truth John-- 17:17
God is not a man that he should lie numbers-- 23:19
also check out
jerimiah 14;14
1 thess2:13
2 tim3;16-17
all scripture is God breathed
2 nd peter 1:21
hebrews 4:12
romans 15;4
John5:39
2 timothy 3:15
and jude 4
news flash
1248-1298 Franciscan priest Peter olivia was first to anounce infallability of the pope.
1324
pope John XX11 Denounce infallability as Sataonic in the bull Qui quorundam.
: Giver Tue Aug 18, 2009 - 21:41:45
: Angelos Tue Aug 18, 2009 - 10:42:31
This is a really interesting thread. I agree with the Catholic/Orthodox point of view that Jesus built a Church and that he hand-picked Apostles and that he gave these Apostles significant powers. So these were not just nice people, they had real God given authority. I also agree that the Church was careful about valid Apostolic succession so not every lunatic can claim to represent Christ's church on earth.
Having said that, unfortunately for the Catholic/Orthodox churches, the Apostolic chain somewhere, somehow became corrupted. Unfortunately, some Bishops and some Popes, throuout history, were corrupt and immoral. I believe the Catholic church acknowleges that. So I think it's fair for all faithful to not blindly obey any ordained priest/bishop because we know that, despite valid ordination, corrupt priests/bishops/popes do exist.
So on that point, I think Protestants are right that "valid" ordination is not sufficient and maybe God decides to use as servants people without valid ordination. We can not dismiss offhand every Protestant minister, as we can not accept offhand every Catholic/Orthodox priest.
In one area though I completely agree with Catholics/Orthodox and that is core dogma. The dogmas of the Protestant churches are all over the place and for me despite some corrupt popes the core dogmas of the Catholic/Orthodox churches are, well, "Orthodox"
I agree, but it is so sad; close just isn't good enough. There a so few, if any, of the elders of either Church that walk in the Spirit of the Lord. The Churches are not walking in the Word of God, and because of that people are blindly trying to follow God with out the help of the Holy Spirit.
I tell you the truth there is corruption through out this thing we call Christianity. Giver is right that ultimately it is the Holy Spirit that guides us into all truth. The one who learns from the spirit will walk in the spirit and be guided of Him.
The Catholics argument here is a claim of authority passed down but that is all that they can claim. We must understand the nature of apostasy for we know that apostasy took place and it corrupted authority. Yes there was authority passed down but when ever Pride, ambition, and love of position comes in the Holy Spirit walks out. What remains then is only a religious man who claims authority not knowing the Holy Spirit is no longer guiding him. such was the case with the Bishops of Rome Who who lied and forged their way to power desiring that they be the supreme authority of all Christiandom. and the riligious law of the land.
What does the bible tell us about the word of God. Heb 4:12 2 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
Yes the word of God is powerful and a supernatural authority for those who are of the spirit but it is only a book that is used abused as a mater of convenience by carnal authority. Thus the argument for authority by the RCC is just what it is and all that it is.
a carnal argument
mclees8,
I have been a Charismatic for quite a few years now, and the so called, "walking in the Spirit" has been abused a billion times more than the few mistakes that the Catholic has made. I am still a Charismatic, but we have limited it to Praise and Worship music service only. How can you call yourself a Christian when you don't recognize the authority of the Pope? Do you believe that the Holy Spirit is putting different interpretations in the minds of more than 225 religions in America? Do you believe that Jesus is a God of confusion? Do you believe that Jesus is pulling tricks on the 225 religions?
Lets face it, Jesus gave the keys to Peter, and he was the first Pope. Though out the New Testament the Apostles had to remind the early churches not to figure things out for themselves, or listen to false teachers. Christians are to follow the teachings of the Pope, and that is the way Jesus intended it to be. Which brings us up to the point of a few bread crumbs and grape juice that the Protestants call Communion in remembrance. They can't even get that straight.
Richard
Can you show me where the word Pope appears in anything that Peter wrote?
This came up on another thread and it's important to keep in mind that the word 'Pope' is just a term of endearment that is Latin slang for, "Daddy". We have come to identify it as the title of the Bishop of the Holy See, but he has several other titles. Eastern Catholic Archbishops may use the title, 'Pope' as well if they wish and many have. It is through the authority vested in him by the Church, that is key. What he is titled is not. He fulfills the role of Peter in being the chief earthly shepherd of the Church after our Lord's Ascension. With the death of Judas and the ordination of Paul, the Bishops exercised their authority to guide the Church and provide for it's continuing leadership. She does so with every passing 'Pope'.
St. Peter was married and was probably just a simple fisherman with a limited education. He would have been uncomfortable in a funny hat, I'm sure, but that is not a doctrinal issue of faith, just one of ascetics and custom. Believe it or not, Catholics fully accept that the role of the Papacy has evolved over time. The first 'Pope' who exercised his leadership authority over the whole Church, that is recorded outside of Scripture, is HH Clement I, ordained by Peter, and who helped to settle a dispute over displaced ministers in Corinth. The history of Pope's exercising authority has had it's ups and downs, their right to do so, has not. A Pope's infallibility is intertwined with the infallibility of the whole Church. Peter exercised it when he was brow beaten by Paul, and the Holy Spirit, into recognizing that gentiles did not need to be circumcised. None of these men were perfect, and in complete contradiction to what one poster previously stated, even with pride and imperfections, (Even Peter denied Christ three times and was also told, "Get thee behind me, Satan!" for his failures.), the Holy Spirit does not leave the Church, when pride, sin, or corruption enters. If that be so, then Christ would have to be lying when He promised at Pentecost that he would send the Holy Spirit to reside with the Church, "until the end of time." In that, the Church has infallibility on matters of faith and morals, the interpretation of the Word and practice of the faith.
The notion of the Church being governed by a 'congregational' polity may appeal to man's taste since the Reformation, and with the spread of Enlightenment ideas, but Christ has a Kingdom and not a democracy. Protestantism, in essence, is a democracy. Everybody gets to vote on what they want to believe, i.e., how they interpret Scripture. If enough don't like that, well then they just leave and start their own, "church". But Holy Scripture has a very different model. Christ's first act of His ministry was to go out, find twelve ordinary sinners, and invest them with immense authority. To speak and act in His name. To be His 'vicar', His stand in after His Ascension. Scripture clearly says this authority was passed on through the laying on of hands at ordination. There is no Christian historical evidence of any other model. There were Christian groups that may not have liked it, we know that from Paul's consternation with them and with those who acted as ministers, as Paul said, "without a mandate from us." Very telling, that line of Paul's. A "mandate". That is what Holy Orders are. The "mandate" of the one Body of Christ to preach and teach in His name.
(http://godzdogz.op.org/uploaded_images/tim-and-titus-766418.jpg)
It's still apples and oranges.
It's still tradition versus Scripture, and there is nothing to be said, if the Word of God, the Bible, is not regarded as the final authority.
Period.
That idea is not only not in Scripture, it is contradicted by Scripture (1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 1 Timothy 3:15, 2 Peter 1:20-21, 2 Peter 3:16). It is a concept unheard of in the Old Testament, where the authority of those who sat on the Chair of Moses (Matthew 23:2-3) existed. In addition to this, for 400 years, there was no defined canon of "Sacred Scripture" aside from the Old Testament; there was no "New Testament"; there was only Tradition and non-canonical books and letters. Once Scripture was defined from the many competing books, Bibles were hand-copied and decorated by monks, were rare and precious, so precious, that few people ever laid eyes on an authentic copy of a Bible, and after the fall of the Empire, few could read it. Do you think that the lack of printing presses affected the salvation of those who could not peruse Scripture as we have the luxury of doing?
Who do you think decided, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, on what the canon of the Bible was? Answer; The Bishops and scholars of the Catholic Church.
dk:
Wrong.
The popes and bishops of Rome had nothing to do with the books of the New Testament.
Fundamentalist and evangelical Christians stick to the Bible's authority, period.
I'm busy and I will go do something else, Friend.
: desertknight Tue Sep 29, 2009 - 16:46:34
That idea is not only not in Scripture, it is contradicted by Scripture (1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 1 Timothy 3:15, 2 Peter 1:20-21, 2 Peter 3:16). It is a concept unheard of in the Old Testament, where the authority of those who sat on the Chair of Moses (Matthew 23:2-3) existed. In addition to this, for 400 years, there was no defined canon of "Sacred Scripture" aside from the Old Testament; there was no "New Testament"; there was only Tradition and non-canonical books and letters. Once Scripture was defined from the many competing books, Bibles were hand-copied and decorated by monks, were rare and precious, so precious they had to be chained down in the churches so that they would not be stolen. Do you think that the lack of printing presses affected the salvation of those who could not peruse Scripture as we have the luxury of doing?
Who do you think decided, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, on what the canon of the Bible was? Answer; The Bishops and theologians of the Catholic Church.
There were, and are, dozens of New Testament apocrypha 'Gospels' that are in existence. The New Testament is only the New Testament because the Bishops of the Church, exercising their authority, decided what was what, and decreed it so over time.
: banished Tue Sep 29, 2009 - 10:48:32
mclees8,
I have been a Charismatic for quite a few years now, and the so called, "walking in the Spirit" has been abused a billion times more than the few mistakes that the Catholic has made. I am still a Charismatic, but we have limited it to Praise and Worship music service only. How can you call yourself a Christian when you don't recognize the authority of the Pope? Do you believe that the Holy Spirit is putting different interpretations in the minds of more than 225 religions in America? Do you believe that Jesus is a God of confusion? Do you believe that Jesus is pulling tricks on the 225 religions?
Lets face it, Jesus gave the keys to Peter, and he was the first Pope. Though out the New Testament the Apostles had to remind the early churches not to figure things out for themselves, or listen to false teachers. Christians are to follow the teachings of the Pope, and that is the way Jesus intended it to be. Which brings us up to the point of a few bread crumbs and grape juice that the Protestants call Communion in remembrance. They can't even get that straight.
Richard
What does Charismatic have to do with walking in the Spirit? Its not just praise and worship or acting all spiritual. You can say I am Charismatic in background . I was Assemblies of God. But what is that? You are right that there is much confusion and abuse throughout Christianity. So who walks in the Spirit ? Is it one who acts and goes through a lot of so called spiritual motions. Or is it one who genuinely Loves Christ and follows Him and is becoming like Him in his heart mind and spirit.?
Jesus is not pulling tricks on anyone. He already knows who it is that love Him and He has no pet denomination Catholic or Protestant. How about you ?Do you love Him? Why so much the emphasis on the ecclesiastical hierarchy. Yes we are to obey our leaders but Jesus said that about the hypocritical Pharisees also. Why will God choose you to be with Him in Heaven. Will it be because you obeyed the pope or will he see you as one who loves Him. The pope is a man but Jesus is Lord..
You say the church is one and not multiple denominations like the Protestants. You are right. You say the RCC is the One apostolic Mother church and was the original church founded of Christ. You are wrong for all that it stands on, its power, position and religious authority was not the basis for His church. Salvation is not positional like what church order you are of.. What the RCC became was not the Church founded b y Christ Christ church was never to be entangled in the political moral fabrics of this present world Whom Satan is prince. Let me say it again. Salvation is not positionally achieved but it is first personally and spiritual relationship with the Father who desires those who Worship Him as being heavenly and not earthly. .
Look at the story of the women at the well John chapter 4. The Ladies question was where should we worship. Our father worship on this Mountain but the Jews say that is Jerusalem Where one must be of the Jews. Well Now this argument was purely one of position. Where do we find true worship and salvation? Look at what Jesus told the women. 21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. 22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. 23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. 24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. 25 The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things. 26 Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.
Ponder what he said to her. Salvation is no longer a positional thing. It is opened up to all who will recognize Christ is Lord. Those who first Love Him for who he is And where he sits at the throne of God. Not founded on earthy worldly things but Spiritual relation that is first personal before it is congregational.
So how is it that the apostate church lost it? It loses it when its affections are misplaced. It is apostate when it centers herself in the Political Moral fabrics of this world and is focused upon its position and religious authority in the world which misleads and misguides the church into the very arguments you defend here
The church is not a place or thing. It is not centered on men. All this will perish in the end You and I sir must refocus on who we are in Christ and how we reflect that in our personal walk every day. Listen I am not saying that Catholics or even Protestants are not sincere. Even Saul was sincere yet he still had not experience the truth of Christ until Jesus confronted him on the Damascus road. From that day forward he was re-focused on the truth that is Christ Jesus
So what are you defending. The positional religious authority or should you be re-focused on Christ and your relationship with Him.Who is the church ? Is it not all who Love Him and worship in spirit and in truth. It is not focused on the world and its position in it but on His second coming
d:
No; those of us who don't believe in so called Apostolic Succession can't accept that. The original Apostles are a different matter.
: desertknight Tue Sep 29, 2009 - 16:57:05
There were, and are, dozens of New Testament apocrypha 'Gospels' that are in existence. The New Testament is only the New Testament because the Bishops of the Church, exercising their authority, decided what was what, and decreed it so over time.
: farouk Wed Sep 30, 2009 - 07:22:29
d:
No; those of us who don't believe in so called Apostolic Succession can't accept that. The original Apostles are a different matter.
: desertknight Tue Sep 29, 2009 - 16:57:05
There were, and are, dozens of New Testament apocrypha 'Gospels' that are in existence. The New Testament is only the New Testament because the Bishops of the Church, exercising their authority, decided what was what, and decreed it so over time.
Just curious, where do you think the canon of the New Testament came from then?
The universal church prior to the romanization of the faith.
: Tantor Wed Sep 30, 2009 - 09:00:12
The universal church prior to the romanization of the faith.
OK, ignoring that there was such a thing for the moment, how did that come about? I mean, no matter where you look for an historic record on the canon of the NT, it was one that was evaluated, sifted, and eventualy, accepted by the Bishops of the Church, who were of course, only regarded as Bishops through their holding of the Apostolic Succession. Although the canonization did not take place in one event, in
every step, there were the Bishops and Councils of the Catholic Church....
"The New Testament canon as it is now was first listed by St. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, in 367, in a letter written to his churches in Egypt, Festal Letter 39. Also cited is the Council of Rome, but not without controversy. That canon gained wider and wider recognition until it was accepted at the Third Council of Carthage in 397 and 419."From Wiki.
Even a blind squirrel finds a nut from time to time.
The standards for developing the canon in the first place are reasonable and publicly available.
The fact that protestants hold to the same canon (with the exception of the Apocryphal books) is due to the grace of God.
But then again, I hold some other early church writings almost on par with scripture.. Methesus letter to Diognetus being one of them.. and then possibly the diadache.
The former being a wonderful example of how early christians acted and approached living among non-christians and what they thought their place in the world was. There are many things in that letter that would be of great value to the church today as providing insight has to how Christians should act today.
mclees8,
You have given me enough in that message to keep me busy for a month. Let's take the first paragraph:
(quote)
What does Charismatic have to do with walking in the Spirit? Its not just praise and worship or acting all spiritual. You can say I am Charismatic in background . I was Assemblies of God. But what is that? You are right that there is much confusion and abuse throughout Christianity. So who walks in the Spirit ? Is it one who acts and goes through a lot of so called spiritual motions. Or is it one who genuinely Loves Christ and follows Him and is becoming like Him in his heart mind and spirit.?
(end of quote)
First, I have a digital version of the Catechism, a few versions of the Bible, a Concordance, etc that are loaded on my hard disk. Rather than me trying to sound like a theologian, lets just talk one Christian to another. Basically, most Catholics view you guys as half baked Christians. There is nothing more disappointing than to bite into a nice cup cake only to find it uncooked inside. Then there is a tendency for Protestants to believe their own bull and then associate themselves with a hand full of Bible verses. That pratice is where the abuse of "walking in the Spirit" comes from. Half baked Christians walking around like flakes tell everyone that God told me this and God told me that. Most Catholic leave that kind of stuff up to the Pope. That way we are not all over the map like the Protestants are. And like I posted earlier, that is the way Jesus intended it to be when He gave the keys to Peter. If Jesus wanted a million individual churches all believing their own bull He wouldn't have handed the keys to one uneducated fisherman named Peter. They had smart people back then too.
All Christian have a relationship with Jesus in one form or another, and it's not for us to judge what is in another man's heart. It really cheapens the Christian Faith when we judge the other guys relationship with Jesus, whether it be Sacramental, through his mother Mary, or walking around like a flake telling people that the Spirit told me this while I was driving down the freeway on my way church.
I would like to stay on topic, because the authority that Jesus gave to Peter still stands today, and the Protestants don't have a leg to stand on. It's not what is in the other Christians heart, but rather it's the authority that Jesus himself handed to Peter.
: Tantor Tue Sep 29, 2009 - 10:49:49
Can you show me where the word Pope appears in anything that Peter wrote?
Sure, that's easy:
Saint Peter's view preserved in the Apostolic Constitutions comment on the appointment of Saint Linus as Rome's first Bishop. Saint Peter writes: "Now concerning those bishops which have been ordained in our lifetime, we let you know that they are these: ... Of the church of Rome, Linus the son of Claudia was the first, ordained by Paul; and Clemens, after Linus' death, the second, ordained by me Peter." Peter's words are credible since Paul arrived in Rome prior to Peter, and therefore Paul was in a more likely position to appoint a Bishop.
And of course, same St Linus is mentioned by St. Paul in his Epistle to Timothy [II Tim 4:21]. His successor was St Anacletus. And so goes the successors of the Bishop of Rome up to the present day. It's not a random occurrence like some would like us to believe.
Don't quote me on this, but I think St. Clement was Peter's successor? The Church records contain the Clementine Homilies (AD 221) if any Protestants want to read the original teachings of the Church. Those are your roots also.
: papist1 Mon Apr 27, 2009 - 07:03:38
Most debates in these types of forums are secondary topics.
The actual topic we should be discussing is AUTHORITY.
EXACTLY! If we can established that Christ built only one church and that Church is the Catholic Church then we can believe that whatever doctrines she pronounces are true and of Christ because Christ Himself promised that He will not allow the gates of hell to overcome her and that He will send the Holy Spirit to guide her into all truth.
: banished Thu Oct 01, 2009 - 11:07:46
mclees8,
You have given me enough in that message to keep me busy for a month. Let's take the first paragraph:
(quote)
What does Charismatic have to do with walking in the Spirit? Its not just praise and worship or acting all spiritual. You can say I am Charismatic in background . I was Assemblies of God. But what is that? You are right that there is much confusion and abuse throughout Christianity. So who walks in the Spirit ? Is it one who acts and goes through a lot of so called spiritual motions. Or is it one who genuinely Loves Christ and follows Him and is becoming like Him in his heart mind and spirit.?
(end of quote)
First, I have a digital version of the Catechism, a few versions of the Bible, a Concordance, etc that are loaded on my hard disk. Rather than me trying to sound like a theologian, lets just talk one Christian to another. Basically, most Catholics view you guys as half baked Christians. There is nothing more disappointing than to bite into a nice cup cake only to find it uncooked inside. Then there is a tendency for Protestants to believe their own bull and then associate themselves with a hand full of Bible verses. That pratice is where the abuse of "walking in the Spirit" comes from. Half baked Christians walking around like flakes tell everyone that God told me this and God told me that. Most Catholic leave that kind of stuff up to the Pope. That way we are not all over the map like the Protestants are. And like I posted earlier, that is the way Jesus intended it to be when He gave the keys to Peter. If Jesus wanted a million individual churches all believing their own bull He wouldn't have handed the keys to one uneducated fisherman named Peter. They had smart people back then too.
All Christian have a relationship with Jesus in one form or another, and it's not for us to judge what is in another man's heart. It really cheapens the Christian Faith when we judge the other guys relationship with Jesus, whether it be Sacramental, through his mother Mary, or walking around like a flake telling people that the Spirit told me this while I was driving down the freeway on my way church.
I would like to stay on topic, because the authority that Jesus gave to Peter still stands today, and the Protestants don't have a leg to stand on. It's not what is in the other Christians heart, but rather it's the authority that Jesus himself handed to Peter.
dear Banished why do you call yourself banished. Banished from what. sorry I jus couldn't help my self. I thought i was on topic. it was about RCC authority wasn' it.
Let me ask you a question if I may. Will the pope be there when you stand before the Lord. Will your record of RCC loyalty be what impresses Him or will he look at you and how much you loved Christ in your daily walk. Will it be how many times you went to mass?
When i read my Bible I learn all that Jesus and the apostles taught. Of course we need teachers, but it was ultimately the Holy spirit who teaches all thing concerning Christ. You see the apostles did first teach by word of mouth but they were also filled with the Holy Spirit. When they wrote the Epistles they were inspired of him, and thank God they were preseved to bless all future generations. There is much argument about bible only and I agree it must be taught correctly, But I also no that with out the Holy spirit to help guide us we can be mislead and often are by doctrines and traditions of men. Listen I don't ever say God told me this or that. Most of what I speak comes good old fashioned God give commen sense and application. You focus to much on the Magisterium.
God bless
: mclees8 Sat Oct 03, 2009 - 17:13:50
: banished Thu Oct 01, 2009 - 11:07:46
mclees8,
You have given me enough in that message to keep me busy for a month. Let's take the first paragraph:
(quote)
What does Charismatic have to do with walking in the Spirit? Its not just praise and worship or acting all spiritual. You can say I am Charismatic in background . I was Assemblies of God. But what is that? You are right that there is much confusion and abuse throughout Christianity. So who walks in the Spirit ? Is it one who acts and goes through a lot of so called spiritual motions. Or is it one who genuinely Loves Christ and follows Him and is becoming like Him in his heart mind and spirit.?
(end of quote)
First, I have a digital version of the Catechism, a few versions of the Bible, a Concordance, etc that are loaded on my hard disk. Rather than me trying to sound like a theologian, lets just talk one Christian to another. Basically, most Catholics view you guys as half baked Christians. There is nothing more disappointing than to bite into a nice cup cake only to find it uncooked inside. Then there is a tendency for Protestants to believe their own bull and then associate themselves with a hand full of Bible verses. That pratice is where the abuse of "walking in the Spirit" comes from. Half baked Christians walking around like flakes tell everyone that God told me this and God told me that. Most Catholic leave that kind of stuff up to the Pope. That way we are not all over the map like the Protestants are. And like I posted earlier, that is the way Jesus intended it to be when He gave the keys to Peter. If Jesus wanted a million individual churches all believing their own bull He wouldn't have handed the keys to one uneducated fisherman named Peter. They had smart people back then too.
All Christian have a relationship with Jesus in one form or another, and it's not for us to judge what is in another man's heart. It really cheapens the Christian Faith when we judge the other guys relationship with Jesus, whether it be Sacramental, through his mother Mary, or walking around like a flake telling people that the Spirit told me this while I was driving down the freeway on my way church.
