I recently heard a radio broadcast on the "Unbelievable" programme, which is a discussion programme between Christians and other Christians, atheists and those of other religions. This edition was between a protestant and a catholic.
One issue which was raised was the central one of whether there was any basis for the principle of Papacy (the situation where one man has absolute authority as the successor of Peter). As far as I know, the only basis for this is Matt. 16, which tells of Jesus calling Simon "Peter"* and referring to the Rock as the Church.
Would anyone like to comment as to the relevance and weight of these and/or other scriptures?
* Aramaic: Cephas; Greek: Petros/ Petra; Latin: (I think) Petrus
Sure. There are lots of scriptures that demonstrate the primacy of Peter among the apostles. For example, he is almost always listed first. He made the definitive doctrinal pronouncement at the council of Jerusalem. The apostle John was first to the tomb but waited for Peter to enter first. Jesus specifically tells Peter 3 times to feed my lambs, tend my sheep, feed my sheep. Peter was the first apostle called. Satan wanted to sift the apostles like wheat, but Jesus prayed specifically for Peter. Peter specifically was promised the keys, in Matthew 16, and these keys stand for something of a very special office (see Isaiah 22:22) with authority over God's house.
As for Peter being the Rock and the petra/petros argument, we know that Jesus spoke Aramaic, and Peter's name was actually changed to Kepha (sometimes transliterated Cephas elsewhere in the NT). So Jesus said that "I call you Kepha, and upon this Kepha I will build my Church". The arguments around the Greek usually get into a petra = huge rock, petros = little rock argument. But in truth, calling "Kepha" "Petra" would be akin to calling him a feminine name, so the name was made masculine when Matthew was translated into Greek. If the intent of the writer had been to call Peter "little rock" then they would have used the word "lithos". No doubt that Jesus is the Rock of our faith, but Jesus called Peter "Rock" too, and by changing his name he exalted him, and the grammar gives us a Church founded upon a Rock, a living stone that Jesus selected.
Thanks for replying. I've only heard the arguments from the non-Catholic side, so I'm ignorant of most of the pro-Catholic stance.
I'm not an expect on the New Testament and don't have a Bible with me at the moment, so I might make mistakes, but aren't others called to look after the flock, the Church, etc., if using somewhat different language? What about the parable of the faithful slave who was given the task of looking after his master's belonging while he was away? Was that instruction only for Peter, or was it to the Apostles generally and by extension, the other brothers?
I'm aware of, and have given serious thought to, the linguistic details. What you say seems, on prima-facie consideration to make sense. Anti-papists tend to point out that Petros is fundamentally different to Petra (a large rock), stating that 'though Peter was "rock-like", he wasn't "The Rock", although the Catholic on the radio pointed out the point about the words' gender, which seems valid.
This is a huge issue with huge implications, but if you'd like to talk further, you can reach me here or at acm1959@hotmail.co.uk.
For instance, another connected point which was mentioned is that the doctrine of the infallibility of the Popes is a relatively new one, formed in 1870 and effected retrospectively.
Bye, Chris.
I can tell that you have a heart to learn. Nothing wrong with asking questions, ever. I'd love to talk with you on email.
We believe that all of the apostles had an authority equal to each other, but that Peter was given a place of primacy among the bishops. So just as all apostles had authority, we believe that their successors (which the Church teaches are the bishops of the Catholic Church throughout the ages) also have that authority, though the primacy was reserved for the bishop of Rome, also called the Pope. An ecumenical council, to my understanding, had to consist of most of the bishops of the world to really be called ecumenical, and one of those bishops had to be the bishop of Rome, and the other bishops had to be in union with the bishop of Rome.
Papal infallibility is another issue altogether. I will contact you over email.
Hi,
Catholica mentioned the keys but I thought I'd give a bit more explanation. I'm about to go on holiday so I may not be able to respond to any questions for a while.
To the angel of the church in Philadelphia, write this:
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,
says this............. (Rev 3:7)
This Jesus who holds the key of David, who opens and closes is the same Jesus who says to Peter:
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.
The rock Jesus was referring to in Matthew 16:18 was a rock that Jesus and Peter were literally standing on as they were in the city of Caesarea Philippi which was a pagan city that was built on a rock. His church would be built on the rock (not literally, but metaphorically speaking) of Caesarea Philippi—a rock literally filled with niches for pagan idols, where ungodly values dominated. The people there literally felt that the caves on this rock were actual gates to hell, thus the saying I will build my Church upon this rock and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. (look up the history for yourself as I have) The rock meaning we are to preach against the gates of Hell to try and prevent people from going there as we bring Salvation through Christ to those who do not know Him.
No one person has any authority apart from what God gives them. God gives all who will confess and believe on His son Jesus Christ His power and authority through grace that we are commissioned to take His word out into the world according to Matthew 28:19,20. So no, Papacy has nothing to do with the rock or being a successor to Peter as we all are a successor to what Peter was called to do as we have that same calling from the Lord.
Here's a good summary including scripture and early Christian writings:
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html
I believe if we read Matthew 16:18, John 21:6, Luke 22:31 and Matthew 7:24 together we will get a more clear picture of what our Lord Jesus wanted.
In the absence of His human incarnation Jesus wanted someone (a human) to lead His physical Church and tend His whole flock In John 21:16 It becomes very clear: "16 He says to him again: Simon, son of John, do you love me? He said to him: yea, Lord, you know that I love you. He said to him: Feed my lambs. 17 He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, do you love me? Peter was grieved because he had said to him the third time: Do you love me? And he said to him: Lord, you know all things: you know that I love you. He said to him: Feed my sheep"
Btw, the Greek words that are translated as "feed" also mean tend or "take care of" ποίμαινε τὰ προβάτιά μου; βόσκε τὰ προβάτιά μου
Here, our Lord charges Peter with the superintendency of all his sheep, without exception; and consequently of his whole flock, that is, of his own Church. We can argue who the successor of Peter is today, but Jesus in John 21 does leave a single successor, not a big group of bishops working separately from their ethnic silos.
Matthew 16: 18 And I say to you: That you are Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. In Greek "κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς"
Upon this rock, etc... The words of Christ to Peter, spoken in the vulgar language of the Jews which our Lord made use of, were the same as if he had said in English, Thou art a Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church. So that, by the plain course of the words, Peter is here declared to be the rock, upon which the church was to be built: Christ himself being both the principal foundation and founder of the same. Where also note, that Christ, by building his house, that is, his church, upon a rock, has thereby secured it against all storms and floods, like the wise builder, (see Matthew 7:24-25.):
24 Every one therefore that hears these my words, and does them, shall be likened to a wise man that built his house upon a rock 24 Πᾶς οὖν ὅστις ἀκούει μου τοὺς λόγους [τούτους] καὶ ποιεῖ αὐτοὺς ὁμοιωθήσεται ἀνδρὶ φρονίμῳ, ὅστις ᾠκοδόμησεν αὐτοῦ τὴν οἰκίαν ἐπὶ τὴν πέτραν. In Matthew 7:24 and in Matthew 16:18 the Greeks words build (οἰκοδομήσω) and rock (Πέτρος, πέτρᾳ) are repeated.
So Jesus selected Peter to be the foundation of His Church due to Peter's resemblance to the wise man who heard Jesus' words and did (ποιεῖ ) them
Finally in Luke 22:31-33, Satan singles out Peter for an attack and Jesus gives special protection, so Peter can support the flock: "31 And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan has desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat. 32 But I have prayed for you, that your faith fail not: and you, being once converted, support your brethren" Peter is the only Apostle that Jesus prays for for special protection from Satan, so he can lead His flock
: Debbie_55 Mon Sep 20, 2010 - 12:25:30
The rock Jesus was referring to in Matthew 16:18 was a rock that Jesus and Peter were literally standing on as they were in the city of Caesarea Philippi which was a pagan city that was built on a rock. His church would be built on the rock (not literally, but metaphorically speaking) of Caesarea Philippi—a rock literally filled with niches for pagan idols, where ungodly values dominated. The people there literally felt that the caves on this rock were actual gates to hell, thus the saying I will build my Church upon this rock and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. (look up the history for yourself as I have) The rock meaning we are to preach against the gates of Hell to try and prevent people from going there as we bring Salvation through Christ to those who do not know Him.
No one person has any authority apart from what God gives them. God gives all who will confess and believe on His son Jesus Christ His power and authority through grace that we are commissioned to take His word out into the world according to Matthew 28:19,20. So no, Papacy has nothing to do with the rock or being a successor to Peter as we all are a successor to what Peter was called to do as we have that same calling from the Lord.
Why did Jesus change Simon's name to Rock?
Why did Jesus give Simon alone the keys to the Kingdom?
: chestertonrules Mon Sep 20, 2010 - 13:16:14
: Debbie_55 Mon Sep 20, 2010 - 12:25:30
The rock Jesus was referring to in Matthew 16:18 was a rock that Jesus and Peter were literally standing on as they were in the city of Caesarea Philippi which was a pagan city that was built on a rock. His church would be built on the rock (not literally, but metaphorically speaking) of Caesarea Philippi—a rock literally filled with niches for pagan idols, where ungodly values dominated. The people there literally felt that the caves on this rock were actual gates to hell, thus the saying I will build my Church upon this rock and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. (look up the history for yourself as I have) The rock meaning we are to preach against the gates of Hell to try and prevent people from going there as we bring Salvation through Christ to those who do not know Him.
No one person has any authority apart from what God gives them. God gives all who will confess and believe on His son Jesus Christ His power and authority through grace that we are commissioned to take His word out into the world according to Matthew 28:19,20. So no, Papacy has nothing to do with the rock or being a successor to Peter as we all are a successor to what Peter was called to do as we have that same calling from the Lord.
Why did Jesus change Simon's name to Rock?
Why did Jesus give Simon alone the keys to the Kingdom?
Jesus never changed Peter's name to Rock as Jesus said in Matthew 16:18 that thou are Peter and upon this rock (meaning the rock they were standing on) I will build my church.
Jesus gave Peter the keys to the Kingdom, which means knowledge, power and authority, as Jesus knew where Peter's heart was and that he was submissive to the authority of God.
I have never heard that interpretation before Debbie. Literally build his church on the rock they were standing on?
May I explain??? "upon this rock"--Blessed are you Simon, for this was not revealed to you by man, but my Father in heaven. He was telling Peter his foundation was secure having been shown who the Son was by the Father
...Luke 10:22,23
Luke 6:48 Jesus is the rock!
: chestertonrules Mon Sep 20, 2010 - 13:16:14
Why did Jesus change Simon's name to Rock?
Actually,
Petros means "pebble." ::giggle::
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Wed Sep 22, 2010 - 11:37:11
: chestertonrules Mon Sep 20, 2010 - 13:16:14
Why did Jesus change Simon's name to Rock?
Actually, Petros means "pebble." ::giggle::
Not sure if this is a joke. but in Greek pebble = votsalo; petra (or vrahos) = rock. Since I'm a native Greek speaker, I'm pretty sure about this
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Wed Sep 22, 2010 - 11:37:11
: chestertonrules Mon Sep 20, 2010 - 13:16:14
Why did Jesus change Simon's name to Rock?
Actually, Petros means "pebble." ::giggle::
The book of Matthew wasn't originally written in Greek, nor did Jesus speak Greek. We see from other places something that makes more sense, where Peter's real name, Aramaic "Kepha" is transliterated "Cephas". In its original language, Matthew 16:18 reads "You are Kepha and upon this Kepha I build my Church." Kepha means Rock. The Greek translators could not call Peter "petra" because that name is feminine, so instead they made his name Masculine, but something is lost in the translation.
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Wed Sep 22, 2010 - 11:37:11
Actually, Petros means "pebble."
This is true, and any honest study of the Koine text will bear it out.
Petra would be a boulder or a rock cliff.
A problem for anyone who believes that Peter is the "rock" upon which the church is built:
1 Corinthians 3:11
For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.
In reading the Matthew text, it seems strange to me that Jesus would talk to Peter, and then in mid-sentence shift to talking about him as if he's not there.
My own study of the Scripture, from many angles, has led me to believe that the "Rock" has to do with what Peter just said: "You are the Christ." Up until this time, no one knew this. Just imagine if Jesus had died before anyone figured out that he was the Messiah.
: Angelos Wed Sep 22, 2010 - 12:09:45
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Wed Sep 22, 2010 - 11:37:11
: chestertonrules Mon Sep 20, 2010 - 13:16:14
Why did Jesus change Simon's name to Rock?
Actually, Petros means "pebble." ::giggle::
Not sure if this is a joke. but in Greek pebble = votsalo; petra (or vrahos) = rock. Since I'm a native Greek speaker, I'm pretty sure about this
Modern Greek is about as similar to ancient Greek as modern Italian is to ancient Latin.
I am sure it is an advantage to you that you speak it, some things remaining the same, but the two are not the same languages.
Jarrod
: Catholica Wed Sep 22, 2010 - 12:35:33
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Wed Sep 22, 2010 - 11:37:11
: chestertonrules Mon Sep 20, 2010 - 13:16:14
Why did Jesus change Simon's name to Rock?
Actually, Petros means "pebble." ::giggle::
The book of Matthew wasn't originally written in Greek, nor did Jesus speak Greek. We see from other places something that makes more sense, where Peter's real name, Aramaic "Kepha" is transliterated "Cephas". In its original language, Matthew 16:18 reads "You are Kepha and upon this Kepha I build my Church." Kepha means Rock. The Greek translators could not call Peter "petra" because that name is feminine, so instead they made his name Masculine, but something is lost in the translation.
Good argument. Some things to pick on though:
1) Whether Matthew was originally written in Hebrew or Greek is a matter of conjecture. The church fathers from the 3rd and 4th centuries couldn't agree on this point, so I find it doubtful that we know better than they.
2) If Jesus grew up in Egypt and Galilee, then He probably spoke Greek, as it was the more common language in both places. He undoubtedly spoke Aramaic as well, the Bible attesting to it with notes from the original authors in several places, and it also attests He was able to read Hebrew (though it was a dead language used only by scholars in His day and time).
3) My lexicon of Syriac (Jennings) indicates that the word used in this verse means "a stone, a piece of a (larger rock)." It also indicates that the Syriac word is (also) a feminine ending, so the problem of gender between the words remains in this language.
In short, all of the same issues remain, you've just changed the language we're arguing in/about.
Jarrod
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Wed Sep 22, 2010 - 14:34:01
: Catholica Wed Sep 22, 2010 - 12:35:33
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Wed Sep 22, 2010 - 11:37:11
: chestertonrules Mon Sep 20, 2010 - 13:16:14
Why did Jesus change Simon's name to Rock?
Actually, Petros means "pebble." ::giggle::
The book of Matthew wasn't originally written in Greek, nor did Jesus speak Greek. We see from other places something that makes more sense, where Peter's real name, Aramaic "Kepha" is transliterated "Cephas". In its original language, Matthew 16:18 reads "You are Kepha and upon this Kepha I build my Church." Kepha means Rock. The Greek translators could not call Peter "petra" because that name is feminine, so instead they made his name Masculine, but something is lost in the translation.
Good argument. Some things to pick on though:
1) Whether Matthew was originally written in Hebrew or Greek is a matter of conjecture. The church fathers from the 3rd and 4th centuries couldn't agree on this point, so I find it doubtful that we know better than they.
2) If Jesus grew up in Egypt and Galilee, then He probably spoke Greek, as it was the more common language in both places. He undoubtedly spoke Aramaic as well, the Bible attesting to it with notes from the original authors in several places, and it also attests He was able to read Hebrew (though it was a dead language used only by scholars in His day and time).
3) My lexicon of Syriac (Jennings) indicates that the word used in this verse means "a stone, a piece of a (larger rock)." It also indicates that the Syriac word is (also) a feminine ending, so the problem of gender between the words remains in this language.
In short, all of the same issues remain, you've just changed the language we're arguing in/about.
Jarrod
Ok, but Peter is referred to as Cephas, and how did he get that name? The simple answer is that Jesus named him Kepha. And Syriac is not the same as Aramaic. In Aramaic words did not have gender.
: Catholica Wed Sep 22, 2010 - 14:56:46
Ok, but Peter is referred to as Cephas, and how did he get that name? The simple answer is that Jesus named him Kepha. And Syriac is not the same as Aramaic. In Aramaic words did not have gender.
Syriac is a dialect of Aramaic, as far as I know.
Also, who told you Aramaic words don't have gender? Semitic languages don't have a strict morphology for gender like Greek words, but gender is inherent in many/most words. Suffices -H and -IT feminize otherwise "male" words, for instance.
EDIT: I assumed you knew that the text you quoted from "...Kepha and upon this Kepha..." is from the Peshitta, an ancient manuscript written in Syriac.
Jarrod
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Wed Sep 22, 2010 - 17:47:47
: Catholica Wed Sep 22, 2010 - 14:56:46
Ok, but Peter is referred to as Cephas, and how did he get that name? The simple answer is that Jesus named him Kepha. And Syriac is not the same as Aramaic. In Aramaic words did not have gender.
Syriac is a dialect of Aramaic, as far as I know.
Also, who told you Aramaic words don't have gender? Semitic languages don't have a strict morphology for gender like Greek words, but gender is inherent in many/most words. Suffices -H and -IT feminize otherwise "male" words, for instance.
EDIT: I assumed you knew that the text you quoted from "...Kepha and upon this Kepha..." is from the Peshitta, an ancient manuscript written in Syriac.
Jarrod
Hi Jarrod, you are right, I stand corrected. I learned this from somewhere and it stuck in my head, under further inspection, you are right, Aramaic words don't have as many gender possibilities as Greek, but they still have gender. Either way, we know that the name given to Peter was Kepha, as evidenced especially in John 1:42 (transliterated to Greek, Cephas) which means "massive stone" and not "little pebble" as some like to portray Jesus as saying.
Thanks for your charitable response and correction. I hate when I say something that isn't true.
: Visionary Tue Sep 21, 2010 - 20:53:10
I have never heard that interpretation before Debbie. Literally build his church on the rock they were standing on?
May I explain??? "upon this rock"--Blessed are you Simon, for this was not revealed to you by man, but my Father in heaven. He was telling Peter his foundation was secure having been shown who the Son was by the Father
...Luke 10:22,23
Luke 6:48 Jesus is the rock!
Not on the literal rock they were standing on, but of what the foundation of the rock represented as Peter knew who Jesus was as Messiah as Gods Spirit showed this to him. Upon this foundation, not the literal rock, but the foundation of Gods Spirit in us are we to preach against the gates of Hell or against the evil one (Satan) that is in the world.
My question is why do some of you capitalize the word rock as Peter the Rock as it is not capitalized in scripture as when you capitalize it then it becomes a definition of character or makes it look like Peter is the rock and not the literal rock they were standing on?
I haven't read this thread, but I want to make a guess about the contents. Catholics say the papacy is right and protestants say it's wrong. Am I right? What do I win?
: marc Thu Sep 23, 2010 - 15:28:39
I haven't read this thread, but I want to make a guess about the contents. Catholics say the papacy is right and protestants say it's wrong. Am I right? What do I win?
The Great Baptizmo bows to Jesus Christ and not the papacy. The Great Baptizmo says forbidding marriage among clergy is clearly a doctrine of demons.
: Catholica Wed Sep 22, 2010 - 19:38:55
Hi Jarrod, you are right, I stand corrected. I learned this from somewhere and it stuck in my head, under further inspection, you are right, Aramaic words don't have as many gender possibilities as Greek, but they still have gender. Either way, we know that the name given to Peter was Kepha, as evidenced especially in John 1:42 (transliterated to Greek, Cephas) which means "massive stone" and not "little pebble" as some like to portray Jesus as saying.
Thanks for your charitable response and correction. I hate when I say something that isn't true.
No worries, we all do that from time to time. It bothers me when I do that, too. And good for you for admitting it and moving forward. That shows character.
Anyway, "Kepha" isn't a boulder, and it's not a pebble either. Kepha is just "stone." The word actually refers to the hardness of the material, with no inference about the size, whether gargantuan or tiny. ::smile::
As for how Peter got the name, the John 1 seems to indicate that Jesus had nicknamed him that upon their first meeting. Apparently, Peter was kind of a hardass - if you'll forgive the expression, I think that best communicates what the nickname means.
Jarrod
: The Great Baptizmo Thu Sep 23, 2010 - 16:00:44
The Great Baptizmo bows to Jesus Christ and not the papacy. The Great Baptizmo says forbidding marriage among clergy is clearly a doctrine of demons.
How is it a doctrine of demons? Explain.
: Selene Thu Sep 23, 2010 - 20:01:27
: The Great Baptizmo Thu Sep 23, 2010 - 16:00:44
The Great Baptizmo bows to Jesus Christ and not the papacy. The Great Baptizmo says forbidding marriage among clergy is clearly a doctrine of demons.
How is it a doctrine of demons? Explain.
God's Word says so.
1 Tim 4
1But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, 2by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, 3men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth.
: The Great Baptizmo Thu Sep 23, 2010 - 20:52:50
: Selene Thu Sep 23, 2010 - 20:01:27
: The Great Baptizmo Thu Sep 23, 2010 - 16:00:44
The Great Baptizmo bows to Jesus Christ and not the papacy. The Great Baptizmo says forbidding marriage among clergy is clearly a doctrine of demons.
How is it a doctrine of demons? Explain.
God's Word says so.
1 Tim 4
1But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, 2by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, 3men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth.
Actually Eastern Catholic priests can and do get married. Not being married is not a Catholic dogma for priests. There are no Catholics who forbid marriage. Being a Roman Catholic priest is a choice. A priest can quit being a priest and get married or he can choose to be a priest and not get married. Same thing with being a monk.
: The Great Baptizmo Thu Sep 23, 2010 - 20:52:50
: Selene Thu Sep 23, 2010 - 20:01:27
: The Great Baptizmo Thu Sep 23, 2010 - 16:00:44
The Great Baptizmo bows to Jesus Christ and not the papacy. The Great Baptizmo says forbidding marriage among clergy is clearly a doctrine of demons.
How is it a doctrine of demons? Explain.
God's Word says so.
1 Tim 4
1But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, 2by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, 3men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth.
As Angelos pointed out, the Catholic Church does not and never forbid marriage. If a person wants to be a priest, he already understands that he will not marry. In 1 Corinthians 7:8, St. Paul says that it is good to be single. When St. Paul says this, is he forbidding marriage?
Why will he not marry, if not forbidden to by the church?
In the verse you quoted, the next verse says it is better though to marry than to burn with desire, as may have been the case with quite a few unmarried priests over the years.
: Jaime Thu Sep 23, 2010 - 21:52:56
Why will he not marry, if not forbidden to by the church?
In the verse you quoted, the next verse says it is better though to marry than to burn with desire, as may have been the case with quite a few unmarried priests over the years.
He will not marry because he makes a choice to make a vow to not marry. Sometimes, priests fall away, and then they are laicized, and then they sometimes marry, and those marriages are blessed by the Church.
Some are given a gift of celibacy, and that is something that a man must discern he has before approaching the priesthood. There are some priests who did not properly discern. Most priests are just fine with their vow and quite happy that way.
: Selene Thu Sep 23, 2010 - 21:09:31
: The Great Baptizmo Thu Sep 23, 2010 - 20:52:50
: Selene Thu Sep 23, 2010 - 20:01:27
: The Great Baptizmo Thu Sep 23, 2010 - 16:00:44
The Great Baptizmo bows to Jesus Christ and not the papacy. The Great Baptizmo says forbidding marriage among clergy is clearly a doctrine of demons.
How is it a doctrine of demons? Explain.
God's Word says so.
1 Tim 4
1But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, 2by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, 3men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth.
As Angelos pointed out, the Catholic Church does not and never forbid marriage. If a person wants to be a priest, he already understands that he will not marry. In 1 Corinthians 7:8, St. Paul says that it is good to be single. When St. Paul says this, is he forbidding marriage?
Angelos did some ducking and dodging. It is a dogma that priests should not be married. There is a difference between saying it is good, and making it a requirement. The Catholic Church does indeed forbid marriage. "If you want to make a choice to become a priest, you will not marry." That is forbidding marriage. Doctrine of Demons. Period.
As far as the EOC goes, I didn't even mention them. Don't consider them "The Catholic Church."
: The Great Baptizmo Fri Sep 24, 2010 - 06:21:44
: Selene Thu Sep 23, 2010 - 21:09:31
: The Great Baptizmo Thu Sep 23, 2010 - 20:52:50
: Selene Thu Sep 23, 2010 - 20:01:27
: The Great Baptizmo Thu Sep 23, 2010 - 16:00:44
The Great Baptizmo bows to Jesus Christ and not the papacy. The Great Baptizmo says forbidding marriage among clergy is clearly a doctrine of demons.
How is it a doctrine of demons? Explain.
God's Word says so.
1 Tim 4
1But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, 2by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, 3men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth.
As Angelos pointed out, the Catholic Church does not and never forbid marriage. If a person wants to be a priest, he already understands that he will not marry. In 1 Corinthians 7:8, St. Paul says that it is good to be single. When St. Paul says this, is he forbidding marriage?
Angelos did some ducking and dodging. It is a dogma that priests should not be married. There is a difference between saying it is good, and making it a requirement. The Catholic Church does indeed forbid marriage. "If you want to make a choice to become a priest, you will not marry." That is forbidding marriage. Doctrine of Demons. Period.
As far as the EOC goes, I didn't even mention them. Don't consider them "The Catholic Church."
Baptizmo, I was not referring to the EOC (Orthodox) I was referring to the Eastern
Catholic Churches. These are Catholics, in full communion with Rome, who live in Eastern Europe, North Africa, and the middle East.
As per wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Catholic_Churches#Clerical_celibacy
"The Eastern Catholic Churches are... Churches in full communion with the Bishop of Rome—the Pope. They preserve some of the centuries-old liturgical, devotional, and theological traditions of the various Eastern Christian Churches they were once associated with. Although the Churches they formerly were associated with are not all in communion with one another,
the Eastern Catholic Churches are in communion with each other and with the Latin or Western Church. However, they vary in theological emphasis, forms of liturgical worship and popular piety, canonical discipline and terminology.
They all recognize the central role of the Bishop of Rome within the College of Bishops and his infallibility when speaking ex cathedra. The communion of the members of these Churches with the Church of Rome means that they are out of communion with the other Eastern Christian Churches, which in general do not admit them to receive the Eucharist and the other sacraments."