I would like to stay on topic, because the authority that Jesus gave to Peter still stands today, and the Protestants don't have a leg to stand on. It's not what is in the other Christians heart, but rather it's the authority that Jesus himself handed to Peter.
dear Banished why do you call yourself banished. Banished from what. sorry I jus couldn't help my self. I thought i was on topic. it was about RCC authority wasn' it.
Let me ask you a question if I may. Will the pope be there when you stand before the Lord. Will your record of RCC loyalty be what impresses Him or will he look at you and how much you loved Christ in your daily walk. Will it be how many times you went to mass?
When i read my Bible I learn all that Jesus and the apostles taught. Of course we need teachers, but it was ultimately the Holy spirit who teaches all thing concerning Christ. You see the apostles did first teach by word of mouth but they were also filled with the Holy Spirit. When they wrote the Epistles they were inspired of him, and thank God they were preseved to bless all future generations. There is much argument about bible only and I agree it must be taught correctly, But I also no that with out the Holy spirit to help guide us we can be mislead and often are by doctrines and traditions of men. Listen I don't ever say God told me this or that. Most of what I speak comes good old fashioned God give commen sense and application. You focus to much on the Magisterium.
God bless
mclees8,
Both my wife an I are excommunicated (banished) from the Catholic Church, because we were married as Born Again Christians. Neither of us will ever denounce our Protestant marriage, so we will be there with you and the other Born Again Christians. What I don't understand is why you are going around kicking the Catholics? You chose to go the Born Again route, so quit causing trouble. The Catholics will go in first, and if there is any seats left the Born Again and other lesser denominations will enter. Remember that Jesus gave the Keys to Peter, and he will be there to greet us at the gate.
Lets focus on the fact that Jesus gave the authority to Peter, and not to Born Again Christians. The Born Again will go in single file, and the entire Catholic Church will go in as a unit.
: banished Sat Oct 03, 2009 - 17:57:51
: mclees8 Sat Oct 03, 2009 - 17:13:50
: banished Thu Oct 01, 2009 - 11:07:46
mclees8,
You have given me enough in that message to keep me busy for a month. Let's take the first paragraph:
(quote)
What does Charismatic have to do with walking in the Spirit? Its not just praise and worship or acting all spiritual. You can say I am Charismatic in background . I was Assemblies of God. But what is that? You are right that there is much confusion and abuse throughout Christianity. So who walks in the Spirit ? Is it one who acts and goes through a lot of so called spiritual motions. Or is it one who genuinely Loves Christ and follows Him and is becoming like Him in his heart mind and spirit.?
(end of quote)
First, I have a digital version of the Catechism, a few versions of the Bible, a Concordance, etc that are loaded on my hard disk. Rather than me trying to sound like a theologian, lets just talk one Christian to another. Basically, most Catholics view you guys as half baked Christians. There is nothing more disappointing than to bite into a nice cup cake only to find it uncooked inside. Then there is a tendency for Protestants to believe their own bull and then associate themselves with a hand full of Bible verses. That pratice is where the abuse of "walking in the Spirit" comes from. Half baked Christians walking around like flakes tell everyone that God told me this and God told me that. Most Catholic leave that kind of stuff up to the Pope. That way we are not all over the map like the Protestants are. And like I posted earlier, that is the way Jesus intended it to be when He gave the keys to Peter. If Jesus wanted a million individual churches all believing their own bull He wouldn't have handed the keys to one uneducated fisherman named Peter. They had smart people back then too.
All Christian have a relationship with Jesus in one form or another, and it's not for us to judge what is in another man's heart. It really cheapens the Christian Faith when we judge the other guys relationship with Jesus, whether it be Sacramental, through his mother Mary, or walking around like a flake telling people that the Spirit told me this while I was driving down the freeway on my way church.
I would like to stay on topic, because the authority that Jesus gave to Peter still stands today, and the Protestants don't have a leg to stand on. It's not what is in the other Christians heart, but rather it's the authority that Jesus himself handed to Peter.
dear Banished why do you call yourself banished. Banished from what. sorry I jus couldn't help my self. I thought i was on topic. it was about RCC authority wasn' it.
Let me ask you a question if I may. Will the pope be there when you stand before the Lord. Will your record of RCC loyalty be what impresses Him or will he look at you and how much you loved Christ in your daily walk. Will it be how many times you went to mass?
When i read my Bible I learn all that Jesus and the apostles taught. Of course we need teachers, but it was ultimately the Holy spirit who teaches all thing concerning Christ. You see the apostles did first teach by word of mouth but they were also filled with the Holy Spirit. When they wrote the Epistles they were inspired of him, and thank God they were preseved to bless all future generations. There is much argument about bible only and I agree it must be taught correctly, But I also no that with out the Holy spirit to help guide us we can be mislead and often are by doctrines and traditions of men. Listen I don't ever say God told me this or that. Most of what I speak comes good old fashioned God give commen sense and application. You focus to much on the Magisterium.
God bless
mclees8,
Both my wife an I are excommunicated (banished) from the Catholic Church, because we were married as Born Again Christians. Neither of us will ever denounce our Protestant marriage, so we will be there with you and the other Born Again Christians. What I don't understand is why you are going around kicking the Catholics? You chose to go the Born Again route, so quit causing trouble. The Catholics will go in first, and if there is any seats left the Born Again and other lesser denominations will enter. Remember that Jesus gave the Keys to Peter, and he will be there to greet us at the gate.
Lets focus on the fact that Jesus gave the authority to Peter, and not to Born Again Christians. The Born Again will go in single file, and the entire Catholic Church will go in as a unit.
Well I see you are a true and blue RC at heart. And thats OK. I just don't believe that being of any denomination catholic or protestant has anything to do with ones salvation. Listen just because I don't believe in the papacy does not mean I don't respect RC's
What is important is that we love and focus on Christ. Like I said the laity is often misguided by false teaching, tradition of men and doctrines of men.
I know the argument about Peter and I even give the benefit of the doubt. I made this case many times before. I believe there are many differences between Peter and the kind of disciple he was at the time before 100 AD and the bishops of Rome who forged their way to power to become the religious political authority of the empire in 500 AD. The question was would Peter have sat inn the same seat like the popes surrounded with grandeur wareing lavish vestments and sitting on a throne. I don't know about you but I don't believe for one moment that he would.
God bless
: mclees8 Sat Oct 03, 2009 - 17:13:50
When i read my Bible I learn all that Jesus and the apostles taught.
To a degree.
If you really learn from the Bible what Jesus and the Apostles taught.
Then maybe you can do an exegesis on Matthew 16:18, John 6 and John 20:21
Of course we need teachers, but it was ultimately the Holy spirit who teaches all thing concerning Christ.
You are making a huge assumption here that it is always the Holy Spirit who is guiding you. The devil also masquerades as an angel of light and is more than capable of guiding your reading of the Bible.
So how do you know that your reading of the Bible is truly guided byt he Spirit.
You see the apostles did first teach by word of mouth but they were also filled with the Holy Spirit. When they wrote the Epistles they were inspired of him, and thank God they were preseved to bless all future generations.
Aaah, but HOW do you know that they were indeed guided by the Holy Spirit?
Before the canon of the Bible was set there were other books that did not make the cut. How sure are you that the ones that did make the cut are indeed the ones that were guided by the Holy Spirit?
There is much argument about bible only and I agree it must be taught correctly, But I also no that with out the Holy spirit to help guide us we can be mislead
EXACTLY!! But that the Holy Spirit is guiding you in your reading is only an assumption. So again, how do you know that you are being guided by the Holy Spriti?
and often are by doctrines and traditions of men.
But before Scripture was committed to the written word they were traditions of men. As a matter of fact the first mention of the word canon was by Pope Clement and it was not in referernce to the Bible but to the "canon of our traditions"
Listen I don't ever say God told me this or that. Most of what I speak comes good old fashioned God give commen sense and application. You focus to much on the Magisterium.
And what makes you think that you are more knowledgeable than the Magisterium which happens to be comprised of quite a lot o erudite men well versed in the Bible? Don't you think that rather smacks of pride and arrogance? A disposition that is closer to the guiding of the evil one rather than the Holy Spirit?
: Magnificat Mon Oct 05, 2009 - 04:28:46
: mclees8 Sat Oct 03, 2009 - 17:13:50
When i read my Bible I learn all that Jesus and the apostles taught.
To a degree.
If you really learn from the Bible what Jesus and the Apostles taught.
Then maybe you can do an exegesis on Matthew 16:18, John 6 and John 20:21
Of course we need teachers, but it was ultimately the Holy spirit who teaches all thing concerning Christ.
You are making a huge assumption here that it is always the Holy Spirit who is guiding you. The devil also masquerades as an angel of light and is more than capable of guiding your reading of the Bible.
So how do you know that your reading of the Bible is truly guided byt he Spirit.
You see the apostles did first teach by word of mouth but they were also filled with the Holy Spirit. When they wrote the Epistles they were inspired of him, and thank God they were preseved to bless all future generations.
Aaah, but HOW do you know that they were indeed guided by the Holy Spirit?
Before the canon of the Bible was set there were other books that did not make the cut. How sure are you that the ones that did make the cut are indeed the ones that were guided by the Holy Spirit?
There is much argument about bible only and I agree it must be taught correctly, But I also no that with out the Holy spirit to help guide us we can be mislead
EXACTLY!! But that the Holy Spirit is guiding you in your reading is only an assumption. So again, how do you know that you are being guided by the Holy Spriti?
and often are by doctrines and traditions of men.
But before Scripture was committed to the written word they were traditions of men. As a matter of fact the first mention of the word canon was by Pope Clement and it was not in referernce to the Bible but to the "canon of our traditions"
Listen I don't ever say God told me this or that. Most of what I speak comes good old fashioned God give commen sense and application. You focus to much on the Magisterium.
And what makes you think that you are more knowledgeable than the Magisterium which happens to be comprised of quite a lot o erudite men well versed in the Bible? Don't you think that rather smacks of pride and arrogance? A disposition that is closer to the guiding of the evil one rather than the Holy Spirit?
Well you say how do I know. I know by faith for all the we are given in the word of God must taken by faith. Hebrew 11:16 says But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.
By the same we must take Gods word by faith
As for the rest of you comments. you really don't know to much about the Holy Spirit do you? It takes more than human wisdom or degrees in theology . Nickodemus was a very learned Pharisee who knew all about the laws of Moses and old Testament scripture but he was carnal in his thinking. Jesus cut straight to his problem and it is still the problem with carnal scholars. (You must be Born again of the Spirit. ) Note Jesus did not go into length with him about it. You are either spiritual and understand the things of the spirit or you do not. the Holy spirit gives revelation and that is also taken by faith.
Some of grandest bible Scholars may know no more about the things of the spirit than a fly.
The bible tells us of two kinds of people. the carnal and the spiritual. and by that I don't mean people who just act spiritual, but truly understand the things of the spirit Listen to what Jesus said about this in john 14:16
16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
This was the promise that was fullfilled on the day of pentecost where 120 waited for the promise 4:1,8
And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. 5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.
6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? 7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. 8 B
[but ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.[/b]Just look at the disciples Like Peter himself whom was no Scholar but an uneducated fisherman. Yet when he was spirit filled he confounded the the Pharisees. what does scripture say, that God shall use the Humble things of this world to confound the wise.
How is that an uneducated fisherman confound the highly educated councils
No i am not any great theologian and only have a GED education but i understand the things of the spirit as much as any of them. How about you?
Shall we go on. the book of John is centered on the Holy Spirit. Second two Jesus and cross of salvation He is the most important figure in scripture yet the least understood.
God bless
: mclees8 Tue Oct 06, 2009 - 00:34:14
Well you say how do I know. I know by faith for all the we are given in the word of God must taken by faith. Hebrew 11:16 says But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.
By the same we must take Gods word by faith
True. But what you are taking on faith (the Bible, its canon) was something that came from the Catholic Church.
As for the rest of you comments. you really don't know to much about the Holy Spirit do you? It takes more than human wisdom or degrees in theology .
Yes. Completely agree. But it takes a lot of audacity and conceit to think that every conclusion that one derives from reading the Bible is a result of the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
If the Holy Spirit truly guides all private interpretation then all private interpretation would be in agreement. But that is not what we find in reality.
Nickodemus was a very learned Pharisee who knew all about the laws of Moses and old Testament scripture but he was carnal in his thinking. Jesus cut straight to his problem and it is still the problem with carnal scholars. (You must be Born again of the Spirit. )
Actually the verse does not say you must be "born again". This phrase is a result of Nicodemu's misunderstanding what Jesus said. Jesus said you must be "born from above" but Nicodemus thought Jesus said you must be "born again".
Note Jesus did not go into length with him about it. You are either spiritual and understand the things of the spirit or you do not. the Holy spirit gives revelation and that is also taken by faith.
The Holy Sprit certainly does. And so does the devil who masquerades as an angel of light.
Some of grandest bible Scholars may know no more about the things of the spirit than a fly.
But what I asked you to give an exegesis on are plain Bible verses. Surely if as you claim you are guided by the Spirit, an exegesis on these verses would be a piece of cake.
The bible tells us of two kinds of people. the carnal and the spiritual. and by that I don't mean people who just act spiritual, but truly understand the things of the spirit Listen to what Jesus said about this in john 14:16
16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
This was the promise that was fullfilled on the day of pentecost where 120 waited for the promise 4:1,8
And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.
This pronouncement he gave to his apostles not his disciples in general. AS a matter of fact, this is the text that supports authority of the bishops.
5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.
And Jesus said you must be born of water AND the Spirit. So therefore water baptism is necessary.
6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? 7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. 8 B[but ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
Just look at the disciples Like Peter himself whom was no Scholar but an uneducated fisherman. Yet when he was spirit filled he confounded the the Pharisees. what does scripture say, that God shall use the Humble things of this world to confound the wise.
I do not doubt that the Holy Spirit can make the stupid wise. What I am disputing is that He gives this enlightenment to all who read and interpret the Bible in quite the way you claim.
No i am not any great theologian and only have a GED education but i understand the things of the spirit as much as any of them. How about you?
I am not a theologian either but I can certainly attempt to explain the passages that I asked an explanation for from you. That wasl all I was asking. If as you say you are guided by the Holy Spirit then an explanation of these would be really easy.
Wrong, Please read the Bible and trust it instead, Friend. John chapter three is a good place to start.
: farouk Tue Oct 06, 2009 - 06:22:40
Wrong, Please read the Bible and trust it instead, Friend. John chapter three is a good place to start.
Yes that is indeed good. You can also add Matthew 16, John 6 and John 20:21.
: Magnificat Tue Oct 06, 2009 - 06:18:58
: mclees8 Tue Oct 06, 2009 - 00:34:14
Well you say how do I know. I know by faith for all the we are given in the word of God must taken by faith. Hebrew 11:16 says But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.
By the same we must take Gods word by faith
True. But what you are taking on faith (the Bible, its canon) was something that came from the Catholic Church.
As for the rest of you comments. you really don't know to much about the Holy Spirit do you? It takes more than human wisdom or degrees in theology .
Yes. Completely agree. But it takes a lot of audacity and conceit to think that every conclusion that one derives from reading the Bible is a result of the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
If the Holy Spirit truly guides all private interpretation then all private interpretation would be in agreement. But that is not what we find in reality.
Nickodemus was a very learned Pharisee who knew all about the laws of Moses and old Testament scripture but he was carnal in his thinking. Jesus cut straight to his problem and it is still the problem with carnal scholars. (You must be Born again of the Spirit. )
Actually the verse does not say you must be "born again". This phrase is a result of Nicodemu's misunderstanding what Jesus said. Jesus said you must be "born from above" but Nicodemus thought Jesus said you must be "born again".
Note Jesus did not go into length with him about it. You are either spiritual and understand the things of the spirit or you do not. the Holy spirit gives revelation and that is also taken by faith.
The Holy Sprit certainly does. And so does the devil who masquerades as an angel of light.
Some of grandest bible Scholars may know no more about the things of the spirit than a fly.
But what I asked you to give an exegesis on are plain Bible verses. Surely if as you claim you are guided by the Spirit, an exegesis on these verses would be a piece of cake.
The bible tells us of two kinds of people. the carnal and the spiritual. and by that I don't mean people who just act spiritual, but truly understand the things of the spirit Listen to what Jesus said about this in john 14:16
16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
This was the promise that was fullfilled on the day of pentecost where 120 waited for the promise 4:1,8
And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.
This pronouncement he gave to his apostles not his disciples in general. AS a matter of fact, this is the text that supports authority of the bishops.
5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.
And Jesus said you must be born of water AND the Spirit. So therefore water baptism is necessary.
6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? 7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. 8 B[but ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
Just look at the disciples Like Peter himself whom was no Scholar but an uneducated fisherman. Yet when he was spirit filled he confounded the the Pharisees. what does scripture say, that God shall use the Humble things of this world to confound the wise.
I do not doubt that the Holy Spirit can make the stupid wise. What I am disputing is that He gives this enlightenment to all who read and interpret the Bible in quite the way you claim.
No i am not any great theologian and only have a GED education but i understand the things of the spirit as much as any of them. How about you?
I am not a theologian either but I can certainly attempt to explain the passages that I asked an explanation for from you. That wasl all I was asking. If as you say you are guided by the Holy Spirit then an explanation of these would be really easy.
Very well i will do it as you ask and even more. Also remember scripture can be broad in meaning so as to speak to many in different ways. Its Gods way of personalizing. Granted there are many who develop their own doctrines and mislead many. Cult people like Jim Jones and David koresh, and even mainline preachers.I do not agree with much of catholic interpriation We need to beware of these kind of people. I interpret scripture not to start any following. You are most likly not to agree with all I say. Yet I know this that what I say will mislead know one. I am a slow writer and not fast at all and I also have other things to do as well. but i will respond with in a day or two. I do not mind friendly discussion but i dispise meaninless debates. With that said i will post soon.
god bless
Hey guys, lets get back on topic, because that is when the Catholics win, and win big ! One of the first places where Peter exercised his authority as the first Pope was at the Council at Jerusalem (50 AD) when questions concerning circumcision and keeping the Law came up. Peter knew that circumcising 40 year old gentiles would go over like a lead balloon, plus he had previous revelation for God concerning the reception of the Gentiles without circumcision.
Peter (the first Pope) issued this statement in Acts 15: 28 -29 (King James Version)
28) For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no grater burden than these necessary things.
29) That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep youselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
There you have it. A complete deviation from the scriptures of that day. After making a decision about Paul, the third thing the council passed, and it surely applies to the present day Christians, charity or love was emphasized. Christians are not to offend others who may hold to a slightly different point of view. They are to be at peace and united under the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church.
: Magnificat Tue Oct 06, 2009 - 06:18:58
: mclees8 Tue Oct 06, 2009 - 00:34:14
Well you say how do I know. I know by faith for all the we are given in the word of God must taken by faith. Hebrew 11:16 says But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.
By the same we must take Gods word by faith
True. But what you are taking on faith (the Bible, its canon) was something that came from the Catholic Church.
As for the rest of you comments. you really don't know to much about the Holy Spirit do you? It takes more than human wisdom or degrees in theology .
Yes. Completely agree. But it takes a lot of audacity and conceit to think that every conclusion that one derives from reading the Bible is a result of the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
If the Holy Spirit truly guides all private interpretation then all private interpretation would be in agreement. But that is not what we find in reality.
Nickodemus was a very learned Pharisee who knew all about the laws of Moses and old Testament scripture but he was carnal in his thinking. Jesus cut straight to his problem and it is still the problem with carnal scholars. (You must be Born again of the Spirit. )
Actually the verse does not say you must be "born again". This phrase is a result of Nicodemu's misunderstanding what Jesus said. Jesus said you must be "born from above" but Nicodemus thought Jesus said you must be "born again".
Note Jesus did not go into length with him about it. You are either spiritual and understand the things of the spirit or you do not. the Holy spirit gives revelation and that is also taken by faith.
The Holy Sprit certainly does. And so does the devil who masquerades as an angel of light.
Some of grandest bible Scholars may know no more about the things of the spirit than a fly.
But what I asked you to give an exegesis on are plain Bible verses. Surely if as you claim you are guided by the Spirit, an exegesis on these verses would be a piece of cake.
The bible tells us of two kinds of people. the carnal and the spiritual. and by that I don't mean people who just act spiritual, but truly understand the things of the spirit Listen to what Jesus said about this in john 14:16
16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
This was the promise that was fullfilled on the day of pentecost where 120 waited for the promise 4:1,8
And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.
This pronouncement he gave to his apostles not his disciples in general. AS a matter of fact, this is the text that supports authority of the bishops.
5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.
And Jesus said you must be born of water AND the Spirit. So therefore water baptism is necessary.
6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? 7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. 8 B[but ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
Just look at the disciples Like Peter himself whom was no Scholar but an uneducated fisherman. Yet when he was spirit filled he confounded the the Pharisees. what does scripture say, that God shall use the Humble things of this world to confound the wise.
I do not doubt that the Holy Spirit can make the stupid wise. What I am disputing is that He gives this enlightenment to all who read and interpret the Bible in quite the way you claim.
No i am not any great theologian and only have a GED education but i understand the things of the spirit as much as any of them. How about you?
I am not a theologian either but I can certainly attempt to explain the passages that I asked an explanation for from you. That wasl all I was asking. If as you say you are guided by the Holy Spirit then an explanation of these would be really easy.
I know we are not going to agree upon this verse Matt 16:18. I know the catholic aregument that Peter means rock. But lets look a little closer at the verse where Jesus says upon this rock. We all know that protestant theologians look at jesus as the rock and foundation of truth and the gospel, and all the church is built upon. Jesus is the chief corner stone .Look at the whole context here. What was Jesus asking them . Jesus had just asked ,talking to all of them in verse thirteen (note verse thirteen is plural ) Whom do you say that I am. Of course it was Peter who jump up and said thou art the Christ the son of the living God. Now did this make him more special than the others. I don't think so but I have also heard all the catholic arguments and yes they are sound. Jesus said flesh and blood has not revealed this to you but my Father in heaven. Jesus was in fact proclaiming that Yes he was the Christ. Now lets look at the verse again. He said to peter it was a revelation from God that Jesus was in fact the Christ and upon this rock of truth I will build my church. You cannot say Upon this Peter I will build my church.
Now Catholics want to lay everything upon Peter so that he justifies the papacy. And it s almost useless to argue about it. Protestants an Catholics have been at odds about this for decades I f you are baiting me into an endless debate I will not join you in it. You will find in most of my posts I give the RC's the benefit of the doubt. May be you could read some of the posts with Banished . Just because I understand the things of the spirit does not make me a seer or a prophet yet I do perceive much
Next verse John 20: 21
I think you have to look at all the verses 19-23 the conversation is plural meaning they were all given the same authority of binding and loosing. Forgiving or retaining sins . Peter is not singled out here. Verse 21 speaks plainly enough that even as Jesus was sent they also were sent He gave them all the Holy spirit not so they could flaunt authority but be led of him. That Christ's Character would be in them through the Holy Ghost.