Eastern and Western Catholic churches have different traditions concerning clerical celibacy. These differences and the resulting controversies have played a role in the relationship between the two groups in some Western countries.
Most Eastern Churches distinguish between "monastic" and "non-monastic" clergy. Monastics do not necessarily live as monks or in monasteries, but have spent at least part of their period of training in such a context. Their monastic vows include a vow of celibate chastity.
Bishops are normally selected from the monastic clergy, and in most Eastern Catholic Churches a large percentage of priests and deacons also are celibate, while a portion of the clergy (typically, parish priests) may be married."
The Roman Catholic Church is just the biggest part of the Catholic Church, not all of it. The fact that Catholic Churches are allowedto have non-celibate priests is proof that it is not a dogma, but a
tradition that, as the Pope has said, can change.You don't seem very knowledgeable about the Catholic Church...next time to avoid embarassing yourself stop pretending knowing things you don't
The "doctrine of demons" which is mentioned in this chapter is reference to the Gnostic heresy, which taught that flesh was evil and therefore so was marriage. Another heresy, sometimes called the Albigensian heresy, which some Protestants try to claim for their own, also forbid marriage.
The Catholic Church defends marriage. The priestly celibacy vow is simply a discipline. If you don't know the difference between a discipline and a dogma, please learn the difference before saying anything more about the Catholic Church, because I don't know of any Christian who loves Jesus would want to be responsible for spreading lies. ::disco::
Catholica, Angelos, if you wish to defend the doctrines of the catholic church, it can best be done with scripture. Personal attacks only hinder your argument, AND they violate the forum rules.
Bond
This is kindof backwards.
So the Church says, "Hey I'm not saying you can't get married but as long as you're wearing that uniform you better not plan on it."?
I undertsand celibicacy is a discipline. I understand that being a single priest allows a man to devote all his time to his faith.
But didn't Peter marry and have children?
: LightHammer Fri Sep 24, 2010 - 11:15:02
This is kindof backwards.
So the Church says, "Hey I'm not saying you can't get married but as long as you're wearing that uniform you better not plan on it."?
I undertsand celibicacy is a discipline. I understand that being a single priest allows a man to devote all his time to his faith.
But didn't Peter marry and have children?
The way the Catholic priesthood works (universally) is this: If a man wishes to be ordained, he knowingly and willingly rejects his right to
become married to another human person. This is because a minister's ordination in effect marries him to God. It is a here-and-now reflection of what life will be like in heaven. In heaven, no one is married to another person; we are all married to God.
That does not mean that a man who is already married cannot enter into the priesthood. It is simply a discipline of the Latin Rite that only single men can become priests. In the Eastern Rites, married men can become priests. But once they are priests (or deacons, throughout the Church, Latin or Eastern rites) they cannot then become married (receive the sacrament of matrimony) unless they are first laicized by the Church. Thus a married man can become a priest (except in the Latin rite, because of the current discipline) and a married man can become a deacon, but a priest or a deacon cannot then receive the sacrament of matrimony (go from an unmarried state to a married state) unless they request to be laicized first. And that is because when they ordained, they become a mystical bride of Christ.
The Church does not forbid marriage. I am Catholic, and I was married in the Catholic Church. If the Catholic Church forbid marriage then I could not become married. That is what the "doctrine of demons" scripture was talking about. If I was a Gnostic, and I wanted to become married, they would say that I could not.
The Syrian School of Gnosticism taught:
The opposition between the good God and the World-Creator is not eternal or cosmogonic, though there is strong ethical opposition to Jehovah the God of the Jews. He is the last of the seven angels who fashioned this world out of eternally pre-existent matter. The demiurgic angels, attempting to create man, created but a miserable worm, to which the Good God, however, gave the spark of divine life. The rule of the god of the Jews must pass away, for the good God calls us to his own immediate service through Christ his Son. We obey the Supreme Deity by abstaining from flesh meat and marriage, and by leading an ascetic life.
The New Testament is written Sacred Tradition, set to pen in part to fight against the Gnostic heresy, which claimed its own "secret knowledge", its own "Sacred Tradition" that was different from the Sacred Tradition of the Apostles.
If one states that by saying that a person who is consecrated to God being forbidden to marry is a "doctrine of demons", then he must deal with the following passage, where God forbids Jeremiah to marry:
: Jeremiah 16:1-2This message came to me from the LORD: Do not marry any woman; you shall not have sons or daughters in this place,
Peter was married before being called. There is no conflict with Peter's married state before his calling and Catholic doctrine.
The way the Catholic priesthood works (universally) is this: If a man wishes to be ordained, he knowingly and willingly rejects his right to become married to another human person. This is because a minister's ordination in effect marries him to God. It is a here-and-now reflection of what life will be like in heaven. In heaven, no one is married to another person; we are all married to God.
That does not mean that a man who is already married cannot enter into the priesthood. It is simply a discipline of the Latin Rite that only single men can become priests. In the Eastern Rites, married men can become priests. But once they are priests (or deacons, throughout the Church, Latin or Eastern rites) they cannot then become married (receive the sacrament of matrimony) unless they are first laicized by the Church. Thus a married man can become a priest (except in the Latin rite, because of the current discipline) and a married man can become a deacon, but a priest or a deacon cannot then receive the sacrament of matrimony (go from an unmarried state to a married state) unless they request to be laicized first. And that is because when they ordained, they become a mystical bride of Christ.
The Church does not forbid marriage. I am Catholic, and I was married in the Catholic Church. If the Catholic Church forbid marriage then I could not become married. That is what the "doctrine of demons" scripture was talking about. If I was a Gnostic, and I wanted to become married, they would say that I could not.
This is a flawed concept because the Church( the universal community of believers) as a whole is God's one bride. It is evident when you look at the prophetical writings of scripture. The great beasts or women described bringing about catstrophic changes to the world decribe a multitude of people. Either a mighty nation or a great gathering. God does not marry each individual He marries the entire congregation and to separate from that congregation by abandoning one's faith is separate what makes one united with God.
: BondServant Fri Sep 24, 2010 - 11:04:23
Catholica, Angelos, if you wish to defend the doctrines of the catholic church, it can best be done with scripture. Personal attacks only hinder your argument, AND they violate the forum rules.
Bond
Since the Catholic Church follows the Bible
AND Apostolic Tradition, She can't always be defended by scripture alone. That is the problem that most Protestants have.
Quote from: Jeremiah 16:1-2
This message came to me from the LORD: Do not marry any woman; you shall not have sons or daughters in this place,
Peter was married before being called. There is no conflict with Peter's married state before his calling and Catholic doctrine.
You isolated a few words from the entirety of God's warning. God wasn't forbidding marraige because of Jeremiah's commissioning as a minister but to protect them and their offspring from the land's affliciation of disease and death
: Jaime Thu Sep 23, 2010 - 21:52:56
Why will he not marry, if not forbidden to by the church?
In the verse you quoted, the next verse says it is better though to marry than to burn with desire, as may have been the case with quite a few unmarried priests over the years.
Actually in that same Chapter 7, St. Paul gives his reasons why it is good to be single:
1 Corinthians 7:32-33 I would like you to be free of anxieties. An unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord. But a married man is anxious about the things of the world, how e may please his wife.
Does this mean that St. Paul is forbidding marriage? No, of course not. But he does encourage a single life especially those who want to dedicate their life to serving the Lord. Therefore, the Catholic Church does not allow their priest to marry so they can devote their full time to serving God.
: Selene Fri Sep 24, 2010 - 18:27:30
: Jaime Thu Sep 23, 2010 - 21:52:56
Why will he not marry, if not forbidden to by the church?
In the verse you quoted, the next verse says it is better though to marry than to burn with desire, as may have been the case with quite a few unmarried priests over the years.
Actually in that same Chapter 7, St. Paul gives his reasons why it is good to be single:
1 Corinthians 7:32-33 I would like you to be free of anxieties. An unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord. But a married man is anxious about the things of the world, how e may please his wife.
Does this mean that St. Paul is forbidding marriage? No, of course not. But he does encourage a single life especially those who want to dedicate their life to serving the Lord. Therefore, the Catholic Church does not allow their priest to marry so they can devote their full time to serving God.
And the Catholic Church does not have the authority to forbade a priest from following God's very first commandment. His very first charge to Adam and Eve
: LightHammer Fri Sep 24, 2010 - 18:38:09
And the Catholic Church does not have the authority to forbade a priest from following God's very first commandment. His very first charge to Adam and Eve
The Catholic Church does not forbid a priest from marriage. The priest knows that if he wants to marry, he will leave the priesthood and marry the woman of his dreams.
: Selene Fri Sep 24, 2010 - 18:51:08
: LightHammer Fri Sep 24, 2010 - 18:38:09
And the Catholic Church does not have the authority to forbade a priest from following God's very first commandment. His very first charge to Adam and Eve
The Catholic Church does not forbid a priest from marriage. The priest knows that if he wants to marry, he will leave the priesthood and marry the woman of his dreams.
To be an ordained priest in my Church you must adhere to a higher standard and discipline by forsaking all partners and devoting your life entirely to God.
That sounds all fine and dandy but a man and a woman are a complete set. God said so Himself. When a man leaves his home he is to find himself a woman and become whole. The relationship between a man and woman unified under the hand of God is akin to a great bridge and its foundation. One can not flourish fully unless they are paired with God's chosen whole and for every man that chosen whole lies with a woman. God's bride is being prepared by those who have been commissioned to help gather her up.
What you have in the Catholic Church is incomplete parts, powerful disciplined righteous parts leading a mass that would be far better off if it leaders were complete and whole.
: LightHammer Fri Sep 24, 2010 - 19:04:53
: Selene Fri Sep 24, 2010 - 18:51:08
: LightHammer Fri Sep 24, 2010 - 18:38:09
And the Catholic Church does not have the authority to forbade a priest from following God's very first commandment. His very first charge to Adam and Eve
The Catholic Church does not forbid a priest from marriage. The priest knows that if he wants to marry, he will leave the priesthood and marry the woman of his dreams.
To be an ordained priest in my Church you must adhere to a higher standard and discipline by forsaking all partners and devoting your life entirely to God.
That sounds all fine and dandy but a man and a woman are a complete set. God said so Himself. When a man leaves his home he is to find himself a woman and become whole. The relationship between a man and woman unified under the hand of God is akin to a great bridge and its foundation. One can not flourish fully unless they are paired with God's chosen whole and for every man that chosen whole lies with a woman. God's bride is being prepared by those who have been commissioned to help gather her up.
What you have in the Catholic Church is incomplete parts, powerful disciplined righteous parts leading a mass that would be far better off if it leaders were complete and whole.
GIVE ME A BREAK!!!!
Catholics??? What rights do you have? 1Corinthians 9:1-6 Who said, If you marry you cannot be a priest?
That kind of wisdom does not come from God!!!
: LightHammer Fri Sep 24, 2010 - 19:04:53
: Selene Fri Sep 24, 2010 - 18:51:08
: LightHammer Fri Sep 24, 2010 - 18:38:09
And the Catholic Church does not have the authority to forbade a priest from following God's very first commandment. His very first charge to Adam and Eve
The Catholic Church does not forbid a priest from marriage. The priest knows that if he wants to marry, he will leave the priesthood and marry the woman of his dreams.
To be an ordained priest in my Church you must adhere to a higher standard and discipline by forsaking all partners and devoting your life entirely to God.
That sounds all fine and dandy but a man and a woman are a complete set. God said so Himself. When a man leaves his home he is to find himself a woman and become whole. The relationship between a man and woman unified under the hand of God is akin to a great bridge and its foundation. One can not flourish fully unless they are paired with God's chosen whole and for every man that chosen whole lies with a woman. God's bride is being prepared by those who have been commissioned to help gather her up.
What you have in the Catholic Church is incomplete parts, powerful disciplined righteous parts leading a mass that would be far better off if it leaders were complete and whole.
The unity of man and woman mentioned in Genesis is the foretaste of our true calling, which is a unity between man and God, between Christ and His Church. The beginning of the Bible (Genesis) points and prepares us to a much better one, which is found in the end of the Bible (Revelations), the unity between God and His people. Jesus said that in Heaven, man and woman shall not marry nor be married (See Matthew 22:30). Why? Because we are called to a much better union. We are called to be one with God. Our happiness is not found in our wives or husbands. True happiness is found only in God. Therefore, because our leaders seek this union with God and only God, our leaders are complete and whole.
Revelations 19:7 Let us rejoice and be glad and give Him glory. For the wedding day of the Lamb has come, and His bride has made herself ready.
: Visionary Fri Sep 24, 2010 - 19:18:03
GIVE ME A BREAK!!!!
Catholics??? What rights do you have? 1Corinthians 9:1-6 Who said, If you marry you cannot be a priest?
That kind of wisdom does not come from God!!!
Tell that to the Apostles who left EVERYTHING including their families to follow Christ.
Mark 10:28 And Peter began to say unto him: Behold, we have left all things, and have followed thee.
: Selene Fri Sep 24, 2010 - 19:25:42
: Visionary Fri Sep 24, 2010 - 19:18:03
GIVE ME A BREAK!!!!
Catholics??? What rights do you have? 1Corinthians 9:1-6 Who said, If you marry you cannot be a priest?
That kind of wisdom does not come from God!!!
Tell that to the Apostles who left EVERYTHING including their families to follow Christ.
Mark 10:28 And Peter began to say unto him: Behold, we have left all things, and have followed thee.
Selene it almost sounds like you approve these so called ordained priests taking little boys and little girls into back rooms because they have not used their God given right to take wives for themselves! 1Corinthians 7:2
: Visionary Fri Sep 24, 2010 - 19:35:44
: Selene Fri Sep 24, 2010 - 19:25:42
: Visionary Fri Sep 24, 2010 - 19:18:03
GIVE ME A BREAK!!!!
Catholics??? What rights do you have? 1Corinthians 9:1-6 Who said, If you marry you cannot be a priest?
That kind of wisdom does not come from God!!!
Tell that to the Apostles who left EVERYTHING including their families to follow Christ.
Mark 10:28 And Peter began to say unto him: Behold, we have left all things, and have followed thee.
Selene it almost sounds like you approve these so called ordained priests taking little boys and little girls into back rooms because they have not used their God given right to take wives for themselves! 1Corinthians 7:2
Why do you judge the entire priesthood to the actions of a few misguided priests?
: Visionary Fri Sep 24, 2010 - 19:35:44
: Selene Fri Sep 24, 2010 - 19:25:42
: Visionary Fri Sep 24, 2010 - 19:18:03
GIVE ME A BREAK!!!!
Catholics??? What rights do you have? 1Corinthians 9:1-6 Who said, If you marry you cannot be a priest?
That kind of wisdom does not come from God!!!
Tell that to the Apostles who left EVERYTHING including their families to follow Christ.
Mark 10:28 And Peter began to say unto him: Behold, we have left all things, and have followed thee.
Selene it almost sounds like you approve these so called ordained priests taking little boys and little girls into back rooms because they have not used their God given right to take wives for themselves! 1Corinthians 7:2
Yea whoever you are your attitude and words are not welcomed here. You can not post among this community of believers with such crude and irrelevant slander. It will not be tolerated. Here in this forum we adhere to higher standard when debating one another. You will adhere to that standard or you will be reported.
Here you go Selene...
1Timothy 4:1-6
If its the Catholic churches policy that you cannot be an ordained minister if you are married and or if you do marry you must leave the church then KNOW THIS...That kind of teaching comes from Satan and not from God.
Accept the scriptures given to you lighthammer which can save you from the fowlers snare run rampant in the papacy as if the Pope is God and what he says goes!
It is Gods word that endures forever!
: Visionary Fri Sep 24, 2010 - 19:42:55
Here you go Selene...
1Timothy 4:1-6
If its the Catholic churches policy that you cannot be an ordained minister if you are married and or if you do marry you must leave the church then KNOW THIS...That kind of teaching comes from Satan and not from God.
Visionary, this was already addressed. The Catholic Church does not forbid marriage because if a priest wishes to marry, he can marry by leaving the priesthood and marrying a woman. We do not condemn a priest for leaving the priesthood for marriage.
Remember, it was St. Paul who encouraged people to remain single. Of course, St. Paul is not forbidding marriage here. He is simply saying that being single is good. The Apostles also gave up everything including their families to follow Jesus. Our priests chose to do the same. To seek union with God and only God is what they are called to do. If you think that you can only find happiness in marriage with a wife or husband, then you are fooling yourself. True happiness comes only with being in union with God.
Deacons and overseers:
1Timothy 3:1-15 Must be the husband of one wife...He must manage his own family well...if anyone cannot manage his own family how can he manage Gods household...
Titus 1:6-16 Elders must be the husband of one wife...
Now... 1Thessalonians 5:12
Please do read the scriptures for yourself and test your churches policies.
: Visionary Fri Sep 24, 2010 - 20:01:21
Deacons and overseers:
1Timothy 3:1-15 Must be the husband of one wife...He must manage his own family well...if anyone cannot manage his own family how can he manage Gods household...
Titus 1:6-16 Elders must be the husband of one wife...
Now... 1Thessalonians 5:12
Please do read the scriptures for yourself and test your churches policies.
So, are you now saying that we should FORCE our priests and deacons to marry? Is this how you read this biblical verse?
: Selene Fri Sep 24, 2010 - 19:54:53
: Visionary Fri Sep 24, 2010 - 19:42:55
Here you go Selene...
1Timothy 4:1-6
If its the Catholic churches policy that you cannot be an ordained minister if you are married and or if you do marry you must leave the church then KNOW THIS...That kind of teaching comes from Satan and not from God.
Visionary, this was already addressed. The Catholic Church does not forbid marriage because if a priest wishes to marry, he can marry by leaving the priesthood and marrying a woman. We do not condemn a priest for leaving the priesthood for marriage.
Remember, it was St. Paul who encouraged people to remain single. Of course, St. Paul is not forbidding marriage here. He is simply saying that being single is good. The Apostles also gave up everything including their families to follow Jesus. Our priests chose to do the same. To seek union with God and only God is what they are called to do. If you think that you can only find happiness in marriage with a wife or husband, then you are fooling yourself. True happiness comes only with being in union with God.
Show us Selene where God says if you marry you must leave the priesthood????
: Visionary Fri Sep 24, 2010 - 20:04:11
: Selene Fri Sep 24, 2010 - 19:54:53
: Visionary Fri Sep 24, 2010 - 19:42:55
Here you go Selene...
1Timothy 4:1-6
If its the Catholic churches policy that you cannot be an ordained minister if you are married and or if you do marry you must leave the church then KNOW THIS...That kind of teaching comes from Satan and not from God.
Visionary, this was already addressed. The Catholic Church does not forbid marriage because if a priest wishes to marry, he can marry by leaving the priesthood and marrying a woman. We do not condemn a priest for leaving the priesthood for marriage.
Remember, it was St. Paul who encouraged people to remain single. Of course, St. Paul is not forbidding marriage here. He is simply saying that being single is good. The Apostles also gave up everything including their families to follow Jesus. Our priests chose to do the same. To seek union with God and only God is what they are called to do. If you think that you can only find happiness in marriage with a wife or husband, then you are fooling yourself. True happiness comes only with being in union with God.
Show us Selene where God says if you marry you must leave the priesthood????
1 Corinthians 7:32-38 I should like you to be free of anxieties. An unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord. But a married man is anxious about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and he is divided.......If anyone thinks he is behaving improperly toward his virgin an dif a critical moment has come and so it has to be, let him do as he wishes. He is committing no sin; let them get married. The one who stands firm in his resolve, however, who is not under compulsion but has power over his own will, and has made up his mind to keep his virgin, will be doing well. So then, the one who marries his virgin does well; the one who does not marry will do better
: Selene Fri Sep 24, 2010 - 20:16:03
: Visionary Fri Sep 24, 2010 - 20:04:11
: Selene Fri Sep 24, 2010 - 19:54:53
: Visionary Fri Sep 24, 2010 - 19:42:55
Here you go Selene...
1Timothy 4:1-6
If its the Catholic churches policy that you cannot be an ordained minister if you are married and or if you do marry you must leave the church then KNOW THIS...That kind of teaching comes from Satan and not from God.
Visionary, this was already addressed. The Catholic Church does not forbid marriage because if a priest wishes to marry, he can marry by leaving the priesthood and marrying a woman. We do not condemn a priest for leaving the priesthood for marriage.
Remember, it was St. Paul who encouraged people to remain single. Of course, St. Paul is not forbidding marriage here. He is simply saying that being single is good. The Apostles also gave up everything including their families to follow Jesus. Our priests chose to do the same. To seek union with God and only God is what they are called to do. If you think that you can only find happiness in marriage with a wife or husband, then you are fooling yourself. True happiness comes only with being in union with God.
Show us Selene where God says if you marry you must leave the priesthood????
1 Corinthians 7:32-38 I should like you to be free of anxieties. An unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord. But a married man is anxious about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and he is divided.......If anyone thinks he is behaving improperly toward his virgin an dif a critical moment has come and so it has to be, let him do as he wishes. He is committing no sin; let them get married. The one who stands firm in his resolve, however, who is not under compulsion but has power over his own will, and has made up his mind to keep his virgin, will be doing well. So then, the one who marries his virgin does well; the one who does not marry will do better.
Yes. I know that verse but it does not say what you claim comes from God Selene. We will wait until you find us the scripture that says...he can marry by leaving the priesthood and marrying a woman
Can I save you some time Selene?
You will not find it in Gods word anywhere from beginning to end that a man must leave the priesthood if he marries!
A man may marry anyone he wants! A priest may marry anyone he wants!
God blessed them and said, BE FRUITFUL AND MULTIPLY. Genesis 1:28
::preachit::
: Visionary Fri Sep 24, 2010 - 20:20:02
Yes. I know that verse but it does not say what you claim comes from God Selene. We will wait until you find us the scripture that says...he can marry by leaving the priesthood and marrying a woman
It does come from God, Visionary because this is what our priests who are called by God to follow. Every Catholic priest made this choice. It was not forced upon him. By the way, you have not answered any of my questions. Do you honestlly think that true happiness is found in marriage with a man or woman? Do you not know that true happiness can only be found by being one and in union with God? Our priests chose to seek this kind of union with God rather than with a woman.
: Visionary Fri Sep 24, 2010 - 20:23:58
Can I save you some time Selene?
You will not find it in Gods word anywhere from beginning to end!
A man may marry anyone he wants! A priest may marry anyone he wants!
God blessed them and said, BE FRUITFUL AND MULTIPLY. Genesis 1:28
::preachit::
The unity of man and woman mentioned in Genesis is the foretaste of our true calling, which is a unity between man and God, between Christ and His Church. The beginning of the Bible (Genesis) points and prepares us to a much better one, which is found in the end of the Bible (Revelations), the unity between God and His people. Jesus said that in Heaven, man and woman shall not marry nor be married (See Matthew 22:30). Why? Because we are called to a much better union. We are called to be one with God. Our happiness is not found in our wives or husbands. True happiness is found only in God. Therefore, because our leaders seek this union with God and only God, our leaders are complete and whole.
Revelations 19:7 Let us rejoice and be glad and give Him glory. For the wedding day of the Lamb has come, and His bride has made herself ready.
: Selene Fri Sep 24, 2010 - 20:26:49
: Visionary Fri Sep 24, 2010 - 20:23:58
Can I save you some time Selene?
You will not find it in Gods word anywhere from beginning to end that a man must leave the priesthood if he marries!
A man may marry anyone he wants! A priest may marry anyone he wants!
God blessed them and said, BE FRUITFUL AND MULTIPLY. Genesis 1:28
::preachit::
The unity of man and woman mentioned in Genesis is the foretaste of our true calling, which is a unity between man and God, between Christ and His Church. The beginning of the Bible (Genesis) points and prepares us to a much better one, which is found in the end of the Bible (Revelations), the unity between God and His people. Jesus said that in Heaven, man and woman shall not marry nor be married (See Matthew 22:30). Why? Because we are called to a much better union. We are called to be one with God. Our happiness is not found in our wives or husbands. True happiness is found only in God. Therefore, because our leaders seek this union with God and only God, our leaders are complete and whole.
Revelations 19:7 Let us rejoice and be glad and give Him glory. For the wedding day of the Lamb has come, and His bride has made herself ready.
What does that have to do with the Catholic churches policy in forcing priest out of church if they marry a woman???
NOTHING!!!!
: Visionary Fri Sep 24, 2010 - 20:31:24
What does that have to do with the Catholic churches policy in forcing priest out of church if they marry a woman???
NOTHING!!!!
Visionary, the Catholic Church does not force a priest to marry or not to marry. A person who desires to be a priest already knows that he must give up all to follow Christ.
Mark 10:28 And Peter began to say unto him: Behold, we have left all things, and have followed thee.
If a priest decides that he wants to marry, he can. He is not forced to marry. He is not forced in any way to leave the Church. He is simply leaving the priesthood. The former priest is still in the Church. And again, you still have not answered my question. Do you think that one will find true happiness in a marriage with a wife or husband? Do you not know that true happiness comes only in being one and in union with God?
: Selene Fri Sep 24, 2010 - 20:37:27
: Visionary Fri Sep 24, 2010 - 20:31:24
What does that have to do with the Catholic churches policy in forcing priest out of church if they marry a woman???
NOTHING!!!!
Visionary, the Catholic Church does not force a priest to marry or not to marry. A person who desires to be a priest already knows that he must give up all to follow Christ.
Mark 10:28 And Peter began to say unto him: Behold, we have left all things, and have followed thee.
If a priest decides that he wants to marry, he can. He is not forced to marry. He is not forced in any way to leave the Church. He is simply leaving the priesthood. The former priest is still in the Church.
How about this Selene...Those who belong to God hears what God says. SINCE WHEN DID GOD EVER SAY IF YOU MARRY YOU ARE NOT A PRIEST? "He is simply leaving the priesthood."
: Visionary Fri Sep 24, 2010 - 20:41:12
: Selene Fri Sep 24, 2010 - 20:37:27
: Visionary Fri Sep 24, 2010 - 20:31:24
What does that have to do with the Catholic churches policy in forcing priest out of church if they marry a woman???
NOTHING!!!!
Visionary, the Catholic Church does not force a priest to marry or not to marry. A person who desires to be a priest already knows that he must give up all to follow Christ.
Mark 10:28 And Peter began to say unto him: Behold, we have left all things, and have followed thee.
If a priest decides that he wants to marry, he can. He is not forced to marry. He is not forced in any way to leave the Church. He is simply leaving the priesthood. The former priest is still in the Church.
How about this Selene...Those who belong to God hears what God says. SINCE WHEN DID GOD EVER SAY IF YOU MARRY YOU ARE NOT A PRIEST? "He is simply leaving the priesthood."
You still did not answer my question, Visionary. Do you think that one will find true happiness in a marriage with a wife or husband? Do you not know that true happiness comes only from being one and in union with God?
Why would I give in to your attempt to change the subject Selene?
Now God has given certain men the commandment not to marry...Matthew 19:11,12 But he makes no distinction between men! Why?
Because Jesus is our perfect priest...Not the Pope...not any man! Jesus is our perfect priest having offered to God the perfect sacrifice of himself once for all and is seated in heaven above!
Hebrews 8:1,2
Therefore any man can take any woman to be his wife and if he does so he does not sin! If there is no sin in marriage then one who is a priest remains a priest and can serve God in clear conscience.
Take a look at Zechariah - a Priest - who entered the Most Holy Place. Luke 1:5-7 He was MARRIED! Only the priest could enter the most holy place with blood!
Because he was married GOD DID NOT SAY, You cannot serve in the temple before me!
Catholics have it so backwards its not even funny!!!
: Visionary Fri Sep 24, 2010 - 20:56:47
Why would I give in to your attempt to change the subject Selene?
Now God has given certain men the commandment not to marry...Matthew 19:11,12 But he makes no distinction between men! Why?
Because Jesus is our perfect priest...Not the Pope...not any man! Jesus is our perfect priest having offered to God the perfect sacrifice of himself once for all and is seated in heaven above!
Hebrews 8:1,2
Therefore any man can take any woman to be his wife and if he does so he does not sin! If there is no sin in marriage then one who is a priest remains a priest and can serve God in clear conscience.
Take a look at Zechariah - a Priest - who entered the Most Holy Place. Luke 1:5-7 He was MARRIED! Only the priest could enter the most holy place with blood!
Because he was married GOD DID NOT SAY, You cannot serve in the temple before me!
Catholics have it so backwards its not even funny!!!
Visionary, some of our deacons are married. As a matter of fact, one of the deacons in my Church was married. He's passed away now. He served at the altar, but because he is married, he understands that he could not become a priest. He is happy being married and being a deacon serving God. My priest, on the other hand, is not married. He was never forced to become a priest, and he is happy being in union with God.
As we keep telling you... the Catholic Church does not forbid marriage; therefore, we are not in violation of 1 Timothy 4:1-6 or even with Hebrews. Anyone who desires to become a priest already knows that he is going to be in union with God rather than with a woman. This is NOT a secret that the Catholic Church keeps from him. And if he becomes a priest and decides to change his mind about marrying a woman, he can do so. As I said, we do not forbid marriage. The priest can marry, but he leaves the priesthood to do so. This is not a prohibition against marriage.
: Visionary Fri Sep 24, 2010 - 20:56:47
Why would I give in to your attempt to change the subject Selene?
Now God has given certain men the commandment not to marry...Matthew 19:11,12 But he makes no distinction between men! Why?
Because Jesus is our perfect priest...Not the Pope...not any man! Jesus is our perfect priest having offered to God the perfect sacrifice of himself once for all and is seated in heaven above!
Hebrews 8:1,2
I would also like to add here, that you are correct that Jesus is our perfect priest. And we are called to imitate Christ. So, our priests chose to imitate Christ by being single like Him. And this is a choice made by our priests because they already know that to become a priest is to give up all things and to follow Him just as the Apostles did.
I would also like to add here, that you are correct that Jesus is our perfect priest. And we are called to imitate Christ. So, our priests chose to imitate Christ by being single like Him. And this is a choice made by our priests because they already know that to become a priest is to give up all things and to follow Him just as the Apostles did.
[/quote]
to become a priest is to give up all things and to follow Him just as the Apostles did.
I would like you to show us this from scripture but again I will save you some time...YOU WILL NOT FIND THIS IS A REQUIREMENT OF GOD to become a priest!!!
Selene I am going to tell you something you will not hear in a catholic church.
This is the truth! 1Peter 2:9,10 YOU ARE a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that YOU may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. Once YOU WERE NOT a people, but now YOU ARE the people of God. Once YOU HAD NOT received mercy, but now YOU HAVE received mercy.
Who makes YOU a priest Selene? IT IS NOT the Catholic church! It is God! Do we as priests seek the approval of men or God?
Who qualifies you to be a priest? Colossians 1:12-14 How does God qualify you to be a priest? Ephesians 1:13,14
Selene I STRONGLY suggest you read a bible and believe what God says! Put away all this Catholic dogma that has no foundation in the Word of God and turn yourself to God and learn from him.
We do not imitate Christ by being single...that kind of wisdom is earthly!
We as husbands imitate Christ by dying to ourselves to supply the needs of others!!! Ephesians 5:1,2
: Visionary Fri Sep 24, 2010 - 23:52:13
I would also like to add here, that you are correct that Jesus is our perfect priest. And we are called to imitate Christ. So, our priests chose to imitate Christ by being single like Him. And this is a choice made by our priests because they already know that to become a priest is to give up all things and to follow Him just as the Apostles did.
to become a priest is to give up all things and to follow Him just as the Apostles did.
I would like you to show us this from scripture but again I will save you some time...YOU WILL NOT FIND THIS IS A REQUIREMENT OF GOD to become a priest!!!
Mark 10:28 And Peter began to say unto him: Behold, we have left all things, and have followed thee.
Luke 18:28 Then Peter said: Behold, we have left all things, and have followed thee.
Matthew 19:27 Then Peter answering, said to him: Behold we have left all things, and have followed thee: what therefore shall we have?
John 12:26
If any man minister to me, let him follow me; and where I am, there also shall my minister be. If any man minister to me, him will my Father honour.
As you can see, the Apostles who were CHOSEN by Christ Himself left everything to follow Christ. This is what it means to follow Christ. God comes first before anything else. Mother Teresa also did the same thing. She was single and left all things to follow in Christ's footsteps. Any Catholic Priest who answers God's call to follow Him understands this. Apparantly, you do not understand this for you consider a wife more fulfilling than God.
As I said before, the union of man and woman in Genesis is only to prepare us for a much better union, which is found in Revelations.....a union, which our priests and nuns have found. After all, did you really think that in Heaven you are going to be married to your wife?
Luke 20:34-35 And Jesus said to them:
The children of THIS WORLD marry, and are given in marriage: [35] But they that shall be accounted worthy of that world, and of the resurrection from the dead, shall neither be married, nor take wives.
Selene I am going to tell you something you will not hear in a catholic church.
This is the truth! 1Peter 2:9,10 YOU ARE a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that YOU may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. Once YOU WERE NOT a people, but now YOU ARE the people of God. Once YOU HAD NOT received mercy, but now YOU HAVE received mercy.
Who makes YOU a priest Selene? IT IS NOT the Catholic church! It is God! Do we as priests seek the approval of men or God?
Who qualifies you to be a priest? Colossians 1:12-14 How does God qualify you to be a priest? Ephesians 1:13,14
Selene I STRONGLY suggest you read a bible and believe what God says! Put away all this Catholic dogma that has no foundation in the Word of God and turn yourself to God and learn from him.
We do not imitate Christ by being single...that kind of wisdom is earthly!
Actually, Visionary, the Church has taught us this. St. Peter said that we are a royal priesthood and a holy nation. We are an entire priesthood and yes, we are a nation. Of all the Christian denomination, only the Catholic Church became a soverign nation. The Catholic Church is a mirror image of who Christ is simply because we are His Body. Christ is a priest. His Church is a priest. Christ is a prophet (See Matthew 21:11). His Church is also a prophet in that she goes out to the world proclaiming God's word. Christ is a King. His Church is also a King in that she is a soverign nation among leaders. Christ came from the richness of Heaven to this world in the flesh living in poverty. His Church was built by the Divine God in this world, imitating the richness of the Spiritual and Heavenly Church from which Christ came.
We as husbands imitate Christ by dying to ourselves to supply the needs of others!!! Ephesians 5:1,2
You are in error. This is what Ephesians 5:25 says:
Ephesians 5:25
Husbands, love your wives, AS Christ also loved the church, and delivered himself up for it:
You are to love your wife AS Christ love the Church. And how did Christ love the Church? By dyiing for her. Therefore, you are to die for your wife.
John 15:13 Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
The church teaches us Selene?
The scriptures given you have showed you that your church is not teaching the sound doctrines of Jesus Christ.
So as I have been showing you all along... John 6:43-45
It remains then that you cannot give us any scripture that to become a priest and remain a priest and serve God in church you must be single and remain single and you cannot give us a scripture that to become a priest you must give up all things.
Why? Because neither of those things are a requirement of God nor will you find it anywhere in scripture.
Hebrews 1:1,2...IT IS GOD WHO CALLS US BY HIS OWN GOODNESS AND GRACE THROUGH JESUS CHRIST!!!
John 10:3-5
Furthermore as you were told already but did not understand...
WE HAVE A PRIEST THAT IS IN HEAVEN!!!
So why on earth would a child of God, born of God seek a priests counsel on earth? DONT YOU KNOW...
1Corinthians 3:16 1John 2:26,27 Unless you have not believed and are only following rules taught by men?
I am the Good Shepherd. I know my sheep and my sheep know me! John 10:14
So as I counselled you before Selene...Put away your church dogma that has no foundation in Gods Word and SEEK HIS FACE!
Acts 7:40 Where is Jesus Selene? That you made a man - the POPE - THE CATHOLIC CHURCH - your idol?
: Visionary Sat Sep 25, 2010 - 19:04:42
The church teaches us Selene?
The scriptures given you have showed you that your church is not teaching the sound doctrines of Jesus Christ.
So as I have been showing you all along... John 6:43-45
It remains then that you cannot give us any scripture that to become a priest and remain a priest and serve God in church you must be single and remain single and you cannot give us a scripture that to become a priest you must give up all things.
Why? Because neither of those things are a requirement of God nor will you find it anywhere in scripture.
Hebrews 1:1,2...IT IS GOD WHO CALLS US BY HIS OWN GOODNESS AND GRACE THROUGH JESUS CHRIST!!!
John 10:3-5
Furthermore as you were told already but did not understand...
WE HAVE A PRIEST THAT IS IN HEAVEN!!!
So why on earth would a child of God, born of God seek a priests counsel on earth? DONT YOU KNOW...
1Corinthians 3:16 1John 2:26,27 Unless you have not believed and are only following rules taught by men?
I am the Good Shepherd. I know my sheep and my sheep know me! John 10:14
So as I counselled you before Selene...Put away your church dogma that has no foundation in Gods Word and SEEK HIS FACE!
Acts 7:40 Where is Jesus Selene? That you made a man - the POPE - THE CATHOLIC CHURCH - your idol?
And who do you think the Apostles were? Were they not God's chosen ones? His priests? The Apostles were Christ's priests who ruled over the Church. Our priests are chosen just as the Apostles were. We are His chosen. We are His sheep because He chose us.
My brother, I did give you scripture showing you that to be a follower of Christ is to give all things just as the Apostles did. The Apostles were priests.....remember.....Christ chose 12 Apostles. You do remember that, don't you. And these followers gave up everything to follow Christ just as it says in Scripture, and they ruled over God's Church just as Scripture says.
And what do you do? You put down the Catholic Church simply because a Catholic priest chose to give up having a wife and family to be in union with God? You are putting down the Catholic Church for this? In the first place, we're not even asking you to be a Catholic priest. My priest chose to be a Catholic priest and he understood that he was to serve God and be in union with God rather than with a woman. So, what's wrong with that choice? It was his choice. As for you, if you want to be in union with a woman, who is stopping you?
Selene for the third and last time...
THERE IS ONLY ONE PRIEST>>>HIS NAME IS JESUS CHRIST!!!
How is it then that Jesus speaks to the Catholic church...Matthew 23:7-15 ...Father...Rabbi/Priest...Teacher...
How is it that you didn't hear what God says?
You said, if a catholic priest marries he must leave the church...if thats what you believe Selene then know this...
John 16:2,3 They will do such things, Jesus says, because they have not known the Father or me.
THANK GOD THE CHURCH IS CHOSEN BY GOD AND NOT MEN...
: Visionary Sat Sep 25, 2010 - 21:57:15
Selene for the third and last time...
THERE IS ONLY ONE PRIEST>>>HIS NAME IS JESUS CHRIST!!!
Visionary, you are confusing yourself. First you said this below:
From Visionary: Selene I am going to tell you something you will not hear in a catholic church.
This is the truth! 1Peter 2:9,10 YOU ARE a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that YOU may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. Once YOU WERE NOT a people, but now YOU ARE the people of God. Once YOU HAD NOT received mercy, but now YOU HAVE received mercy.
Who makes YOU a priest Selene? IT IS NOT the Catholic church! It is God! Do we as priests seek the approval of men or God?
Who qualifies you to be a priest? Colossians 1:12-14 How does God qualify you to be a priest? Ephesians 1:13,14
Here, you are saying that we are a priest and that I am also a priest. Now, suddenly, you are saying that there is only one priest?
Visonary, we believe that there is only one high priest.... Jesus Christ. And we know that Christ made us a royal priesthood and a holy nation. St. Peter said that we are a royal priesthood and a holy nation. We are an entire priesthood and yes, we are a nation. Of all the Christian denomination, only the Catholic Church became a soverign nation. The Catholic Church is a mirror image of who Christ is simply because we are His Body. Christ is a priest. His Church is a priest. Christ is a prophet (See Matthew 21:11). His Church is also a prophet in that she goes out to the world proclaiming God's word. Christ is a King. His Church is also a King in that she is a soverign nation among leaders. Christ came from the richness of Heaven to this world in the flesh living in poverty. His Church was built by the Divine God in this world, imitating the richness of the Spiritual and Heavenly Church from which Christ came.
As I keep telling you over and over, we do not forbid marriage. A priest can marry if he wants. No one is stopping him, but yes, he will leave the priesthood should he decide to marry a woman. And no one in the Catholic Church is forcing anyone to give up marriage to become a priest. A man who decides to become a Catholic priest already knows that he is seeking to be one and in union with God and not with a woman. That is not a secret.
We are the Church created by God and whose Founder and Head is Christ. Although we live in this world, the Church imitates the world that Christ came from. In Heaven, we are to be one and united with God, not with wives and husbands.
Luke 20:34-35 And Jesus said to them: The children of THIS WORLD marry, and are given in marriage: [35] But they that shall be accounted worthy of that world, and of the resurrection from the dead, shall neither be married, nor take wives.
Selene...
Don't you know your sovereign nation you call Roman Catholic Church is the Prostitute in the book of Revelation 17?
So if I was you Selene uttering the things you have here not found in scripture I would not be so proud of the Roman Catholic Church.
Perhaps you should read up on the history of your POPE... many of them have been false prophets introducing destructive heresies such as this one you claim comes from God...
If a man marries he cannot be a priest ... he must leave the church.
THAT IS A LIE!!!!
And "priesthood" is like "kingdom" in context you did not understand---UNDER CHRIST AUTHORITY!
: Visionary Sat Sep 25, 2010 - 23:14:54
Selene...
Don't you know your sovereign nation you call Roman Catholic Church is the Prostitute in the book of Revelation 17?
So if I was you Selene uttering the things you have here not found in scripture I would not be so proud of the Roman Catholic Church.
Perhaps you should read up on the history of your POPE... many of them have been false prophets introducing destructive heresies such as this one you claim comes from God...
If a man marries he cannot be a priest ... he must leave the church.
THAT IS A LIE!!!!
And "priesthood" is like "kingdom" in context you did not understand---UNDER CHRIST AUTHORITY!
Lighthammer, the Babylon Prostitute that St. John was referring to was the Roman Empire. At that time, Vatican City was not a soverign nation. It was still the Church at Babylon as St. Peter called it. Therefore, the Prostitute mentioned in Revelations was the Roman Emperor Nero. St. John predicted that the Roman Empire would fall, and it did.
Also, I never said, that when a priest marries, he must leave the Church. I said he must leave the priesthood....as in he cannot serve at the altar presiding at the Eucharist. The former priest is still part of the Church.
: Selene Sun Sep 26, 2010 - 18:02:36
: Visionary Sat Sep 25, 2010 - 23:14:54
Selene...
Don't you know your sovereign nation you call Roman Catholic Church is the Prostitute in the book of Revelation 17?
So if I was you Selene uttering the things you have here not found in scripture I would not be so proud of the Roman Catholic Church.
Perhaps you should read up on the history of your POPE... many of them have been false prophets introducing destructive heresies such as this one you claim comes from God...
If a man marries he cannot be a priest ... he must leave the church.
THAT IS A LIE!!!!
And "priesthood" is like "kingdom" in context you did not understand---UNDER CHRIST AUTHORITY!
Lighthammer, the Babylon Prostitute that St. John was referring to was the Roman Empire. At that time, Vatican City was not a soverign nation. It was still the Church at Babylon as St. Peter called it. Therefore, the Prostitute mentioned in Revelations was the Roman Emperor Nero. St. John predicted that the Roman Empire would fall, and it did.
Also, I never said, that when a priest marries, he must leave the Church. I said he must leave the priesthood....as in he cannot serve at the altar presiding at the Eucharist. The former priest is still part of the Church.
Whoa whoa whoa! Where did LighThammer's name come into play in this dialogue? I haven't posted in this thread every since Visionry went rampant. That was Visionary's reply not mine.
God bless lighthammer. Dont let it trouble you. Selene ignored the scripture given her showing Zechariah was high priest at the time and married and served at the altar in the most holy place. God does not change but the Catholic church tries to change God.
Luke 1 Zechariah your wife Elizabeth will bear child and you are to name him John. Zechariah received this promise while serving at the altar in the Holy of Holies by which he entered with blood. Only the high priest was permitted to do this according to the law.
: Visionary Tue Sep 28, 2010 - 13:10:55
God bless lighthammer. Dont let it trouble you. Selene ignored the scripture given her showing Zechariah was high priest at the time and married and served at the altar in the most holy place. God does not change but the Catholic church tries to change God.
Do you deny the existence of the New Covenant?
Here is something interesting.
In the time of Jesus, there were three main sects of Judaism: the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes. John the Baptist was an Essene. The Essenes were strictly celibate and did not get married.
Which of the three sects does Jesus criticize the least? Did Jesus criticize John the Baptist for being celibate, for not getting married? Should we be critical of Jesus for being celibate, for never getting married?
Then how dare we be critical of priests who are celibate and don't get married? Truly.
: Visionary Tue Sep 28, 2010 - 13:10:55
God bless lighthammer. Dont let it trouble you. Selene ignored the scripture given her showing Zechariah was high priest at the time and married and served at the altar in the most holy place. God does not change but the Catholic church tries to change God.
I do not agree with that. The doctrine of the Catholic Church has been ironclad for 2,000 years. Doctrines that came after the declaration of the Nicene Creed were on separate issues and in no way contradict one another. You don't have to be Catholic to see this. You need only to look at the Truth of ALL matters through unbiased eyes.
I fear you view the oldest and strongest denomination of our faith as your enemy; the very incarnation of evil itself. I fear that no matter how hard even I, a fellow protestant of Rome, tries to show you that Catholic Church isn't just some establishment of men and flaws but a pillar of God's Light you will always hold such turmoil in your heart. And I feel sorry for you. Your ideology only serves as a means to forsake 1.2 billion brothers and sisters of the Cross. I will not lead a lifestyle or thought process that separates me so far from my family members.
What does that mean? Even the Pope himself can have a wife and will be found innocent in Gods eyes! Since when was it ever a sin to marry and have a believing wife?
You are all ignoring the issue at hand!!! Since when did God ever say if you get married you cannot be a priest you cannot serve me? SHOW US! You cannot because God never said that! NEVER!
: Visionary Tue Sep 28, 2010 - 13:41:14
What does that mean? Even the Pope himself can have a wife and will be found innocent in Gods eyes! Since when was it ever a sin to marry and have a believing wife?
The Celibate priesthood is a discipline, not a dogma. It is not a matter of sin.
The Church believes it is better for priests to remain unmarried, but there are married priests in the Catholic Church.
The Church follows the advice of Jesus and Paul in this regard:
Matt 19:12
For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven.
The one who can accept this should accept it."
1 Cor 7
32I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord's affairs—how he can please the Lord. 33But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord's affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. 35I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.
36If anyone thinks he is acting improperly toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if she is getting along in years and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married. 37But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin—this man also does the right thing. 38So then, he who marries the virgin does right,
but he who does not marry her does even better.
Now if I was you it would be beneficial to heed Jesus warning to love him more than your church traditions. Matthew 23
Chester. I am not married and never have been but you are not listening! Since when did God ever say you cannot be a priest if you are married or do marry? Since when did God say you cannot serve me if you are married or do marry? NEVER!!!
: Catholica Tue Sep 28, 2010 - 13:37:45
Here is something interesting.
In the time of Jesus, there were three main sects of Judaism: the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes. John the Baptist was an Essene. The Essenes were strictly celibate and did not get married.
Which of the three sects does Jesus criticize the least? Did Jesus criticize John the Baptist for being celibate, for not getting married? Should we be critical of Jesus for being celibate, for never getting married?
Then how dare we be critical of priests who are celibate and don't get married? Truly.
In the defense of my oppossition, I have to wonder was the discipline of celibacy an official standard or more like an unspoken law or tradition like a lot of Jewish foklore? I'm sure very few Christians today even know the name Mentatron although he is indeed the most powerful heavenly being( not including God of course) ever recorded.
I think the main problem in today's society when it comes to restricting the marriage of clergy is the unfortunate sexual scandals of not just Catholic priest but protestant leaders as well. It seems like, atleast to the common people, that if Catholic clergy were allowed to marry that the numbers of sexual offenses would indeed subside.
: Visionary Tue Sep 28, 2010 - 13:55:24
Chester. I am not married and never have been but you are not listening! Since when did God ever say you cannot be a priest if you are married or do marry? Since when did God say you cannot serve me if you are married or do marry? NEVER!!!
You're the one not listening.
There are married Catholic priests, but they are exceptions.
Both Jesus and Paul said it is better for those serving the Kingdom to remain unmarried.
Do you deny this?
Why shouldn't the Church advocate what is better according to scripture?
: Visionary Tue Sep 28, 2010 - 13:55:24
Chester. I am not married and never have been but you are not listening! Since when did God ever say you cannot be a priest if you are married or do marry? Since when did God say you cannot serve me if you are married or do marry? NEVER!!!
And you're not understanding friend. The Catholic Church doesn't say it's sinful at all. The Catholic Church is merely saying that to better serve God it mandates it's clergy to subscribe to the discipline of celibacy. If the Catholic Church considered it sinful for an ordained member of the Church to marry then I would be completely against all things Catholic but that just isn't the case.
Is just like wearing the uniform of the Church. The Catholic Church mandates that it's clergy wear a certain uniform to set them apart from the general congregation just as it mandates that they commit themselves to a higher standard to dawn the posistion of leadership.
So lets do a reality check? You have all said basically the same thing. The Catholic church forbids its priests to marry with the threat to step down and even leave the church. According to the scriptures those who forbid people to marry follow a deceiving Spirit. So then who appoints a priest into office? God or man?
Thanks for that timely response lighthammer... Mandates... Subjects you again to slavery to law ... Yes! We all understand. As if righteousness can be obtained by law!
: Visionary Tue Sep 28, 2010 - 14:12:18
So lets do a reality check? You have all said basically the same thing. The Catholic church forbids its priests to marry with the threat to step down and even leave the church. According to the scriptures those who forbid people to marry follow a deceiving Spirit. So then who appoints a priest into office? God or man?
Do you deny that Jesus and Paul said that is better for those serving the Kingdom not to marry?
Yes or No?
Does it make sense that the Church Jesus started would prefer unmarried priests given that this was preferred by Jesus and Paul?
Yes or No?
: Visionary Tue Sep 28, 2010 - 14:16:13
Thanks for that timely response lighthammer... Mandates... Subjects you again to slavery to law ... Yes! We all understand. As if righteousness can be obtained by law!
There is a difference between obedience to Jesus and following the Jewish Law.
Do you agree?
: Visionary Tue Sep 28, 2010 - 14:12:18
So lets do a reality check? You have all said basically the same thing. The Catholic church forbids its priests to marry with the threat to step down and even leave the church. According to the scriptures those who forbid people to marry follow a deceiving Spirit. So then who appoints a priest into office? God or man?
Not exactly. If the priest wants to marry he can do so he just can't be a priest. He can still be a member of the Church in good standing in everything. There is no threat or reprimand for deciding you want to get married and resining from the ministry.
: chestertonrules Tue Sep 28, 2010 - 14:22:03
: Visionary Tue Sep 28, 2010 - 14:12:18
So lets do a reality check? You have all said basically the same thing. The Catholic church forbids its priests to marry with the threat to step down and even leave the church. According to the scriptures those who forbid people to marry follow a deceiving Spirit. So then who appoints a priest into office? God or man?
Do you deny that Jesus and Paul said that is better for those serving the Kingdom not to marry?
Yes or No?
Does it make sense that the Church Jesus started would prefer unmarried priests given that this was preferred by Jesus and Paul?
Yes or No?
Paul wrote this concerning marriage:
1 Cor 7:7 Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am. However, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that.
8 But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I.
9 But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
1 Tim 3:1 It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do.
2 An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,Jesus said this concerning marraige:
Matt 19:12 "For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother's womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it." Conclusion:
Paul never said it was wrong for an overseer to marry and then continue serving as an overseer, priest or pastor in the church.
Jesus never said it was wrong for priests to marry and continue serving as priests. God can and does call one to celebacy "for the sake of the kingdom." Note that Jesus said
"eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven." The problem comes when the church imposes a condition of celebacy upon a priest that God has not called them to.
I see you all still think mans rules supercede Gods rule. And due to the silence as we all know already the Pope is chosen by men by lot and not necessarily by God. So the one who asked me to answer his yes or no question you were given the answer already but were blinded by your traditions and refused to love the truth. Luke 1 Just one of countless married priests appointed by God to serve him.
: Visionary Tue Sep 28, 2010 - 17:05:13
I see you all still think mans rules supercede Gods rule. And due to the silence as we all know already the Pope is chosen by men by lot and not necessarily by God. So the one who asked me to answer his yes or no question you were given the answer already but were blinded by your traditions and refused to love the truth. Luke 1 Just one of countless married priests appointed by God to serve him.