Those who flaunt authority to make a big thing out of it are not led of the spirit but are led of the flesh and human desire. The papacy is attempt to be God upon the earth and to be seen as the religious authority of this world.
I hope this gives you what you want. After all I am not a theology major but I do perceive purty well.
God bless
: banished Tue Oct 06, 2009 - 12:23:24
Hey guys, lets get back on topic, because that is when the Catholics win, and win big ! One of the first places where Peter exercised his authority as the first Pope was at the Council at Jerusalem (50 AD) when questions concerning circumcision and keeping the Law came up. Peter knew that circumcising 40 year old gentiles would go over like a lead balloon, plus he had previous revelation for God concerning the reception of the Gentiles without circumcision.
Peter (the first Pope) issued this statement in Acts 15: 28 -29 (King James Version)
28) For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no grater burden than these necessary things.
29) That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep youselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
There you have it. A complete deviation from the scriptures of that day. After making a decision about Paul, the third thing the council passed, and it surely applies to the present day Christians, charity or love was emphasized. Christians are not to offend others who may hold to a slightly different point of view. They are to be at peace and united under the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church.
Except I do not see anywhere in writing where Peter claimed to be the 'first among brothers' or others acknowledged his lead as head apostle... there is no mention of Pope in the scriptures.
If anything, in the gentile world, Paul should be our lead.
: Tantor Tue Oct 06, 2009 - 12:33:09
: banished Tue Oct 06, 2009 - 12:23:24
Hey guys, lets get back on topic, because that is when the Catholics win, and win big ! One of the first places where Peter exercised his authority as the first Pope was at the Council at Jerusalem (50 AD) when questions concerning circumcision and keeping the Law came up. Peter knew that circumcising 40 year old gentiles would go over like a lead balloon, plus he had previous revelation for God concerning the reception of the Gentiles without circumcision.
Peter (the first Pope) issued this statement in Acts 15: 28 -29 (King James Version)
28) For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no grater burden than these necessary things.
29) That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep youselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
There you have it. A complete deviation from the scriptures of that day. After making a decision about Paul, the third thing the council passed, and it surely applies to the present day Christians, charity or love was emphasized. Christians are not to offend others who may hold to a slightly different point of view. They are to be at peace and united under the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church.
Except I do not see anywhere in writing where Peter claimed to be the 'first among brothers' or others acknowledged his lead as head apostle... there is no mention of Pope in the scriptures.
If anything, in the gentile world, Paul should be our lead.
Simply put, the whole doctrine and practice of the Christian Religion rests in the belief that the Pope speaks for Christ, so to disobey him is to disobey Christ. And of course, there are those who shuffle the Bible Verses in contempt trying to disprove it all.
Where is the word "pope" in the Bible? Well, where is the word "father,"because that's what "Pope" means ("pope" means "papa") . But you won't find the English word "pope" there any more than you'd find the word "Trinity." The reality, though, is there, in Peter, from the very beginning. The Pope, as Bishop of Rome, is simply the successor of Peter, who was the first Bishop of Rome and head of the earthly Church. The Roman Catholic Church has kept records including the successors of Peter and many of their homilies. God the Father made Abraham the earthly father of the Old Covenant (Isaiah 52:1-2) and Peter is the father of the New Covenant. That should be easy enough to understand, unless you are in contempt.
The bottom line: Christ spoke Aramaic and nicknamed Simon "Kepha". Christ did not speak Greek. Peter IS "the rock", the earthly head of Christ's Church as Christ Himself states in Matthew 16.
: mclees8 Tue Oct 06, 2009 - 12:25:17
I know we are not going to agree upon this verse Matt 16:18. I know the catholic aregument that Peter means rock.
The way to properly do this is to just let the text speak for itself rather than imposing on it a preconceived theology so let us start.
But lets look a little closer at the verse where Jesus says upon this rock. We all know that protestant theologians look at jesus as the rock and foundation of truth and the gospel, and all the church is built upon. Jesus is the chief corner stone .Look at the whole context here.
Yes Jesus is the ultimate rock but this is not what Matthew 16 is all about. If you are going to look at the whole context you first have to refer it back to Chapter itself. So let us stick to what the Bible says rather than what protestant theologians say.
It is important to have the verses laid out properly when discussin them so here it is.
13 When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi 9 he asked his disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"
14 They replied, "Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
16 Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God."
17 Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
What was Jesus asking them . Jesus had just asked ,talking to all of them in verse thirteen (note verse thirteen is plural ) Whom do you say that I am. Of course it was Peter who jump up and said thou art the Christ the son of the living God. Now did this make him more special than the others. I don't think so
You may not think so but the verses speak for themselves. Notice, while the other disciples were in confusion as to who Jesus really is, Peter makes this pronouncement.
In V17 Jesus calls Simon Blessed, because it was the Father, remember that, the Father who made this revelation to Peter. So think about that, Jesus's identity and mission was not revealed by Jesus Himself. This revelation, God the Father WILLED to be pronounced through Peter. So here clearly the Father has specifically CHOSEN Peter, not any other. And not all the disciples either, for they could have all proclaimed this in unison if the Father has so willed. Very important here to note that this is the Father's WILL.
but I have also heard all the catholic arguments and yes they are sound. Jesus said flesh and blood has not revealed this to you but my Father in heaven. Jesus was in fact proclaiming that Yes he was the Christ.
It will be helpful if you stick to our own discussion and not bring up other Catholics's arguments. This is just us here having a discussion.
Jesus was indeed affirming this proclamation. But notice, He did not proclaim it Himself. He could have done that but He CHOSE NOT TO. The Father and the Son WILLED that proclamation to be done through Simon.
Now lets look at the verse again. He said to peter it was a revelation from God that Jesus was in fact the Christ and upon this rock of truth
Actually you are wrong there. Let the verse speak for itself. Jesus DID NOT SAY UPON THIS ROCK OF TRUTH. What the Bible actually says is: AND I SAY TO YOU, YOU ARE PETER ( which means ROCK) AND UPON THIS ROCK I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH.
I will build my church. You cannot say Upon this Peter I will build my church.
And I am not saying that at all, I am merely sticking to what is exactly written in the Bible. What Jesus actually said for a straightforward translation is : YOU ARE ROCK, AND UPON THIS ROCK I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH.
Now Catholics want to lay everything upon Peter so that he justifies the papacy. And it s almost useless to argue about it.
Please don't diverge. We are simply doing a study of Matthew 16 here not discussing the papacy.
So now that I have shown you were you went wrong in your analysis of these verses, can you continue with verses 17-18?
Protestants an Catholics have been at odds about this for decades I f you are baiting me into an endless debate I will not join you in it.
This will not be an endless debate if you truly listen.
I go back to your claim of being guided by the Holy Spirit when you read the Bible and I am challenging you on the truth of that.
You will find in most of my posts I give the RC's the benefit of the doubt.
I am not after the benefit of the doubt. This is an exercise to ferret out the truth of our interpretations. Are you not interested in finding out the truth?
May be you could read some of the posts with Banished . Just because I understand the things of the spirit does not make me a seer or a prophet yet I do perceive much
I am not questioning that at all. I simply want you to explain a simple passage. If you perceive much then you will perceive much about this verses in Matthew 16, so please continue.
Next verse John 20: 21
I will address this in another post because we are not done with Matthew 16 yet and it is good to keep this issues separate so we get a clearer line of thought.
: mclees8 Tue Oct 06, 2009 - 12:25:17
Next verse John 20: 21
I think you have to look at all the verses 19-23 the conversation is plural meaning they were all given the same authority of binding and loosing. Forgiving or retaining sins .
100% Correct there. Jesus was addressing all the APOSTLES.
Peter is not singled out here.
That is correct.
Verse 21 speaks plainly enough that even as Jesus was sent they also were sent He gave them all the Holy spirit not so they could flaunt authority but be led of him.
Once again you are imposing on the verse what it is not saying. What does the verse say exact? Didn't Christ say "Receive the Holy Spirit. Whosoever sins YOU forgive they are forgiven them, whosoever sins YOU retain they are retained.?
How do you understand those words?
That Christ's Character would be in them through the Holy Ghost.
Not quite. The verse says He BREATHED on them. Think back to Genesis when God breathed on Adam. Christ here is not imparting his character, he is giving them His Spirit. What does that mean to be given Christ's spirit? Remember the words about forgiving sins follow thereafter.
Those who flaunt authority to make a big thing out of it are not led of the spirit but are led of the flesh and human desire.
But the verse does not say that at all. Please stick to the verse. If you love the Bible then you will not try to muzzle the words it is speaking.
The papacy is attempt to be God upon the earth and to be seen as the religious authority of this world.
No it is not but we will get to why it is not. For the meantime, just stick to the Bible. I am sure you are one of the "Bible" believing protestants so allow it to speak for itself. Do not impose your words on it.
I hope this gives you what you want. After all I am not a theology major but I do perceive purty well.
Not quite but if you continue conversing with me I think we will come a real understanding of the passage.
I am not quite sure what you mean when you say you perceive purity. Please kindly give an explanation.
: Tantor Tue Oct 06, 2009 - 12:33:09
Except I do not see anywhere in writing where Peter claimed to be the 'first among brothers' or others acknowledged his lead as head apostle... there is no mention of Pope in the scriptures.
If anything, in the gentile world, Paul should be our lead.
Paul indeed wrote a lot and is a very learned apostle. But He was not numbered with the 12. He lived during Christ's time and the Father could have WILLED for Him to be one of those whom Jesus called yet the Father DID NOT DO THAT. NEITHER DID THE SON.
Who did the Father and the Son CHOOSE? Peter.
Peter's primacy he did not claim for himself. It was handed to him by God Himself, Jesus Christ our Lord.
: Magnificat Wed Oct 07, 2009 - 01:51:17
: mclees8 Tue Oct 06, 2009 - 12:25:17
I know we are not going to agree upon this verse Matt 16:18. I know the catholic aregument that Peter means rock.
The way to properly do this is to just let the text speak for itself rather than imposing on it a preconceived theology so let us start.
But lets look a little closer at the verse where Jesus says upon this rock. We all know that protestant theologians look at jesus as the rock and foundation of truth and the gospel, and all the church is built upon. Jesus is the chief corner stone .Look at the whole context here.
Yes Jesus is the ultimate rock but this is not what Matthew 16 is all about. If you are going to look at the whole context you first have to refer it back to Chapter itself. So let us stick to what the Bible says rather than what protestant theologians say.
It is important to have the verses laid out properly when discussin them so here it is.
13 When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi 9 he asked his disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"
14 They replied, "Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
16 Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God."
17 Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
What was Jesus asking them . Jesus had just asked ,talking to all of them in verse thirteen (note verse thirteen is plural ) Whom do you say that I am. Of course it was Peter who jump up and said thou art the Christ the son of the living God. Now did this make him more special than the others. I don't think so
You may not think so but the verses speak for themselves. Notice, while the other disciples were in confusion as to who Jesus really is, Peter makes this pronouncement.
In V17 Jesus calls Simon Blessed, because it was the Father, remember that, the Father who made this revelation to Peter. So think about that, Jesus's identity and mission was not revealed by Jesus Himself. This revelation, God the Father WILLED to be pronounced through Peter. So here clearly the Father has specifically CHOSEN Peter, not any other. And not all the disciples either, for they could have all proclaimed this in unison if the Father has so willed. Very important here to note that this is the Father's WILL.
but I have also heard all the catholic arguments and yes they are sound. Jesus said flesh and blood has not revealed this to you but my Father in heaven. Jesus was in fact proclaiming that Yes he was the Christ.
It will be helpful if you stick to our own discussion and not bring up other Catholics's arguments. This is just us here having a discussion.
Jesus was indeed affirming this proclamation. But notice, He did not proclaim it Himself. He could have done that but He CHOSE NOT TO. The Father and the Son WILLED that proclamation to be done through Simon.
Now lets look at the verse again. He said to peter it was a revelation from God that Jesus was in fact the Christ and upon this rock of truth
Actually you are wrong there. Let the verse speak for itself. Jesus DID NOT SAY UPON THIS ROCK OF TRUTH. What the Bible actually says is: AND I SAY TO YOU, YOU ARE PETER ( which means ROCK) AND UPON THIS ROCK I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH.
I will build my church. You cannot say Upon this Peter I will build my church.
And I am not saying that at all, I am merely sticking to what is exactly written in the Bible. What Jesus actually said for a straightforward translation is : YOU ARE ROCK, AND UPON THIS ROCK I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH.
Now Catholics want to lay everything upon Peter so that he justifies the papacy. And it s almost useless to argue about it.
Please don't diverge. We are simply doing a study of Matthew 16 here not discussing the papacy.
So now that I have shown you were you went wrong in your analysis of these verses, can you continue with verses 17-18?
Protestants an Catholics have been at odds about this for decades I f you are baiting me into an endless debate I will not join you in it.
This will not be an endless debate if you truly listen.
I go back to your claim of being guided by the Holy Spirit when you read the Bible and I am challenging you on the truth of that.
You will find in most of my posts I give the RC's the benefit of the doubt.
I am not after the benefit of the doubt. This is an exercise to ferret out the truth of our interpretations. Are you not interested in finding out the truth?
May be you could read some of the posts with Banished . Just because I understand the things of the spirit does not make me a seer or a prophet yet I do perceive much
I am not questioning that at all. I simply want you to explain a simple passage. If you perceive much then you will perceive much about this verses in Matthew 16, so please continue.
Next verse John 20: 21
I will address this in another post because we are not done with Matthew 16 yet and it is good to keep this issues separate so we get a clearer line of thought.
Dear sir I know you are priding yourself on your analysis of the versrses .I told you right off we were not going to agree. You are a catholic and you are just going to go at it from that mentality. I most often give the benefit of the doubt.
You want to prove if I am being guided of the Holy spirit . This will not prove it. But if I be guided of the Holy Spirit here I ask what is truly important. It is not going back and forth about Peter. Believing Peter was the first pope or not will not weigh one ounce on our salvation If you want to believe he was the ordained of Christ to be the head of the church then fine. Then keep the Lords commandments just the way Peter did and you will be just fine. After all we all must follow Christ ultimately. Are you trying to justify the RCC and its papacy through Peter.? Maybe I will have some thing to say when we discuss the next verse
God bless
: mclees8 Wed Oct 07, 2009 - 07:00:21
Dear sir I know you are priding yourself on your analysis of the versrses .I told you right off we were not going to agree. You are a catholic and you are just going to go at it from that mentality. I most often give the benefit of the doubt.
No not priding myself. Does truth not matter to you? Are you going to hang on to what you believe whether it is true or not? Surely if Jesus matters to you then truth would matter to you becuase Jesus said I am the way the Truth and the Life.
Furthermore, you said you are being guided by the Holy Spirit. If you indeed are being so guided, then truth would matter to you.
This is not about 'benefits of the doub" because there is such a thing as objective truth.
By the way, it is Miss not Sir :-)
You want to prove if I am being guided of the Holy spirit . This will not prove it. But if I be guided of the Holy Spirit here I ask what is truly important. It is not going back and forth about Peter.
If you are indeed being guided by the Holy Spirit then you will come up with a truthful understanding of the verse in question.
Believing Peter was the first pope or not will not weigh one ounce on our salvation
Yes it does because on this hinges whether Christ did establish a Church and if Christ did establish A (one) Church then that church would still be here becuase He made the promise that the gates of hell will not prevail against it and he gave the promise to send the Holy Spirit to guide her into all truth.
If you want to believe he was the ordained of Christ to be the head of the church then fine.
But that is not what this is about. The point is, is that the truth. Can we actually find out what is the truth regading this matter. Can we trust the Bible to speak with conviction on this matter?
Then keep the Lords commandments just the way Peter did and you will be just fine. After all we all must follow Christ ultimately. Are you trying to justify the RCC and its papacy through Peter.? Maybe I will have some thing to say when we discuss the next verse
If you will try to stick to what we are discussing and stop assuming what I am and am not trying to justify then we can move forward.
Why are you so afraid to dig deeper into this text?
: Magnificat Wed Oct 07, 2009 - 02:08:12
Who did the Father and the Son CHOOSE? Peter.
He chose the 12.. the rock he built his church on was Peter's first acknowledgment of who Jesus was... the church is built on the Rock of our acknowledgement of Jesus.. its the core of Christianity.
You my friend have bought the RCC's wrong interpretation of that verse.. and will probably defend it since its the only verse in the bible that backs their claims..
: Magnificat Wed Oct 07, 2009 - 02:04:47
: mclees8 Tue Oct 06, 2009 - 12:25:17
Next verse John 20: 21
I think you have to look at all the verses 19-23 the conversation is plural meaning they were all given the same authority of binding and loosing. Forgiving or retaining sins .
100% Correct there. Jesus was addressing all the APOSTLES.
Peter is not singled out here.
That is correct.
Verse 21 speaks plainly enough that even as Jesus was sent they also were sent He gave them all the Holy spirit not so they could flaunt authority but be led of him.
Once again you are imposing on the verse what it is not saying. What does the verse say exact? Didn't Christ say "Receive the Holy Spirit. Whosoever sins YOU forgive they are forgiven them, whosoever sins YOU retain they are retained.?
How do you understand those words?
That Christ's Character would be in them through the Holy Ghost.
Not quite. The verse says He BREATHED on them. Think back to Genesis when God breathed on Adam. Christ here is not imparting his character, he is giving them His Spirit. What does that mean to be given Christ's spirit? Remember the words about forgiving sins follow thereafter.
Those who flaunt authority to make a big thing out of it are not led of the spirit but are led of the flesh and human desire.
But the verse does not say that at all. Please stick to the verse. If you love the Bible then you will not try to muzzle the words it is speaking.
The papacy is attempt to be God upon the earth and to be seen as the religious authority of this world.
No it is not but we will get to why it is not. For the meantime, just stick to the Bible. I am sure you are one of the "Bible" believing protestants so allow it to speak for itself. Do not impose your words on it.
I hope this gives you what you want. After all I am not a theology major but I do perceive purty well.
Not quite but if you continue conversing with me I think we will come a real understanding of the passage.
I am not quite sure what you mean when you say you perceive purity. Please kindly give an explanation.
What is the drive here that you want me to see? I thought I saw what it was saying very well. It is not difficult to understand.
Do you think discernment is a gift of the Holy Spirit.? There will always be disagreements on scripture. Its human nature. A good discerner will see more than just tit for tat over making verses say what they want them to say.
I keep my focus on what is important. What is important is knowing Christ You said I imposed on the verse. Yes I did because I know you are trying to justify something so you analize the verse so you can try to sway my thinking and see that way you want me to .
Look here again at this and apply common sense. Jesus spoke to all of them and gave all them the gift of the Holy Spirit and also the same authority. He never said Peter was over any of them. So what is you want to justify. What point are you trying to make
Let me ask you one question and see if you can honestly see Peter wearing religious vestments and have the other apostles recognize him As the modern day popes sitting on a throne and fellow apostles kneeling at his feet. I cant help it I am just a common sense person. Give me you honest answer
You are hung on authority so much you cant see what truly is important.
God bless
: Magnificat Wed Oct 07, 2009 - 07:23:37
: mclees8 Wed Oct 07, 2009 - 07:00:21
Dear sir I know you are priding yourself on your analysis of the versrses .I told you right off we were not going to agree. You are a catholic and you are just going to go at it from that mentality. I most often give the benefit of the doubt.
No not priding myself. Does truth not matter to you? Are you going to hang on to what you believe whether it is true or not? Surely if Jesus matters to you then truth would matter to you becuase Jesus said I am the way the Truth and the Life.
Furthermore, you said you are being guided by the Holy Spirit. If you indeed are being so guided, then truth would matter to you.
This is not about 'benefits of the doub" because there is such a thing as objective truth.
By the way, it is Miss not Sir :-)
You want to prove if I am being guided of the Holy spirit . This will not prove it. But if I be guided of the Holy Spirit here I ask what is truly important. It is not going back and forth about Peter.
If you are indeed being guided by the Holy Spirit then you will come up with a truthful understanding of the verse in question.
Believing Peter was the first pope or not will not weigh one ounce on our salvation
Yes it does because on this hinges whether Christ did establish a Church and if Christ did establish A (one) Church then that church would still be here becuase He made the promise that the gates of hell will not prevail against it and he gave the promise to send the Holy Spirit to guide her into all truth.
If you want to believe he was the ordained of Christ to be the head of the church then fine.
But that is not what this is about. The point is, is that the truth. Can we actually find out what is the truth regading this matter. Can we trust the Bible to speak with conviction on this matter?
Then keep the Lords commandments just the way Peter did and you will be just fine. After all we all must follow Christ ultimately. Are you trying to justify the RCC and its papacy through Peter.? Maybe I will have some thing to say when we discuss the next verse
If you will try to stick to what we are discussing and stop assuming what I am and am not trying to justify then we can move forward.
Why are you so afraid to dig deeper into this text?
And what truth is that? the truth that you want me to see. May be I see atruth you don't want to see. What is the truth. Yo said said ( I am the wasy the trtuth and the life and no man comes to the father but by me)
: mclees8 Wed Oct 07, 2009 - 08:56:19
What is the drive here that you want me to see? I thought I saw what it was saying very well. It is not difficult to understand.
Okay, how about letting the Bible speak for itself.
Do you think discernment is a gift of the Holy Spirit.?
Most definitely
There will always be disagreements on scripture. Its human nature. A good discerner will see more than just tit for tat over making verses say what they want them to say.
Very true. But scripture cannot both be saying yes and no. If the Spirit is truly the one guiding the interpretation, then interpretations should be in agreement in so far as it applies to the Body of Christ in general.
I keep my focus on what is important. What is important is knowing Christ
If knowing Christ is important, then Christ's WILL is important don't you think?
What is the point of knowing Christ if we do not follow what He WILLS.
You said I imposed on the verse. Yes I did because I know you are trying to justify something so you analize the verse so you can try to sway my thinking and see that way you want me to .
But if the analysis is what can be truly supported Biblically, then why would you impose a meaning on the verses that the book itself does not support?
Look here again at this and apply common sense. Jesus spoke to all of them and gave all them the gift of the Holy Spirit and also the same authority.
That is true of John 20:21. But take note of who is present. His Apostles. His chosen 12.
He never said Peter was over any of them.
Yet He renamed Simon, Rock and promised to build His Church upon this Rock.
He said just before He died that He prayed specifically for Peter. so that Peter will strengthen the others.
After His ressurection He singled Peter out again and told him to tend to His (Jesus') sheep.
So what is you want to justify. What point are you trying to make
That Peter was prime among the apostles, that there is such a thing as authority, that Jesus did not leave us to wallow in uncertainty as to what exactly Scripture means.