Hey could you tell me how God leads the Church today?
: Catholica Tue Sep 28, 2010 - 13:37:45
Here is something interesting.
In the time of Jesus, there were three main sects of Judaism: the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes. John the Baptist was an Essene. The Essenes were strictly celibate and did not get married.
Which of the three sects does Jesus criticize the least? Did Jesus criticize John the Baptist for being celibate, for not getting married? Should we be critical of Jesus for being celibate, for never getting married?
Then how dare we be critical of priests who are celibate and don't get married? Truly.
John was not an Essene.
He was a Baptist (not to be confused with the modern group of the same name), which was not a major sect.
They were split in two groups - hemerobaptists who preached daily ablutions and repentance, and... I forget the technical name of the other group, but they preached a "once-for-all" baptism. John belongs to the latter group, judging by what is written in the book.
Jarrod
: Visionary Tue Sep 28, 2010 - 14:12:18
So lets do a reality check? You have all said basically the same thing. The Catholic church forbids its priests to marry with the threat to step down and even leave the church. According to the scriptures those who forbid people to marry follow a deceiving Spirit. So then who appoints a priest into office? God or man?
Where in my post did I say that a priest is threaten to step down and leave the Catholic Church if he decides to marry? I said a person who wants to become a Catholic priest already understands that he is to be one and in union with God and not with a woman. What part in there did you not understand?
::frustrated::
You can slam your head against the wall as much as you want folks.
Hebrews 5:1-5
But you cannot force a priest God has placed on his throne from taking a bride for himself!!!!
::preachit::
Revelation 19:7
Its funny you Catholics call yourself the church but Jesus has his bride!
: Visionary Tue Sep 28, 2010 - 21:13:43
::frustrated::
You can slam your head against the wall as much as you want folks.
Hebrews 5:1-5
But you cannot force a priest God has placed on his throne from taking a bride for himself!!!!
::preachit::
Have you been listening to what I have been saying? No one is forcing the priest not to marry. If he finds a woman that he really wants to marry, he can marry. But he is going to be leaving the priesthood. Note, I said leaving the priesthood.....not the Church.
Its funny you Catholics call yourself the church but Jesus has his bride!
Of course, Jesus has His bride...the Church. We are called to be one and united with God. Who else should we be one and united with? This is what Jesus says:
Luke 20:34-35 And Jesus said to them: The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: [35] But they that shall be accounted worthy of that world, and of the resurrection from the dead, shall neither be married, nor take wives.
And you have absolutely nothing to say about this.
Selene. OH PLEASE!!! How can you think Jesus cannot be a priest when he takes his bride unto himself on the last day?
Sorry to say but I dont expect to see you at the banquet having not dressed! Matthew 22:1-14
: Visionary Tue Sep 28, 2010 - 22:59:28
Selene. OH PLEASE!!! How can you think Jesus cannot be a priest when he takes his bride unto himself on the last day?
Sorry to say but I dont expect to see you at the banquet having not dressed! Matthew 22:1-14
Like I said, we have been called to something much better. That is to be one and united with Christ. Again, I asked you a question and this is the response I ge?. This time, the question I asked you in this thread is "Who else should we be one and united with?" If you believe that one should not be one and united with God, then who should one be united with? Answer the question.
And after you answer my question, I would like you to answer Chesteronrule's questions. These are the questions that he asked you, which you avoided answering:
From Chesteronrules to Visionary:
Do you deny that Jesus and Paul said that is better for those serving the Kingdom not to marry?
Yes or No?
Does it make sense that the Church Jesus started would prefer unmarried priests given that this was preferred by Jesus and Paul?
Yes or No?
Don't take me for a fool Selene. I am a simple man but I know when people try to change the subject at hand to avoid acknowledging the truth by assaulting with questions.
::juggle:: Your circus act does not amuse anyone.
: Visionary Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 00:55:49
Don't take me for a fool Selene. I am a simple man but I know when people try to change the subject at hand to avoid acknowledging the truth by assaulting with questions.
::juggle:: Your circus act does not amuse anyone.
Visionless, if you can't explain what you post in the other thread, I'm not surprise that you can't even answer a SIMPLE "yes" or "no" question. Yes, I agree with you when you say that you are a simple man.
Is that the best attempt to insult you can come up with Selene?
: Visionary Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 01:25:51
Is that the best attempt to insult you can come up with Selene?
The truth about you hurts, doesn't it? You come in a Catholic forum board and accuse the Catholic Church of FORCING our priests not to marry. Nevermind the fact, that it was the Catholic priest who made the choice and the vow to remain single when he first joined the priesthood. Your intention here was never to have any meaningful dialogue with us. It's not enough that we believe in Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. Oh no! We have to follow YOUR doctrines. You say that the Catholic Church should allow priests to marry and serve at the altar as priests. And who are YOU to impose this policy on us? Do you see me or any Catholic going into a Protestant forum board saying "Shame on you Protestants for allowing your pastors to get married? You say you care about us because you want us to be saved? How? By following YOUR doctrines? It's not enough that we Catholics already believe in Jesus Christ as God and Savior? So, what more do you want? To follow YOU? You can't even explain what you post, and you want us to follow what you say?
: Selene Thu Sep 23, 2010 - 20:01:27
: The Great Baptizmo Thu Sep 23, 2010 - 16:00:44
The Great Baptizmo bows to Jesus Christ and not the papacy. The Great Baptizmo says forbidding marriage among clergy is clearly a doctrine of demons.
How is it a doctrine of demons? Explain.
Even after it was all explained to you Selene you think it was an accusation. SAD.
: Visionary Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 02:05:03
: Selene Thu Sep 23, 2010 - 20:01:27
: The Great Baptizmo Thu Sep 23, 2010 - 16:00:44
The Great Baptizmo bows to Jesus Christ and not the papacy. The Great Baptizmo says forbidding marriage among clergy is clearly a doctrine of demons.
How is it a doctrine of demons? Explain.
Even after it was all explained to you Selene you think it was an accusation. SAD.
You explained it by calling it a doctrine of demons? SO SAD coming from you. You judge being "single" a doctrine of demons and you can't explain yourself when we told you that St. Paul and Jesus said that it was okay to be single. Your explaination was three words...doctrine of demons. And what was the Catholics' explaination? We explained it using biblical verses from St. Paul and Jesus. And we also disputed your doctrine of demons by showing you that a Catholic Church NEVER forced anyone not to marry. As a matter of fact, we perform marriages every day. If you looked back, our explaination was much more than 3 sentences. I even explained to you that we were called to something much better than marriage between man and woman. SO SAD for you!
::disco:: ::juggle:: ::frustrated:: Ya keep kickin against the goads Selene bashin your head against a brick wall will get you no where. Remember what promises I shared with you. Everything you need for understanding is in this topic. The Catholic churches requirement for its priests is heresy!
BEHOLD, below is the Great Baptizmo judging Catholics as having a "doctrine of demons." And behold is Angelos reply to this doctrine of demons:
: Angelos Thu Sep 23, 2010 - 21:00:02
: The Great Baptizmo Thu Sep 23, 2010 - 20:52:50
: Selene Thu Sep 23, 2010 - 20:01:27
: The Great Baptizmo Thu Sep 23, 2010 - 16:00:44
The Great Baptizmo bows to Jesus Christ and not the papacy. The Great Baptizmo says forbidding marriage among clergy is clearly a doctrine of demons.
How is it a doctrine of demons? Explain.
God's Word says so.
1 Tim 4
1But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, 2by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, 3men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth.
Actually Eastern Catholic priests can and do get married. Not being married is not a Catholic dogma for priests. There are no Catholics who forbid marriage. Being a Roman Catholic priest is a choice. A priest can quit being a priest and get married or he can choose to be a priest and not get married. Same thing with being a monk.
And now, BEHOLD, look at Great Baptizmo's reply to Angelo's answer:
From Great Baptizmo: Angelos did some ducking and dodging. It is a dogma that priests should not be married. There is a difference between saying it is good, and making it a requirement. The Catholic Church does indeed forbid marriage. "If you want to make a choice to become a priest, you will not marry." That is forbidding marriage. Doctrine of Demons. Period.
As far as the EOC goes, I didn't even mention them. Don't consider them "The Catholic Church."
You see, this kind of reply? We're the ones who are Catholics...and people like YOU and Great Baptizmo think you know more about Catholism than us? What's wrong with that picture? DUH! The TRUTH is revealed. ::smile:: When we say that it's not a dogma. We get this kind of reply telling us "Oh no! It is indeed dogma. You guys do forbid marriage. It is doctrine of demons" DUH!
And now BEHOLD, let us take a look at Angelo's reply to the Great Baptizmo:
From Angelo: Baptizmo, I was not referring to the EOC (Orthodox) I was referring to the Eastern Catholic Churches. These are Catholics, in full communion with Rome, who live in Eastern Europe, North Africa, and the middle East.
As per wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Catholic_Churches#Clerical_celibacy
"The Eastern Catholic Churches are... Churches in full communion with the Bishop of Rome—the Pope. They preserve some of the centuries-old liturgical, devotional, and theological traditions of the various Eastern Christian Churches they were once associated with. Although the Churches they formerly were associated with are not all in communion with one another, the Eastern Catholic Churches are in communion with each other and with the Latin or Western Church. However, they vary in theological emphasis, forms of liturgical worship and popular piety, canonical discipline and terminology. They all recognize the central role of the Bishop of Rome within the College of Bishops and his infallibility when speaking ex cathedra. The communion of the members of these Churches with the Church of Rome means that they are out of communion with the other Eastern Christian Churches, which in general do not admit them to receive the Eucharist and the other sacraments."
Eastern and Western Catholic churches have different traditions concerning clerical celibacy. These differences and the resulting controversies have played a role in the relationship between the two groups in some Western countries.
Most Eastern Churches distinguish between "monastic" and "non-monastic" clergy. Monastics do not necessarily live as monks or in monasteries, but have spent at least part of their period of training in such a context. Their monastic vows include a vow of celibate chastity.
Bishops are normally selected from the monastic clergy, and in most Eastern Catholic Churches a large percentage of priests and deacons also are celibate, while a portion of the clergy (typically, parish priests) may be married."
The Roman Catholic Church is just the biggest part of the Catholic Church, not all of it. The fact that Catholic Churches are allowedto have non-celibate priests is proof that it is not a dogma, but a tradition that, as the Pope has said, can change.
You don't seem very knowledgeable about the Catholic Church...next time to avoid embarassing yourself stop pretending knowing things you don't
Now, let's take a look at
YOU! Below are posts between me and Lighthammer:
: LightHammer Fri Sep 24, 2010 - 19:04:53
: Selene Fri Sep 24, 2010 - 18:51:08
: LightHammer Fri Sep 24, 2010 - 18:38:09
And the Catholic Church does not have the authority to forbade a priest from following God's very first commandment. His very first charge to Adam and Eve
The Catholic Church does not forbid a priest from marriage. The priest knows that if he wants to marry, he will leave the priesthood and marry the woman of his dreams.
To be an ordained priest in my Church you must adhere to a higher standard and discipline by forsaking all partners and devoting your life entirely to God.
That sounds all fine and dandy but a man and a woman are a complete set. God said so Himself. When a man leaves his home he is to find himself a woman and become whole. The relationship between a man and woman unified under the hand of God is akin to a great bridge and its foundation. One can not flourish fully unless they are paired with God's chosen whole and for every man that chosen whole lies with a woman. God's bride is being prepared by those who have been commissioned to help gather her up.
What you have in the Catholic Church is incomplete parts, powerful disciplined righteous parts leading a mass that would be far better off if it leaders were complete and whole.
Now, BEHOLD! Look at YOUR response to the above conversation:
: Visionary Fri Sep 24, 2010 - 19:18:03
: LightHammer Fri Sep 24, 2010 - 19:04:53
: Selene Fri Sep 24, 2010 - 18:51:08
: LightHammer Fri Sep 24, 2010 - 18:38:09
And the Catholic Church does not have the authority to forbade a priest from following God's very first commandment. His very first charge to Adam and Eve
The Catholic Church does not forbid a priest from marriage. The priest knows that if he wants to marry, he will leave the priesthood and marry the woman of his dreams.
To be an ordained priest in my Church you must adhere to a higher standard and discipline by forsaking all partners and devoting your life entirely to God.
That sounds all fine and dandy but a man and a woman are a complete set. God said so Himself. When a man leaves his home he is to find himself a woman and become whole. The relationship between a man and woman unified under the hand of God is akin to a great bridge and its foundation. One can not flourish fully unless they are paired with God's chosen whole and for every man that chosen whole lies with a woman. God's bride is being prepared by those who have been commissioned to help gather her up.
What you have in the Catholic Church is incomplete parts, powerful disciplined righteous parts leading a mass that would be far better off if it leaders were complete and whole.
GIVE ME A BREAK!!!!
Catholics??? What rights do you have? 1Corinthians 9:1-6 Who said, If you marry you cannot be a priest?
That kind of wisdom does not come from God!!!
YOUR response is what I placed in bold. Does this look like a civilized conversation? YOU were the one who said "This kind of wisdom does not come from God!" You wrote a total of 4 sentences in your response and absolutely no explaination of why you say that "this kind of wisdom does not come from God." Your 4 sentence comment is the same as the Great Baptizmo's "doctrine of demons" post where it had only 1 sentence. The Truth about you is revealed. Angelos even explained in his post that a portion of the Catholic clergy may marry. In one of my posts, I also mentioned that my deacon was married. And this is the reply that we get?
I rest my case. ::smile::
: Visionary Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 02:20:05
::disco:: ::juggle:: ::frustrated:: Ya keep kickin against the goads Selene bashin your head against a brick wall will get you no where. Remember what promises I shared with you. Everything you need for understanding is in this topic. The Catholic churches requirement for its priests is heresy!
Now you have proven yourself to be a liar.
You have been shown the Truth several times, but you insist on posting lies.
What do you hope to accomplish by your sins?
A bunch of kids arguing and dishing out insults. Gosh, I feel like I'm back in high school.
Although I understand why the Catholic Church prefers its clergy to be practice the discipline of celibacy, taking a person's right to choose for him or herself is wrong. As I undertsand it one recites vows when being ordained into the minitry, yes? The way it should be is the vow of celibacy should be an option not mandated. One thing that Catholics don't seem to take into consideration is the fact that the call to the ministry is divine calling. Its not like a man wakes up and says I want to be a priest today. To serve in any position of legitimate leadership with God's blessing is to be called by God Himself.
The brick wall is the word of God you call a lie...Oh well. As one of you said..."are you listening to me?" John 8:47
Let him who belongs to God hear what God says. So far all you have shown us is vain worship-rules taught by men.
And this one is priceless, someone said, "I trust the church"
But I will reiterate what God has done..."Let my people go, so they may worship me"
Those whom God has chosen for himself put their TRUST IN GOD ALONE With THE SON WHO ALONE IS HOLY, RIGHTEOUS, FAITHFUL, AND JUST. John 14:1
I have a question for you to consider I dont require you to answer me.
Since eternal life is KNOWING THE FATHER AND THE SON how then will you not be deceived since as so many of you say...."Catholic Sources"
Do these Catholic sources give life? Rather they are nothing more than rules of men!
John 5:36-47
: Visionary Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 11:42:46
The brick wall is the word of God you call a lie...Oh well. As one of you said..."are you listening to me?" John 8:47
Let him who belongs to God hear what God says. So far all you have shown us is vain worship-rules taught by men.
And this one is priceless, someone said, "I trust the church"
But I will reiterate what God has done..."Let my people go, so they may worship me"
Those whom God has chosen for himself put their TRUST IN GOD ALONE With THE SON WHO ALONE IS HOLY, RIGHTEOUS, FAITHFUL, AND JUST. John 14:1
I have a question for you to consider I dont require you to answer me.
Since eternal life is KNOWING THE FATHER AND THE SON how then will you not be deceived since as so many of you say...."Catholic Sources"
Do these Catholic sources give life? Rather they are nothing more than rules of men!
John 5:36-47
You have been shown the truth, but you prefer a lie.
Who is your Father?
Just a reminder...keep it civil people.
Thanks!
God bless Jon-Marc
...Still waiting for the scripture that says if a priest marries he must leave the priesthood.
So chester if you knew who my Father was then you would have no problem showing us where he said this.
But since he didnt and you know he didnt then who is your father?
::intherain::
its going to rain another hail of assaults.
: Visionary Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 12:03:12
God bless Jon-Marc
...Still waiting for the scripture that says if a priest marries he must leave the priesthood.
So chester if you knew who my Father was then you would have no problem showing us where he said this.
But since he didnt and you know he didnt then who is your father?
::intherain::
its going to rain another hail of assaults.
The celibate priesthood is a discipline, not a dogma, and there are married priests. The Church follows the advice of Jesus that it is better for those serving the Kingdom to remain unmarried, but it is not a dogma.
So, feel free to repeat your lie, but you are just wasting time and damaging your soul.
Whos said anything about celebacy... are you confused? YES!
Show us where God says if you are a priest and you marry you must leave the priesthood.
This has nothing to do with celebacy!
: Visionary Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 12:21:53
Whos said anything about celebacy... are you confused? YES!
Show us where God says if you are a priest and you marry you must leave the priesthood.
This has nothing to do with celebacy!
It has to do with your ignorance of Catholic teaching.
A question for you:
Please show me where in the bible you defend your doctrine of multiple sex partners.
: chestertonrules Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 12:41:22
: Visionary Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 12:21:53
Whos said anything about celebacy... are you confused? YES!
Show us where God says if you are a priest and you marry you must leave the priesthood.
This has nothing to do with celebacy!
It has to do with your ignorance of Catholic teaching.
A question for you:
Please show me where in the bible you defend your doctrine of multiple sex partners.
Calling somebody ignorant because you disagree with them violates the forum rules. This is your second warning.
: BondServant Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 13:00:23
: chestertonrules Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 12:41:22
: Visionary Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 12:21:53
Whos said anything about celebacy... are you confused? YES!
Show us where God says if you are a priest and you marry you must leave the priesthood.
This has nothing to do with celebacy!
It has to do with your ignorance of Catholic teaching.
A question for you:
Please show me where in the bible you defend your doctrine of multiple sex partners.
Calling somebody ignorant because you disagree with them violates the forum rules. This is your second warning.
He insist on distorting Catholic teaching. You can read the posts yourself.
What word would you use for someone who consistently distorts Catholic teaching?
He is not ignorant because I disagree with him, he is ignorant because he says things about the Catholic Church that are false even after being corrected.
I think you should be worried about someone coming on a Catholic board and distorting Catholic teaching, not about Catholics pointing out the distortions and ignorance in the posts.
I will say this one final time:
Calling somebody ignorant because you disagree with them is a violation of forum rules.
If you believe he is distorting catholic doctrine, quote from the catechism and the Bible to prove him wrong.
: chestertonrules Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 12:41:22
: Visionary Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 12:21:53
Whos said anything about celebacy... are you confused? YES!
Show us where God says if you are a priest and you marry you must leave the priesthood.
This has nothing to do with celebacy!
It has to do with your ignorance of Catholic teaching.
A question for you:
Please show me where in the bible you defend your doctrine of multiple sex partners.
Have you gone nuts Chester? Who said anything about multiple sex Partners?
Why would anyone who knows the truth be interested in the Catholic churches false teachings?
Why can you not give us a scripture saying. God said if you are appointed by me to be a priest and you marry then you can no longer be a priest?
DONT YOU REALIZE? To say if anyone who is a priest appointed by God and not men marries a woman must leave the priesthood is to deny you are the church/bride 2Corinthians 11:2 of Christ and also is to deny that Jesus is your priest having been promised Ephesians 5:23 a bride from God! Hebrews 5:5,6
Isaiah 62:5
This thread is laughably off-topic. It was supposed to be about the papacy. Why are there 7 pages about celibacy in thh priesthood and only 2 about the papacy?
Maybe a moderator could split this thread?
: Visionary Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 12:21:53
Whos said anything about celebacy... are you confused? YES!
Show us where God says if you are a priest and you marry you must leave the priesthood.
This has nothing to do with celebacy!
It has to do with celebacy. Celibacy means to abstain from having sex or to remain single. If a priest has sex, he is committing the sin of fornication. If he marries, he has broken his vow of celibacy....a vow he made before God.
When our priest is called by God, he is called to marry the Church. Our priests imitates Christ. Just as Christ is married to the Church, so are our priests married to the Church because as I keep telling you, we are all called to a much better union....a union with God. Our nuns also take a vow of celebacy and is married to Christ. Both our priests and nuns imitate what is found only in Heaven.
In Heaven, there is NO marriage between men and women. Are you going to tell God that He is being unjust and unfair because He does not allow marriage between men and women in Heaven?
See those words highlighted in red Selene?
If you cant give us Gods word then your opinion is just that! Your opinion! Opinions do not hold truth!
: Selene Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 18:28:38
: Visionary Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 12:21:53
Whos said anything about celebacy... are you confused? YES!
Show us where God says if you are a priest and you marry you must leave the priesthood.
This has nothing to do with celebacy!
It has to do with celebacy. Celibacy means to abstain from having sex or to remain single. If a priest has sex, he is committing the sin of fornication. If he marries, he has broken his vow of celibacy....a vow he made before God.
When our priest is called by God, he is called to marry the Church. Our priests imitates Christ. Just as Christ is married to the Church, so are our priests married to the Church because as I keep telling you, we are all called to a much better union....a union with God. Our nuns also take a vow of celebacy and is married to Christ. Both our priests and nuns imitate what is found only in Heaven.
In Heaven, there is NO marriage between men and women. Are you going to tell God that He is being unjust and unfair because He does not allow marriage between men and women in Heaven?
Still trying to make the doctrine of demons concerning forbidding marriage ok, I see.
: Visionary Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 18:34:01
See those words highlighted in red Selene?
If you cant give us Gods word then your opinion is just that! Your opinion! Opinions do not hold truth!
And did you even bother to read my post? You have absolutely nothing to counter my post. In Heaven, there isn't going to be a marriage between men and women. And here on earth, you are worried about why our priests can't marry. Like Jesus said, "the children of this world marry and are given in marriage." (Luke 20:34). We are not children of this world. You are, but not us.
: The Great Baptizmo Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 18:35:33
Still trying to make the doctrine of demons concerning forbidding marriage ok, I see.
Tell that to Jesus Christ. ::smile::
Luke 20:34-35 And Jesus said to them: The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: But they that shall be accounted worthy of that world, and of the resurrection from the dead, shall neither be married, nor take wives.
: Selene Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 18:41:20
: The Great Baptizmo Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 18:35:33
Still trying to make the doctrine of demons concerning forbidding marriage ok, I see.
Tell that to Jesus Christ. ::smile::
Luke 20:34-35 And Jesus said to them: The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: But they that shall be accounted worthy of that world, and of the resurrection from the dead, shall neither be married, nor take wives.
Jesus Christ, through the Holy Spirit inspired the words of 1 Tim 4. So I don't kneed to tell it to Him, He says that forbidding of marriage is a doctrine of demons.
Lol Baptizmo. Matthew 24:26 The Pope is Jesus? WOW Selene!
: The Great Baptizmo Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 18:43:06
: Selene Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 18:41:20
: The Great Baptizmo Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 18:35:33
Still trying to make the doctrine of demons concerning forbidding marriage ok, I see.
Tell that to Jesus Christ. ::smile::
Luke 20:34-35 And Jesus said to them: The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: But they that shall be accounted worthy of that world, and of the resurrection from the dead, shall neither be married, nor take wives.
Jesus Christ, through the Holy Spirit inspired the words of 1 Tim 4. So I don't kneed to tell it to Him, He says that forbidding of marriage is a doctrine of demons.
Yes, you do because Christ forbids marriage between men and women in Heaven.
: Selene Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 18:41:20
: The Great Baptizmo Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 18:35:33
Still trying to make the doctrine of demons concerning forbidding marriage ok, I see.
Tell that to Jesus Christ. ::smile::
Luke 20:34-35 And Jesus said to them: The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: But they that shall be accounted worthy of that world, and of the resurrection from the dead, shall neither be married, nor take wives.
So only single people go to heaven? Gee Selene, who are you to condemn every married human to hell when God blessed him and gave him a wife?
: Visionary Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 18:43:19
Lol Baptizmo. Matthew 24:26 The Pope is Jesus? WOW Selene!
Wow! And where in my post did I say that the Pope is Jesus? I see it only in your post. Do you know what the word "imitates" means? Do you need a dictionary?
To imitate means to follow or simulate. So, when I say that I imitate my mother, does that mean that I am my mother? No. It means that I follow her in what she does. So, when I say that our priest imitates Christ, does that mean that our priest IS Christ? No. It means that our priest follows Christ. Look at what St. Paul says below. He says that He follows Christ. Does this mean that he is Christ? No. He is simply saying that he imitates Christ by following Him.
1 Corinthians 11:1 Be ye followers of me,
even as I also [am] of Christ.
: Visionary Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 18:46:03
So only single people go to heaven? Gee Selene, who are you to condemn every married human to hell when God blessed him and gave him a wife?
Did I say that only single people go to Heaven, Visionary? Do you have a problem with the English language? When Christ Himself said that in Heaven there is no marriage and no one will be given in marriage, does that mean that only single people go to heaven? No! It simply means that men and women will not be married to each other in Heaven. It means that those who were once married on earth will not be married in Heaven to their wife whom they were married to on earth. That is what it means. Perhaps, you need to go back to English 101.
: Selene Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 18:28:38
: Visionary Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 12:21:53
Whos said anything about celebacy... are you confused? YES!
Show us where God says if you are a priest and you marry you must leave the priesthood.
This has nothing to do with celebacy!
It has to do with celebacy. Celibacy means to abstain from having sex or to remain single. If a priest has sex, he is committing the sin of fornication. If he marries, he has broken his vow of celibacy....a vow he made before God.
When our priest is called by God, he is called to marry the Church. Our priests imitates Christ. Just as Christ is married to the Church, so are our priests married to the Church because as I keep telling you, we are all called to a much better union....a union with God. Our nuns also take a vow of celebacy and is married to Christ. Both our priests and nuns imitate what is found only in Heaven.
In Heaven, there is NO marriage between men and women. Are you going to tell God that He is being unjust and unfair because He does not allow marriage between men and women in Heaven?
Highlighted in red you said, your catholic priests marry the church...HMMM? You dont even know what you are talking about. How can a priest united with Christ marry another? IN order for that to happen you just said, THE POPE IS JESUS...
Revelation 17 the Roman catholic church you call your government and nation is the prostitute...you just said so yourself Selene without even realizing what you were saying!
So my question to you now Selene is when are you going to believe those promises I shared with you and escape?
: Visionary Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 19:23:08
: Selene Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 18:28:38
: Visionary Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 12:21:53
Whos said anything about celebacy... are you confused? YES!
Show us where God says if you are a priest and you marry you must leave the priesthood.
This has nothing to do with celebacy!
It has to do with celebacy. Celibacy means to abstain from having sex or to remain single. If a priest has sex, he is committing the sin of fornication. If he marries, he has broken his vow of celibacy....a vow he made before God.
When our priest is called by God, he is called to marry the Church. Our priests imitates Christ. Just as Christ is married to the Church, so are our priests married to the Church because as I keep telling you, we are all called to a much better union....a union with God. Our nuns also take a vow of celebacy and is married to Christ. Both our priests and nuns imitate what is found only in Heaven.
In Heaven, there is NO marriage between men and women. Are you going to tell God that He is being unjust and unfair because He does not allow marriage between men and women in Heaven?
Highlighted in red you said, your catholic priests marry the church...HMMM? You dont even know what you are talking about. How can a priest united with Christ marry another? IN order for that to happen you just said, THE POPE IS JESUS...
Revelation 17 the Roman catholic church you call your government and nation is the prostitute...you just said so yourself Selene without even realizing what you were saying!
Yes, our priests are married to the Church because they IMITATE Christ? How do they imitate Christ? Christ is married to the Church because He is called the Bridegroom and the Church is the Bride. So, boys and girls, who is the Bridegroom? Christ. Very good! Now, who does the Bride symbolize in the Bible? The Church. Very good boys and girls. Christ is the bridegroom and the Church is the Bride. So, what does imitate means boys and girls? It means to follow or resemble! Very good!
Now, Visionary, show me where in my post did I say thast the Pope is Jesus? And show me where in my post I said that the Catholic Church is the prostitute?
: Selene Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 18:44:18
: The Great Baptizmo Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 18:43:06
: Selene Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 18:41:20
: The Great Baptizmo Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 18:35:33
Still trying to make the doctrine of demons concerning forbidding marriage ok, I see.
Tell that to Jesus Christ. ::smile::
Luke 20:34-35 And Jesus said to them: The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: But they that shall be accounted worthy of that world, and of the resurrection from the dead, shall neither be married, nor take wives.
Jesus Christ, through the Holy Spirit inspired the words of 1 Tim 4. So I don't kneed to tell it to Him, He says that forbidding of marriage is a doctrine of demons.
Yes, you do because Christ forbids marriage between men and women in Heaven.
I didn't say anything about marriage in heaven. I am talking about the RCC forbidding marriage here on earth! Which is a doctrine of demons!
: Visionary Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 18:43:19
Lol Baptizmo. Matthew 24:26 The Pope is Jesus? WOW Selene!
So this is true then! Imitators masqueraders!
Consider what is best for you Selene since Jesus said, "false Christs will deceive many"...1.2 Million Catholics someone said?
Funny thing is you take this personally! As if the truth hurts!
: The Great Baptizmo Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 19:37:32
: Selene Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 18:44:18
: The Great Baptizmo Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 18:43:06
: Selene Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 18:41:20
: The Great Baptizmo Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 18:35:33
Still trying to make the doctrine of demons concerning forbidding marriage ok, I see.
Tell that to Jesus Christ. ::smile::
Luke 20:34-35 And Jesus said to them: The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: But they that shall be accounted worthy of that world, and of the resurrection from the dead, shall neither be married, nor take wives.
Jesus Christ, through the Holy Spirit inspired the words of 1 Tim 4. So I don't kneed to tell it to Him, He says that forbidding of marriage is a doctrine of demons.
Yes, you do because Christ forbids marriage between men and women in Heaven.
I didn't say anything about marriage in heaven. I am talking about the RCC forbidding marriage here on earth! Which is a doctrine of demons!
Great Baptimzo, if you had read the previous posts, you would have known that the Catholic Church did NOT forbid marriage. Why? Because
some of the Catholic clergy are married. This is what Angelos pointed out to you. But did you read his post? Obviously not! As a matter of fact, my deacon, who passed away last year, was married.
: Visionary Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 19:40:00
: Visionary Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 18:43:19
Lol Baptizmo. Matthew 24:26 The Pope is Jesus? WOW Selene!
So this is true then!
I highly recommend that you get yourself a dictionary, so you can look up the word "imitate."
So which is it Selene? Get your story straight! It cant be both! Hypocrisy runs rampant down there in the catholic church it seems...you say if a priest marries he cant be a priest then you say you have married priests in the catholic church.
::rolling:: ::rolling:: ::rolling::
Maybe you should not be speaking???
2Timothy 3:5-9 Yes perhaps you should use a dictionary when you decide to seek understanding for yourself Selene while reading your bible.
Come out and be separate, says the Lord Almighty, and he will receive you...2Corinthians 6:17,18
: Visionary Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 19:49:35
So which is it Selene? Get your story straight! It cant be both! Hypocrisy runs rampant down there in the catholic church it seems...you say if a priest marries he cant be a priest then you say you have married priests in the catholic church.
::rolling:: ::rolling:: ::rolling::
Maybe you should not be speaking???
I said, (and I'll try and keep it as simple and elementary for you), it was NEVER a dogma that Catholic priest should be married. As Angelos pointed out, a few of the Catholic clergy are married. The fact that there are a few married clergy among Catholic ranks only proves you and the Great Baptizmo WRONG when you claim that we forbid them to marry or even force them not to marry. It is not a dogma.
To take the vow of celibacy is a discipline and our priests and nuns VOLUNTARILY take these vows; therefore, it was never forced upon them as you claimed. These vows of celibacy are made public before God; therefore, to break these vows would be a sin. Every priest and nun understands this. The Anglicans will be reunited with the Catholics very soon, and among the Anglicans, there are a few married priests. The Vatican is not going to renounce their marriage and tell them to leave the priesthood. Most of our priests, however, follow this tradition of celibacy, and even before they became a priest, they understood that they are not to marry and to remain celibate. Only a few of our priests have left the priesthood because they wanted to marry. To be honest, I only know of one person in my island who left the priesthood to marry. All the others are happy being celibate.
It has always been YOU who is claiming that the Catholic Church forbids marriage. Our evidence is there. The fact that a few of the Catholic clergy (such as my deacon) are married shows your claim is false. You have been proven wrong. And now, you are claiming "hypocracy" simply because we have both. We have both....a few Catholic clergy who are married and a majority of clergy who are not married. Well, don't you also have both single and married pastors in the Protestant churches?
The truth is this...... our priests and nuns chose to practice celibacy as a discipline and this is the REAL issue for you. That is the truth.
: Visionary Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 20:04:06
2Timothy 3:5-9 Yes perhaps you should use a dictionary when you decide to seek understanding for yourself Selene while reading your bible.
Come out and be separate, says the Lord Almighty, and he will receive you...2Corinthians 6:17,18
Visionary, go back to English 101. In 2 Timothy 3, St. Paul is saying that we should not become lovers of ourselves by making ourselves into God. Again, as I told you, the word "imitate" does NOT mean that our priest is God. I even gave you an example. If I imitate my mother, does that mean that I AM my mother? No. So, when our priests imitate Christ, does this mean that our priests IS Christ. No. Very good boys and girls! Below are the definitions of the word "imitate" from Webster's Dictionary, since it's so obvious that you don't have a dictionary of your own.
Imitate1.to seek to follow the example of; take as one's model or pattern
2.to act the same as; impersonate; mimic
3.to reproduce in form, color, etc.; make a duplicate or copy of
4.to be or become like in appearance; resemble: glass made to imitate diamonds
As you can see from the dictionary, imitate means to seek to follow the example of exactly as St. Paul and Jesus says. Jesus did say to follow Him, did He not? Yes! Very good boys and girls.
: Selene Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 18:44:18
: The Great Baptizmo Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 18:43:06
: Selene Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 18:41:20
: The Great Baptizmo Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 18:35:33
Still trying to make the doctrine of demons concerning forbidding marriage ok, I see.
Tell that to Jesus Christ. ::smile::
Luke 20:34-35 And Jesus said to them: The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: But they that shall be accounted worthy of that world, and of the resurrection from the dead, shall neither be married, nor take wives.
Jesus Christ, through the Holy Spirit inspired the words of 1 Tim 4. So I don't kneed to tell it to Him, He says that forbidding of marriage is a doctrine of demons.
Yes, you do because Christ forbids marriage between men and women in Heaven.
That is so patantly false.
Christ does not forgid marriage. He said there is no marriage in Heaven...ie. the institute of marriage does not exist. It is not forbidden! It is unncessary.
Bond
: BondServant Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 13:17:30
I will say this one final time:
Calling somebody ignorant because you disagree with them is a violation of forum rules.
If you believe he is distorting catholic doctrine, quote from the catechism and the Bible to prove him wrong.
I already did that. I didn't call him ignorant because I disagree with him, I called him ignorant because he doesn't know or care to know the Catholic teaching he is criticizing.
You should know from my posting here that I don't call those who disagree with me ignorant.
Knowledgeable people can reach different conclusions.
He is distorting Catholic teaching, and I have demonstrated this from Catholic sources and from scripture.
You need to read the entire thread before criticizing posters.
: chestertonrules Thu Sep 30, 2010 - 17:18:30
: BondServant Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 13:17:30
I will say this one final time:
Calling somebody ignorant because you disagree with them is a violation of forum rules.
If you believe he is distorting catholic doctrine, quote from the catechism and the Bible to prove him wrong.
I already did that. I didn't call him ignorant because I disagree with him, I called him ignorant because he doesn't know or care to know the Catholic teaching he is criticizing.
You should know from my posting here that I don't call those who disagree with me ignorant.
Knowledgeable people can reach different conclusions.
He is distorting Catholic teaching, and I have demonstrated this from Catholic sources and from scripture.
You need to read the entire thread before criticizing posters.
Catholic teaching takes presedence over God's? John 6:43-45 When are you going to turn to Jesus Chester?
: BondServant Thu Sep 30, 2010 - 09:11:15
That is so patantly false.
Christ does not forgid marriage. He said there is no marriage in Heaven...ie. the institute of marriage does not exist. It is not forbidden! It is unncessary.
Bond
Having no marriage in Heaven means it is not allowed in Heaven. Sin is also not allowed in Heaven. That's why Lucifer got kicked out. Sin is forbidden in Heaven and the angels who sinned in Heaven were kicked out. Marriage between men and women in Heaven is also forbidden because one should already be one and united with God in Heaven not with each other.
: Visionary Thu Sep 30, 2010 - 17:25:07
: chestertonrules Thu Sep 30, 2010 - 17:18:30
: BondServant Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 13:17:30
I will say this one final time:
Calling somebody ignorant because you disagree with them is a violation of forum rules.
If you believe he is distorting catholic doctrine, quote from the catechism and the Bible to prove him wrong.
I already did that. I didn't call him ignorant because I disagree with him, I called him ignorant because he doesn't know or care to know the Catholic teaching he is criticizing.
You should know from my posting here that I don't call those who disagree with me ignorant.
Knowledgeable people can reach different conclusions.
He is distorting Catholic teaching, and I have demonstrated this from Catholic sources and from scripture.
You need to read the entire thread before criticizing posters.
Catholic teaching takes presedence over God's? John 6:43-45 When are you going to turn to Jesus Chester?
Catholic teaching is God's teaching. The Church is the body of Christ, and Jesus told us to listen to the Church.
: chestertonrules Thu Sep 30, 2010 - 17:18:30
: BondServant Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 13:17:30
I will say this one final time:
Calling somebody ignorant because you disagree with them is a violation of forum rules.
If you believe he is distorting catholic doctrine, quote from the catechism and the Bible to prove him wrong.
I already did that. I didn't call him ignorant because I disagree with him, I called him ignorant because he doesn't know or care to know the Catholic teaching he is criticizing.
You should know from my posting here that I don't call those who disagree with me ignorant.
Knowledgeable people can reach different conclusions.
He is distorting Catholic teaching, and I have demonstrated this from Catholic sources and from scripture.
You need to read the entire thread before criticizing posters.
He even put words in my mouth by posting that I stated that the Pope is Jesus. It's about time that someone did something about this thread. I never said such thing. I stated that our priests imitate Christ.
: chestertonrules Thu Sep 30, 2010 - 17:33:05
: Visionary Thu Sep 30, 2010 - 17:25:07
: chestertonrules Thu Sep 30, 2010 - 17:18:30
: BondServant Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 13:17:30
I will say this one final time:
Calling somebody ignorant because you disagree with them is a violation of forum rules.
If you believe he is distorting catholic doctrine, quote from the catechism and the Bible to prove him wrong.
I already did that. I didn't call him ignorant because I disagree with him, I called him ignorant because he doesn't know or care to know the Catholic teaching he is criticizing.
You should know from my posting here that I don't call those who disagree with me ignorant.
Knowledgeable people can reach different conclusions.
He is distorting Catholic teaching, and I have demonstrated this from Catholic sources and from scripture.
You need to read the entire thread before criticizing posters.
Catholic teaching takes presedence over God's? John 6:43-45 When are you going to turn to Jesus Chester?
Catholic teaching is God's teaching. The Church is the body of Christ, and Jesus told us to listen to the Church.
Ya well we have proved more than once on more than one topic its not. Perhaps you should do a study on your popes for many of them have been revealed as antichrists. In fact the final pope before Christs return will be the false prophet forcing everyone whose names are not writ in the Lamb's book of life to worship the beast.
Do we tell you these things to shame you? No!!! But perhaps that you might come to your senses and escape the deception!!!
: Visionary Thu Sep 30, 2010 - 17:40:01
Catholic teaching is God's teaching. The Church is the body of Christ, and Jesus told us to listen to the Church.
Ya well we have proved more than once on more than one topic its not. Perhaps you should do a study on your popes for many of them have been revealed as antichrists. In fact the final pope before Christs return will be the false prophet forcing everyone whose names are not writ in the Lamb's book of life to worship the beast.
Do we tell you these things to shame you? No!!! But perhaps that you might come to your senses and escape the deception!!!
[/quote]
I'm not sure what you are denying?
Do you deny that Jesus started a Church?
Do you deny that this Church is the Body of Christ?
Do you deny that Jesus told us to listen to the Church, and that the apostles reiterated this message?
Please address these questions.
: Visionary Thu Sep 30, 2010 - 17:40:01
Ya well we have proved more than once on more than one topic its not. Perhaps you should do a study on your popes for many of them have been revealed as antichrists. In fact the final pope before Christs return will be the false prophet forcing everyone whose names are not writ in the Lamb's book of life to worship the beast.
Do we tell you these things to shame you? No!!! But perhaps that you might come to your senses and escape the deception!!!
And this is coming from someone who doesn't even know what the word "imitate" means.
::disco::
Still doing your song and dance and no one is joining you Selene.
I now an Ape when I see one! How? By the Spirit God has given me! The Spirit of truth! John 14:19-21
All the Catholics keep telling us is they see their pope and their church. Why is that? Did they not hear what Jesus said?
Hebrews 10:19-25
: Visionary Thu Sep 30, 2010 - 17:58:20
::disco::
Still doing your song and dance and no one is joining you Selene.
I now an Ape when I see one! How? By the Spirit God has given me! The Spirit of truth! John 14:19-21
Jesus wasn't speaking to you in John 14, he was speaking to the apostles, ie. the Church.
You are to listen to them, not create your own dogma.
To the apostles:
John 17
16They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. 17Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth. 18As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world. 19For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified.
About us:
20"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray
also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you.
: Visionary Thu Sep 30, 2010 - 17:58:20
::disco::
Still doing your song and dance and no one is joining you Selene.
I now an Ape when I see one! How? By the Spirit God has given me! The Spirit of truth! John 14:19-21
All the Catholics keep telling us is they see their pope and their church. Why is that? Did they not hear what Jesus said?
Hebrews 10:19-25
Yes, we see our Pope as the successor of the Apostle Peter and our Church as the Church that Christ built. Jesus did built a Church. Why didn't you know that?
: Selene Thu Sep 30, 2010 - 18:17:27
: Visionary Thu Sep 30, 2010 - 17:58:20
::disco::
Still doing your song and dance and no one is joining you Selene.
I now an Ape when I see one! How? By the Spirit God has given me! The Spirit of truth! John 14:19-21
All the Catholics keep telling us is they see their pope and their church. Why is that? Did they not hear what Jesus said?
Hebrews 10:19-25
Yes, we see our Pope as the successor of the Apostle Peter and our Church as the Church that Christ built. Jesus did built a Church. Why didn't you know that?
So if you believe the pope sits in Peters seat
why did they not continue in the same humility as Peter? Also why did they fall into being a religious political power sitting on thrones and wearing royal robes and having king bow at their feet.
did Jesus start a politically charged church?
God bless
: mclees8 Thu Sep 30, 2010 - 23:51:43
: Selene Thu Sep 30, 2010 - 18:17:27
: Visionary Thu Sep 30, 2010 - 17:58:20
::disco::
Still doing your song and dance and no one is joining you Selene.
I now an Ape when I see one! How? By the Spirit God has given me! The Spirit of truth! John 14:19-21
All the Catholics keep telling us is they see their pope and their church. Why is that? Did they not hear what Jesus said?
Hebrews 10:19-25
Yes, we see our Pope as the successor of the Apostle Peter and our Church as the Church that Christ built. Jesus did built a Church. Why didn't you know that?
So if you believe the pope sits in Peters seat
why did they not continue in the same humility as Peter? Also why did they fall into being a religious political power sitting on thrones and wearing royal robes and having king bow at their feet.
did Jesus start a politically charged church?
God bless
The Church that Christ built is a reflection of Christ because it was Christ who created her. Christ was a priest. His Church is also priest. Christ was a prophet. His Church is also a prophet in that she preaches God's Word to the world. Christ was a King. His Church is also a king in that she is a soverign nation among leaders. Christ came from a world of wealth sitting on a throne. His Church lives in this world reflecting the wealth of the spiritual Heaven from which Christ came.
Christ built His Church for sinners, so it is natural to find sinners in the Church. Are the people in your church not sinners as well?
When are you going to get it Selene? The church is not the Catholic church of today! The Catholic church of today is the prostitute of Revelation 17!
Judges 2:17
Judges 8:27
1Chronicles 5:25
Psalm 106:39
Ezekiel 6:9
Ezekiel 20:30
Ezekiel 23:35
Hosea 4:12
Hosea 5:4
Hosea 9:1
Spiritual Adultery is like divination!
You know what is really sad?
More than one Catholic Pope has said the Koran is inspired of God. But the Koran explicitly states God has no sons or partners.
1John 4:2,3
Funny thing is if God has no partners then Muhammed is a false prophet because in order to receive revelation from God one has to come into fellowship/partner with God.
Whats worse is you will take the word of your Pope over the word of God!
rofl
: Visionary Fri Oct 01, 2010 - 00:52:28
You know what is really sad?
More than one Catholic Pope has said the Koran is inspired of God.
I'm pretty sure that it is against the forum rules to print stuff like that without substantiation. Bring some citations, please.
: Selene Fri Oct 01, 2010 - 00:19:47
: mclees8 Thu Sep 30, 2010 - 23:51:43
: Selene Thu Sep 30, 2010 - 18:17:27
: Visionary Thu Sep 30, 2010 - 17:58:20
::disco::
Still doing your song and dance and no one is joining you Selene.
I now an Ape when I see one! How? By the Spirit God has given me! The Spirit of truth! John 14:19-21
All the Catholics keep telling us is they see their pope and their church. Why is that? Did they not hear what Jesus said?
Hebrews 10:19-25
Yes, we see our Pope as the successor of the Apostle Peter and our Church as the Church that Christ built. Jesus did built a Church. Why didn't you know that?
So if you believe the pope sits in Peters seat
why did they not continue in the same humility as Peter? Also why did they fall into being a religious political power sitting on thrones and wearing royal robes and having king bow at their feet.
did Jesus start a politically charged church?
God bless
The Church that Christ built is a reflection of Christ because it was Christ who created her. Christ was a priest. His Church is also priest. Christ was a prophet. His Church is also a prophet in that she preaches God's Word to the world. Christ was a King. His Church is also a king in that she is a soverign nation among leaders. Christ came from a world of wealth sitting on a throne. His Church lives in this world reflecting the wealth of the spiritual Heaven from which Christ came.
Christ built His Church for sinners, so it is natural to find sinners in the Church. Are the people in your church not sinners as well?
Jesus is the King, absolutely. But Selene you have to understand that Jesus was humble and showing humility. Your pope and priests don't do that. Jesus didn't come on this earth dressed with worldly apparel and jewels and sitting on a wordly throne like your pope does...Jesus didn't drive around hiding in a pope mobile like yours does...
Have to leave for work...
Have a blessed day.
Lucie.
: Hehealedme Fri Oct 01, 2010 - 05:31:18
Your pope and priests don't do that. Jesus didn't come on this earth dressed with worldly apparel and jewels and sitting on a wordly throne like your pope does...Jesus didn't drive around hiding in a pope mobile like yours does...
What exactly is humility to you? Is it dressing yourself in rags, driving a crummy car, sitting in a barkalounger? Or is it rather a virtue of service, of putting others before yourself, of not thinking too highly of oneself, but rather of recognizing that all we have is a gift of God?
There are lots of poor people who are not humble. They desire the rich things of this world, they seek after pleasure and comfort. They try to win the lottery, make money by cheating or stealing. They are puffed up with pride, they want seek to dominate those that they know.
Our current pope is the antithesis of those things. He loves all people, he is their servant. They call the pope "the servant of the servants of God". His desire is for the best of the world, for all peoples.
Some popes may have taken pride in being in power, but that is not so for the popes that I have ever seen. They have been very, if not extremely, humble men.
Jesus sits on a throne in heaven, and yet he is meek and humble of heart. He is robed in glory, and yet humbles himself to become bread for the life of the world. He commands the legion of angels and yet allows those who don't believe in him to desecrate his body.
: Catholica Fri Oct 01, 2010 - 05:27:39
: Visionary Fri Oct 01, 2010 - 00:52:28
You know what is really sad?
More than one Catholic Pope has said the Koran is inspired of God.
I'm pretty sure that it is against the forum rules to print stuff like that without substantiation. Bring some citations, please.
Visionary isn't concerned about Truth.
: acmcccxlviii Mon Sep 20, 2010 - 09:48:27
I recently heard a radio broadcast on the "Unbelievable" programme, which is a discussion programme between Christians and other Christians, atheists and those of other religions. This edition was between a protestant and a catholic.
One issue which was raised was the central one of whether there was any basis for the principle of Papacy (the situation where one man has absolute authority as the successor of Peter). As far as I know, the only basis for this is Matt. 16, which tells of Jesus calling Simon "Peter"* and referring to the Rock as the Church.
Would anyone like to comment as to the relevance and weight of these and/or other scriptures?
* Aramaic: Cephas; Greek: Petros/ Petra; Latin: (I think) Petrus
No there is no basis for Peter having a successor anywhere in scripture. God's promise was to King David and was that he would have a line of kings sit on his throne...of which Jesus was the last now raised to heaven and seated on God's throne at his right hand. Acts 3:25-39
The Catholic church has sorely perverted this promise that Jesus would build his church upon Peter. The truth is God builds his church by this ONE WAY... Romans 10:20 I revealed myself...John 14:21-24
: Visionary Fri Oct 01, 2010 - 14:03:07
No there is no basis for Peter having a successor anywhere in scripture.
The entire point of the keys is that they are given to a temporary leader while the King is away. They keys to the kingdom represent the authority of the Kingdom. Someone always holds the keys.
Here, the King is taking the keys from one leader and giving them to another.
Isaiah 22
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 of honor for the house of his father.
Apostolic succession is biblical:
Acts 1
20"For," said Peter, "it is written in the book of Psalms,
" 'May his place be deserted;
let there be no one to dwell in it,' and,
" 'May another take his place of leadership.
The Authority of the Apostles was a necessary requirment in order for teaching to be authentic:
Acts 15
23With them they sent the following letter: The apostles and elders, your brothers, To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: Greetings. 24We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said.
: chestertonrules Fri Oct 01, 2010 - 14:10:32
: Visionary Fri Oct 01, 2010 - 14:03:07
No there is no basis for Peter having a successor anywhere in scripture.
The entire point of the keys is that they are given to a temporary leader while the King is away. They keys to the kingdom represent the authority of the Kingdom. Someone always holds the keys.
Here, the King is taking the keys from one leader and giving them to another.
Isaiah 22
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 of honor for the house of his father.
Apostolic succession is biblical:
Acts 1
20"For," said Peter, "it is written in the book of Psalms,
" 'May his place be deserted;
let there be no one to dwell in it,' and,
" 'May another take his place of leadership.
The Authority of the Apostles was a necessary requirment in order for teaching to be authentic:
Acts 15
23With them they sent the following letter: The apostles and elders, your brothers, To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: Greetings. 24We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said.
Still trying to pervert scripture to mean what you want it to chester? I see no where that Jesus/God promised Peter a lineage.
: Visionary Fri Oct 01, 2010 - 14:21:57
Still trying to pervert scripture to mean what you want it to chester? I see no where that Jesus/God promised Peter a lineage.
You asked for scripture, I provided it.
It doesn't fit your personal dogma, so you reject it.
This seems to be a pattern.
: Visionary Fri Oct 01, 2010 - 14:03:07
: acmcccxlviii Mon Sep 20, 2010 - 09:48:27
I recently heard a radio broadcast on the "Unbelievable" programme, which is a discussion programme between Christians and other Christians, atheists and those of other religions. This edition was between a protestant and a catholic.
One issue which was raised was the central one of whether there was any basis for the principle of Papacy (the situation where one man has absolute authority as the successor of Peter). As far as I know, the only basis for this is Matt. 16, which tells of Jesus calling Simon "Peter"* and referring to the Rock as the Church.
Would anyone like to comment as to the relevance and weight of these and/or other scriptures?
* Aramaic: Cephas; Greek: Petros/ Petra; Latin: (I think) Petrus
No there is no basis for Peter having a successor anywhere in scripture. God's promise was to King David and was that he would have a line of kings sit on his throne...of which Jesus was the last now raised to heaven and seated on God's throne at his right hand. Acts 3:25-39
The Catholic church has sorely perverted this promise that Jesus would build his church upon Peter. The truth is God builds his church by this ONE WAY... Romans 10:20 I revealed myself...John 14:21-24
HMMM??? I dont see me asking for anything??? Do you need glasses chester? It seems you are good at seeing your own imaginations rather than the truth given to you.