Let me ask you one question and see if you can honestly see Peter wearing religious vestments and have the other apostles recognize him As the modern day popes sitting on a throne and fellow apostles kneeling at his feet.
No. But to see it that way is to misinterpret what the Primacy of Peter means and what authority in the church means.
I cant help it I am just a common sense person. Give me you honest answer
That is why I am giving you common sense answers. Not just common sense answers but Biblically based answers.
Here is a common sense link as to what I am trying to get at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWYwBDqFsuE
You are hung on authority so much you cant see what truly is important.
Yes, because it is very important. AS I have said over and over again, Jesus did not write anything. What did Jesus WILL? Jesus WILLED a Church, the Catholic Church. The Bible you believe in came from that Church.
: mclees8 Wed Oct 07, 2009 - 09:03:03
And what truth is that? the truth that you want me to see.
That Jesus established a Church - the Catholic Church, and that he chose Peter to be prime apostle (note my response to your other post), that we do need authority, and that Jesus WILLED it this way.
May be I see atruth you don't want to see.
Well, tell me about it. I am listening. But be prepared that I may counter your arguments.
What is the truth. Yo said said ( I am the wasy the trtuth and the life and no man comes to the father but by me)
Yes, indeed Jesus is the truth. What does He have to say about what you and I believe about His Church? That is what I am trying to get at.
: Magnificat Thu Oct 08, 2009 - 06:32:13
: mclees8 Wed Oct 07, 2009 - 09:03:03
And what truth is that? the truth that you want me to see.
That Jesus established a Church - the Catholic Church, and that he chose Peter to be prime apostle (note my response to your other post), that we do need authority, and that Jesus WILLED it this way.
May be I see atruth you don't want to see.
Well, tell me about it. I am listening. But be prepared that I may counter your arguments.
What is the truth. Yo said said ( I am the wasy the trtuth and the life and no man comes to the father but by me)
Yes, indeed Jesus is the truth. What does He have to say about what you and I believe about His Church? That is what I am trying to get at.
Yes I knew this was what you wanted to drive home to me . The primacy of Peter and the justification of the papacy through his authority Even thought you said the catholic church. It seems that it always boils down to this. To justify the unjustifiable. Well I have been at this for a long time and I did not start just yesterday . I am not trying to force anything here just present the truth as I see it.
Do you believe Peter became an example of Christ and that he knew all that Jesus taught. True Peter messed up when he fell into the trap of Jewish circumcision . But truly I believe he understood all that Jesus taught concerning walking in the spirit and displaying Christ likeness don't you think. After all he is the RCC foundational rock.
You gave me an honest answer when you said you could not see Peter sitting in grandeur on a throne with lavish vestments and hats. Or even the other apostles bowing at his feet whom were all given the same authority. Oh yes even Paul who was not one of the twelve yet it was Paul that had to challenge and correct Peter . Also it was James who headed the Jerusalem church. Please remember I apply common sense along with what we learn from the New testament and the things Jesus taught about selflessness and humility. This is not what we see in the papacy after the bishops of Rome used fraud to get their power as the political religious authority of the empire. These are facts and should speak volumes yet the argument never changes. It's. still the same all primacy of Peter to justify a papacy that Christ never ordained This may take a little writing here
So you are all hung up on justifying an authority that lost its sight and was no longer led of the spirit but self centered wisdom of men that were carnal as the day is long. Yes it is Christ up front but it is rotten on the inside. This of course will take some time but I have some when I can sit down at my computer a while. The fifth century Bishops were hungry for power and authority. Yes it is granted that we respect and follow authority in all matters living examples of Christ, but Jesus said to respect the hypocritical Pharisees also. So we are subject to all in authority over us. But he said not to be as the Pharisees were. What did he say about them. They were white washed tombs. And so it was with the corrupt Bishops of Rome who flaunted their authority and abused it. They except and do all that Jesus taught not to be. Also remember it was corruption of the popes that caused the reformation in the first place. So time an time again Catholics dogmatically justify what is not justified because you are hung up on the authority of an institution and its hierarchy.
So what is really important. It is knowing Christ and becoming personally more like Him everyday as the Holy Spirit guides and teaches us. You see it isn't the Bible that becomes worldly and corrupt but men. Are getting it yet? We all have been given power over Satan and his works. Christ's righteousness prevails over evil every time. Do we need good teachers? Absolutely but be sure you glorify the one who is to be glorified in your own personaLwalk. As it says, we must all work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. In the end you will stand alone and the pope will not be their with you and you will not be able to brag what A good chatholic you were defending a worldly political church that is in the world and of it.
I haven't scratched the surface yet.
God bless
Hello mclees8,
(quote)
I haven't scratched the surface yet>
(end of quote)
Well, I took a day off yesterday, so I'm well rested. One of the biggest problems you are having with the Roman Catholic Church is the requirement for obedience. One God, one Son, one Spirit, one Church. Christ did not create a fragmented Protestant Church. That was a creation of man. For almost 1600 years there was only one Church. Not until several members of the Catholic clergy (Luther, Calvin, etc) began to preach heresies in contempt to the Pope did the Protestant reformation begin.
The most important point for you to understand is that obedience to the Church IS obedience to God. Read 1 Timothy 3:15
"But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth." 1 Timothy 3:15
Pay attention to the fact that Paul calls the Catholic Church the pillar and foundation of truth. For you to resist the Catholic Church is to resist truth. When you interpret the scripture outside the Catholic Church teaching, you are setting yourself up for heresies.
Christian unity under one church is never what Jesus intended...
Not Peace but Division
49"I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! 50But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is completed! 51Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. 53They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law."
He came to cause division... but you fight against it... why?
: Tantor Thu Oct 08, 2009 - 11:48:33
Christian unity under one church is never what Jesus intended...
Not Peace but Division
49"I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! 50But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is completed! 51Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. 53They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law."
He came to cause division... but you fight against it... why?
Hello Tandor,
Luke 12: 49 - 53 is slightly off topic, but if you feel that those verses apply to authority we will look at them. First, lets not take those verses out of text. They are the words of Jesus as he foretold the opposition to the Gospel. Jesus was not talking about the Protestant reformation that took place 1600 years later. So, those verses cannot be used to justify the contempt for the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church that the Protestant reformation brought into the Christian Faith.
There is one area where maybe we can apply those verses, because the Mass is actually the Gospel. Every word of the original Mass and the original Gospels were one in the same, and still are one in the same. This where Protestants were taught lies and think that the King James Version somehow dropped from heaven direct into their hands. It didn't. The King James Bible is in fact the Mass of the Roman Catholic Church. So, where are those verses in relation to the authority of the Pope we have today. Jesus foretold the opposition from the Protestants to the Gospel that we see nowadays. The authority of Pope is the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Thus we have seen that Luke 12 can not be used to justify the Protestant reformation, but instead may have foretold the opposition that the Protestants have towards the Gospel. In that they do things today in contempt to the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church.
: mclees8 Thu Oct 08, 2009 - 10:43:47
Yes I knew this was what you wanted to drive home to me . The primacy of
Peter and the justification of the papacy through his authority Even
thought you said the catholic church. It seems that it always boils down to
this. To justify the unjustifiable.
But it is not unjustifiable. Besides this is not justifying, this is giving support for a doctrine. And the support we are giving are all in the bible.
Well I have been at this for a long time and I did not start just yesterday. I am not trying to force anything here just present the truth as I see it.
THAT'S GOOD.
Do you believe Peter became an example of Christ and that he knew all thatJesus taught. True Peter messed up when he fell into the trap of Jewish
circumcision . But truly I believe he understood all that Jesus taught
concerning walking in the spirit and displaying Christ likeness don't you
think. After all he is the RCC foundational rock.
And this is the whole point of the matter. Peter is probably an illiterate
hot headed fisherman with great failings (denying christ,cutting off the
servants ears,etc) and yet, Crist chose him. You cannot deny the fact that Christ CHOSE him.
That is why we need to keep going back to to the WILL of God. What has God
WILLED as written in the bible? Isn't it that He WILLED to choose Peter and He WILLED to build a (one) Church?
You gave me an honest answer when you said you could not see Peter sitting in grandeur on a throne with lavish vestments and hats. Or even the other
apostles bowing at his feet whom were all given the same authority.
But that is all beside the point. The bowing is just a sign of respect nothing more.
Oh yes even Paul who was not one of the twelve yet it was Paul that had to challenge and correct Peter.
And isn't that a glaring fact. Paul was not one of the twelve, because God
willed that he not be one of the twelve. God has very specific purposes. So
again here it comes down to what has God WILLED.
Also it was James who headed the Jerusalem church.
But that is neither here nor there. Jesus did not say to James, you are rock
and upon this rock I will build my Church. Jesus did not say to James, I
have prayed for you. Jesus did not say to James feed my lamb, feed my sheep
Please remember I apply common sense along with what we learn from the New testament and the things Jesus taught about selflessness and humility.
And that is what i have applied in what i have written above. It is common
sense to regard someone as having a primacy over others when the Son of God,
yes God Himself, keeps singling him out.
This is not what we see in the papacy after the bishops of Rome used fraud to get their power as the political religious authority of the empire.
Here you have to give factual support. You cannot just throw generalizations
without backing them up with facts. [/quote]
True there has been corruption in the Church, but this has nothing to do
with the fact that Christ chose to structure the church this way, that
someone has authority.
These are facts and should speak volumes yet the argument never changes.
Sorry but you have not supplied any facts. It would be good if you could do though.
It's still the same all primacy of Peter to justify a papacy that Christ
never ordained.
Sorry but as I have shown above, Christ willed it this way, as is written in
the Bible.
This may take a little writing here
So you are all hung up on justifying an authority that lost its sight and
was no longer led of the spirit but self centered wisdom of men that were
carnal as the day is long.
Again, these are just assertions without any factual or Biblical support. True they
have erred. You must make a distinction between doctrine and practice.
Yes it is Christ up front but it is rotten on the inside.
If Christ is at front, then Christ is in the inside as well. Christ chose
sinful men. That was Christ's choice. Who you are angry with is Christ (and not the Church) for chosing sinful men to be His apostles. Christ chose a man who He knew would deny him. But the point is Christ chose him. It seems to me you have a problem with God's choices.
This of course will take some time but I have some when I can sit down at mycomputer a while. The fifth century Bishops were hungry for power and
authority.
PROBABLY. But please give specifics.
Yes it is granted that we respect and follow authority in all matters living
examples of Christ, but Jesus said to respect the hypocritical Pharisees
also. So we are subject to all in authority over us. But he said not to be
as the Pharisees were.
He said not to act as they acted but to follow what they taught. So here we
have a very clear teaching from Christ which is analogous to what we are
discussing. If you are to follow that line of thought, Christ is tellig you,
do not behave in the same way as the bad Popes and bad bishops, but follow what they teach. So you are actually being told to follow their teaching but
not their evil behaviour.
What did he say about them. They were white washed tombs. And so it was with the corrupt Bishops of Rome who flaunted their authority and abused it.
They except and do all that Jesus taught not to be.
And yet Jesus told us to follow them.
Also remember it was corruption of the popes that caused the reformation in the first place. So time an time again Catholics dogmatically justify!
Yes. And herein lies the problem. It was the behaviour and practice that needed to be changed, not the doctrine. This is the major error that the protestant rebellion made. The doctrine was good. If Luther had stuck to just calling the popes and bishops to task for their evil deeds, that would have been good. But no, because of his pride (that sin of adam that caused the fall), he (singly) decided that he knew better than all the other men that went before him and came up with a whole new set of doctrines. That is the height of pride. And pride goes before a fall.
what is not justified because you are hung up on the authority of an
institution and its hierarchy.
i have supported my claims from the Bible and with rational arguments.
So what is really important. It is knowing Christ and becoming personally
more like Him everyday as the Holy Spirit guides and teaches us.
Yes. That is true. But if you know Christ, then you know that He built a church; tat he instituted the sacraments. You cannot sever Christ from his church.
You have to take the WHOLE CHRIST, not just the bits that suit your own preconceived theology.
You see it isn't the Bible that becomes worldly and corrupt but men.
And I never said otherwise. But based purely on this discussion, you seem to evade parts of the Bible that do not agree with what you have chosen to believe.
Are you getting it yet? We all have been given power over Satan and his works. Christ's righteousness prevails over evil every time.
Yes, Christ prevails over Satan all the time. But it doesn't mean that YOU prevail over Satan all the time.
Do we need good teachers? Absolutely but be sure you glorify the one who is to be glorified in your own personal walk. As it says, we must all work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. In the end you will stand alone and the pope will not be their with you
Oh No. I will not stand alone. The pope and the saints will always be with me. Why, we all form part of the Body of Christ, the Communion of Saints. And the Pope and the entire Body of Christ prays for me as I pray for them. No, we do not stand alone. It is sad that you do.
and you will not be able to brag what A good chatholic you were defending a worldly political church that is in the world and of
it.
Have no intention of bragging. I am not defending a worldly political Church. I am defending the Church that Christ built here on earth. That Church that is His Body. Your church maybe a worldly one, but the Catholic church is not. She is divine because Christ Her Head is Divine.
I haven't scratched the surface yet.
Look forward to when you do.
Addressing Magnificat
Im sorry I just assume you knew. It is a fact the the fifth century Bishops of Rome lied and committed fraud to get their power and seat. Here is a history Leseon i came across while researching . i don't expect it will sway you but it is informative. the clincher is that it is true and can be found in your own Catholic Encyclopedia. (the Donations of caonstantine were found to be frauds but to late to change anyhting. they got what they wanted anyway.
Again it may not impress you but at least you will be informed. since the fraud is true I can only assume John did his homework well. I will address the Political issue next but it is a subject by itself
The Fraudulent Papacy - A History Lesson The Fallacy of Catholicism's Papacy, Part II JOHN SCHROEDER Contender Ministries Posted: September 5, 2003 As a 4-year-old child in a family of devout Roman Catholics, I could recite by heart Matthew 16:18 and 19 long before I could read or write. On cue, when prompted by parent or sibling, I would emote as follows: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and what- soever thou shalt bind upon earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth shall be loosed in heaven.
mclees8-
That last post of yours is really over the top. Apparently, when you look back at the 2,000 year history of the Roman Catholic Church you see all the dirt? Maybe it would be easier for you to look forward with Neale Walsch and his New Age theology? According to him our greatest spiritual challenge of the future is God? Neale Walsch who was brought up as Roman Catholic, but switched his perspective to the New Spirituality claims that life is the process of awakening. His books are on the best seller list. And of course, the Catholics wont touch that stuff with a ten foot pole, but I have listened to sermons at Assembly of God churches that quoted Walsh word for word. My wife didn't believe me until I read to her out of one of Walsch's books at Barns & Noble.
: banished Tue Oct 13, 2009 - 22:28:34
mclees8-
That last post of yours is really over the top. Apparently, when you look back at the 2,000 year history of the Roman Catholic Church you see all the dirt? Maybe it would be easier for you to look forward with Neale Walsch and his New Age theology? According to him our greatest spiritual challenge of the future is God? Neale Walsch who was brought up as Roman Catholic, but switched his perspective to the New Spirituality claims that life is the process of awakening. His books are on the best seller list. And of course, the Catholics wont touch that stuff with a ten foot pole, but I have listened to sermons at Assembly of God churches that quoted Walsh word for word. My wife didn't believe me until I read to her out of one of Walsch's books at Barns & Noble.
Dear banised history is a teacher and reveals our future. I am not looking to any man who has some new Ideal. Our present is Christ and our Future is Christ . he is the only Ideal I need.
Our authority is from God and the word.
What you are talking about is confussion and that is from Satan.
Look how confussed the Catholic church is :)
: mclees8 Wed Oct 14, 2009 - 06:45:14
: banished Tue Oct 13, 2009 - 22:28:34
mclees8-
That last post of yours is really over the top. Apparently, when you look back at the 2,000 year history of the Roman Catholic Church you see all the dirt? Maybe it would be easier for you to look forward with Neale Walsch and his New Age theology? According to him our greatest spiritual challenge of the future is God? Neale Walsch who was brought up as Roman Catholic, but switched his perspective to the New Spirituality claims that life is the process of awakening. His books are on the best seller list. And of course, the Catholics wont touch that stuff with a ten foot pole, but I have listened to sermons at Assembly of God churches that quoted Walsh word for word. My wife didn't believe me until I read to her out of one of Walsch's books at Barns & Noble.
Dear banised history is a teacher and reveals our future. I am not looking to any man who has some new Ideal. Our present is Christ and our Future is Christ . he is the only Ideal I need.
mclees8,
It's not as simple as, "history is a teacher and reveals our future". If you were a Catholic at one time you should know that St Francis taught that when we look out our window we see a reflection of oneself. No modern Protestant or Secular teacher has been able to change perception into anything other than what St Francis taught. So, when we look at the 2,000 year history of the Roman Catholic Church and only see the dirt, we must ask ourselves why we don't see the good? Basically, it's unforgiven sin that dwells inside our hearts that makes us hostile toward our family members, and also makes us see bad when we look out our window. If you take the Protestant route, only extreme faith in the blood of Christ to pay for our sins will make things look good again. And of course, the Catholics have their sins absolved by a priest who received his Holy Orders directly in succession from St Peter. Remember, Jesus gave the key to Peter, so if you go it alone it will require extreme faith in Christ to have a clean spirit like the Catholics do. Some Protestants do have the faith required to be nice, and it bubbles out all over them. Joel Osteen is a good example.
I Have to modify this message, becasue I forgot to mention that I have spent a lot of time down in Southern Oregon where Welsch was homeless and had been in contact with AG churches along Highway 199. They even named a town, "Wonder, Oregon", becasue of all the spiritual happening.
: Corbley Wed Oct 14, 2009 - 08:33:06
Our authority is from God and the word.
What you are talking about is confussion and that is from Satan.
Look how confussed the Catholic church is :)
Yes he is confusion and the master of it. Look at How the church is so divided today and i am talking about Christianity as a whole. See what he has done to it. I left the valley of confusion some time back. Don't get me wrong I am not an island and still need fellowship but first of all I need fellowship with my Lord through the Hole Spirit.
b
: mclees8 Wed Oct 14, 2009 - 09:55:37
: Corbley Wed Oct 14, 2009 - 08:33:06
Our authority is from God and the word.
What you are talking about is confussion and that is from Satan.
Look how confussed the Catholic church is :)
Yes he is confusion and the master of it. Look at How the church is so divided today and i am talking about Christianity as a whole. See what he has done to it. I left the valley of confusion some time back. Don't get me wrong I am not an island and still need fellowship but first of all I need fellowship with my Lord through the Hole Spirit.
Perception is every thing!
Jesus Christ established a Church—not a book—to be the Foundation of the Christian faith
(Luke 20:29-32; Matt. 10:40; 28:18-20).
The Church is Still the 'Pillar and Bulwark of the Truth' -Paul, 1st Timothy 3
Jesus entrusted Peter with his flock, making him too a Good Shepherd (John 21:15-17).
- After his conversion Paul went to see Peter, the chief apostle (Gal. 1:18).
And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Peter: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.'
Peter was First Patriarch of Antioch then Founded Church of Rome.
(Matt. 16:18)
Protestant scholar J. N. D. Kelly "Peter spent his closing years in Rome'
: banished Thu Oct 15, 2009 - 10:27:03
b: mclees8 Wed Oct 14, 2009 - 09:55:37
: Corbley Wed Oct 14, 2009 - 08:33:06
Our authority is from God and the word.
What you are talking about is confussion and that is from Satan.
Look how confussed the Catholic church is :)
Yes he is confusion and the master of it. Look at How the church is so divided today and i am talking about Christianity as a whole. See what he has done to it. I left the valley of confusion some time back. Don't get me wrong I am not an island and still need fellowship but first of all I need fellowship with my Lord through the Hole Spirit.
Perception is every thing!
Good morning mclees8,
Lets face it, the Bible gives us plenty of opportunity to get confused, especially when the Apostle Peter has been given two nicknames, the Greek name Cephas and Aramaic name Kepha. Paul uses the Aramaic name rather than the Greek name for Simon Peter when he writes to the churchs in Galatia and Corinth. Why didn't Paul use the Greek nickname Cephas when I believe Greek was the native language in Galata and Corinth?
Also, according to some Church Fathers, such as Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius, there were two people named Cephas: one was Apostle Simon Peter, and the other was one of Jesus' Seventy Apostles. Clement goes further to say it was Cephas of the Seventy who was condemned by Paul in Galatians 2 for not eating with the Gentiles.
It's amazing what we can find at The Free Internet Encyclopedia Wikipedia.
The bottom line: Christ spoke Aramaic and nicknamed Simon "Kepha". Christ did not speak Greek. Peter IS "the rock", the earthly head of Christ's Church as Christ Himself states in Matthew 16.
: banished Fri Oct 16, 2009 - 10:20:36
: banished Thu Oct 15, 2009 - 10:27:03
b: mclees8 Wed Oct 14, 2009 - 09:55:37
: Corbley Wed Oct 14, 2009 - 08:33:06
Our authority is from God and the word.
What you are talking about is confussion and that is from Satan.
Look how confussed the Catholic church is :)
Yes he is confusion and the master of it. Look at How the church is so divided today and i am talking about Christianity as a whole. See what he has done to it. I left the valley of confusion some time back. Don't get me wrong I am not an island and still need fellowship but first of all I need fellowship with my Lord through the Hole Spirit.
Perception is every thing!
Good morning mclees8,
Lets face it, the Bible gives us plenty of opportunity to get confused, especially when the Apostle Peter has been given two nicknames, the Greek name Cephas and Aramaic name Kepha. Paul uses the Aramaic name rather than the Greek name for Simon Peter when he writes to the churchs in Galatia and Corinth. Why didn't Paul use the Greek nickname Cephas when I believe Greek was the native language in Galata and Corinth?
Also, according to some Church Fathers, such as Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius, there were two people named Cephas: one was Apostle Simon Peter, and the other was one of Jesus' Seventy Apostles. Clement goes further to say it was Cephas of the Seventy who was condemned by Paul in Galatians 2 for not eating with the Gentiles.
It's amazing what we can find at The Free Internet Encyclopedia Wikipedia.
The bottom line: Christ spoke Aramaic and nicknamed Simon "Kepha". Christ did not speak Greek. Peter IS "the rock", the earthly head of Christ's Church as Christ Himself states in Matthew 16.
You would think that if Peter is the "rock" that you seem to think he is, then Paul in all of his writings to the various churches would have acknowledge that. But in fact Paul never even alludes to such a situation in any of his letters. He does speak about the foundation of the cdhurch. Peter is not even mentioned there except by inclusion as one of the "apostles and prophets". He does point out it is Christ who is the cornerstone.
No, Matthew 16 gives us a pretty clear picture of just what the church is really built upon. It is built upon the truth of Jesus Christ as the Son of the living God, as Peter proclaimed.
Though I may not have any proof, it is a bit ... odd to think that Jesus couldn't speak any language he wanted to. Never thought of that before. Perhaps he did not, could not speak greek, english, spanish, arabic, swahili, etc.
: Jimmy Fri Oct 16, 2009 - 10:56:26
: banished Fri Oct 16, 2009 - 10:20:36
: banished Thu Oct 15, 2009 - 10:27:03
b: mclees8 Wed Oct 14, 2009 - 09:55:37
: Corbley Wed Oct 14, 2009 - 08:33:06
Our authority is from God and the word.
What you are talking about is confussion and that is from Satan.
Look how confussed the Catholic church is :)
Yes he is confusion and the master of it. Look at How the church is so divided today and i am talking about Christianity as a whole. See what he has done to it. I left the valley of confusion some time back. Don't get me wrong I am not an island and still need fellowship but first of all I need fellowship with my Lord through the Hole Spirit.
Perception is every thing!
Good morning mclees8,
Lets face it, the Bible gives us plenty of opportunity to get confused, especially when the Apostle Peter has been given two nicknames, the Greek name Cephas and Aramaic name Kepha. Paul uses the Aramaic name rather than the Greek name for Simon Peter when he writes to the churchs in Galatia and Corinth. Why didn't Paul use the Greek nickname Cephas when I believe Greek was the native language in Galata and Corinth?
Also, according to some Church Fathers, such as Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius, there were two people named Cephas: one was Apostle Simon Peter, and the other was one of Jesus' Seventy Apostles. Clement goes further to say it was Cephas of the Seventy who was condemned by Paul in Galatians 2 for not eating with the Gentiles.
It's amazing what we can find at The Free Internet Encyclopedia Wikipedia.
The bottom line: Christ spoke Aramaic and nicknamed Simon "Kepha". Christ did not speak Greek. Peter IS "the rock", the earthly head of Christ's Church as Christ Himself states in Matthew 16.
You would think that if Peter is the "rock" that you seem to think he is, then Paul in all of his writings to the various churches would have acknowledge that. But in fact Paul never even alludes to such a situation in any of his letters. He does speak about the foundation of the cdhurch. Peter is not even mentioned there except by inclusion as one of the "apostles and prophets". He does point out it is Christ who is the cornerstone.
No, Matthew 16 gives us a pretty clear picture of just what the church is really built upon. It is built upon the truth of Jesus Christ as the Son of the living God, as Peter proclaimed.
Jimmy-
In Matthew 18:18 Jesus gave the key to Simon Peter the Rock of the Christian Church.
Now backing up Scripture with Scripture:
I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open." Isaiah 22:22
Jesus said, "The holy one, the true, who holds the key of David, who opens and no one shall close, who closes and no one shall open ......" Revelation 3:7
: banished Fri Oct 16, 2009 - 12:27:09
I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open." Isaiah 22:22
A better section of that passage is as follows, so you can take it in context better.
20 "In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. 21 I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. 22 I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. 23 I will drive him like a peg into a firm place; he will be a seat [a] of honor for the house of his father. 24 All the glory of his family will hang on him: its offspring and offshoots—all its lesser vessels, from the bowls to all the jars.
This could not be Peter in Rome.. no way, no how.
This is referring to the Messiah
: banished Fri Oct 16, 2009 - 12:27:09
Jesus said, "The holy one, the true, who holds the key of David, who opens and no one shall close, who closes and no one shall open ......" Revelation 3:7
Jesus as referring to himself.
A better look at that verse is.
7"To the angel of the church in Philadelphia write:
These are the words of him who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. 8I know your deeds.
Where Jesus is dedicating what to write to the 7 churches.
And as we have instructed you before.. the correct reading of the passage in Matthew.. the 'this' refers to Peters proclamation of who Jesus was.. and it's this proclamation that Jesus is the Christ that Jesus is going to build his church on. This also follows along with the great commision to the ekklesia.. to go into the world and proclaim the Gospel.. that proclamation should be the corner stone of every christian.
I only pray that the Holy Spirit open your eyes to the pagan traditions of your church.. and it's insatiable lust for power.
: banished Fri Oct 16, 2009 - 12:27:09
: Jimmy Fri Oct 16, 2009 - 10:56:26
: banished Fri Oct 16, 2009 - 10:20:36
: banished Thu Oct 15, 2009 - 10:27:03
b: mclees8 Wed Oct 14, 2009 - 09:55:37
: Corbley Wed Oct 14, 2009 - 08:33:06
Our authority is from God and the word.
What you are talking about is confussion and that is from Satan.
Look how confussed the Catholic church is :)
Yes he is confusion and the master of it. Look at How the church is so divided today and i am talking about Christianity as a whole. See what he has done to it. I left the valley of confusion some time back. Don't get me wrong I am not an island and still need fellowship but first of all I need fellowship with my Lord through the Hole Spirit.
Perception is every thing!
Good morning mclees8,
Lets face it, the Bible gives us plenty of opportunity to get confused, especially when the Apostle Peter has been given two nicknames, the Greek name Cephas and Aramaic name Kepha. Paul uses the Aramaic name rather than the Greek name for Simon Peter when he writes to the churchs in Galatia and Corinth. Why didn't Paul use the Greek nickname Cephas when I believe Greek was the native language in Galata and Corinth?
Also, according to some Church Fathers, such as Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius, there were two people named Cephas: one was Apostle Simon Peter, and the other was one of Jesus' Seventy Apostles. Clement goes further to say it was Cephas of the Seventy who was condemned by Paul in Galatians 2 for not eating with the Gentiles.
It's amazing what we can find at The Free Internet Encyclopedia Wikipedia.
The bottom line: Christ spoke Aramaic and nicknamed Simon "Kepha". Christ did not speak Greek. Peter IS "the rock", the earthly head of Christ's Church as Christ Himself states in Matthew 16.
You would think that if Peter is the "rock" that you seem to think he is, then Paul in all of his writings to the various churches would have acknowledge that. But in fact Paul never even alludes to such a situation in any of his letters. He does speak about the foundation of the cdhurch. Peter is not even mentioned there except by inclusion as one of the "apostles and prophets". He does point out it is Christ who is the cornerstone.
No, Matthew 16 gives us a pretty clear picture of just what the church is really built upon. It is built upon the truth of Jesus Christ as the Son of the living God, as Peter proclaimed.
Jimmy-
In Matthew 18:18 Jesus gave the key to Simon Peter the Rock of the Christian Church.
And Peter used those keys on the day of Pentecost for the Jews (Acts 2) and again for the Gentiles (Acts 10). The door was opened never to be shut, and no other keys have ever been required.
: banished Fri Oct 16, 2009 - 12:27:09
Now backing up Scripture with Scripture:
I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open." Isaiah 22:22
Jesus said, "The holy one, the true, who holds the key of David, who opens and no one shall close, who closes and no one shall open ......" Revelation 3:7
Rev 3:7 is speaking of Jesus Himself. And I couldn't be positive, but I believe that Isaiah 22:22, if prophetic, is speaking of Jesus as well.
Tantor sir:
If you came over here to the Catholic section to instruct, like you just said you did, then you are wasting your time. There isn't a Catholic in this World who would let you instruct them in spiritual matters. Remember, 1 John: 27 clearly states that we need not that any man teach you; but as the same anointing teacheth you all things... That was out of your Protestant Bible. Anyway, you really jumped the gun, because I didn't say that Isaiah 22 and Revelation 3 was talking about Peter. I was drawing correlation between the events to show that holding the Key was a Jewish tradition that went along well with Jesus giving the Key to Peter. At least Jimmy was able to match up the Key that Jesus gave to Peter with Pentecost (Acts 2) and for the Gentiles (Acts 10).
Tantor, let me tell you a little about myself. I am excommunicated because after being widowed from my first wife I married my second wife in a Born Again Church. I broke the canon law, so I don't have anyone to blame but myself. However, during my Internet adventures I have bumped into quite a few divorced Catholic who really have a grudge against the Church for excommunicating them. Well, to make a long story short, that is the path the the Lord is leading down. I guess the Protestants call it a, "Calling"? Maybe I am just a troll for divorced Catholics? What ever it is, I'm having a lot of fun.
We need not that anyone should teach us.
: zoonance Fri Oct 16, 2009 - 12:20:58
Though I may not have any proof, it is a bit ... odd to think that Jesus couldn't speak any language he wanted to. Never thought of that before. Perhaps he did not, could not speak greek, english, spanish, arabic, swahili, etc.
Hello zoonance,
A lot of things don't add up, but that's where faith comes in, I guess? In fact, the Protestants have a little to much faith, if you ask me. One of the reasons the Catholics stuck with the Pope for 2,000 years is because from the very beginning there was diversity of theology, Everyone wanted to do it their own way, so the Church needed a Pope. Kind of like General Motors or any large corporation trying to operate without a CEO. The Catholics have the advantage of having everyone speak Latin, but large multinational companies not only have language problems, but also cultural problems. Different gestures mean different things in different parts of the World. Especially when it comes to women, and at the dinner table.
For what it's all worth,
I had a similar experience to what was first mentioned in this thread. I went to alot of "Bible Only" churches initially. And may I firstly say I met and still know alot of beautiful and faith filled Christians. However each church read the same scriptures differently. I began to wonder in regards to Our Lord's promise about leading His Church in the ways of all truth.
Either God has alot and different truths,.........or THE truth, was somewhere else.
The oldest known picture of the Blessed Virgin is in the catacombs in Rome. 2nd century!!!
We are talking within 100 yrs of Our Lord.
These I realised were the first Christians. These I realised had a greater hold on THE truth, than any self enterpreted, 2009 "Non Denominational" "Bible Only" Christians.
They venerated the Blessed Virgin ( see above ), they believed in the Holy Eucharist ( St Ignatius approx 97AD ) , the Bible itself shows us they were led by Apostles, the head of whom was clearly Peter ( One President leading a gov't of 12 )
Look as I may, there was only one church that fit that description. It was the oldest, it traced a direct line straight back to Peter, and it was the Church that decided upon, and laid down was in the very Bible that Protestant Christians now hold.
The more I learned, the more I studied, the more I prayed, I became convinced the Holy Catholic Church, complete with the Blessed Virgin, Popes, Masses, confession, the Eucharist etc etc, was indeed The Church, and taught THE TRUTH.
Peace through Our Lord
: banished Fri Oct 16, 2009 - 17:38:43
: zoonance Fri Oct 16, 2009 - 12:20:58
Though I may not have any proof, it is a bit ... odd to think that Jesus couldn't speak any language he wanted to. Never thought of that before. Perhaps he did not, could not speak greek, english, spanish, arabic, swahili, etc.
Hello zoonance,
A lot of things don't add up, but that's where faith comes in, I guess? In fact, the Protestants have a little to much faith, if you ask me. One of the reasons the Catholics stuck with the Pope for 2,000 years is because from the very beginning there was diversity of theology, Everyone wanted to do it their own way, so the Church needed a Pope. Kind of like General Motors or any large corporation trying to operate without a CEO. The Catholics have the advantage of having everyone speak Latin, but large multinational companies not only have language problems, but also cultural problems. Different gestures mean different things in different parts of the World. Especially when it comes to women, and at the dinner table.
So let me ask you who keeps the pope straight. Don't tell me all the popes were alike or even taught the same way. Popes are men also. So in the end what will we be judged by ultimately. I don't think God has many truths but man does. What kept jsus straight when he was tempted in the wilderness. Did he not say every time it is written. Was he not the word of God in the flesh.
For the word oof God is quick and powerful,and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and the marrow,and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart
God bless
In the end it will be the word of God that will be our indictment.
: Fallen Knight Fri Oct 16, 2009 - 21:23:41
For what it's all worth,
I had a similar experience to what was first mentioned in this thread. I went to alot of "Bible Only" churches initially. And may I firstly say I met and still know alot of beautiful and faith filled Christians. However each church read the same scriptures differently. I began to wonder in regards to Our Lord's promise about leading His Church in the ways of all truth.
Either God has alot and different truths,.........or THE truth, was somewhere else.
The oldest known picture of the Blessed Virgin is in the catacombs in Rome. 2nd century!!!
We are talking within 100 yrs of Our Lord.
These I realised were the first Christians. These I realised had a greater hold on THE truth, than any self enterpreted, 2009 "Non Denominational" "Bible Only" Christians.
They venerated the Blessed Virgin ( see above ), they believed in the Holy Eucharist ( St Ignatius approx 97AD ) , the Bible itself shows us they were led by Apostles, the head of whom was clearly Peter ( One President leading a gov't of 12 )
Look as I may, there was only one church that fit that description. It was the oldest, it traced a direct line straight back to Peter, and it was the Church that decided upon, and laid down was in the very Bible that Protestant Christians now hold.
The more I learned, the more I studied, the more I prayed, I became convinced the Holy Catholic Church, complete with the Blessed Virgin, Popes, Masses, confession, the Eucharist etc etc, was indeed The Church, and taught THE TRUTH.
Peace through Our Lord
You do realize that the Apostles were fighting heresy from day one... so I would not believe anything said by anyone other then the original 12.
So if they found a picture of Mary in dated to the 1st century.. I would see that as part of the heresy movement... same with writings about the Eucharist beyond what was written by the 12. Maybe the church you joined was the problem and not the solution?... that's the way I look at the RCC.. it was a heretical sect that pirated and piggy backed onto the teachings of the apostles, but twisted them they way they wanted.
What bothers me the most about the RCC is that Peter himself never wrote anything about how his successors would be picked or where the church should be founded.. instead, we have word of mouth by people who coveted what they saw as his debatable role as lead apostle and massaged history so they could take this power.
So their entire premise is based on hearsay... which would never hold up against any logical rule of evidence.
But then again, the RCC and other churches are 100% structured off of pagan traditions and are not in step with the concept of 'ekklesia' which is the term mistranslated into the word 'church' in western bibles.
Tantor,
It would be a lot easier if you would let the facts govern. We are talking about a Church that has stood for 2,000 years, and at present has 1.2 Billion members. It's estimated that the Mass is celebrated 200,000 times each day. Remember, the Catholic Mass is celebrated every day 365 days a year keeping the largest organization that has ever existed on this planet strictly disciplined is an enormous task. Even pagans, heathens, and World governments, respect the Pope. Only a Protestant in protest would question whether the Holy Spirit is guiding the Popes in this enormous task. And of course, if a Catholic is married in Church and receives the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony and divorces his wife without just cause for another woman, he is excommunicated. The rules are the rules, and divorced Catholics have no one to blame but themselves. The present 1.2 Billion members of the Catholic Church all have one thing in common, they did not dump their wife for a younger woman. Isn't that the real problem, both during the start of the reformation and on the present day internet fourms? Lets face it! That is the real problem here, isn't it? It always was the problem, and until the Holy Spirit tell the Pope to change Canon Law, it will remain Canon Law. Somethings are left up to God.
: banished Tue Oct 20, 2009 - 10:45:27
Tantor,
It would be a lot easier if you would let the facts govern. We are talking about a Church that has stood for 2,000 years, and at present has 1.2 Billion members. It's estimated that the Mass is celebrated 200,000 times each day. Remember, the Catholic Mass is celebrated every day 365 days a year keeping the largest organization that has ever existed on this planet strictly disciplined is an enormous task. Even pagans, heathens, and World governments, respect the Pope. Only a Protestant in protest would question whether the Holy Spirit is guiding the Popes in this enormous task. And of course, if a Catholic is married in Church and receives the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony and divorces his wife without just cause for another woman, he is excommunicated. The rules are the rules, and divorced Catholics have no one to blame but themselves. The present 1.2 Billion members of the Catholic Church all have one thing in common, they did not dump their wife for a younger woman. Isn't that the real problem, both during the start of the reformation and on the present day internet fourms? Lets face it! That is the real problem here, isn't it? It always was the problem, and until the Holy Spirit tell the Pope to change Canon Law, it will remain Canon Law. Somethings are left up to God.
Sorry but he RCC was not the church for 2000 years. the papacy did not become the head of Christianity until after 500 AD and then was illegitimately obtained. They ruled religiously and Politically the whole Empire and conquest of South America and Mexico added to the church. The population was raised up Catholic so it is little wonder that he RCC is the worlds largest church, not because it was the Lord but religious political conquest. Today the church still holds captive many because the RCC is all they have ever known and Have also more than likely been intimidated by the church when that are led to believe the there is no salvation outside the RCC. So there are many reasons why the RCC remains the largest church. Salvation never comes by power and conquest but by personal confession of faith in Christ. That is not to say that Catholics are not saved,
You should reason things out instead of blindly being told things that only sound right.
God bless.
: banished Tue Oct 20, 2009 - 10:45:27
Tantor,
It would be a lot easier if you would let the facts govern. We are talking about a Church that has stood for 2,000 years, and at present has 1.2 Billion members. It's estimated that the Mass is celebrated 200,000 times each day. Remember, the Catholic Mass is celebrated every day 365 days a year keeping the largest organization that has ever existed on this planet strictly disciplined is an enormous task. Even pagans, heathens, and World governments, respect the Pope. Only a Protestant in protest would question whether the Holy Spirit is guiding the Popes in this enormous task. And of course, if a Catholic is married in Church and receives the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony and divorces his wife without just cause for another woman, he is excommunicated. The rules are the rules, and divorced Catholics have no one to blame but themselves. The present 1.2 Billion members of the Catholic Church all have one thing in common, they did not dump their wife for a younger woman. Isn't that the real problem, both during the start of the reformation and on the present day internet fourms? Lets face it! That is the real problem here, isn't it? It always was the problem, and until the Holy Spirit tell the Pope to change Canon Law, it will remain Canon Law. Somethings are left up to God.
You keep stating things as 'facts' when we have demonstrated that they arent... time and time again... but like the borg you keep coming back and stating them again as facts.
The RCC has NOT stood for 2000 years.. that is an undeniable fact.. all common sense says it started in 1054 when it unilaterally pulled a coop d'etat and excommunicated it's eastern orthodox brothers.
If anything, the Eastern Orthodox churches have a much richer apostolic tradition and better claim to be the 'one church' if that is so important to you.
As far as comparing protestants to 'divorcing' the church... even God divorced Israel after much suffering for many years.. and maybe the protestant reformation was God doing the exact same thing to your catholic church.. the Holy Spirit moved on.
Besides, there is no mention of a single 'church' in all of scriptures... there is a mention of a single ekklesia (a loose assembly called out by God).. but the church as we know it is found no where in the bible. The entire concept of church is a pagan overlay on scripture.
Basically, you have no logical or historical basis to state any of what you said as fact... unless you believe the RCC's sanitized for their protection version of history.
: Tantor Tue Oct 20, 2009 - 15:27:45
: banished Tue Oct 20, 2009 - 10:45:27
Tantor,
It would be a lot easier if you would let the facts govern. We are talking about a Church that has stood for 2,000 years, and at present has 1.2 Billion members. It's estimated that the Mass is celebrated 200,000 times each day. Remember, the Catholic Mass is celebrated every day 365 days a year keeping the largest organization that has ever existed on this planet strictly disciplined is an enormous task. Even pagans, heathens, and World governments, respect the Pope. Only a Protestant in protest would question whether the Holy Spirit is guiding the Popes in this enormous task. And of course, if a Catholic is married in Church and receives the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony and divorces his wife without just cause for another woman, he is excommunicated. The rules are the rules, and divorced Catholics have no one to blame but themselves. The present 1.2 Billion members of the Catholic Church all have one thing in common, they did not dump their wife for a younger woman. Isn't that the real problem, both during the start of the reformation and on the present day internet fourms? Lets face it! That is the real problem here, isn't it? It always was the problem, and until the Holy Spirit tell the Pope to change Canon Law, it will remain Canon Law. Somethings are left up to God.
The RCC has NOT stood for 2000 years.. that is an undeniable fact.. all common sense says it started in 1054 when it unilaterally pulled a coop d'etat and excommunicated it's eastern orthodox brothers.
Tantor,
your own words prove that the Catholic Church has always been there for 2,000 years. How could the Catholic Church excommunicate their Eastern Orthodox brothers if they weren't there to excommunicate them? Think about what you are saying. I would like to remind you that I don't keep coming back like you claim. This is the Catholic Section of the forum and I am a Catholic, so I am where I belong. You are the one who keeps coming back, and I think it would be interesting to hear why. Something must be bothering you. I can tell.
Dear Mclees,
In ref to your : "Sorry but he RCC was not the church for 2000 years. the papacy did not become the head of Christianity until after 500 AD and then was illegitimately obtained. They ruled religiously and Politically the whole Empire and conquest of South America and Mexico added to the church."
One thing I hate more than any other is an uneducated, fool of a Protestant who posts absolute lies and falsims under the name of Christian Truth.
Beware my friend because spreading such lies under Christ's name will lead you to Hell
May I suggest you first go away and actually study some truth before claiming you speak it.
It is rare that I read such dribble as what you have posted above!
I'll give you your chance however. Please provide us with all your "spectacular proofs" of this statement.
I so look forward to ripping your claims apart on this spread. Not because I am a bad person. Simply because people like you who spread this sort of trash need to be shut down.
No peace to liar
: Fallen Knight Wed Oct 21, 2009 - 01:17:40
Dear Mclees,
In ref to your : "Sorry but he RCC was not the church for 2000 years. the papacy did not become the head of Christianity until after 500 AD and then was illegitimately obtained. They ruled religiously and Politically the whole Empire and conquest of South America and Mexico added to the church."
One thing I hate more than any other is an uneducated, fool of a Protestant who posts absolute lies and falsims under the name of Christian Truth.
Beware my friend because spreading such lies under Christ's name will lead you to Hell
May I suggest you first go away and actually study some truth before claiming you speak it.
It is rare that I read such dribble as what you have posted above!
I'll give you your chance however. Please provide us with all your "spectacular proofs" of this statement.
I so look forward to ripping your claims apart on this spread. Not because I am a bad person. Simply because people like you who spread this sort of trash need to be shut down.
No peace to liar
did not Spain and Portugal go into South America and Mexico. Why do the countries predominately speak Spanish. I will get back to you
: mclees8 Wed Oct 21, 2009 - 08:11:23
: Fallen Knight Wed Oct 21, 2009 - 01:17:40
Dear Mclees,
In ref to your : "Sorry but he RCC was not the church for 2000 years. the papacy did not become the head of Christianity until after 500 AD and then was illegitimately obtained. They ruled religiously and Politically the whole Empire and conquest of South America and Mexico added to the church."
One thing I hate more than any other is an uneducated, fool of a Protestant who posts absolute lies and falsims under the name of Christian Truth.
Beware my friend because spreading such lies under Christ's name will lead you to Hell
May I suggest you first go away and actually study some truth before claiming you speak it.
It is rare that I read such dribble as what you have posted above!