Quote from: Visionary on Today at 02:03:07 PM
No there is no basis for Peter having a successor anywhere in scripture.
The entire point of the keys is that they are given to a temporary leader while the King is away. They keys to the kingdom represent the authority of the Kingdom. Someone always holds the keys.
Here, the King is taking the keys from one leader and giving them to another.
Isaiah 22
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 of honor for the house of his father.
Apostolic succession is biblical:
Acts 1
20"For," said Peter, "it is written in the book of Psalms,
" 'May his place be deserted;
let there be no one to dwell in it,' and,
" 'May another take his place of leadership.
The Authority of the Apostles was a necessary requirment in order for teaching to be authentic:
Acts 15
23With them they sent the following letter: The apostles and elders, your brothers, To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: Greetings. 24We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said.
: chestertonrules Fri Oct 01, 2010 - 14:36:35
Quote from: Visionary on Today at 02:03:07 PM
No there is no basis for Peter having a successor anywhere in scripture.
The entire point of the keys is that they are given to a temporary leader while the King is away. They keys to the kingdom represent the authority of the Kingdom. Someone always holds the keys.
Here, the King is taking the keys from one leader and giving them to another.
Isaiah 22
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 of honor for the house of his father.
Apostolic succession is biblical:
Acts 1
20"For," said Peter, "it is written in the book of Psalms,
" 'May his place be deserted;
let there be no one to dwell in it,' and,
" 'May another take his place of leadership.
The Authority of the Apostles was a necessary requirment in order for teaching to be authentic:
Acts 15
23With them they sent the following letter: The apostles and elders, your brothers, To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: Greetings. 24We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said.
::playingguitar:: ::disco:: ::band:: rofl Ya see chester. Thats me laughin so hard cause you cant carry a tune. You missed the whole point altogether!!!! JESUS IS LORD!!!
: Visionary Fri Oct 01, 2010 - 00:44:09
When are you going to get it Selene? The church is not the Catholic church of today! The Catholic church of today is the prostitute of Revelation 17!
Judges 2:17
Judges 8:27
1Chronicles 5:25
Psalm 106:39
Ezekiel 6:9
Ezekiel 20:30
Ezekiel 23:35
Hosea 4:12
Hosea 5:4
Hosea 9:1
Spiritual Adultery is like divination!
Visionary, when St. John wrot Revelations 17, the Church at Babylon was already set up in Rome. This was the Roman Church that St. Peter spoke about (1 Peter 5:13); therefore, St. John was not referring to the Roman Church, but to the Roman empire. The Roman empire oppressed the Jewish people (God's chosen people) and killed many Christians (God's chosen people). And look at what God has done. He has planted His Church in the very heart of the enemy. That Church was the Church at Babylon that St. Peter spoke about. That Church today became the Roman Catholic Church. God heard the cries of His chosen ones and defeated the enemy by planting His Church in the very heart of the enemy so that the enemy now becomes the footstool. And today, the Roman Catholic Church is still standing. The Roman Empire, on the other hand, fell.
Luke 10:19 Behold, I have given you power to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and upon all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall hurt you.
: Selene Sat Oct 02, 2010 - 16:25:58
: Visionary Fri Oct 01, 2010 - 00:44:09
When are you going to get it Selene? The church is not the Catholic church of today! The Catholic church of today is the prostitute of Revelation 17!
Judges 2:17
Judges 8:27
1Chronicles 5:25
Psalm 106:39
Ezekiel 6:9
Ezekiel 20:30
Ezekiel 23:35
Hosea 4:12
Hosea 5:4
Hosea 9:1
Spiritual Adultery is like divination!
Visionary, I already stated that the Catholic Church today reflects Christ who created her. The Catholic Church is a priest, a prophet, and a king. Do you have something to refute that because when St. John wrote Revelations 17, he was speaking about the Roman empire, which already fell.
Yes Absolutely! The entire word of God! Revelation 13:3,4 Why are you following this beast? Roman Catholic church! Your lord god the pope! You are saying, Who can make war against him Selene! Even making claim he is Jesus!
Visionary, when St. John wrote Revelations 17, the Church at Babylon was already set up in Rome. This was the Roman Church that St. Peter spoke about (1 Peter 5:13); therefore, St. John was not referring to the Roman Church, but to the Roman empire. The Roman empire oppressed the Jewish people (God's chosen people) and killed many Christians (God's chosen people). And look at what God has done. He has planted His Church in the very heart of the enemy. That Church was the Church at Babylon that St. Peter spoke about. That Church today became the Roman Catholic Church. God heard the cries of His chosen ones and defeated the enemy by planting His Church in the very heart of the enemy so that the enemy now becomes the footstool. And today, the Roman Catholic Church is still standing. The Roman Empire, on the other hand, fell.
Luke 10:19 Behold, I have given you power to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and upon all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall hurt you.
As I said to one I say to you Selene, You will not enter by any other means than through the gate of the sheep!
: Visionary Sat Oct 02, 2010 - 16:42:34
As I said to one I say to you Selene, You will not enter by any other means than through the gate of the sheep!
Visionary, when St. John wrote Revelations 17, the Church at Babylon was already set up in Rome. This was the Roman Church that St. Peter spoke about (1 Peter 5:13); therefore, St. John was not referring to the Roman Church, but to the Roman empire. The Roman empire oppressed the Jewish people (God's chosen people) and killed many Christians (God's chosen people). And look at what God has done. He has planted His Church in the very heart of the enemy. That Church was the Church at Babylon that St. Peter spoke about. That Church today became the Roman Catholic Church. God heard the cries of His chosen ones and defeated the enemy by planting His Church in the very heart of the enemy so that the enemy now becomes the footstool. And today, the Roman Catholic Church is still standing. The Roman Empire, on the other hand, fell.
Luke 10:19 Behold, I have given you power to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and upon all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall hurt you.
Selene listen close. All you talk about is your pope and your catholic church. You are not alone. All other denominations do the exact same thing!
::announcment:: But guess what? That is not how the Holy Spirit speaks to us!
You can rant all you want about your pope and your church but I am not deceived!
: Hehealedme Fri Oct 01, 2010 - 05:31:18
Jesus is the King, absolutely. But Selene you have to understand that Jesus was humble and showing humility. Your pope and priests don't do that. Jesus didn't come on this earth dressed with worldly apparel and jewels and sitting on a wordly throne like your pope does...Jesus didn't drive around hiding in a pope mobile like yours does...
Have to leave for work...
Have a blessed day.
Lucie.
The Church that Christ built is a reflection of Christ because it was Christ who created her. Christ was a priest. His Church is also priest. Christ was a prophet. His Church is also a prophet in that she preaches God's Word to the world. Christ was a King. His Church is also a king in that she is a soverign nation among leaders. Christ came from a world of wealth sitting on a throne. His Church lives in this world reflecting the wealth of the spiritual Heaven from which Christ came. Today, Jesus sits on a throne with jewels, and He is still humble. Humility has nothing to do with the clothes you wear or the kind of house you live in. Humility is an attitude. An example of humility is when someone strikes you on the cheek, then you turn and give the other cheek. That is humility. Pope John Paul II had done this. He forgave the person who tried to kill him. That is humility. A rich king like Jesus has humility.
Revelations 4:2 At once I was caught up in spirit. A throne was there in Heaven, and on the throne sat one whose appearance sparkled like jasper and carnelian. Around the throne was a halo as brilliant as an emerald.
The Church that Christ built resembles Him. Christ is a priest, a prophet, and a king. The Church He built is also a priest, a prophet, and a king.
: Visionary Sat Oct 02, 2010 - 17:08:06
Selene listen close. All you talk about is your pope and your catholic church. You are not alone. All other denominations do the exact same thing!
::announcment:: But guess what? That is not how the Holy Spirit speaks to us!
You can rant all you want about your pope and your church but I am not deceived!
Sorry, Visionary, but no Church other than the Catholic Church can claim to be a king like her Lord Jesus Christ who divinely created her.
When St. John wrote Revelations 17, the Church at Babylon was already set up in Rome. This was the Roman Church that St. Peter spoke about (1 Peter 5:13); therefore, St. John was not referring to the Roman Church, but to the Roman empire. The Roman empire oppressed the Jewish people (God's chosen people) and killed many Christians (God's chosen people). And look at what God has done. He has planted His Church in the very heart of the enemy. That Church was the Church at Babylon that St. Peter spoke about. That Church today became the Roman Catholic Church. God heard the cries of His chosen ones and defeated the enemy by planting His Church in the very heart of the enemy so that the enemy now becomes the footstool. And today, the Roman Catholic Church is still standing. The Roman Empire, on the other hand, fell.
Luke 10:19 Behold, I have given you power to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and upon all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall hurt you.
The one who sins publicly is to be rebuked publicly...1Corinthians 4:8,9
You speak about things you know nothing about Selene!
: Visionary Sat Oct 02, 2010 - 17:30:00
The one who sins publicly is to be rebuked publicly...1Corinthians 4:8,9
You speak about things you know nothing about Selene!
Visionary, what you quoted in 1 Corinthians speaks about boasting. I was not boasting. I was telling the truth. The Catholic Church is a priest, a prophet, and a king. No other church on earth other than the Catholic Church can claim all these three things.
When St. John wrote Revelations 17, the Church at Babylon was already set up in Rome. This was the Roman Church that St. Peter spoke about (1 Peter 5:13); therefore, St. John was not referring to the Roman Church, but to the Roman empire. The Roman empire oppressed the Jewish people (God's chosen people) and killed many Christians (God's chosen people). And look at what God has done. He has planted His Church in the very heart of the enemy. That Church was the Church at Babylon that St. Peter spoke about. That Church today became the Roman Catholic Church. God heard the cries of His chosen ones and defeated the enemy by planting His Church in the very heart of the enemy so that the enemy now becomes the footstool. And today, the Roman Catholic Church is still standing. The Roman Empire, on the other hand, fell.
Luke 10:19 Behold, I have given you power to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and upon all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall hurt you.
Jesus declared this parable in Matt 13,
31 He presented another parable to them, saying, "The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in his field;
32 and this is smaller than all other seeds, but when it is full grown, it is larger than the garden plants and becomes a tree, so that THE BIRDS OF THE AIR come and NEST IN ITS BRANCHES."
In verse 19, Jesus explains who the birds are in the parable in verse 4 - the evil one comes and snatches away what has been sown in his heart. This is the one on whom seed was sown beside the road.
When Jesus presented the pabable of the mustard seed, He explained the last condition of the kingdom of heaven would be a church where the birds, the evil one, comes and nests in its tree branches.
A true mustard seed has fantastic power and pungency, but is not supposed to grow into a tree. A true mustard seed grows into a plant that produces mustard seeds and greens. It is un-natural for a mustard seed to grow into a tree. But this mustrard seed grew into a tree, and THE BIRDS OF THE AIR come and NEST IN ITS BRANCHES.
He that has ears to hear, let him hear what the Spirit is saying to the Church.
: John 10:10 Sat Oct 02, 2010 - 19:02:16
Jesus declared this parable in Matt 13,
31 He presented another parable to them, saying, "The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in his field;
32 and this is smaller than all other seeds, but when it is full grown, it is larger than the garden plants and becomes a tree, so that THE BIRDS OF THE AIR come and NEST IN ITS BRANCHES."
In verse 19, Jesus explains who the birds are in the parable in verse 4 - the evil one comes and snatches away what has been sown in his heart. This is the one on whom seed was sown beside the road.
When Jesus presented the pabable of the mustard seed, He explained the last condition of the kingdom of heaven would be a church where the birds, the evil one, comes and nests in its tree branches.
The birds of the air is evil? The Bible does not say that the birds are evil.
A true mustard seed has fantastic power and pungency, but is not supposed to grow into a tree. A true mustard seed grows into a plant that produces mustard seeds and greens. It is un-natural for a mustard seed to grow into a tree. But this mustrard seed grew into a tree, and THE BIRDS OF THE AIR come and NEST IN ITS BRANCHES.
The mustard seed is not supposed to grow into a large tree? But that is what Jesus is saying. The mustard seed did grow into a large tree because that is what Jesus is saying about the power of faith. If you have faith even as small as a mustard seed, you can move a mountain and nothing would be impossible for you (Matthew 17:19). Therefore, that mustard seed is supposed to grow into a large tree just as Jesus says because Jesus is Truth.
: John 10:10 Sat Oct 02, 2010 - 19:02:16
Jesus declared this parable in Matt 13,
31 He presented another parable to them, saying, "The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in his field;
32 and this is smaller than all other seeds, but when it is full grown, it is larger than the garden plants and becomes a tree, so that THE BIRDS OF THE AIR come and NEST IN ITS BRANCHES."
In verse 19, Jesus explains who the birds are in the parable in verse 4 - the evil one comes and snatches away what has been sown in his heart. This is the one on whom seed was sown beside the road.
When Jesus presented the pabable of the mustard seed, He explained the last condition of the kingdom of heaven would be a church where the birds, the evil one, comes and nests in its tree branches.
A true mustard seed has fantastic power and pungency, but is not supposed to grow into a tree. A true mustard seed grows into a plant that produces mustard seeds and greens. It is un-natural for a mustard seed to grow into a tree. But this mustrard seed grew into a tree, and THE BIRDS OF THE AIR come and NEST IN ITS BRANCHES.
He that has ears to hear, let him hear what the Spirit is saying to the Church.
Hmm, how do you know that the Protestant Churches are not the "branches" of the mustard tree that is the Catholic Church?
Scripture always interprets Scripture.
When Jesus interpreted the parable given in Matt 13:4 where He said "the birds came and devoured them" (the seeds), He said in verse 19 the birds were "the evil one (who) comes and snatches away what has been sown in the heart."
When Jesus gave the parable of the mustard seed which becomes a tree and "the birds of the air come and nest in its branches" (verse 32), Jesus was telling us that the evil one would come and nest in the branches of an un-natural tree that was not of His making.
Any church or person, including Protestant, that sets itself up as God to the life of the Believer and sinner is not the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ.
: John 10:10 Sun Oct 03, 2010 - 13:55:55
Scripture always interprets Scripture.
When Jesus interpreted the parable given in Matt 13:4 where He said "the birds came and devoured them" (the seeds), He said in verse 19 the birds were "the evil one (who) comes and snatches away what has been sown in the heart."
When Jesus gave the parable of the mustard seed which becomes a tree and "the birds of the air come and nest in its branches" (verse 32), Jesus was telling us that the evil one would come and nest in the branches of an un-natural tree that was not of His making.
Any church, including Protestant, that sets itself up as God to the life of the Believer and sinner is not the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ.
This parable could have many applications. It speeks of things that start out small but become very large. This represents the church that Jesus started
The birds are the corrupters that find haven in its branches. They are like the leaven which represents apostasy that also starts out small but eventually corrupts the whole loaf. So who are the corrupter's. The corrupter's are those who change and distort what was first began. They are motivated for self and take advantage of tree. In this case the church that Jesus started
God bless
How many kings rule over a kingdom? How can the woman who is the church be a king? Where did Jesus ever say his church would be king? ONE. CANNOT. NEVER.
: Visionary Sun Oct 03, 2010 - 22:30:23
How many kings rule over a kingdom? How can the woman who is the church be a king? Where did Jesus ever say his church would be king? ONE. CANNOT. NEVER.
Visionary, the Hebrews who came out of Egypt were slaves, but they were God's chosen people. He turned His chosen people into a king. The group of slaves that came out of Egypt became a king....Israel. They are a king among many. God did the same to His Church because we are also His chosen ones.
John 15:16 You have not chosen me: but I have chosen you; and have appointed you, that you should go, and should bring forth fruit; and your fruit should remain: that whatsoever you shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.
The Catholic Church is a king among many leaders just like Israel, His chosen people. The Catholic Church has brought forth fruits. There are over 1 billion Catholics worldwide, and the number is growing especially in Asia and Africa (continents that are mostly pagans). We have opened up schools, hospitals, missions, shelters, orphanges, and other charitable organizations to help the poor, the elderly, the sick, and the orphans. Like Israel, we are not a perfect Church, but we have brought forth fruits.
We all know about Satans pride Selene. He is king of this world. How is it you were so deceived to think the church is king? Since when has a bride ever been given the title of king? I suppose only in Selenes Kingdom but not in God's! JESUS IS LORD! No one can say this except by the Holy Spirit. And when he has destroyed the last enemy Jesus will hand the kingdom over to God then shall there be one KING over the lords of the earth. So be it. Amen.
: Visionary Sun Oct 03, 2010 - 23:10:37
We all know about Satans pride Selene. He is king of this world. How is it you were so deceived to think the church is king? Since when has a bride ever been given the title of king? I suppose only in Selenes Kingdom but not in God's! JESUS IS LORD! No one can say this except by the Holy Spirit. And when he has destroyed the last enemy Jesus will hand the kingdom over to God then shall there be one KING over the lords of the earth. So be it. Amen.
If I was full of pride, I would have said that we are a perfect Church, but as you can see in my last post, I said, "Like Israel, we are NOT a perfect Church, but we have brought forth fruits."
As I told you before, the Church that Christ built is a reflection of Him. Christ is a priest, a prophet, and a king. The Church resembles Christ because she is also a priest, a prophet (in that she proclaims God's Word to the world), and a king (in that she is a governing nation among leaders). Just because the Church is considered feminine does not mean that she is not a king. She is a king because she reflects the image of the One who built her. In the same way, I am a female, but I am also made in the image of God.
Have you ever seen the King Selene? No man can. Likewise you dont know who you are arguing against. I tell you the truth, The King will come and he will say, kill those in front of me who did not want me to be king over them.
: Visionary Sun Oct 03, 2010 - 23:54:41
Have you ever seen the King Selene? No man can. Likewise you dont know who you are arguing against. I tell you the truth, The King will come and he will say, kill those in front of me who did not want me to be king over them.
I don't know who I'm arguing against? Are you Christ? You are telling me the Truth? I know that Christ is a king and I've already told you that the Church that Christ built is a reflection of Him. Didn't you know that it was God who made kings. He even made David, His annoited one into a king (2 Samuel 2:1-5). God turned a shepherd boy into a king because that shepherd boy was His chosen one. That is the truth.
Give it a rest Selene. You have lied and you have rejected the living word of God given to you. Furthermore you have twisted the scriptures you post in an attempt to justify yourself. Since your only king is pope whoever know this: JESUS IS LORD!
: Visionary Sun Oct 03, 2010 - 23:54:41
Have you ever seen the King Selene? No man can. Likewise you dont know who you are arguing against. I tell you the truth, The King will come and he will say, kill those in front of me who did not want me to be king over them.
And the King of kings commands you thus, Visionary:
1Pet. 2:13 Be subject to every human institution for the Lord's sake, whether it be to the king as supreme
1Pet. 2:14 or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the approval of those who do good.
1Pet. 2:15 For it is the will of God that by doing good you may silence the ignorance of foolish people.
1Pet. 2:16 Be free, yet without using freedom as a pretext for evil, but as slaves of God.
1Pet. 2:17 Give honor to all, love the community, fear God, honor the king.
So if you consider the Pope a king, then perhaps God is telling you to obey him. ::sarcasmalert:
Truly, the Pope is not a king in the meaning of a "king" meant by this verse; he is simply a prime minister. Jesus Christ is our king.
: Selene Sun Oct 03, 2010 - 23:19:12
: Visionary Sun Oct 03, 2010 - 23:10:37
We all know about Satans pride Selene. He is king of this world. How is it you were so deceived to think the church is king? Since when has a bride ever been given the title of king? I suppose only in Selenes Kingdom but not in God's! JESUS IS LORD! No one can say this except by the Holy Spirit. And when he has destroyed the last enemy Jesus will hand the kingdom over to God then shall there be one KING over the lords of the earth. So be it. Amen.
If I was full of pride, I would have said that we are a perfect Church, but as you can see in my last post, I said, "Like Israel, we are NOT a perfect Church, but we have brought forth fruits."
As I told you before, the Church that Christ built is a reflection of Him. Christ is a priest, a prophet, and a king. The Church resembles Christ because she is also a priest, a prophet (in that she proclaims God's Word to the world), and a king (in that she is a governing nation among leaders). Just because the Church is considered feminine does not mean that she is not a king. She is a king because she reflects the image of the One who built her. In the same way, I am a female, but I am also made in the image of God.
Not this church Selene
Rev18: 7 Listen to the sobering words
And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. 5 For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities. 6 Reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup which she hath filled fill to her double. 7 How much she hath glorified herself, and lived deliciously, so much torment and sorrow give her:
for she saith in her heart, I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow. 8 Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her.
I would like to show you something interesting . Look at REV 13:1 that speaks of the rise of the antichrist
1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the namea of blasphemy. 2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority
Now lets look at REV 17:3 The Harlot Christian church
So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. 4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and deckeda with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:
Here we see religious and political babylon. Do you find it interesting that they both are described as having seven heads and ten horns.
Either they are one and the same or they are joined at the hip. they sleep in the same bed together
Is it little wonder the the Lord says to come out of her.
Something to seriously consider Selene
: mclees8 Mon Oct 04, 2010 - 08:51:18
I would like to show you something interesting . Look at REV 13:1 that speaks of the rise of the antichrist
1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the namea of blasphemy. 2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority
Now lets look at REV 17:3 The Harlot Christian church
So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. 4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and deckeda with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:
Here we see religious and political babylon. Do you find it interesting that they both are described as having seven heads and ten horns.
Either they are one and the same or they are joined at the hip. they sleep in the same bed together
Is it little wonder the the Lord says to come out of her.
Something to seriously consider Selene
And this is relevant to the Body of Christ in what way?
Jesus started a single Church. Some choose to reject this Church.
I think that is a dangerous decision to make.
: chestertonrules Mon Oct 04, 2010 - 10:24:45
: mclees8 Mon Oct 04, 2010 - 08:51:18
I would like to show you something interesting . Look at REV 13:1 that speaks of the rise of the antichrist
1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the namea of blasphemy. 2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority
Now lets look at REV 17:3 The Harlot Christian church
So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. 4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and deckeda with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:
Here we see religious and political babylon. Do you find it interesting that they both are described as having seven heads and ten horns.
Either they are one and the same or they are joined at the hip. they sleep in the same bed together
Is it little wonder the the Lord says to come out of her.
Something to seriously consider Selene
And this is relevant to the Body of Christ in what way?
Jesus started a single Church. Some choose to reject this Church.
I think that is a dangerous decision to make.
It is very relevant t the body for the body looks to the leaders for guidence. Yes Jesus started a single church and it is still one church today. No denominations. How ever man has divided, we have divided it. Im not sure what you are saying about some reject this church.
The Church of REV 17 is a specific church that is christian tat the world looks to as representing Christianity. It has religious and political ties How ever Babylon is far reaching infecting other Christian church denominations also.
When the church and the body look more and more to political solutions to world problems the more it is in Babylon (the world religious and political systems) and the more it looks to antichrist.
Jesus says we are not to be of this world. To put know faith in it or men of it. Do not love it or be any part of it. We are in the world but not of it.
Oops sorry for the typing errors
God bless
RCC and EO are to the NT Church what the Scribes and Pharisees were to the Law of Moses. Jesus spoke out vehemently against the Scribes and Pharisees. That system was effectively wiped out by the destruction of Jersalem in A.D. 70. After only two or three centuries, RCC revived it with all vim and vigor.
: Jimmy Mon Oct 04, 2010 - 11:00:02
RCC and EO are to the NT Church what the Scribes and Pharisees were to the Law of Moses. Jesus spoke out vehemently against the Scribes and Pharisees. That system was effectively wiped out by the destruction of Jersalem in A.D. 70. After only two or three centuries, RCC revived it with all vim and vigor.
Jesus promised to remain with his Church until the end of the World.
What makes you think he broke his promise?
: chestertonrules Mon Oct 04, 2010 - 11:03:18
: Jimmy Mon Oct 04, 2010 - 11:00:02
RCC and EO are to the NT Church what the Scribes and Pharisees were to the Law of Moses. Jesus spoke out vehemently against the Scribes and Pharisees. That system was effectively wiped out by the destruction of Jersalem in A.D. 70. After only two or three centuries, RCC revived it with all vim and vigor.
Jesus promised to remain with his Church until the end of the World.
What makes you think he broke his promise?
I don't think that He broke his promise. But I also don't think that the RCC is "His Church". I think the RCC is the church of the Pope and his minions, i.e, bishops, priests, whatever in the heirarchy.
Jesus is with us until the end of the age in the person of the Holy Spirit, not Pope whatizname.
God bless. Jesus is able to save completely all who come to him. F Y I the church is his body. He alone is the head. Ephesians 4
: Jimmy Mon Oct 04, 2010 - 11:18:04
I don't think that He broke his promise. But I also don't think that the RCC is "His Church". I think the RCC is the church of the Pope and his minions, i.e, bishops, priests, whatever in the heirarchy.
Jesus is with us until the end of the age in the person of the Holy Spirit, not Pope whatizname.
The early Church didn't disappear, it has grown and prospered. What makes you think the early Church failed?
: chestertonrules Mon Oct 04, 2010 - 11:33:02
: Jimmy Mon Oct 04, 2010 - 11:18:04
I don't think that He broke his promise. But I also don't think that the RCC is "His Church". I think the RCC is the church of the Pope and his minions, i.e, bishops, priests, whatever in the heirarchy.
Jesus is with us until the end of the age in the person of the Holy Spirit, not Pope whatizname.
The early Church didn't disappear, it has grown and prospered. What makes you think the early Church failed?
Yes the early Church has grown and prospered, in spite of the Pope whatizname. The early Church has not failed. It has grown and prospered due to the Holy Spirit. Not your pope. The "early Church" is the Church of Jesus Christ, not the RCC.
: Jimmy Mon Oct 04, 2010 - 11:45:16
Yes the early Church has grown and prospered, in spite of the Pope whatizname. The early Church has not failed. It has grown and prospered due to the Holy Spirit. Not your pope. The "early Church" is the Church of Jesus Christ, not the RCC.
I believe that the early Church was Catholic.
Have you read letter of Pope Clement to the Corinthians in 95 AD?
How about the letters of St. Ignatius in 107 AD?
Are you aware that by the time the New Testament was written the Church was on its fifth pope?