I'll give you your chance however. Please provide us with all your "spectacular proofs" of this statement.
I so look forward to ripping your claims apart on this spread. Not because I am a bad person. Simply because people like you who spread this sort of trash need to be shut down.
No peace to liar
did not Spain and Portugal go into South America and Mexico. Why do the countries predominately speak Spanish. I will get back to you
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The Spanish colonization of the Americas was the settlement and political rule over much of the western hemisphere which was initiated by the Spanish conquistadors and fought mostly by their native allies. Beginning with the arrival of Christopher Columbus in 1492, over three centuries the Spanish Empire expanded from early small settlements in the Caribbean to include Central America, most of South America, Mexico, what today is Southwestern United States, the Pacific and Caribbean coasts of North America, reaching Alaska[1]. At the beginning of the 19th century, the Spanish possessions in America began a series of independence movements, which culminated in Spain's loss of all of its colonies on the mainland of North, Central and South America by 1825. The remaining Spanish colonies of Cuba and Puerto Rico were occupied by the United States following the Spanish-American War (1898), ending Spanish rule in the Americas. The Spanish settled in many different places all over America.
: banished Tue Oct 20, 2009 - 23:12:50
Tantor,
your own words prove that the Catholic Church has always been there for 2,000 years. How could the Catholic Church excommunicate their Eastern Orthodox brothers if they weren't there to excommunicate them? Think about what you are saying. I would like to remind you that I don't keep coming back like you claim. This is the Catholic Section of the forum and I am a Catholic, so I am where I belong. You are the one who keeps coming back, and I think it would be interesting to hear why. Something must be bothering you. I can tell.
Much the same way that a state cannot leave the USA and claim sole ownership of the name USA.. That is exactly what the RCC did.. it left its brothers yet claimed to keep the family name. It does not compute.
: Fallen Knight Wed Oct 21, 2009 - 01:17:40
Dear Mclees,
In ref to your : "Sorry but he RCC was not the church for 2000 years. the papacy did not become the head of Christianity until after 500 AD and then was illegitimately obtained. They ruled religiously and Politically the whole Empire and conquest of South America and Mexico added to the church."
One thing I hate more than any other is an uneducated, fool of a Protestant who posts absolute lies and falsims under the name of Christian Truth.
Beware my friend because spreading such lies under Christ's name will lead you to Hell
May I suggest you first go away and actually study some truth before claiming you speak it.
It is rare that I read such dribble as what you have posted above!
I'll give you your chance however. Please provide us with all your "spectacular proofs" of this statement.
I so look forward to ripping your claims apart on this spread. Not because I am a bad person. Simply because people like you who spread this sort of trash need to be shut down.
No peace to liar
Thanks Fallen Knight, that was well said. I already have had 2 warnings from the moderators for nailing these guys, so I must go easy. They come into this Section to nail the Holy Catholic Church, and when I call them the "Gates of Hell" they run to the moderators and complain.
The case of Napoleon is instructive.
"Drunk with power, Napoleon seized Rome in 1808, declaring himself the "successor of Charlemagne". He banished Cardinals and bishops, and carrying off Pope Pius VII, held him prisoner in Savona. Enemies of the Church exulted: "The Papacy is ended! The Emperor has devoured the Pope!" They forgot the divine promise to Peter: "The gates of hell shall not prevail!"; on that promise was based the ancient saying: "Who eats of the Pope dies like a beast." On the same day that Napoleon died in exile at St. Helena, Pope Pius VII was celebrating his own feast day in Rome."
"It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God" (Heb. 10:31).
: banished Wed Oct 21, 2009 - 09:06:58
: Fallen Knight Wed Oct 21, 2009 - 01:17:40
Dear Mclees,
In ref to your : "Sorry but he RCC was not the church for 2000 years. the papacy did not become the head of Christianity until after 500 AD and then was illegitimately obtained. They ruled religiously and Politically the whole Empire and conquest of South America and Mexico added to the church."
One thing I hate more than any other is an uneducated, fool of a Protestant who posts absolute lies and falsims under the name of Christian Truth.
Beware my friend because spreading such lies under Christ's name will lead you to Hell
May I suggest you first go away and actually study some truth before claiming you speak it.
It is rare that I read such dribble as what you have posted above!
I'll give you your chance however. Please provide us with all your "spectacular proofs" of this statement.
I so look forward to ripping your claims apart on this spread. Not because I am a bad person. Simply because people like you who spread this sort of trash need to be shut down.
No peace to liar
Thanks Fallen Knight, that was well said. I already have had 2 warnings from the moderators for nailing these guys, so I must go easy. They come into this Section to nail the Holy Catholic Church, and when I call them the "Gates of Hell" they run to the moderators and complain.
The case of Napoleon is instructive.
"Drunk with power, Napoleon seized Rome in 1808, declaring himself the "successor of Charlemagne". He banished Cardinals and bishops, and carrying off Pope Pius VII, held him prisoner in Savona. Enemies of the Church exulted: "The Papacy is ended! The Emperor has devoured the Pope!" They forgot the divine promise to Peter: "The gates of hell shall not prevail!"; on that promise was based the ancient saying: "Who eats of the Pope dies like a beast." On the same day that Napoleon died in exile at St. Helena, Pope Pius VII was celebrating his own feast day in Rome."
"It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God" (Heb. 10:31).
I beleive Knight was making a baseless statement that was not backed up about how the Americas were colonized by Spain and so the people were converted to Roman Catholism because of the age old papacy claim that Salvation was only through being Roman Catholic. A play on ignorance. We could do a little more research here if you like. but we we know the king and Queen of Spain were up to their eyeballs with the pope. If you don't think so just remember the Spanish inquisition. Yes that is why Mexico and South America became predominately Roman Catholic and still are today.
God bless
: mclees8 Wed Oct 21, 2009 - 09:45:18
: banished Wed Oct 21, 2009 - 09:06:58
: Fallen Knight Wed Oct 21, 2009 - 01:17:40
Dear Mclees,
In ref to your : "Sorry but he RCC was not the church for 2000 years. the papacy did not become the head of Christianity until after 500 AD and then was illegitimately obtained. They ruled religiously and Politically the whole Empire and conquest of South America and Mexico added to the church."
One thing I hate more than any other is an uneducated, fool of a Protestant who posts absolute lies and falsims under the name of Christian Truth.
Beware my friend because spreading such lies under Christ's name will lead you to Hell
May I suggest you first go away and actually study some truth before claiming you speak it.
It is rare that I read such dribble as what you have posted above!
I'll give you your chance however. Please provide us with all your "spectacular proofs" of this statement.
I so look forward to ripping your claims apart on this spread. Not because I am a bad person. Simply because people like you who spread this sort of trash need to be shut down.
No peace to liar
Thanks Fallen Knight, that was well said. I already have had 2 warnings from the moderators for nailing these guys, so I must go easy. They come into this Section to nail the Holy Catholic Church, and when I call them the "Gates of Hell" they run to the moderators and complain.
The case of Napoleon is instructive.
"Drunk with power, Napoleon seized Rome in 1808, declaring himself the "successor of Charlemagne". He banished Cardinals and bishops, and carrying off Pope Pius VII, held him prisoner in Savona. Enemies of the Church exulted: "The Papacy is ended! The Emperor has devoured the Pope!" They forgot the divine promise to Peter: "The gates of hell shall not prevail!"; on that promise was based the ancient saying: "Who eats of the Pope dies like a beast." On the same day that Napoleon died in exile at St. Helena, Pope Pius VII was celebrating his own feast day in Rome."
"It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God" (Heb. 10:31).
I believe Knight was making a baseless statement that was not backed up about how the Americas were colonized by Spain and so the people were converted to Roman Catholism because of the age old papacy claim that Salvation was only through being Roman Catholic. A play on ignorance. We could do a little more research here if you like. but we we know the king and Queen of Spain were up to their eyeballs with the pope. If you don't think so just remember the Spanish inquisition. Yes that is why Mexico and South America became predominately Roman Catholic and still are today.
God bless
Yes Napolion was drunk with power but the Papacy was drunk with it long before him.
Jesus nor his Gospel is about religious political power and never ever was. Face it they lost from the onset. The Holy Spirit is a gentlemen not forced religion that plays on ignorance. when will you guys ever wake up.
God bless
My Dear Mclees,
I have walked away for a few days to give you a fair chance at supporting your claims with "truth".
As I read back to see your reply what do I find? A "Wikapedia" paste about Spain, and more uneducated, unsupported dribble about Napoleon.
Once again, I as a Christian, I sincerely pray to Our Lord that you will see what you are doing. You are hammering in the nail. You are the one scouging Our Lord. You WILL answer for this before GOD unless you repent.
If you think I am some Catholic Fundamentalist, you are wrong. There are many fine "Christian" Protestants I admire and respect. And when we stand before GOD I'll let HIM tell me who was right and who was wrong.
We have our disagreements and our different interpretations, sure, but what I would never do is attack the Protestant beliefs with half truths and outright lies.
This is sinfull!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Let me help you to go away and study further
Between 96 and 107AD ( That's only 70 years after Our Lord walked the earth ) Saint Ignatius wrote to his fellow Christians on his way to Rome to be thrown to the lions: " They do not come to our prayers or Eucharist for they do not believe the bread we eat is the flesh of our Lord"
Does your church still teach this?? Mine does, and it happens to be that same Catholic Church you reckon didn't start for another 400 years.
Go away and google Saint Ignatius if you only rely on the web for your search for Our Lord. It is not great, but I think even you could still learn something
No peace to Liars
PS: Saint Ignatius just happened to be a disciple of the APOSTLE JOHN. So where do you think he got his interpretation of "This is MY BODY"???
PS: Saint Ignatius just happened to be a disciple of the APOSTLE JOHN. So where do you think he got his interpretation of "This is MY BODY"
II Th 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
7
For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish;
because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12 That they all might be damned
who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
Acts 20:29-30 29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
The following are some excerpts from the writings of Ignatius. They show the fulfillment of the Apostle Pauls warning that after his departure wolves would come into the flock, seeking followers of themselves. The exaltaion of the Bishops, was a first step in this direction. It eventually lead to the establishment of the Church of Rome, in which, one man is exalted above all others. The beginning of these things may be seen in the following from Ignatius.
The more, therefore, you see the bishop silent, the more do you reverence
him. For we ought to receive every one whom the Master of the house
sends to be over His household, as we would do Him that sent him. It is
manifest, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we
would look upon the Lord Himself, standing, as he does, before the Lord.
For "it behooves the man who looks carefully about him, and is active in
his business, to stand before kings, and not to stand before slothful men."
And indeed Onesimus himself greatly commends your good order in God,
that ye all live according to the truth, and that no sect has any dwelling-place
among you. Nor indeed do ye hearken to any one rather than to
Jesus Christ, the true Shepherd and Teacher. And ye are, as Paul wrote to
you, "one body and one spirit, because ye have also been called in one
hope of the faith. Since also "there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one
God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in all." Such,
then, are ye,having been taught by such instructors, Paul the Christ-bearer, and Timothy the most faithful. ( the Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians Chap. 6 )
As therefore the Lord does nothing without the Father, for says He, "I can
of mine own self do nothing," so do ye, neither presbyter, nor deacon, nor
layman, do anything without the bishop. Nor let anything appear
commendable to you which is destitute of his approval. For every such
thing is sinful, and opposed [to the will of] God. Do ye all come together
into the same place for prayer. Let there be one common supplication, one
mind, one hope, with faith unblameable in Christ Jesus, than which
nothing is more excellent. Do ye all, as one man, run together into the
temple of God, as unto one altar, to one Jesus Christ, the High Priest of
the unbegotten God.( The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians Chap. 7 )
Be ye subject to the bishop as to the Lord, for "he watches for your souls,
as one that shall give account to God." Wherefore also, ye appear to me to
live not after the manner of men, but according to Jesus Christ, who died
for us, in order that, by believing in His death, ye may by baptism be made
partakers of His resurrection. It is therefore necessary, whatsoever things
ye do, to do nothing without the bishop. And be ye subject also to the
presbytery, as to the apostles of Jesus Christ, who is our hope, in whom,
if we live, we shall be found in Him. It behooves you also, in every way,
to please the deacons, who are [ministers] of the mysteries of Christ Jesus;
for they are not ministers of meat and drink, but servants of the Church of
God. They are bound, therefore, to avoid all grounds of accusation [against
them], as they would a burning fire. Let them, then, prove themselves to
be such. ( The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians Chap, 2 )
Matt 23:8-12 8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.
9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.
12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.
Well my dear Amo,
You and Mclees better get together and decide who's right here. He claims the Catholic Church didn't start for another 400 yrs after you. I take it you are acknowldeging that St Ignatius descibes the Eucharist only 70yrs after Our Lord.
But then again that's what separates you Protestants isn't it. You can't actually agree with one another on what the truth is.......but you all have the same Bible. Hmmm??
In ref to your quote about calling no man Father. If you will actually go away and study, you'll find it says call no man Teacher as well.
Ever called a person "Teacher"??? You are aware the the word Doctor is actually Latin for teacher??
Ever called a person "Doctor"??? If so you are breaking the very same spiritual laws as you claim the Catholics Do.
Unless of course like so many Protestants with their "democratic" Christianity, ( What ever I decide is right is right )
you have interpreted this scripture incorrectly. Which is indeed the case with you.
Think I am wrong??
If so, please continue on and give me your explanation why Paul, not to mention Our Lord Jesus both call men "teacher" and Paul describes himself as a "Father" to his spiritual children.
PS: I'm still waiting for our friend McLees to back up his earlier claims about the Catholic Church and it's start date.
Come on Macca, show us how smart and educated you really are. Give us something more that wikopedia and Napoleon.
Back up your claims with intelligent, "mature" references to historical documents.
Or admit here before all you are making baseless and fraudulant claims which amounts to outright lying before Our Lord Jesus and Almighty GOD and reprent for your sin
: Fallen Knight Sun Oct 25, 2009 - 23:53:51
PS: I'm still waiting for our friend McLees to back up his earlier claims about the Catholic Church and it's start date.
Come on Macca, show us how smart and educated you really are. Give us something more that wikopedia and Napoleon.
Back up your claims with intelligent, "mature" references to historical documents.
Or admit here before all you are making baseless and fraudulant claims which amounts to outright lying before Our Lord Jesus and Almighty GOD and reprent for your sin
If I comited a sin here then i would repent of it. Talking about real history is not a sin.
Wickapedea is only stating real history. It is not prejudice. Are they lieing ? If you want real historical documents then you produce them. Im sure they will back up what you say i cannot back up. Talk about you baseless accusations just look at your own comment here. You can always say everything is a lie which is what you do if it does not support your idea.
I have already addressed the things you say I do not back up with common sense. From the deception that surrounds the word Catholic to when the papacy came to power. Just go back through the threads and Im sure you will find them but i think you already have.
You like to play the denial game a lot. It is not my fault you like the things i post that tell the real truth.
: mclees8 Mon Oct 26, 2009 - 08:23:41
: Fallen Knight Sun Oct 25, 2009 - 23:53:51
PS: I'm still waiting for our friend McLees to back up his earlier claims about the Catholic Church and it's start date.
Come on Macca, show us how smart and educated you really are. Give us something more that wikopedia and Napoleon.
Back up your claims with intelligent, "mature" references to historical documents.
Or admit here before all you are making baseless and fraudulant claims which amounts to outright lying before Our Lord Jesus and Almighty GOD and reprent for your sin
If I comited a sin here then i would repent of it. Talking about real history is not a sin.
Wickapedea is only stating real history. It is not prejudice. Are they lieing ? If you want real historical documents then you produce them. Im sure they will back up what you say i cannot back up. Talk about you baseless accusations just look at your own comment here. You can always say everything is a lie which is what you do if it does not support your idea.
I have already addressed the things you say I do not back up with common sense. From the deception that surrounds the word Catholic to when the papacy came to power. Just go back through the threads and Im sure you will find them but i think you already have.
You like to play the denial game a lot. It is not my fault you like the things i post that tell the real truth.
mclees8,
Best One-Sentence Summary: I am convinced that the Catholic Church conforms much more closely to all of the biblical data, offers the only coherent view of the history of Christianity (i.e., Christian, apostolic Tradition), and possesses the most profound and sublime Christian morality, spirituality, social ethic, and philosophy.
My Dear Macca,
So let me see if I understand your approach to making statements about someone else's 2000 yr old faith. ( That's opposed to your 450 yr old one....please don't claim you've always been around because not even Wikopedia makes that claim LOL )
You believe you have the right to make lying outlandish historical claims about the Catholic Church, and yet don't have to support any of your claims with actual facts
I suppose you walk around the streets claiming the Holocaust didn't really happen as well.
You reckon Wikopedia tells the "truth"??
" The Catholic Church traces its foundation to the gathering of the twelve Apostles by Jesus and the selection of Peter as their head "
Well that's an example of Wikopedia Macca, ( Catholic Church - Origins and History )
I guess even Wiki reckons your grasp on historical truth and religious truth concerning the Church Our Lord Jesus established is incorrect.
But please, you keep going. You are providing all with much amusement. You claimed The Catholic Church was not created until after Constantine approx 400AD
Please explain Saint Igntatius writing about the Eucharist 300 before this Macca.
Actually, I think your buddy TradCath does deny the Holocaust. It sure did seem like it from one of his posts in the history thread about Hitler anyway.
: Fallen Knight Mon Oct 26, 2009 - 22:47:18
My Dear Macca,
So let me see if I understand your approach to making statements about someone else's 2000 yr old faith. ( That's opposed to your 450 yr old one....please don't claim you've always been around because not even Wikopedia makes that claim LOL )
You believe you have the right to make lying outlandish historical claims about the Catholic Church, and yet don't have to support any of your claims with actual facts
I suppose you walk around the streets claiming the Holocaust didn't really happen as well.
You reckon Wikopedia tells the "truth"??
" The Catholic Church traces its foundation to the gathering of the twelve Apostles by Jesus and the selection of Peter as their head "
Well that's an example of Wikopedia Macca, ( Catholic Church - Origins and History )
I guess even Wiki reckons your grasp on historical truth and religious truth concerning the Church Our Lord Jesus established is incorrect.
But please, you keep going. You are providing all with much amusement. You claimed The Catholic Church was not created until after Constantine approx 400AD
Please explain Saint Igntatius writing about the Eucharist 300 before this Macca.
Night why don't you drop that old line about the word catholic. There was no Roman catholic Papacy that was a political religious system with popes on thrones big hats and religious vestments in 110 AD. There was no Vatican capital authority that ruled the Empire,andt took a nose dive into corruption.
The church could be called catholic then but it is not a real legal term for it. this fact is true that they were not Roman Catholics or any other divisions. The Roman catholic papal church is not 2000 years old and is not any church Christ founded or was ever ordained of Him.
This line of yours is old stuff and does not fool anyone but yourself and many uniformed RC's There's never any so blind as those who refuse to see.
God bless
: mclees8 Fri Oct 30, 2009 - 10:07:41
: Fallen Knight Mon Oct 26, 2009 - 22:47:18
My Dear Macca,
So let me see if I understand your approach to making statements about someone else's 2000 yr old faith. ( That's opposed to your 450 yr old one....please don't claim you've always been around because not even Wikopedia makes that claim LOL )
You believe you have the right to make lying outlandish historical claims about the Catholic Church, and yet don't have to support any of your claims with actual facts
I suppose you walk around the streets claiming the Holocaust didn't really happen as well.
You reckon Wikopedia tells the "truth"??
" The Catholic Church traces its foundation to the gathering of the twelve Apostles by Jesus and the selection of Peter as their head "
Well that's an example of Wikopedia Macca, ( Catholic Church - Origins and History )
I guess even Wiki reckons your grasp on historical truth and religious truth concerning the Church Our Lord Jesus established is incorrect.
But please, you keep going. You are providing all with much amusement. You claimed The Catholic Church was not created until after Constantine approx 400AD
Please explain Saint Igntatius writing about the Eucharist 300 before this Macca.
Night why don't you drop that old line about the word catholic. There was no Roman catholic Papacy that was a political religious system with popes on thrones big hats and religious vestments in 110 AD. There was no Vatican capital authority that ruled the Empire,andt took a nose dive into corruption.
The church could be called catholic then but it is not a real legal term for it. this fact is true that they were not Roman Catholics or any other divisions. The Roman catholic papal church is not 2000 years old and is not any church Christ founded or was ever ordained of Him.
This line of yours is old stuff and does not fool anyone but yourself and many uniformed RC's There's never any so blind as those who refuse to see.
God bless
The Catholic ChurchJesus founded a Church (Mt 16:18); he founded it on the Apostles (Eph 2:20) and it is described as the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15)
Jesus made promises to this Church, covenant promises, which he guarantees (Heb 7:22)
Jesus promised his Church would be indefectible. – the gates of hell would not prevail against it (Mt 16:18)
He promised the Church would be preserved from error by the Holy Spirit by reminding the apostles of all that Jesus had taught them (Jn 14:26) and guide them into the truth in the future (Jn 16:13)
He appointed the Apostles with Peter as the leader (Mt 18:18-19) and gave them the mission to take the gospel to the ends of the earth. (Mt 28:16-20)
He promised he would not leave them on their own (Jn 14:18) but that he would be with them until the end of the age (Mt 28:20)
He prayed that it would be one Church (Jn 18:20-23)
He prayed that the Father would consecrate the Apostles in the truth (Jn 18:17), and the Father always hears Jesus (Jn 11:41-42). We are therefore guaranteed by Jesus that what his Church teaches is the truth.
That Church is headed by Christ (Col 1:18), but he appointed Peter to be the visible head on earth (Mt 16:18-19), to be the universal shepherd (Jn 21:15-17) of Christ's one fold (Jn 10:16).
This is the Catholic Church
: winsome Fri Oct 30, 2009 - 13:13:10
Jesus founded a Church (Mt 16:18); he founded it on the Apostles (Eph 2:20) and it is described as the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15)
Jesus made promises to this Church, covenant promises, which he guarantees (Heb 7:22)
Jesus promised his Church would be indefectible. – the gates of hell would not prevail against it (Mt 16:18)
He promised the Church would be preserved from error by the Holy Spirit by reminding the apostles of all that Jesus had taught them (Jn 14:26) and guide them into the truth in the future (Jn 16:13)
He appointed the Apostles with Peter as the leader (Mt 18:18-19) and gave them the mission to take the gospel to the ends of the earth. (Mt 28:16-20)
He promised he would not leave them on their own (Jn 14:18) but that he would be with them until the end of the age (Mt 28:20)
He prayed that it would be one Church (Jn 18:20-23)
He prayed that the Father would consecrate the Apostles in the truth (Jn 18:17), and the Father always hears Jesus (Jn 11:41-42). We are therefore guaranteed by Jesus that what his Church teaches is the truth.
That Church is headed by Christ (Col 1:18), but he appointed Peter to be the visible head on earth (Mt 16:18-19), to be the universal shepherd (Jn 21:15-17) of Christ's one fold (Jn 10:16).
To say this is the RCC is to take a humongous leap of faith... because it doesn't pass the test of even the most basic logic.
: Tantor Fri Oct 30, 2009 - 13:18:02
: winsome Fri Oct 30, 2009 - 13:13:10
Jesus founded a Church (Mt 16:18); he founded it on the Apostles (Eph 2:20) and it is described as the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15)
Jesus made promises to this Church, covenant promises, which he guarantees (Heb 7:22)
Jesus promised his Church would be indefectible. – the gates of hell would not prevail against it (Mt 16:18)
He promised the Church would be preserved from error by the Holy Spirit by reminding the apostles of all that Jesus had taught them (Jn 14:26) and guide them into the truth in the future (Jn 16:13)
He appointed the Apostles with Peter as the leader (Mt 18:18-19) and gave them the mission to take the gospel to the ends of the earth. (Mt 28:16-20)
He promised he would not leave them on their own (Jn 14:18) but that he would be with them until the end of the age (Mt 28:20)
He prayed that it would be one Church (Jn 18:20-23)
He prayed that the Father would consecrate the Apostles in the truth (Jn 18:17), and the Father always hears Jesus (Jn 11:41-42). We are therefore guaranteed by Jesus that what his Church teaches is the truth.
That Church is headed by Christ (Col 1:18), but he appointed Peter to be the visible head on earth (Mt 16:18-19), to be the universal shepherd (Jn 21:15-17) of Christ's one fold (Jn 10:16).
To say this is the RCC is to take a humongous leap of faith... because it doesn't pass the test of even the most basic logic.
If that is so then you will be able to demonstrate it very easily.
1.) It's not provable that Peter was ever in Rome... if you take biblical events and timelines to be correct, Peter could never have been in Rome. Even if it can be proven that Peters bones are in the Vatican it proves nothing because like most Roman relics, they get moved around.
2.) To add to that, we do have one Apostle that spent a ton of time in Rome.. Paul. And not once in any of Paul's writings from Rome did he mention Peter being there.. not even once.
3.) The office of Pope didn't start until September 3, 590 when Gregory first coined it.
In my humble opinion... Peter started the church in Jerusalem and never intended it to move to Rome.. there is amble evidence of this. There is also no written record of Peter setting up a Papal see in Rome or that the bishop of Rome was to have primacy over all christendom. It also seems quite strange to me that Peter.. a devout Jew who loved his countrymen.. would purposefully set up his church in the gentile capital of the Jews sworn enemy... it does not compute. Besides, Peter was sent to the Jews first, while Paul was sent to the Gentiles... why would Peter disobey Jesus and set up his church in Rome?
4.) When you read the verse calling Peter 'Rock'.. it is very problematic to read the greek or aramaic equivalent of that verse to mean that Peter was the Rock... the Rock is actually referring to the fact that Peter confessed Jesus to be the Christ.. and the church was to be anchored on the rock of confession.
The bottom line is that if Peter intended to set up the Bishop of Rome as the head of his church, then we would have is writings to that effect... instead we have evidence that the Bishop or Rome rose to primacy due to political reasons..
For me.. the RCC started either at Gregory the 1st.. when he claimed himself pope and primacy over the other bishops... or at 1054 when the then Pope finally used that authority to excommunicate his eastern brothers... if anything the Eastern brothers still retain the only legitimate apostolic line back to the original disciples due to their numbers.
: Tantor Fri Oct 30, 2009 - 13:32:48
1.) It's not provable that Peter was ever in Rome... if you take biblical events and timelines to be correct, Peter could never have been in Rome. Even if it can be proven that Peters bones are in the Vatican it proves nothing because like most Roman relics, they get moved around.
Peter wrote his first epistle from Rome:
"The chosen one at Babylon sends you greeting, as does Mark, my son.
: winsome Fri Oct 30, 2009 - 14:28:28
: Tantor Fri Oct 30, 2009 - 13:32:48
1.) It's not provable that Peter was ever in Rome... if you take biblical events and timelines to be correct, Peter could never have been in Rome. Even if it can be proven that Peters bones are in the Vatican it proves nothing because like most Roman relics, they get moved around.
Peter wrote his first epistle from Rome:
"The chosen one at Babylon sends you greeting, as does Mark, my son.
: Tantor Fri Oct 30, 2009 - 14:56:43
: winsome Fri Oct 30, 2009 - 14:28:28
: Tantor Fri Oct 30, 2009 - 13:32:48
1.) It's not provable that Peter was ever in Rome... if you take biblical events and timelines to be correct, Peter could never have been in Rome. Even if it can be proven that Peters bones are in the Vatican it proves nothing because like most Roman relics, they get moved around.
Peter wrote his first epistle from Rome:
"The chosen one at Babylon sends you greeting, as does Mark, my son.
: winsome Fri Oct 30, 2009 - 15:12:05
From Wikipedia
Hellenistic period
In 331 BCE, Darius III was defeated by the forces of the Ancient Macedonians ruler Alexander the Great at the Battle of Gaugamela, and in October, Babylon fell to the young conqueror. A native account of this invasion notes a ruling by Alexander not to enter the homes of its inhabitants.[13]
Under Alexander, Babylon again flourished as a centre of learning and commerce. But following Alexander's death in 323 BCE in the palace of Nebuchadnezzar, his empire was divided amongst his generals, and decades of fighting soon began, with Babylon once again caught in the middle.
The constant turmoil virtually emptied the city of Babylon. A tablet dated 275 BCE states that the inhabitants of Babylon were transported to Seleucia, where a palace was built, as well as a temple given the ancient name of Esagila. With this deportation, the history of Babylon comes practically to an end, though more than a century later, it was found that sacrifices were still performed in its old sanctuary.[14] By 141 BCE, when the Parthian Empire took over the region, Babylon was in complete desolation and obscurity. (my emboldening)
So.. that proves nothing?... a lot can happen in 200 years. America is just a little over 200 years old.
: Tantor Fri Oct 30, 2009 - 15:17:49
: winsome Fri Oct 30, 2009 - 15:12:05
From Wikipedia
Hellenistic period
In 331 BCE, Darius III was defeated by the forces of the Ancient Macedonians ruler Alexander the Great at the Battle of Gaugamela, and in October, Babylon fell to the young conqueror. A native account of this invasion notes a ruling by Alexander not to enter the homes of its inhabitants.[13]
Under Alexander, Babylon again flourished as a centre of learning and commerce. But following Alexander's death in 323 BCE in the palace of Nebuchadnezzar, his empire was divided amongst his generals, and decades of fighting soon began, with Babylon once again caught in the middle.
The constant turmoil virtually emptied the city of Babylon. A tablet dated 275 BCE states that the inhabitants of Babylon were transported to Seleucia, where a palace was built, as well as a temple given the ancient name of Esagila. With this deportation, the history of Babylon comes practically to an end, though more than a century later, it was found that sacrifices were still performed in its old sanctuary.[14] By 141 BCE, when the Parthian Empire took over the region, Babylon was in complete desolation and obscurity. (my emboldening)
So.. that proves nothing?... a lot can happen in 200 years. America is just a little over 200 years old.
Well show something did happen to Babylon in that 200 years. It's possible to show a lot happened to America in 200 years.
Babylon was in ruins when Saddam Hussein started to rebuild it.
not my favorite source.. wikipedia.. if you want more I can find them easily.
Babylon under the Persians
The invasion of Babylonia by Cyrus was doubtless facilitated by the presence of foreign exiles like the Jews, who had been planted in the midst of the country. One of the first acts of Cyrus was to allow these exiles to return to their own homes, carrying with them the images of their gods and their sacred vessels. The permission to do so was embodied in a proclamation, whereby the conqueror endeavored to justify his claim to the Babylonian throne. The Jews were also allowed to rebuild the Temple. The feeling was still strong that none had a right to rule over western Asia until Bel and his priests had consecrated him to the office; and accordingly, Cyrus henceforth assumed the imperial title of "king of Babylon.
: Tantor Fri Oct 30, 2009 - 15:30:42
not my favorite source.. wikipedia.. if you want more I can find them easily.
Babylon under the Persians
The invasion of Babylonia by Cyrus was doubtless facilitated by the presence of foreign exiles like the Jews, who had been planted in the midst of the country. One of the first acts of Cyrus was to allow these exiles to return to their own homes, carrying with them the images of their gods and their sacred vessels. The permission to do so was embodied in a proclamation, whereby the conqueror endeavored to justify his claim to the Babylonian throne. The Jews were also allowed to rebuild the Temple. The feeling was still strong that none had a right to rule over western Asia until Bel and his priests had consecrated him to the office; and accordingly, Cyrus henceforth assumed the imperial title of "king of Babylon.
There are at least a dozen other sites out there with similar information.
BTW... I feel the same way about catholics as you do about 'moonies'...
I don't take anything the Pope or catholic site or catholic history says as having any credibility whatsoever. You know the old adage "the victors write the history"... and since the RCC was so political for so many years and rewrote history in their favor there is not much to believe in anything they say.
: Tantor Fri Oct 30, 2009 - 15:43:22
There are at least a dozen other sites out there with similar information.
BTW... I feel the same way about catholics as you do about 'moonies'...
I don't take anything the Pope or catholic site or catholic history says as having any credibility whatsoever. You know the old adage "the victors write the history"... and since the RCC was so political for so many years and rewrote history in their favor there is not much to believe in anything they say.
Are you suggesting the Wikipedia article was written by Catholics?
: winsome Fri Oct 30, 2009 - 16:00:51
: Tantor Fri Oct 30, 2009 - 15:43:22
There are at least a dozen other sites out there with similar information.
BTW... I feel the same way about catholics as you do about 'moonies'...
I don't take anything the Pope or catholic site or catholic history says as having any credibility whatsoever. You know the old adage "the victors write the history"... and since the RCC was so political for so many years and rewrote history in their favor there is not much to believe in anything they say.
Are you suggesting the Wikipedia article was written by Catholics?
Anybody can write/edit a Wikipedia article. Why don't you log onto wikipedia and give it a try for yourself.
Forgive me folks, give a quick reply to Macca mclees.
Dear Macca,
I originally asked you to back up your obviously uneducated claims to history and the Catholic Church ( and for your information regarding "RC" and "Catholic", the saint who coined the word "Catholic" believed in everything I do, please go away and study fact and truth ) and you replied with a small quote from wikopedia and then your own unsupported rendition of Napoleonic history ( ??? )
I then ask you to explain St Ignatius' writings regarding belief in the Eucharist in 97AD against your claims about the Catholic church not existing for another 300 yrs, and you reply once again with personalistic, fundamentalist rantings and ( surprise surprise ) no real answer.
As I said earlier, I know some beautiful faith filled Protestant Christians, and the important differences between us I will let Our Lord point out when we face Him. But you my friend are not one. For they are at least wise enough to know what they are talking about before talking.
If you disagree with me, then by all means, answer me with fact regarding the Eucharist, Ignatius and Catholic Church.
I'll wait ( with a smile )
: Fallen Knight Fri Nov 06, 2009 - 00:59:11
Forgive me folks, give a quick reply to Macca mclees.
Dear Macca,
I originally asked you to back up your obviously uneducated claims to history and the Catholic Church ( and for your information regarding "RC" and "Catholic", the saint who coined the word "Catholic" believed in everything I do, please go away and study fact and truth ) and you replied with a small quote from wikopedia and then your own unsupported rendition of Napoleonic history ( ??? )
I then ask you to explain St Ignatius' writings regarding belief in the Eucharist in 97AD against your claims about the Catholic church not existing for another 300 yrs, and you reply once again with personalistic, fundamentalist rantings and ( surprise surprise ) no real answer.
As I said earlier, I know some beautiful faith filled Protestant Christians, and the important differences between us I will let Our Lord point out when we face Him. But you my friend are not one. For they are at least wise enough to know what they are talking about before talking.
If you disagree with me, then by all means, answer me with fact regarding the Eucharist, Ignatius and Catholic Church.
I'll wait ( with a smile )
Sorry I have reduced you to giving a pet name and making minimizing and insulting remarks and feeling all smug and smiley, but his is all you can do. Keep smiling ::tippinghat::::tippinghat::
While you are waiting you can re read what i already posted.
Setting the record Straight
Satan is the great deceiver . I once wrote a small book or booklet I was led to call "The Counterfeit". Because Satan from the beginning of the church has sought to destroy and misguide The Lords church by deception, confusion, and producing a counterfeit of Christ church. It is a nature of men to fall into apostasy. It is nothing new because apostasy was part of the sin nature as far back as the fall of man.
First lets understand how apostasy works. We just don't wake up one day and commit apostasy. It starts out seemingly innocent and harmless, but with time it will completely change the whole concept of what was first taught. It is in full blossom when the church returns to worldliness being guided of men and mans wisdom and carnal instincts Lets look at deception, which is nothing more than a lie that poses as the truth. Confusion is misunderstanding the facts. Which distorts and misleads the truth.
All this surrounds this word catholic which the RCC papacy uses to confuse and hold captive the church and even the world at large. Lets look at when this word was first used. First there is no evidence that this word was used for the church before Ignatius used it in 110 AD. It was just a term that caught on and stuck. So this word was a term he chose to use to describe those who were the church and were of one universal faith in Christ. It was meant to include all who confessed Jesus as Lord. There were no divisions of the faith. Even though there were some who tried to bring division. There was a vast difference from the church of 110 AD and what the Roman catholic church became in 500AD. First the church was not Roman catholic in 110 AD. Ignatius was speaking of all believers which by the true meaning of the word is still all believers today. No Protestant or RCC division.. The papacy made the word synonymous with the Roman catholic church saying the church has always been Catholic, but what they really mean is that the church was always Roman Catholic It was a power and authority issue. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is the deception that they use to confuse the church into believing the church was always the Roman Catholic papal system and the church that Jesus founded This is deception in capitals and keeps the people captive to a false idea that the self imposed papal authority represents Christ true church. It stopped being Christ True church when the bishops of Rome became drunk with the ideal of being the religious political law of the land, and the center of all Christendom.
The next deception is the true church Christ founded was not political and never was supposed to become a political ambition. Jesus himself rejected this in the temptations of
Satan. What did Satan offer? He said I will give you the whole world if you will worship me . Of course Jesus rejected quickly that we must serve God and Him only. Think about it, Jesus could ruled the world. He would not have had to suffer the cross, but it was not the Father's purpose or will. Neither did Jesus ever teach that the church was to dominate or seek to dominate the world religiously or politically Salvation is not adherence to a religious political authority.. When they became the supreme authority of the land they said salvation could only be achieved through adherence to the papacy. It was not an issue of personal faith anymore. It was forced religion and intimidation that played upon ignorance and fear of losing one's salvation by excommunication. or Anathema . Neither Jesus or Peter ever would have been party to this. Christ was presented up front but the real truth was they robbed Jesus seat and falsely claimed to sit in on the throne of Peter. Not to mention Peter would never sit on any throne like any pope. They were in bed with the world and its kings This ambition was worldly and carnal, and is the very reason this church is referred to as the Harlot in Revelation 17.
The next deception was they said there was no salvation out side the church which is true except they did not truly represent the church because they institutionalized it. They made the church a thing, a hierarchy centered on the idea of authority and leadership. They became an exalted clergy with religious vestments and titles They were the church and there was no true laity because the clergy was exalted above the people who were not saved by personal confession but forced to observance of the Mass and the rituals of the Eucharist. One is not saved by mere observances. .Those who truly confess Jesus from the heart inter into the church by faith, not forced observances. This of course was before the Reformation. But the politics of this world and the exaltation of the clergy is still very much alive. After the reformation the exalted clergy system was still used by Protestant churches. This gives the mistaken idea that we are going to church instead of being the church.
God bless
Keep smiling ::tippinghat::
.
Dear Macca,
You continously talk about the quick sands of deception and the toils of deepening matter in the Catholic Church. Please, give us a break once in a while. If you think we are living during the end of the church age, Harold Camping of Family Radio has some interesting stuff posted at his Web Site. He has a pretty good case.
: banished Fri Nov 06, 2009 - 21:17:11
Dear Macca,
You continously talk about the quick sands of deception and the toils of deepening matter in the Catholic Church. Please, give us a break once in a while. If you think we are living during the end of the church age, Harold Camping of Family Radio has some interesting stuff posted at his Web Site. He has a pretty good case.
I don't take any cues from camping. I can't stop talking about the deception that is within the church.
: mclees8 Sat Nov 07, 2009 - 18:00:49
: banished Fri Nov 06, 2009 - 21:17:11
Dear Macca,
You continously talk about the quick sands of deception and the toils of deepening matter in the Catholic Church. Please, give us a break once in a while. If you think we are living during the end of the church age, Harold Camping of Family Radio has some interesting stuff posted at his Web Site. He has a pretty good case.
I don't take any cues from camping. I can't stop talking about the deception that is within the church.
That do you think of Harld Camping? I have my car radio tuned to Family Radio and never change it. That means that I have listened to Family Radio everyday for at least 30 years. His home office is here in Oakland.
The big deception started in the 16th century when "Reformers
Actually the RCC is pretty much no different then Islam when it comes to how it has co-opted things.
Islam says that Jesus was a prophet.. which is pretty much how the RCC treats him.
Islam adopted Jesus into their religion... which is pretty much what the RCC did.
: TantorActually the RCC is pretty much no different then Islam when it comes to how it has co-opted things.
Islam says that Jesus was a prophet.. which is pretty much how the RCC treats him.
Islam adopted Jesus into their religion... which is pretty much what the RCC did.
I honestly cannot imagine how a sane person can make such bizarre statements, so completely off the wall as this above and so completely detached from fact. It's mind-boggling. ::frown::
: winsome Sun Nov 08, 2009 - 06:37:37
The big deception started in the 16th century when "Reformers
: desertknight Sun Nov 08, 2009 - 07:38:05
: TantorActually the RCC is pretty much no different then Islam when it comes to how it has co-opted things.
Islam says that Jesus was a prophet.. which is pretty much how the RCC treats him.
Islam adopted Jesus into their religion... which is pretty much what the RCC did.
I honestly cannot imagine how a sane person can make such bizarre statements, so completely off the wall as this above and so completely detached from fact. It's mind-boggling. ::frown::
If you know your history.. especially the pagan traditions of Rome prior to its christianization you would see this plain as day.
All rome did was take their existing pagan temples.. chisel off the name of their gods and chisel back on a christian name... they replaced the pantheon of gods with a pantheon of christian 'saints' and replaced artimis with Mary.
The RCC is exactly the same as Paganizm.. only the names have changed.
: Tantor Sun Nov 08, 2009 - 07:56:13
: desertknight Sun Nov 08, 2009 - 07:38:05
: TantorActually the RCC is pretty much no different then Islam when it comes to how it has co-opted things.
Islam says that Jesus was a prophet.. which is pretty much how the RCC treats him.
Islam adopted Jesus into their religion... which is pretty much what the RCC did.
I honestly cannot imagine how a sane person can make such bizarre statements, so completely off the wall as this above and so completely detached from fact. It's mind-boggling. ::frown::
If you know your history.. especially the pagan traditions of Rome prior to its christianization you would see this plain as day.
All rome did was take their existing pagan temples.. chisel off the name of their gods and chisel back on a christian name... they replaced the pantheon of gods with a pantheon of christian 'saints' and replaced artimis with Mary.
The RCC is exactly the same as Paganizm.. only the names have changed.
Again, completely bizarre. I just attended Mass last night, and like every service my Church has celebrated for 2,000 years, it's centre and core is our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. His Word was proclaimed to the faithful and His Body and Blood was received at Holy Eucharist. At every Mass the Holy Bible is read, the Word preached, the consecrated bread and wine received, and prayers offered. Mary is venerated because she is the mother of our Lord, our queen mother. Artemis? The huntress carrying a bow and arrows? Lol. rofl
What do Catholics really believe? We publicly proclaim it at every Mass...http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=RNiCsTDAU70
: winsome Sun Nov 08, 2009 - 06:37:37
The big deception started in the 16th century when "Reformers
: desertknight Sun Nov 08, 2009 - 08:12:40
: Tantor Sun Nov 08, 2009 - 07:56:13
: desertknight Sun Nov 08, 2009 - 07:38:05
: TantorActually the RCC is pretty much no different then Islam when it comes to how it has co-opted things.
Islam says that Jesus was a prophet.. which is pretty much how the RCC treats him.
Islam adopted Jesus into their religion... which is pretty much what the RCC did.
I honestly cannot imagine how a sane person can make such bizarre statements, so completely off the wall as this above and so completely detached from fact. It's mind-boggling. ::frown::
If you know your history.. especially the pagan traditions of Rome prior to its christianization you would see this plain as day.
All rome did was take their existing pagan temples.. chisel off the name of their gods and chisel back on a christian name... they replaced the pantheon of gods with a pantheon of christian 'saints' and replaced artimis with Mary.
The RCC is exactly the same as Paganizm.. only the names have changed.
Again, completely bizarre. I just attended Mass last night, and like every service my Church has celebrated for 2,000 years, it's centre and core is our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. His Word was proclaimed to the faithful and His Body and Blood was received at Holy Eucharist. At every Mass the Holy Bible is read, the Word preached, the consecrated bread and wine received, and prayers offered. Mary is venerated because she is the mother of our Lord, our queen mother. Artemis? The huntress carrying a bow and arrows? Lol. rofl
What do Catholics really believe? We publicly proclaim it at every Mass...
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=RNiCsTDAU70
Maybe you should read about Artemis.. and her perpetual virginity... sound familiar?
Jesus had no earthly mother or father... as we view parents.. Mary was a willing surrogate for the Holy Spirit is all.
First of all, your saying because Artemis was a virgin that is supposed to have some hidden meaning? Well, if you mean that virginity and chastity are to be admired and held to be pure than you would be right, but that God chose a virgin to be the mother of Jesus is no invention of man if you believe the Bible, and is clearly written in Holy Scripture. That Mary was not the mother of Jesus, the Jesus who is God incarnate? Again, if you believe that, then you must reject Holy Scripture...
Luke 1:41-44 "And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy."
Ave Maria
Hail Mary, full of grace,
the Lord is with Thee.
Blessed art Thou among women
And Blessed is the fruit of Thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God
Pray for us sinners now
and at the hour of our death.
Amen
: desertknight Sun Nov 08, 2009 - 20:28:32
First of all, your saying because Artemis was a virgin that is supposed to have some hidden meaning? Well, if you mean that virginity and chastity are to be admired and held to be pure than you would be right, but that God chose a virgin to be the mother of Jesus is no invention of man if you believe the Bible, and is clearly written in Holy Scripture. That Mary was not the mother of Jesus, the Jesus who is God incarnate? Again, if you believe that, then you must reject Holy Scripture...