: chestertonrules Mon Oct 04, 2010 - 11:51:11
: Jimmy Mon Oct 04, 2010 - 11:45:16
Yes the early Church has grown and prospered, in spite of the Pope whatizname. The early Church has not failed. It has grown and prospered due to the Holy Spirit. Not your pope. The "early Church" is the Church of Jesus Christ, not the RCC.
I believe that the early Church was Catholic.
Have you read letter of Pope Clement to the Corinthians in 95 AD?
How about the letters of St. Ignatius in 107 AD?
Are you aware that by the time the New Testament was written the Church was on its fifth pope?
rofl
rofl
rofl
Sorry about that, but that pretty much sums up what I think of your fifth pope.
By the way, when do you think the NT was written?
: Jimmy Mon Oct 04, 2010 - 11:56:46
Sorry about that, but that pretty much sums up what I think of your fifth pope.
By the way, when do you think the NT was written?
The last book of the New Testament, John's Revelation, was written in about 90-98 AD, it is suspected.
Of course the New Testament books weren't compiled until much later.
My guess is that you are unfamiliar with the early Church. Is this the case?
: Jimmy Mon Oct 04, 2010 - 11:45:16
: chestertonrules Mon Oct 04, 2010 - 11:33:02
: Jimmy Mon Oct 04, 2010 - 11:18:04
I don't think that He broke his promise. But I also don't think that the RCC is "His Church". I think the RCC is the church of the Pope and his minions, i.e, bishops, priests, whatever in the heirarchy.
Jesus is with us until the end of the age in the person of the Holy Spirit, not Pope whatizname.
The early Church didn't disappear, it has grown and prospered. What makes you think the early Church failed?
Yes the early Church has grown and prospered, in spite of the Pope whatizname. The early Church has not failed. It has grown and prospered due to the Holy Spirit. Not your pope. The "early Church" is the Church of Jesus Christ, not the RCC.
No Jesus didn't fail but certain bishops did. Remember how we were talking about that mustard tree and how the birds came and nested in it.
After Constantine made the christains an excepted religion apostasy set in fast. bishops who wanted power and recognition stated their quest for power and prominence. However they were not fully successful until the fifth century when they used a forged documents called the Donations of Constantine
It was never of Christ for his church to become the religious political power of the Empire.
God bless
: mclees8 Mon Oct 04, 2010 - 12:29:14
No Jesus didn't fail but certain bishops did. Remember how we were talking about that mustard tree and how the birds came and nested in it.
After Constantine made the christains an excepted religion apostasy set in fast. bishops who wanted power and recognition stated their quest for power and prominence. However they were not fully successful until the fifth century when they used a forged documents called the Donations of Constantine
It was never of Christ for his church to become the religious political power of the Empire.
God bless
Constantine just made Christianity legal, he didn't make it the official religion. It is not even clear that Constantine ever became a Christian.
Jesus started a single Church and he gave this Church his authority to teach the gospel.
Which bishops are you referring to? I'm sure that there have been some sinful bishops who were led astray, but they are a small minority and their personal failings didn't impact the Church.
: mclees8 Mon Oct 04, 2010 - 12:29:14
After Constantine made the christains an excepted religion apostasy set in fast. bishops who wanted power and recognition stated their quest for power and prominence. However they were not fully successful until the fifth century when they used a forged documents called the Donations of Constantine
Mclees8, you are right that the donation of Constantine is a forgery. It was a forgery created in the 8th-9th century. It was mistakenly used in the 11th century, but that is another story. The real question is: How exactly did a 8th-9th century forgery get used in the 5th century, enabling those bishops to "rise in power and recognition"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donation_of_Constantine
Your confusion is what happens when you get your history from an anti-Catholic website. They never let a little thing like God's commandment to not lie get in the way of spinning a good tale to degrade the Catholic Church. I wonder who is driving these anti-Catholic websites to lie and hate? Is it Jesus? Or the devil?
: Catholica Mon Oct 04, 2010 - 13:06:53
: mclees8 Mon Oct 04, 2010 - 12:29:14
After Constantine made the christains an excepted religion apostasy set in fast. bishops who wanted power and recognition stated their quest for power and prominence. However they were not fully successful until the fifth century when they used a forged documents called the Donations of Constantine
Mclees8, you are right that the donation of Constantine is a forgery. It was a forgery created in the 8th-9th century. It was mistakenly used in the 11th century, but that is another story. The real question is: How exactly did a 8th-9th century forgery get used in the 5th century, enabling those bishops to "rise in power and recognition"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donation_of_Constantine
Your confusion is what happens when you get your history from an anti-Catholic website. They never let a little thing like God's commandment to not lie get in the way of spinning a good tale to degrade the Catholic Church. I wonder who is driving these anti-Catholic websites to lie and hate? Is it Jesus? Or the devil?
I will check again but i believe it was not declared to be a forgery until the 8 or 9th century. But it was written long before then
God bless
So, what did you guys decide? Is the Papacy right or wrong?
I've been waiting for your answer with bated breath.
btw, my favorite Pope was Alexander. Loved that line about a little learning being a dangerous thing.
: Jimmy Mon Oct 04, 2010 - 11:56:46
: chestertonrules Mon Oct 04, 2010 - 11:51:11
: Jimmy Mon Oct 04, 2010 - 11:45:16
Yes the early Church has grown and prospered, in spite of the Pope whatizname. The early Church has not failed. It has grown and prospered due to the Holy Spirit. Not your pope. The "early Church" is the Church of Jesus Christ, not the RCC.
I believe that the early Church was Catholic.
Have you read letter of Pope Clement to the Corinthians in 95 AD?
How about the letters of St. Ignatius in 107 AD?
Are you aware that by the time the New Testament was written the Church was on its fifth pope?
rofl
rofl
rofl
Sorry about that, but that pretty much sums up what I think of your fifth pope.
By the way, when do you think the NT was written?
You have to remember that The Church was on her third pope by the time Jesus was born.
: chestertonrules Mon Oct 04, 2010 - 12:01:08
: Jimmy Mon Oct 04, 2010 - 11:56:46
Sorry about that, but that pretty much sums up what I think of your fifth pope.
By the way, when do you think the NT was written?
The last book of the New Testament, John's Revelation, was written in about 90-98 AD, it is suspected.
Of course the New Testament books weren't compiled until much later.
My guess is that you are unfamiliar with the early Church. Is this the case?
So are you postulating there were five popes before 90 A.D.?
When you say early church, which church specifically are you speaking of? The one built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself being the chief corner stone (Eph 2:20), or that organization which calls itself the Roman Catholic Church. They are most certainly completely different entities, even though there may be some within the RCC who are also in the church of the NT.
: marc Mon Oct 04, 2010 - 15:00:13
: Jimmy Mon Oct 04, 2010 - 11:56:46
: chestertonrules Mon Oct 04, 2010 - 11:51:11
: Jimmy Mon Oct 04, 2010 - 11:45:16
Yes the early Church has grown and prospered, in spite of the Pope whatizname. The early Church has not failed. It has grown and prospered due to the Holy Spirit. Not your pope. The "early Church" is the Church of Jesus Christ, not the RCC.
I believe that the early Church was Catholic.
Have you read letter of Pope Clement to the Corinthians in 95 AD?
How about the letters of St. Ignatius in 107 AD?
Are you aware that by the time the New Testament was written the Church was on its fifth pope?
rofl
rofl
rofl
Sorry about that, but that pretty much sums up what I think of your fifth pope.
By the way, when do you think the NT was written?
You have to remember that The Church was on her third pope by the time Jesus was born.
::smile::
God bless chester. No one has suggested Gods church has failed nor has anyone suggested Gods word has failed. Nor has anyone suggested Gods love has failed. However the many scriptures given to you by many have shown the R C C is not what only the catholics claim is the only church headed by a pope that only catholics claim is Jesus!
LOL Marc. The Papacy is so so so wrong I am amazed how many are fooled by it! I didnt even know much about Catholic theories until I heard them speaking and I cant believe they were fooled by it! I have many many catholic friends and to say the least... even demons believe there is a God and they shudder!
: Jimmy Mon Oct 04, 2010 - 15:08:01
: chestertonrules Mon Oct 04, 2010 - 12:01:08
: Jimmy Mon Oct 04, 2010 - 11:56:46
Sorry about that, but that pretty much sums up what I think of your fifth pope.
By the way, when do you think the NT was written?
The last book of the New Testament, John's Revelation, was written in about 90-98 AD, it is suspected.
Of course the New Testament books weren't compiled until much later.
My guess is that you are unfamiliar with the early Church. Is this the case?
So are you postulating there were five popes before 90 A.D.?
circa 33-67 AD St. Peter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Peter)
circa 67-79 AD Pope St. Linus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Linus)
circa 79-92 AD Pope St. Anacletus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Anacletus)
circa 92-99 AD Pope St. Clement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Clement_I)
Ok, so there were 3 popes, or 4 if you count St. Peter (though the term Pope in many understandings means the "successor to St. Peter")
: Jimmy Mon Oct 04, 2010 - 15:08:01
When you say early church, which church specifically are you speaking of? The one built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself being the chief corner stone (Eph 2:20), or that organization which calls itself the Roman Catholic Church.
They are one and the same.
Sorry Catholica. They are not one in the same! King David was promised a lineage of kings to sit on his throne... Jesus being the last King! No where will you find God promising Peter a lineage! What you will find is God promised Jesus a bride/children given to him BY GOD the FATHER! John 10
: Visionary Mon Oct 04, 2010 - 16:54:16
Sorry Catholica. They are not one in the same! King David was promised a lineage of kings to sit on his throne... Jesus being the last King! No where will you find God promising Peter a lineage! What you will find is God promised Jesus a bride/children given to him BY GOD the FATHER! John 10
Whatever you say, Visionary. You are your own pope, after all.
: mclees8 Mon Oct 04, 2010 - 14:12:32
: Catholica Mon Oct 04, 2010 - 13:06:53
: mclees8 Mon Oct 04, 2010 - 12:29:14
After Constantine made the christains an excepted religion apostasy set in fast. bishops who wanted power and recognition stated their quest for power and prominence. However they were not fully successful until the fifth century when they used a forged documents called the Donations of Constantine
Mclees8, you are right that the donation of Constantine is a forgery. It was a forgery created in the 8th-9th century. It was mistakenly used in the 11th century, but that is another story. The real question is: How exactly did a 8th-9th century forgery get used in the 5th century, enabling those bishops to "rise in power and recognition"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donation_of_Constantine
Your confusion is what happens when you get your history from an anti-Catholic website. They never let a little thing like God's commandment to not lie get in the way of spinning a good tale to degrade the Catholic Church. I wonder who is driving these anti-Catholic websites to lie and hate? Is it Jesus? Or the devil?
I will check again but i believe it was not declared to be a forgery until the 8 or 9th century. But it was written long before then
God bless
I know you will call this an anti catholic web site which is easy to say. its easy to call people liars. But the fact remain the the Donations of Constantine were actual historical forged documents that served a purpose and it was only one of several. Its easy to put your fingers in your ears and cry liar and spewers of hate.
By john Schroeder
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, thanks for the article, as I get a chance today I will try to respond to it.
: Jimmy Mon Oct 04, 2010 - 15:08:01
are unfamiliar with the early Church. Is this the case?
So are you postulating there were five popes before 90 A.D.?
When you say early church, which church specifically are you speaking of? The one built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself being the chief corner stone (Eph 2:20), or that organization which calls itself the Roman Catholic Church. They are most certainly completely different entities, even though there may be some within the RCC who are also in the church of the NT.
[/quote]
By 97 AD, yes. It is not postulating.
St. Irenaeus listed the first 14 Popes in "Against Heresies", 3:3:3, (180 AD)
* St. Peter (32-67), Matthew 16:18.
* St. Linus (67-76), 2Timothy 4:21
* St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
* St. Clement I (88-97), Philippians 4:3
* St. Evaristus (97-105)
The early Church is the Catholic Church, as we see here in 110 AD:
"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it.
Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).
Chester. Nice try but that is a lie! I know Jesus said, "Where I am there my servant will be!" But you say, wherever your pope is there Gods servant will be! Are you trying to make Gods children slaves to men again slaves to idol worship?
: chestertonrules Tue Oct 05, 2010 - 12:45:39
The early Church is the Catholic Church, as we see here in 110 AD:
"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).
Exactly, this is proof that the Early Church is indeed the Catholic Church. Her name was written in A.D 110. We have a name written in a document dating to A.D 110. This also shows that if her name was written, it mostly likely was also spoken. ::smile::
: Selene Tue Oct 05, 2010 - 19:58:16
: chestertonrules Tue Oct 05, 2010 - 12:45:39
The early Church is the Catholic Church, as we see here in 110 AD:
"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).
Exactly, this is proof that the Early Church is indeed the Catholic Church. Her name was written in A.D 110. We have a name written in a document dating to A.D 110. This also shows that if her name was written, it mostly likely was also spoken. ::smile::
And you think he was referring to the Roman Catholic Church? rofl
Selene, the word "catholic" there simply means the church universal. The church of Jesus Christ.
cath·o·lic –adjective
1. broad or wide-ranging in tastes, interests, or the like; having sympathies with all; broad-minded; liberal.
2. universal in extent; involving all; of interest to all.
3. pertaining to the whole Christian body or church.
Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2010. If someone has access to the original writing in the language in which it was written, I would be interested to see what word was translated as Catholic. It is almost without doubt not a reference to the Roman Catholic Church as you wish to proclaim it.
: Jimmy Tue Oct 05, 2010 - 20:20:20
And you think he was referring to the Roman Catholic Church? rofl
Selene, the word "catholic" there simply means the church universal. The church of Jesus Christ.
Yes, I know. That is our name. Catholic. The Church at Babylon that St. Peter spoke about in the Bible was the Roman Church. That Church today is the Catholic Church.
: Selene Tue Oct 05, 2010 - 19:58:16
: chestertonrules Tue Oct 05, 2010 - 12:45:39
The early Church is the Catholic Church, as we see here in 110 AD:
"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).
Exactly, this is proof that the Early Church is indeed the Catholic Church. Her name was written in A.D 110. We have a name written in a document dating to A.D 110. This also shows that if her name was written, it mostly likely was also spoken. ::smile::
Yes Selene we are all Catholic but not all Roman Catholic. this is not proof of the supremacy of the Roman church. Ignatius was not Roman Catholic. he was Bishop of Antioch and not subject to Rome or Peter. You don't see either mentioned in this do you Roman Catholic papacy that shanghaied Christianity did not exist at his time. The church then was the church in whatever city the church was. The church was not governed then by Rome or any church in Rome. Let any who are sent be true to his calling and not self seeking. Let him be of a pure heart and not self exalting. We are not exalting the clergy and the clergy is not self exalting itself as the Roman catholic church did. If Ignatius did not walk in this he already took a wrong path himself.
God bless
: mclees8 Wed Oct 06, 2010 - 06:10:49
Yes Selene we are all Catholic but not all Roman Catholic. this is not proof of the supremacy of the Roman church. Ignatius was not Roman Catholic. he was Bishop of Antioch and not subject to Rome or Peter. You don't see either mentioned in this do you Roman Catholic papacy that shanghaied Christianity did not exist at his time. The church then was the church in whatever city the church was. The church was not governed then by Rome or any church in Rome. Let any who are sent be true to his calling and not self seeking. Let him be of a pure heart and not self exalting. We are not exalting the clergy and the clergy is not self exalting itself as the Roman catholic church did. If Ignatius did not walk in this he already took a wrong path himself.
God bless
There is only one Catholic Church.
: Selene Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 18:44:18
: The Great Baptizmo Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 18:43:06
: Selene Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 18:41:20
: The Great Baptizmo Wed Sep 29, 2010 - 18:35:33
Still trying to make the doctrine of demons concerning forbidding marriage ok, I see.
Tell that to Jesus Christ. ::smile::
Luke 20:34-35 And Jesus said to them: The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: But they that shall be accounted worthy of that world, and of the resurrection from the dead, shall neither be married, nor take wives.
Jesus Christ, through the Holy Spirit inspired the words of 1 Tim 4. So I don't kneed to tell it to Him, He says that forbidding of marriage is a doctrine of demons.
Yes, you do because Christ forbids marriage between men and women in Heaven.
Wait I think I may have taken this out of context so before I respond could you elaborate further on what you meant by this Selene?
: Visionary Tue Oct 05, 2010 - 14:40:56
Chester. Nice try but that is a lie! I know Jesus said, "Where I am there my servant will be!" But you say, wherever your pope is there Gods servant will be! Are you trying to make Gods children slaves to men again slaves to idol worship?
What is a lie?
Following those sent by Jesus is a good thing, right?
: Jimmy Tue Oct 05, 2010 - 20:20:20
Selene, the word "catholic" there simply means the church universal. The church of Jesus Christ.
cath·o·lic
–adjective
1. broad or wide-ranging in tastes, interests, or the like; having sympathies with all; broad-minded; liberal.
2. universal in extent; involving all; of interest to all.
3. pertaining to the whole Christian body or church.
Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2010.
If someone has access to the original writing in the language in which it was written, I would be interested to see what word was translated as Catholic. It is almost without doubt not a reference to the Roman Catholic Church as you wish to proclaim it.
The Catholic Church is universal, and it is ONE!
The designation of "Roman" Catholic was a protestant era invention that stuck because that was where the Church was based at the time. The Catholic Church is the same Church that Jesus started, but it need not be based in Rome.
: Jimmy Tue Oct 05, 2010 - 20:20:20
: Selene Tue Oct 05, 2010 - 19:58:16
: chestertonrules Tue Oct 05, 2010 - 12:45:39
The early Church is the Catholic Church, as we see here in 110 AD:
"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).
Exactly, this is proof that the Early Church is indeed the Catholic Church. Her name was written in A.D 110. We have a name written in a document dating to A.D 110. This also shows that if her name was written, it mostly likely was also spoken. ::smile::
And you think he was referring to the Roman Catholic Church? rofl
Selene, the word "catholic" there simply means the church universal. The church of Jesus Christ.
cath·o·lic
–adjective
1. broad or wide-ranging in tastes, interests, or the like; having sympathies with all; broad-minded; liberal.
2. universal in extent; involving all; of interest to all.
3. pertaining to the whole Christian body or church.
Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2010.
If someone has access to the original writing in the language in which it was written, I would be interested to see what word was translated as Catholic. It is almost without doubt not a reference to the Roman Catholic Church as you wish to proclaim it.
Umm bro whats so funny? I mean I would like to know.
Of course it is the Roman Catholic Church?! What history book have you been reading? Tell me the history of Christianity after the death of Christ since the obvious truth is apparently wrong. Gosh more and more of us every freaking day. ::doh::
Christ chose the original Twelve. The Twelve chose their successors like Ignatius of Antioch one of the disciples of John. Those successors chose other successors. After the Council of Nicaea Christianity, which was by that time referred to more as the Catholic Church( no Roman attachment), became the official religion of Rome. It went on to be knwown as the Catholic Church(no Roman attachment) 1054 AD and the Great Schism. Then the title of "Roman Catholic Church" was unofficially given to the Church of the West to distnguish them between the Church of the East which is more popularly known as the Eastern Orthodox.
Read a book the history is there for itself. Man I tell you. ::shrug:: It's a sad thing when my fellow protestants try to argue doctrines they barely attempt to understand but when they wear this sarcastic superiorty persona when they don't even know basic Christian history ::shrug:: All it does is make it hard for the rest of us protestants who aren't ignorant.
Once again... see that you all follow the bishop as jesus follows god is a lie! The church submits to christ-the One And Only True God And Faithful Witness!!!! Are christians slaves to men? He whom the Son sets free is free indeed! Again, I know Jesus said, Where I am there my servant will be. He did not say where my bishop is there I will be! How about you catholics who tell us all these lies from your popes sit down and actually read a bible? Moreover actually sit down and listen to what Jesus says and not some pope! Dont you know God gives the Holy Spirit to those who love him? Do you think he only gives the Holy Spirit to people in "influential positions" to make you their slaves to sin?
: Visionary Wed Oct 06, 2010 - 11:10:25
Once again... see that you all follow the bishop as jesus follows god is a lie! The church submits to christ-the One And Only True God And Faithful Witness!!!! Are christians slaves to men? He whom the Son sets free is free indeed! Again, I know Jesus said, Where I am there my servant will be. He did not say where my bishop is there I will be! How about you catholics who tell us all these lies from your popes sit down and actually read a bible? Moreover actually sit down and listen to what Jesus says and not some pope! Dont you know God gives the Holy Spirit to those who love him? Do you think he only gives the Holy Spirit to people in "influential positions" to make you their slaves to sin?
I don't think I've introduced myself. I'm LightHammer a nondenominational christian nice to meet you.
I have to ask this question because your posts are becoming less and less credible and even more unprofessional. Have you ever studied our catholic brothers and sisters' church. I mean really studied and tried to understand our brothers and sisters with a genuine heart. From credible sources have you studied the Catholic doctrines, history and traditions? If not then you are nothing more than an annoyance on this forum.
Look at yourself. Look at your past posts. We are all christians here. Each one of us trying so desperately to please God and gain the greatest understanding of the Truth we can and all you have been doing is trying to tear down the faith of another without even understanding that faith for yourself. Your understanding of Catholicism and those who submit themselves to the Successors is not even worth calling basic. There's is no love of God in the way you present your points of view. Only hatred and animosity. How about you actually try and understand them before you tear them down.
With All Due Respect
LighThammer
::tippinghat::
: Visionary Wed Oct 06, 2010 - 11:10:25
Once again... see that you all follow the bishop as jesus follows god is a lie! The church submits to christ-the One And Only True God And Faithful Witness!!!! Are christians slaves to men? He whom the Son sets free is free indeed! Again, I know Jesus said, Where I am there my servant will be. He did not say where my bishop is there I will be! How about you catholics who tell us all these lies from your popes sit down and actually read a bible? Moreover actually sit down and listen to what Jesus says and not some pope! Dont you know God gives the Holy Spirit to those who love him? Do you think he only gives the Holy Spirit to people in "influential positions" to make you their slaves to sin?
St. Ignatius, the one you are calling a liar was instructed by St. John the beloved. He was ordained Overseer of Antioch by both St. Peter and St. Paul by the laying on of hands. He was in his eighties when he wrote this letter and he wrote this letter and had it sent while being transported by Roman guards to Rome so that he might be fed to the wild beasts in the Arena.
He is a Holy martyr of the faith.
I would ask you who you were instructed by and who appointed you as overseer of right belief but I have a feeling that you will say that the Holy Spirit has taught you. You treasure your interpretation of the Holy Scriptures above the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures who were instructed by the very men who wrote the very Holy Scriptures you interpret. But by what authority do you interpret? By what authority do you call St. Ignatius, Overseer of Antioch where we were first called, "Christians", a "liar"?
Perhaps St. John the beloved and St. Paul and St. Peter and St. Ignatius' eighty years in service to the Lord (subtract 80 from the year 100 and ponder that reality in the fear of God and with trembling) were not as informed as a man such as yourself.
Maybe. But do tell us why we should trust you, that you, above them, speak the truth and show us, not by mere private interpretation, that these Saints should be called liars.
(http://en.academic.ru/pictures/enwiki/73/Ignatius.jpg)
ICXC NIKA
Funny thing lighthammer. Unless those who rebuke give a scripture number and reference the majority would never recognize God's word. So, did Jesus go around saying verse bla bla you are healed or bla bla your sins are forgiven or bla bla that is a lie? No! Where then did his credibility come from? MEN or GOD?
: Visionary Wed Oct 06, 2010 - 11:59:00
Funny thing lighthammer. Unless those who rebuke give a scripture number and reference the majority would never recognize God's word. So, did Jesus go around saying verse bla bla you are healed or bla bla your sins are forgiven or bla bla that is a lie? No! Where then did his credibility come from? MEN or GOD?
You know it is consider extremely rude not to introduce yourself where I come from once someone introduces themself.
And in all honesty the point of your response is very unclear. Would mind maybe rephrasing it a bit? Im kindof lost.
Let no man do anything connected with the church without the bishop. Again another lie. Jesus destroyed the requirements of the Levitical Priesthood once for all with the sacrifice of himself. We worship not in Cathedrals nor anywhere else but in spirit and truth. We praise God in our daily walk in all places we go. We offer the sacrifice of lips that confess his name WITHOUT SEEKING ANY MANS APPROVAL!
: Visionary Wed Oct 06, 2010 - 11:10:25
Once again... see that you all follow the bishop as jesus follows god is a lie! The church submits to christ-the One And Only True God And Faithful Witness!!!
What did Jesus say?
John 20
21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you!
As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit.
23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."Luke 10
16"He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."
Matthew 18
17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
Interesting thing lighthammer. Jesus had no need to introduce himself! You will not see him anywhere entering a village saying, Hi I am Jesus the Messiah. No! But what you will find are men with pure hearts saying, you are the Christ of God. This was not shown to them by man but by God!
: Visionary Wed Oct 06, 2010 - 12:05:54
Let no man do anything connected with the church without the bishop. Again another lie. Jesus destroyed the requirements of the Levitical Priesthood once for all with the sacrifice of himself. We worship not in Cathedrals nor anywhere else but in spirit and truth. We praise God in our daily walk in all places we go. We offer the sacrifice of lips that confess his name WITHOUT SEEKING ANY MANS APPROVAL!
# Hebrews 13:17
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.
# 1 Thessalonians 5:12
[ Final Instructions ] Now we ask you, brothers, to respect those who work hard among you, who are over you in the Lord and who admonish you.
It is not man's approval but God's approval we seek when we submit to one another, especially those who are over us in the Lord and who admonish us.
Do you want to be treated as a pagan chester? This is your judgement having rejected the truth for catholic traditions in many subjects now. If Jesus is Lord worship him. If your pope is Lord worship him. Decide!
: Visionary Wed Oct 06, 2010 - 12:15:45
Do you want to be treated as a pagan chester? This is your judgement having rejected the truth for catholic traditions in many subjects now. If Jesus is Lord worship him. If your pope is Lord worship him. Decide!
I listen to the Church, as Jesus instructed. Do you?
John 20
21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."
Luke 10
16"He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."
Matthew 18
17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
Good Ryan! Then know this day you have been admonished to turn away from mute idols and catholic heresies and turn to Jesus Christ. Amen.
If any of you thinks he is wise he ought become a fool. So chester I asked this question before but no one could answer. When YOU enter God's presence who is there? You submit to men and argue you should but the church submits to Christ=anointed one. So give me the answer to the riddle and perhaps I may listen to you.