Luke 1:41-44 "And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy."
DK,
Tantor just likes stirring the pot by throwing in some of the wackier protestant theories, in this case that God created a complete ferilised egg that he then implanted in Mary so that she was literally a surrogate mother.
: desertknight Sun Nov 08, 2009 - 20:28:32
First of all, your saying because Artemis was a virgin that is supposed to have some hidden meaning? Well, if you mean that virginity and chastity are to be admired and held to be pure than you would be right, but that God chose a virgin to be the mother of Jesus is no invention of man if you believe the Bible, and is clearly written in Holy Scripture. That Mary was not the mother of Jesus, the Jesus who is God incarnate? Again, if you believe that, then you must reject Holy Scripture...
Luke 1:41-44 "And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy."
Yes.. that is what Elizabeth said... I don't recall any apostle saying that or making any kind of a fuss about Mary.
It's just as probably that Mary is in hell as she might be in heaven... as God is no respecter of persons... only God knows who the elect are... not us.
: Tantor Mon Nov 09, 2009 - 06:42:40
: desertknight Sun Nov 08, 2009 - 20:28:32
First of all, your saying because Artemis was a virgin that is supposed to have some hidden meaning? Well, if you mean that virginity and chastity are to be admired and held to be pure than you would be right, but that God chose a virgin to be the mother of Jesus is no invention of man if you believe the Bible, and is clearly written in Holy Scripture. That Mary was not the mother of Jesus, the Jesus who is God incarnate? Again, if you believe that, then you must reject Holy Scripture...
Luke 1:41-44 "And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy."
Yes.. that is what Elizabeth said... I don't recall any apostle saying that or making any kind of a fuss about Mary.
Try reading the Bible, especially Luke's gospel. Just read Luke 1:26-38 for an understanding of how important God considered Mary. Of course you need to have read a lot more of the Bible to understand all the implications but give it a try.
: winsome Mon Nov 09, 2009 - 06:58:28
: Tantor Mon Nov 09, 2009 - 06:42:40
: desertknight Sun Nov 08, 2009 - 20:28:32
First of all, your saying because Artemis was a virgin that is supposed to have some hidden meaning? Well, if you mean that virginity and chastity are to be admired and held to be pure than you would be right, but that God chose a virgin to be the mother of Jesus is no invention of man if you believe the Bible, and is clearly written in Holy Scripture. That Mary was not the mother of Jesus, the Jesus who is God incarnate? Again, if you believe that, then you must reject Holy Scripture...
Luke 1:41-44 "And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy."
Yes.. that is what Elizabeth said... I don't recall any apostle saying that or making any kind of a fuss about Mary.
Try reading the Bible, especially Luke's gospel. Just read Luke 1:26-38 for an understanding of how important God considered Mary. Of course you need to have read a lot more of the Bible to understand all the implications but give it a try.
The Birth of Jesus Foretold
26In the sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin's name was Mary. 28The angel went to her and said, "Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you."
29Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30But the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. 31You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. 32He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end."
34"How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?"
35The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called[a] the Son of God. 36Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be barren is in her sixth month. 37For nothing is impossible with God."
38"I am the Lord's servant," Mary answered. "May it be to me as you have said." Then the angel left her.
?.. she just happened to be the right surrogate at the right time.
Jesus didn't seem to treat his mother as though she was special at all... to the contrary.. he seemed to treat his parents as an obstacle.. but had to obey them to fulfill the law.
for example.
The Boy Jesus at the Temple
41Every year his parents went to Jerusalem for the Feast of the Passover. 42When he was twelve years old, they went up to the Feast, according to the custom. 43After the Feast was over, while his parents were returning home, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but they were unaware of it. 44Thinking he was in their company, they traveled on for a day. Then they began looking for him among their relatives and friends. 45When they did not find him, they went back to Jerusalem to look for him. 46After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. 47Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers. 48When his parents saw him, they were astonished. His mother said to him, "Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you."
49"Why were you searching for me?" he asked. "Didn't you know I had to be in my Father's house?" 50But they did not understand what he was saying to them.
51Then he went down to Nazareth with them and was obedient to them. But his mother treasured all these things in her heart. 52And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.
: Tantor Mon Nov 09, 2009 - 09:03:42
: winsome Mon Nov 09, 2009 - 06:58:28
: Tantor Mon Nov 09, 2009 - 06:42:40
: desertknight Sun Nov 08, 2009 - 20:28:32
First of all, your saying because Artemis was a virgin that is supposed to have some hidden meaning? Well, if you mean that virginity and chastity are to be admired and held to be pure than you would be right, but that God chose a virgin to be the mother of Jesus is no invention of man if you believe the Bible, and is clearly written in Holy Scripture. That Mary was not the mother of Jesus, the Jesus who is God incarnate? Again, if you believe that, then you must reject Holy Scripture...
Luke 1:41-44 "And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy."
Yes.. that is what Elizabeth said... I don't recall any apostle saying that or making any kind of a fuss about Mary.
Try reading the Bible, especially Luke's gospel. Just read Luke 1:26-38 for an understanding of how important God considered Mary. Of course you need to have read a lot more of the Bible to understand all the implications but give it a try.
The Birth of Jesus Foretold
26In the sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin's name was Mary. 28The angel went to her and said, "Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you."
29Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30But the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. 31You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. 32He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end."
34"How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?"
35The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called[a] the Son of God. 36Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be barren is in her sixth month. 37For nothing is impossible with God."
38"I am the Lord's servant," Mary answered. "May it be to me as you have said." Then the angel left her.
?.. she just happened to be the right surrogate at the right time.
Jesus didn't seem to treat his mother as though she was special at all... to the contrary.. he seemed to treat his parents as an obstacle.. but had to obey them to fulfill the law.
for example.
The Boy Jesus at the Temple
41Every year his parents went to Jerusalem for the Feast of the Passover. 42When he was twelve years old, they went up to the Feast, according to the custom. 43After the Feast was over, while his parents were returning home, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but they were unaware of it. 44Thinking he was in their company, they traveled on for a day. Then they began looking for him among their relatives and friends. 45When they did not find him, they went back to Jerusalem to look for him. 46After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. 47Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers. 48When his parents saw him, they were astonished. His mother said to him, "Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you."
49"Why were you searching for me?" he asked. "Didn't you know I had to be in my Father's house?" 50But they did not understand what he was saying to them.
51Then he went down to Nazareth with them and was obedient to them. But his mother treasured all these things in her heart. 52And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.
Your comments demonstrate your complete lack of understanding.
Actually, they are correctly in line with the scriptural text... they text gives me all the understanding I need.
Like I said before.. the RCC is just a replacement for the old pagan Roman system of Gods and sacrifices.. only the names have changed.
Even on the cross he refered to his mother as 'woman'.
25Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, "Dear woman, here is your son," 27and to the disciple, "Here is your mother." From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.
Like I said, Mary was just the right woman at the right time that said yes... to fulfill OT prophesy. It was a great honor for her, but it does not make her any different from any other woman that has ever lived in the eyes of God.
: Tantor Mon Nov 09, 2009 - 09:28:13
Actually, they are correctly in line with the scriptural text... they text gives me all the understanding I need.
Like I said before.. the RCC is just a replacement for the old pagan Roman system of Gods and sacrifices.. only the names have changed.
Even on the cross he refered to his mother as 'woman'.
25Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, "Dear woman, here is your son," 27and to the disciple, "Here is your mother." From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.
Like I said, Mary was just the right woman at the right time that said yes... to fulfill OT prophesy. It was a great honor for her, but it does not make her any different from any other woman that has ever lived in the eyes of God.
You really have no understaning at all. But then as I have said before there is no room for the Mother of God in the reduced Christology of modern Protestants.
Cop out... figured.
: Tantor Mon Nov 09, 2009 - 10:15:51
Cop out... figured.
No cop out but we would need a lot of time to go through all this and I don't think you are the slightest bit interested in learning anything anyway.
: winsome Mon Nov 09, 2009 - 10:18:16
: Tantor Mon Nov 09, 2009 - 10:15:51
Cop out... figured.
No cop out but we would need a lot of time to go through all this and I don't think you are the slightest bit interested in learning anything anyway.
Why would we need a lot of time when Mary is rarely spoken of in scripture?
List the scriptures... research the context.. determine the meaning.
If you have to go outside of the bible then I am not interested in discussing your human invented dogma..
I've learned all the Holy Spirit inspired scriptures have to say... why would what you would want me to learn be different?
: TantorIt was a great honor for her, but it does not make her any different from any other woman that has ever lived in the eyes of God.
Even before Christ was born, she was honored by heaven when the Archangel Gabriel appeared and said to her:
"Hail, thou that art highly favored, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women" (Luke 1:28). Holy Scripture further proclaims of her that
"henceforth all generations shall call me blessed" (Luke 1:48).
Holy Scripture strongly disagrees with you.
: desertknight Mon Nov 09, 2009 - 10:34:27
: TantorIt was a great honor for her, but it does not make her any different from any other woman that has ever lived in the eyes of God.
Even before Christ was born, she was honored by heaven when the Archangel Gabriel appeared and said to her: "Hail, thou that art highly favored, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women" (Luke 1:28). Holy Scripture further proclaims of her that "henceforth all generations shall call me blessed" (Luke 1:48).
Holy Scripture strongly disagrees with you.
That doesn't disagree with anything I have said to this point... I have no problem acknowledging that Mary was blessed.. but that is as far as it goes.
It's interesting (and telling) that you skipped 20 verses to make your point though..
I also have a problem with you calling the scriptures Holy... obviously you haven't read your scriptures much.
For God alone is Holy... and the scriptures are not God.
"Great and marvelous are your deeds,
Lord God Almighty.
Just and true are your ways,
King of the ages.
4Who will not fear you, O Lord,
and bring glory to your name?
For you alone are holy.
All nations will come
and worship before you,
for your righteous acts have been revealed."
Tantor, I wrote this piece for the "Why Is America Called A Christian nation" thread, but I guess you missed it?
America has always been Freemasonic and full of Humanist greed. However, there is light shinning over the southern horizon. It's coming from the direction of the Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe the Patroness of the Americas. The migration of Catholics into North America has been awesome. The Catholics how out number all other denominations combined, and they are growing at an awesome rate. We are talking about hard working people with large families. Here in California these people do all the work while we whites sit back and relax. Remember, Our Lady specifically focused on ending abortion. Give it another 20 years, and America will finally be a true Christian Nation. It wont be George Washington, it will be Saint Juan Diego.
Lets see... Mary was blessed... but just a quick search of scriptures... the following people were also blessed.
Noah
Abram
Isaac
Jacob
Israel
Jael
Samson
Obed-Edom
David
Mary
: banished Mon Nov 09, 2009 - 10:43:59
Tantor, I wrote this piece for the "Why Is America Called A Christian nation" thread, but I guess you missed it?
America has always been Freemasonic and full of Humanist greed. However, there is light shinning over the southern horizon. It's coming from the direction of the Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe the Patroness of the Americas. The migration of Catholics into North America has been awesome. The Catholics how out number all other denominations combined, and they are growing at an awesome rate. We are talking about hard working people with large families. Here in California these people do all the work while we whites sit back and relax. Remember, Our Lady specifically focused on ending abortion. Give it another 20 years, and America will finally be a true Christian Nation. It wont be George Washington, it will be Saint Juan Diego.
Irrelevant.
If anything, I would seek God in the minority.. not the majority as the bible says.
: Tantor Mon Nov 09, 2009 - 10:31:06
: winsome Mon Nov 09, 2009 - 10:18:16
: Tantor Mon Nov 09, 2009 - 10:15:51
Cop out... figured.
No cop out but we would need a lot of time to go through all this and I don't think you are the slightest bit interested in learning anything anyway.
Why would we need a lot of time when Mary is rarely spoken of in scripture?
List the scriptures... research the context.. determine the meaning.
If you have to go outside of the bible then I am not interested in discussing your human invented dogma..
I've learned all the Holy Spirit inspired scriptures have to say... why would what you would want me to learn be different?
Tantor,
I have met your sort before on forums. All they want to do is throw in stupid comments like
Like I said before.. the RCC is just a replacement for the old pagan Roman system of Gods and sacrifices.. only the names have changed.They hope to bait Catholics into an angry response but have no actual interest in debate.
Of course, I could be completely misunderstanding you, and you may have a burning desire to know more about Catholicism, but from your comments so far I doubt it.
Tantor,
Jesus Christ is not the God of Freemasonry, and you know it. Please stop spreading venom in the Catholic Section of the Forum.
Freemasonry.... did I ever say anything about freemasonry?
I don't hope to get an angry response.. I just hope to open your eyes... because if your eyes never open there is no hope for you.
Given the size of the RCC.. it's impossible that it leads to the narrow gate. There are many that call Jesus Lord... but he will turn his back on you and say depart for I never knew you.
: Tantor Mon Nov 09, 2009 - 12:21:39
Freemasonry.... did I ever say anything about freemasonry?
I don't hope to get an angry response.. I just hope to open your eyes... because if your eyes never open there is no hope for you.
Given the size of the RCC.. it's impossible that it leads to the narrow gate.
Okay, God Bless. Have fun. ::smile::
: TantorThat doesn't disagree with anything I have said to this point... I have no problem acknowledging that Mary was blessed.. but that is as far as it goes.
YOU-"but it does not make her
any different from any other woman that has ever lived in the eyes of God."
God="Hail,
thou that art highly favored, the
Lord is with thee:
blessed art thou among women"
ME- ??? Uhhh, huh?
: TantorIt's interesting (and telling) that you skipped 20 verses to make your point though..
Why is that interesting?
: TantorI also have a problem with you calling the scriptures Holy... obviously you haven't read your scriptures much.
For God alone is Holy... and the scriptures are not God.
"By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. And God blessed the seventh day and made it Holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done." (Genesis 2:2-3There goes that theory....and that is just starting with Genesis. Shall we list all of the things besides God that the Bible calls "Holy"? There are allot of them.
: desertknight Mon Nov 09, 2009 - 14:57:27
: TantorThat doesn't disagree with anything I have said to this point... I have no problem acknowledging that Mary was blessed.. but that is as far as it goes.
YOU-"but it does not make her any different from any other woman that has ever lived in the eyes of God."
God="Hail, thou that art highly favored, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women"
ME- ??? Uhhh, huh?
: TantorIt's interesting (and telling) that you skipped 20 verses to make your point though..
Why is that interesting?
: TantorI also have a problem with you calling the scriptures Holy... obviously you haven't read your scriptures much.
For God alone is Holy... and the scriptures are not God.
"By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. And God blessed the seventh day and made it Holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done." (Genesis 2:2-3
There goes that theory....and that is just starting with Genesis. Shall we list all of the things besides God that the Bible calls "Holy"? There are allot of them.
But in Revelations it says that God alone is Holy... period.
The seventh day is not a thing..
: Tantor Mon Nov 09, 2009 - 15:52:43
: desertknight Mon Nov 09, 2009 - 14:57:27
: TantorThat doesn't disagree with anything I have said to this point... I have no problem acknowledging that Mary was blessed.. but that is as far as it goes.
YOU-"but it does not make her any different from any other woman that has ever lived in the eyes of God."
God="Hail, thou that art highly favored, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women"
ME- ??? Uhhh, huh?
: TantorIt's interesting (and telling) that you skipped 20 verses to make your point though..
Why is that interesting?
: TantorI also have a problem with you calling the scriptures Holy... obviously you haven't read your scriptures much.
For God alone is Holy... and the scriptures are not God.
"By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. And God blessed the seventh day and made it Holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done." (Genesis 2:2-3
There goes that theory....and that is just starting with Genesis. Shall we list all of the things besides God that the Bible calls "Holy"? There are allot of them.
But in Revelations it says that God alone is Holy... period.
The seventh day is not a thing..
but, as he who called you is holy, be holy yourselves in every aspect of your conduct, for it is written, "Be holy because I (am) holy.
Because God alone deems what is Holy.. only he has that right.
It is nonsense for man to take away that right from God.
: TantorI also have a problem with you calling the scriptures Holy
Is not God's Word, "Holy"? Your saying God is holy, but His Word is not? You've lost me,
Tantor. That belief holds no water with any Christian tradition that I can think of.
: Tantor Mon Nov 09, 2009 - 16:27:41
Because God alone deems what is Holy.. only he has that right.
It is nonsense for man to take away that right from God.
In your opinion.
You provide no evidence for such a view.
Please quote scripture.
: winsome Mon Nov 09, 2009 - 16:12:12
: Tantor Mon Nov 09, 2009 - 15:52:43
: desertknight Mon Nov 09, 2009 - 14:57:27
: TantorThat doesn't disagree with anything I have said to this point... I have no problem acknowledging that Mary was blessed.. but that is as far as it goes.
YOU-"but it does not make her any different from any other woman that has ever lived in the eyes of God."
God="Hail, thou that art highly favored, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women"
ME- ??? Uhhh, huh?
: TantorIt's interesting (and telling) that you skipped 20 verses to make your point though..
Why is that interesting?
: TantorI also have a problem with you calling the scriptures Holy... obviously you haven't read your scriptures much.
For God alone is Holy... and the scriptures are not God.
"By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. And God blessed the seventh day and made it Holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done." (Genesis 2:2-3
There goes that theory....and that is just starting with Genesis. Shall we list all of the things besides God that the Bible calls "Holy"? There are allot of them.
But in Revelations it says that God alone is Holy... period.
The seventh day is not a thing..
but, as he who called you is holy, be holy yourselves in every aspect of your conduct, for it is written, "Be holy because I (am) holy.
: desertknight Mon Nov 09, 2009 - 21:33:31
: TantorI also have a problem with you calling the scriptures Holy
Is not God's Word, "Holy"? Your saying God is holy, but His Word is not? You've lost me, Tantor. That belief holds no water with any Christian tradition that I can think of.
Because the bible is hearsay... it's taking someones word for it. God never promised to preserve his scriptures and we know there are problems with various NT bible chapters.
If it were truly Holy, God would have taken a lot better means to preserve it.
It's interesting that even at it's most basic level.. the Catholic Church has failed in it's mandate to teach what the Apostles taught and carry the tradition forward... of all the sources of tradition.. the scriptures are without a doubt the most important.. and they did such a horrible job of maintaining it throughout the centuries.
It;s sad.
: Tantor Tue Nov 10, 2009 - 06:32:05
: desertknight Mon Nov 09, 2009 - 21:33:31
: TantorI also have a problem with you calling the scriptures Holy
Is not God's Word, "Holy"? Your saying God is holy, but His Word is not? You've lost me, Tantor. That belief holds no water with any Christian tradition that I can think of.
Because the bible is hearsay... it's taking someones word for it. God never promised to preserve his scriptures and we know there are problems with various NT bible chapters.
If it were truly Holy, God would have taken a lot better means to preserve it.
It's interesting that even at it's most basic level.. the Catholic Church has failed in it's mandate to teach what the Apostles taught and carry the tradition forward... of all the sources of tradition.. the scriptures are without a doubt the most important.. and they did such a horrible job of maintaining it throughout the centuries.
It;s sad.
Just what is that you do believe. The bible says without faith it is impossible to please god yet you would trash the one book that gives us faith and Hope
Thats whats sad
: mclees8 Tue Nov 10, 2009 - 08:35:38
: Tantor Tue Nov 10, 2009 - 06:32:05
: desertknight Mon Nov 09, 2009 - 21:33:31
: TantorI also have a problem with you calling the scriptures Holy
Is not God's Word, "Holy"? Your saying God is holy, but His Word is not? You've lost me, Tantor. That belief holds no water with any Christian tradition that I can think of.
Because the bible is hearsay... it's taking someones word for it. God never promised to preserve his scriptures and we know there are problems with various NT bible chapters.
If it were truly Holy, God would have taken a lot better means to preserve it.
It's interesting that even at it's most basic level.. the Catholic Church has failed in it's mandate to teach what the Apostles taught and carry the tradition forward... of all the sources of tradition.. the scriptures are without a doubt the most important.. and they did such a horrible job of maintaining it throughout the centuries.
It;s sad.
Just what is that you do believe. The bible says without faith it is impossible to please god yet you would trash the one book that gives us faith and Hope
Thats whats sad
What is sad is that you put your faith in a book and a church instead of God himself and his work on the cross... truly sad.
You are like doubting Thomas.
: mclees8 Tue Nov 10, 2009 - 05:54:51
: winsome Mon Nov 09, 2009 - 16:12:12
: Tantor Mon Nov 09, 2009 - 15:52:43
: desertknight Mon Nov 09, 2009 - 14:57:27
: TantorThat doesn't disagree with anything I have said to this point... I have no problem acknowledging that Mary was blessed.. but that is as far as it goes.
YOU-"but it does not make her any different from any other woman that has ever lived in the eyes of God."
God="Hail, thou that art highly favored, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women"
ME- ??? Uhhh, huh?
: TantorIt's interesting (and telling) that you skipped 20 verses to make your point though..
Why is that interesting?
: TantorI also have a problem with you calling the scriptures Holy... obviously you haven't read your scriptures much.
For God alone is Holy... and the scriptures are not God.
"By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. And God blessed the seventh day and made it Holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done." (Genesis 2:2-3
There goes that theory....and that is just starting with Genesis. Shall we list all of the things besides God that the Bible calls "Holy"? There are allot of them.
But in Revelations it says that God alone is Holy... period.
The seventh day is not a thing..
but, as he who called you is holy, be holy yourselves in every aspect of your conduct, for it is written, "Be holy because I (am) holy.
: winsome Tue Nov 10, 2009 - 09:29:04
: mclees8 Tue Nov 10, 2009 - 05:54:51
: winsome Mon Nov 09, 2009 - 16:12:12
: Tantor Mon Nov 09, 2009 - 15:52:43
: desertknight Mon Nov 09, 2009 - 14:57:27
: TantorThat doesn't disagree with anything I have said to this point... I have no problem acknowledging that Mary was blessed.. but that is as far as it goes.
YOU-"but it does not make her any different from any other woman that has ever lived in the eyes of God."
God="Hail, thou that art highly favored, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women"
ME- ??? Uhhh, huh?
: TantorIt's interesting (and telling) that you skipped 20 verses to make your point though..
Why is that interesting?
: TantorI also have a problem with you calling the scriptures Holy... obviously you haven't read your scriptures much.
For God alone is Holy... and the scriptures are not God.
"By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. And God blessed the seventh day and made it Holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done." (Genesis 2:2-3
There goes that theory....and that is just starting with Genesis. Shall we list all of the things besides God that the Bible calls "Holy"? There are allot of them.
But in Revelations it says that God alone is Holy... period.
The seventh day is not a thing..
but, as he who called you is holy, be holy yourselves in every aspect of your conduct, for it is written, "Be holy because I (am) holy.