: Visionary Wed Oct 06, 2010 - 12:05:54
Let no man do anything connected with the church without the bishop. Again another lie. Jesus destroyed the requirements of the Levitical Priesthood once for all with the sacrifice of himself. We worship not in Cathedrals nor anywhere else but in spirit and truth. We praise God in our daily walk in all places we go. We offer the sacrifice of lips that confess his name WITHOUT SEEKING ANY MANS APPROVAL!
So I guess you don't like that Catholics seek confession through a priest?
Well I guess I can explain the reasoning behind that practice even though I'm sure you have some hateful prenotion of what you think it is. When a Catholic becomes a Catholic the submit themselves not just to God but to the Church. They agree to uphold all of God's standards and to fall short of those standards, to sin, is not only an offense against God who is our Master but it is offense against the Church which we represent. Kind of like if when you were little and did something wrong you ask for your parents forgiveness for dishonoring ad poorly representing the family along with who ever you offended. Think of it as a sort of Morals Clause in a contract.
So when a catholic sins they seek forgiveness of not just God(which they can do privately like all of us do) but of their family the Church. That is why the priest is there; to forgive sins on behalf of the Church.
: Visionary Wed Oct 06, 2010 - 12:12:05
Interesting thing lighthammer. Jesus had no need to introduce himself! You will not see him anywhere entering a village saying, Hi I am Jesus the Messiah. No! But what you will find are men with pure hearts saying, you are the Christ of God. This was not shown to them by man but by God!
What does that have tp do with me introducing myself to you. I wasn't doing so as some esteemed messenger of God just as a guy saying hey.
: Visionary Wed Oct 06, 2010 - 12:23:09
If any of you thinks he is wise he ought become a fool. So chester I asked this question before but no one could answer. When YOU enter God's presence who is there? You submit to men and argue you should but the church submits to Christ=anointed one. So give me the answer to the riddle and perhaps I may listen to you.
The Church is the body of Christ.
Jesus told us to listen to the Church. Jesus gave his authority to men.
I trust Jesus and those he sent.
As for those who do hear what the Spirit says, all this boasting about men is evil! Peter this... Pope that... Mary this... bishop that etc... 1Corinthians 3:18-23
: Visionary Wed Oct 06, 2010 - 12:36:33
As for those who do hear what the Spirit says, all this boasting about men is evil! Peter this... Pope that... Mary this... bishop that etc... 1Corinthians 3:18-23
What do you say to this?
John 20
21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven;
if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."
Ryan do not assume what I think ever especially when you did not hear what the spirit says for slander is not fit for someone who claims to love God.
: Visionary Wed Oct 06, 2010 - 12:18:29
Good Ryan! Then know this day you have been admonished to turn away from mute idols and catholic heresies and turn to Jesus Christ. Amen.
We don't worship idols, the Saints, our bishops (the RCC Pope is in all reality their bishop). We worship God alone.
What does heresy mean to you? How do you decide what is of a "different opinion" (this is what heresy means)? How do you know that your interpretation is right and another person's is wrong? Is it based on what your heart is telling you? Is it based on what you believe the Holy Spirit is telling you? Why is one man's heart going this way and another man's heart leading him that way? Is this a fruit of the Holy Spirit? Why does the Holy Spirit tell you one thing and then go and tell someone else something contradictory? He doesn't! God does not teach contradictory things as to who He is. God is One.
And all doctrines answer the question that Jesus asked, "who do you say that I am?". The doctrine of baptism, laying on of hands, the teaching about the presbytery, all of this. All of this answers the question, "who do you say that I am?"
So when you tell me to turn away from something which I have not faced (idol worship) and don't embrace (and neither do Roman Catholics) and tell me instead to turn to Jesus Christ. Who do you say that he is?
Which Jesus?
The Jesus who wants us to build our own private and personal theology based on reading the New and Old testament even though it contradicts every one elses theology of who they say he is? The Jesus who wants us to abandon the icons? The Jesus who does not submit to any other authority than the personal interpretation of scripture and the personal construct of a personal Jesus based on that private interpretation?
How on God's blue earth can I follow a construct of my own reasoning? If I followed a Jesus made in my own image I might liken this to idolatry of the self!
So I ask you to snatch this poor brother, the first among sinners, from the fire of my errors and tell me the right doctrines of Christ. Who do you say that he is? Turn to follow Jesus. Which Jesus? The Visionary construct? The one that looks like the inside of your head?
I have my own constructs to tear down. I have my own presuppositions to destroy. No thank you. I will not sever the head of Christ from his body (which is what you are asking me to do). I will turn to the Church, his body, the deposit of the faith and through her, God willing, Christ might be born in me.
Lord have mercy.
How can you have Christ without his body? How can the Church be "me" an individual when Jesus says to tell it to the Church. He is not telling us to tell it to ourselves. That would be silly. Of course I would agree with myself if I told it to my self. The Church is greater than the sum of her parts and is not merely a body of conflicting individuals who can't even agree on elementary doctrines of who Christ is.
Lord have mercy.
(http://experimentiv.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/self-portrait-or-desperate-man-gustave-courbet.jpg?w=500)
Self Portrait or The Desperate Man, by Gustave Courbet
No thanks. I don't like those kinds of icons. They are only ends within themselves. I prefer windows.
What is with the flood of questions? Do you think you will trap me in some way to accuse me? When you enter Gods presence who is there? This is not a trick question! But because no one can answer it then truth is known... your worship is in vain it is only rules taught by men.
: Visionary Wed Oct 06, 2010 - 12:39:11
Ryan do not assume what I think ever especially when you did not hear what the spirit says for slander is not fit for someone who claims to love God.
You assume that I do not hear what the Holy Spirit says and that St. Ignatius did not hear what the Holy Spirit says. I merely pointed this out. This is why I asked you by what authority do you call St. Ignatius a liar? By what authority if not the Holy Spirit, do you call into question his instruction by St. John the beloved?
You are not slandering these Saints by calling them liars? I asked for proof that your interpretation is sound. I don't ask for private interpretation but instead sound interpretation according to the revelation of God as it was deposited into the very communities that received the gospels and epistles that today we call Holy Scripture.
I can only assume that you believe that it is the Holy Spirit that has told you that St. Ignatius is a liar but I am asking that the spirits be tested. Either St. Ignatius is a liar or the one calling him one is a liar. Either I have slandered you or you have slandered him.
So I ask. Who instructed you and how is it that you are above the likes of St. Ignatius? Has God made you Overseer? Show me so that I may repent of the errors that you believe St. Ignatius has lead me into.
Save me.
# 1 Timothy 4:16
Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers.
(http://7446films.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/drowning2.jpg)
Christ is risen.
When one enters God's prescence God is there.
Ok the one with the drowning hands is just too freaking cool.
Still wrong lighthammer. Dont try to figure it out! ENTER GODS PRESENCE then you will know!
: Visionary Wed Oct 06, 2010 - 12:50:35
Still wrong lighthammer. Dont try to figure it out! ENTER GODS PRESENCE then you will know!
Oh now I'm interested. ::cool:: I can't believe someone like you roused my interest. So wait are you going to give your answer because I really want to know what you mean now.
When you enter Gods presence who is there?
Psalm 139:7-9
7 Where can I go from your Spirit?
Where can I flee from your presence?
8 If I go up to the heavens, you are there;
if I make my bed in Sheol, you are there
I don't understand the question. Where can you go to escape God's presence?
3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
::Hooked::
: Ryan2010 Wed Oct 06, 2010 - 13:05:33
When you enter Gods presence who is there?
Psalm 139:7-9
7 Where can I go from your Spirit?
Where can I flee from your presence?
8 If I go up to the heavens, you are there;
if I make my bed in Sheol, you are there
I don't understand the question. Where can you go to escape God's presence?
3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
::Hooked::
I think he may have left. ???
: Visionary Wed Oct 06, 2010 - 12:44:56
What is with the flood of questions? Do you think you will trap me in some way to accuse me? When you enter Gods presence who is there? This is not a trick question! But because no one can answer it then truth is known... your worship is in vain it is only rules taught by men.
It's just a simple question about scripture.
What does this passage mean to you? I know what it means to me.
John 20
21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."
SO SO SO MANY CALL THEMSELVES CHRISTIANS BUT FAIL TO SEE THAT GOD IS ALL AND IN ALL!!!! You Want To Make Differences. One says I Am Catholic And Follow The Pope Another says I am protestant and follow the bible... etc. But God Is In The Grass And The Tree And The Bird And The Fish And The Animal And The Man And The Ocean And The Stream In The River And The Marsh In The Sky And In The Air And In The Star And The Sun And The Moon And In All Creation God Is In All Things Whether In Good Or Evil But Do Not Think It Is In Gods Will To Do Evil. Who Is Making The Differences???? MEN IGNORANT OF GOD!
: Visionary Wed Oct 06, 2010 - 13:28:57
SO SO SO MANY CALL THEMSELVES CHRISTIANS BUT FAIL TO SEE THAT GOD IS ALL AND IN ALL!!!! You Want To Make Differences. One says I Am Catholic And Follow The Pope Another says I am protestant and follow the bible... etc. But God Is In The Grass And The Tree And The Bird And The Fish And The Animal And The Man And The Ocean And The Stream In The River And The Marsh In The Sky And In The Air And In The Star And The Sun And The Moon And In All Creation God Is In All Things Whether In Good Or Evil But Do Not Think It Is In Gods Will To Do Evil. Who Is Making The Differences???? MEN IGNORANT OF GOD!
Look brother I'm an optimis and I'm really trying understand your position but you're kind of making it hard for me you know. Lets try this; what denomination are you?
And So It Is Written: Where Can You Go Apart From God? If You Go To The Heights He Is There. If You Go To The Depths He Is There. So When You Enter Gods Presence Who Is There? There are so many right answers you could give me recorded for you to KNOW THE FATHER AND THE SON How Could You Possibly Go Wrong If You Have Died With His Son And You No Longer Live? As I Said, Particularily To You Catholics- All This Boasting About Men Is Evil! All Things Are Yours And Nothing Is To Be Rejected If It Is Received With Thanksgiving. 1 John 2:26,27 Keep Yourself From Idols! In The Past God Overlooked Such Offenses But Now He Commands ALL MEN TO REPENT! Acts 17:22-31
Lighthammer. Will You Ask God What Denomination Are You? Will You Ask Jesus What Denomination Are You? Johns Baptism Was It From Men Or God?
: Visionary Wed Oct 06, 2010 - 13:39:38
Lighthammer. Will You Ask God What Denomination Are You? Will You Ask Jesus What Denomination Are You? Johns Baptism Was It From Men Or God?
Now you're starting to remind me of the first time I debated gospel. All he would do when someone asked him a question was copy and paste scriptures without a personal interpretation or say the same exact thing over and over again.
I'm not trying to question your theology I just want to know what you belief is all. But I can see you're one of those types and there is no point in debating you.
I guess I'll leave you to your superiority complex and infinite wisdom.
::tippinghat::
Gods Spirit Is The Spirit Of Faith There Is No Difference. Faith Is A Gift From God. We Do Not Blindly Follow Faith. We See Him Who Is Unseen! Hebrews 11:27 We Do Not Blindly Receive Gods Promises! Hebrews 11:1 Faith Is The Substance Of Things Hoped For. We Do Not Blindly Put Our Hope In God! Romans 8:14 As Many As Are Led By The Spirit Of God Are Sons Of God. THERE IS NO DENOMINATION IN THE SPIRIT OF FAITH THAT COMES FROM GOD!
Wise Decision For You Not To Debate Lighthammer. The Question To You Was What Denomination Is God Because You Were Thinking About Rules Taught By Men Who Have Not Received The Promise Of The Spirit By Faith.
: Visionary Wed Oct 06, 2010 - 13:28:57
SO SO SO MANY CALL THEMSELVES CHRISTIANS BUT FAIL TO SEE THAT GOD IS ALL AND IN ALL!!!! You Want To Make Differences. One says I Am Catholic And Follow The Pope Another says I am protestant and follow the bible... etc. But God Is In The Grass And The Tree And The Bird And The Fish And The Animal And The Man And The Ocean And The Stream In The River And The Marsh In The Sky And In The Air And In The Star And The Sun And The Moon And In All Creation God Is In All Things Whether In Good Or Evil But Do Not Think It Is In Gods Will To Do Evil. Who Is Making The Differences???? MEN IGNORANT OF GOD!
Visionary,
I think you missed this. I'm looking for your interpretation of this passage:
John 20
21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."
Jeremiah 35:15 Isaiah 45:22 Psalm 81:11 Matthew 22:3 John 5:40
: Visionary Wed Oct 06, 2010 - 13:39:38
Lighthammer. Will You Ask God What Denomination Are You? Will You Ask Jesus What Denomination Are You? Johns Baptism Was It From Men Or God?
It is becoming more and more apparent to me that Visionary believes that he is God.
: Visionary Wed Oct 06, 2010 - 14:34:26
Jeremiah 35:15 Isaiah 45:22 Psalm 81:11 Matthew 22:3 John 5:40
John 6:53
Lol Catholica. Does It Offend You That I Say I Am Gods Son Because You Are Not But Slander Me? John 10:35,36 Galatians 3:26 The Man Without The Spirit Does Not Accept The Things That Come From The Spirit Of God For They Are Foolishness To Him And He Cannot Understand Them Because They Are Spiritually Discerned.
: Visionary Wed Oct 06, 2010 - 14:41:42
Lol Catholica. Does It Offend You That I Say I Am Gods Son Because You Are Not But Slander Me? John 10:35,36 Galatians 3:26 The Man Without The Spirit Does Not Accept The Things That Come From The Spirit Of God For They Are Foolishness To Him And He Cannot Understand Them Because They Are Spiritually Discerned.
What exactly do you mean that you are God's son? I believe that all the baptized are adopted sons and daughters of God, but not literally God's son. There is only one Son of God and that is Jesus Christ.
Do you, or do you not, believe that you are God, Visionary? It should be an easy question to answer.
Read It Again Catholica. Galatians 3:26 How can you be Gods Son And Not Be Gods Son? You Are Speaking Like A Foolish Woman Who Has Never Known The Father!
: Visionary Wed Oct 06, 2010 - 14:55:16
Read It Again Catholica. Galatians 3:26 How can you be Gods Son And Not Be Gods Son?
By adoption.
Galatians 4
4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law,
5 to ransom those under the law,
so that we might receive adoption.
6 As proof that you are children, 4 God sent the spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying out, "Abba, Father!"
7 So you are no longer a slave but a child, and if a child then also an heir, through God.
We are called God's sons because He adopted us. That does not make us the Son of God. Jesus is the Son of God, and we are not Jesus. We are God's sons by adoption.
So I ask you again, do you say that you are God?
Another question... do you ever sin?
Let Me Ask This Again Catholica. How Can You Say You Are Gods Son And In The Same Breath Say You Are Not Gods Son? Adoption Has Nothing To Do With This Contradiction That Comes From A Liar! Either You Are Gods Son Or You Are Not!!!! 1 John 5:11,12
Romans 8:14-16 But You Have Not Testified To The Truth Catholica!
1 John 3:1,2 The Reason You Dont Know Us And Ask Us To Introduce Ourselves And Slander Us Saying He Claims To Be God Etc... Is Because ... The Reason The World Does Not Know Us Is Because They Did Not Know Him! Jeremiah 35:15
: Visionary Wed Oct 06, 2010 - 15:11:28
Let Me Ask This Again Catholica. How Can You Say You Are Gods Son And In The Same Breath Say You Are Not Gods Son? Adoption Has Nothing To Do With This Contradiction That Comes From A Liar! Either You Are Gods Son Or You Are Not!!!! 1 John 5:11,12
Visionary, whomever you are. I challenge you to type a simple post. In that post, simply type the words "Jesus is Lord".
The Funny Thing Is Catholica That Every One Of You Catholics Have Implied Is This: Unless You Wear A Long Flowing Robe And Hold The Title Of Pope You Cannot Be Sent By God. Interesting Thing Though... Those God Chose For Himself Did Not Wear Expensive Clothes Or Even Claim To Come From God. But Rather Lived As Strangers In The World Destitute And Without A Place To Lay Their Heads Wearing Rags And Not Riches. Therefore The One Who Belongs To God Hears What God Says. John 12:38-50
: Visionary Wed Oct 06, 2010 - 15:49:00
The Funny Thing Is Catholica That Every One Of You Catholics Have Implied Is This: Unless You Wear A Long Flowing Robe And Hold The Title Of Pope You Cannot Be Sent By God. Interesting Thing Though... Those God Chose For Himself Did Not Wear Expensive Clothes Or Even Claim To Come From God. But Rather Lived As Strangers In The World Destitute And Without A Place To Lay Their Heads Wearing Rags And Not Riches. Therefore The One Who Belongs To God Hears What God Says. John 12:38-50
"Therefore I tell you that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus be cursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit." 1 Corinthians 12:3
Now repeat after me:
Jesus is Lord.
Mark 3:29 Assume what you will Catholica but know that the result is eternal contempt.
: Visionary Wed Oct 06, 2010 - 16:06:25
Mark 3:29 Assume what you will Catholica but know that the result is eternal contempt.
You make things very clear. The hate in your posts is clear; your hate for the Church and for the Blessed Mother is clear, your inability to say "Jesus is Lord" is clear. You should seek spiritual help, and seek it soon, and I will pray a Novena of Rosaries for you this week, as well as a Novena to St. Michael for your deliverance.
In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
O Glorious Archangel St. Michael, Prince of the heavenly host, be our defense in the terrible warfare which we carry on against principalities and powers, against the rulers of this world of darkness, and spirits of evil.
Come to the aid of man, whom God created immortal, made in His own image and likeness, and redeemed at a great price from the tyranny of the devil. Fight this day the battle of the Lord, together with the holy angels, as already thou hast fought the leader of the proud angels, Lucifer, and his apostate host, who were powerless to resist Thee, nor was there place for them any longer in heaven. That cruel, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil or Satan, who seduces the whole world, was cast into the abyss with his angels.
Behold, this primeval enemy and slayer of men has taken courage. Transformed into an angel of light, he wanders about with all the multitude of wicked spirits, invading the earth in order to blot out the name of God and of His Christ, to seize upon, slay and cast into eternal perdition souls destined for the crown of eternal glory. This wicked dragon pours out, as a most impure flood, the venom of his malice on men; his depraved mind, corrupt heart, his spirit of
lying, impiety, blasphemy, his pestilential breath of impurity and of every vice and iniquity. These most crafty enemies have filled and inebriated with gall and bitterness the Church, the Spouse of the Immaculate Lamb, and have laid impious hands on her most sacred possessions. In the Holy Place itself, where has been set up the See of the most holy Peter and the Chair of Truth for the light of the world, they have raised the throne of their abominable impiety, with the iniquitous design that when the Pastor has been struck, the sheep may be scattered.
Arise then, O invincible Prince, bring help against the attacks of the lost spirits to the people of God, and give them the victory. They venerate Thee as their protector and patron; in Thee Holy Church glories as her defense against the malicious power of hell; to Thee has God entrusted the souls of men to be established in heavenly beatitude. Oh, pray to the God of peace that He may put Satan under our feet, so far conquered that he may no longer be able to hold men in captivity and harm the Church. Offer our prayers in the sight of the Most High, so that they may quickly conciliate the mercies of the Lord; and beating down the dragon, the ancient serpent who is the devil and Satan, do Thou again make him captive in the abyss, that he may no longer seduce the nations. Amen.
V. Behold the Cross of the Lord; be scattered, hostile powers.
R. The Lion of the tribe of Judah has conquered, the root of David.
V. Let Thy mercies be upon us, O Lord
R. As we have hoped in Thee.
V. O Lord, hear my prayer.
R. And let my cry come unto Thee
LET US PRAY
God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, we call upon Thy holy name, and we humbly implore Thy clemency, that by the intercession of Mary, ever Virgin Immaculate and our Mother, and of the glorious Archangel St. Michael, Thou wouldst deign to help us against Satan and all other unclean spirits, who wander about the world for the injury of the human race and the ruin of souls. Amen.
: Catholica Wed Oct 06, 2010 - 16:26:11
You make things very clear. The hate in your posts is clear; your hate for the Church and for the Blessed Mother is clear, your inability to say "Jesus is Lord" is clear. You should seek spiritual help, and seek it soon, and I will pray a Novena of Rosaries for you this week, as well as a Novena to St. Michael for your deliverance.
Wow! There's a lot of posts here, since I went to sleep. Imagine that! He can't even say "Jesus is Lord." How hard can that be?
Yes that ancient serpent the devil called the pope jesus and the church a king and rejected the word given to her and became filled with contempt for the holy things of God and made her prayer to angels and to those in their graves and rejected the son for her appropriation of sin and failed to recognize the time the son came to her to turn her from her evil practices. Jeremiah 35:15
: Visionary Wed Oct 06, 2010 - 20:54:45
Yes that ancient serpent the devil called the pope jesus and the church a king and rejected the word given to her and became filled with contempt for the holy things of God and made her prayer to angels and to those in their graves and rejected the son for her appropriation of sin and failed to recognize the time the son came to her to turn her from her evil practices. Jeremiah 35:15
Sorry Visionary. I know you would like to think that you are God and that we should follow you. But we're not going to follow you. We already believe in Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. We don't need to follow you. We have Christ as the Head of our Church,
: Selene Wed Oct 06, 2010 - 08:31:11
: mclees8 Wed Oct 06, 2010 - 06:10:49
Yes Selene we are all Catholic but not all Roman Catholic. this is not proof of the supremacy of the Roman church. Ignatius was not Roman Catholic. he was Bishop of Antioch and not subject to Rome or Peter. You don't see either mentioned in this do you Roman Catholic papacy that shanghaied Christianity did not exist at his time. The church then was the church in whatever city the church was. The church was not governed then by Rome or any church in Rome. Let any who are sent be true to his calling and not self seeking. Let him be of a pure heart and not self exalting. We are not exalting the clergy and the clergy is not self exalting itself as the Roman catholic church did. If Ignatius did not walk in this he already took a wrong path himself.
God bless
There is only one Catholic Church.
And that is what ?
True there is only one church Selene. One universal faith in Christ. No denominations and No RCC. One faith in Christ just as it was from the beginning.
God bless
Our Father who is in heaven, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come. Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. Forgive us our transgressions as we forgive those who transgress against us. Lead us not into temptation but deliver us from the evil one. Thy kingdom be the power and the glory forever and ever. Amen. Therefore since this is how we are to pray... let those who practice witchcraft call upon angels and let those who are diviners call on the dead. For I never knew how true it was that the roman catholic church is the prostitute full of adulteries and blasphemies and evil spirits and the unclean until catholics began to speak! Revelation 17
: Ryan2010 Wed Oct 06, 2010 - 11:56:03
: Visionary Wed Oct 06, 2010 - 11:10:25
Once again... see that you all follow the bishop as jesus follows god is a lie! The church submits to christ-the One And Only True God And Faithful Witness!!!! Are christians slaves to men? He whom the Son sets free is free indeed! Again, I know Jesus said, Where I am there my servant will be. He did not say where my bishop is there I will be! How about you catholics who tell us all these lies from your popes sit down and actually read a bible? Moreover actually sit down and listen to what Jesus says and not some pope! Dont you know God gives the Holy Spirit to those who love him? Do you think he only gives the Holy Spirit to people in "influential positions" to make you their slaves to sin?
St. Ignatius, the one you are calling a liar was instructed by St. John the beloved. He was ordained Overseer of Antioch by both St. Peter and St. Paul by the laying on of hands. He was in his eighties when he wrote this letter and he wrote this letter and had it sent while being transported by Roman guards to Rome so that he might be fed to the wild beasts in the Arena.
He is a Holy martyr of the faith.
I would ask you who you were instructed by and who appointed you as overseer of right belief but I have a feeling that you will say that the Holy Spirit has taught you. You treasure your interpretation of the Holy Scriptures above the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures who were instructed by the very men who wrote the very Holy Scriptures you interpret. But by what authority do you interpret? By what authority do you call St. Ignatius, Overseer of Antioch where we were first called, "Christians", a "liar"?
Perhaps St. John the beloved and St. Paul and St. Peter and St. Ignatius' eighty years in service to the Lord (subtract 80 from the year 100 and ponder that reality in the fear of God and with trembling) were not as informed as a man such as yourself. Maybe. But do tell us why we should trust you, that you, above them, speak the truth and show us, not by mere private interpretation, that these Saints should be called liars.
(http://en.academic.ru/pictures/enwiki/73/Ignatius.jpg)
ICXC NIKA
Dear sir Do you think that just because Ignatius was a disciple of John that he was not incapable of error. How do you know that if Igantius could see how his statement had become so distorted and abused he might have torn his clothes
But RC's will use and abuse his statements until Jesus comes. he was not an apostle and there were many other bishops also but that did not make them infallible. Ignatius unwittingly set a seed in motion and just like apostasy it worsens over time until you have a full blown apostate church still abusing letters from the early church fathers.
God bless
: Visionary Wed Oct 06, 2010 - 16:06:25
Mark 3:29 Assume what you will Catholica but know that the result is eternal contempt.
Mark 3:29 But whoever blasphemes against the holy Spirit will never have forgiveness, but is guilty of an everlasting sin."
This tells me that you believe that you are the Holy Spirit.
Are you denying Christ=anointed one came in the flesh Catholica? 1 John 4:1-3 For by your own words you have been tested and found without the Spirit of Truth not just by myself but others who have brought the word of truth to you that you have cast aside for the rules of men.
: Visionary Thu Oct 07, 2010 - 11:32:57
Are you denying Christ=anointed one came in the flesh Catholica? 1 John 4:1-3 For by your own words you have been tested and found without the Spirit of Truth not just by myself but others who have brought the word of truth to you that you have cast aside for the rules of men.
No, I don't deny that Jesus came in the flesh. In fact, the ancient religions are all very incarnational, profoundly so.
1 John 4:1-3 (for reference)
1 Beloved, do not trust every spirit but test the spirits to see whether they belong to God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
2 This is how you can know the Spirit of God: every spirit that acknowledges Jesus Christ come in the flesh belongs to God,
3 and every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus does not belong to God. This is the spirit of the antichrist that, as you heard, is to come, but in fact is already in the world.
I acknowledge that Jesus Christ came in the flesh.
It is clear you dont know what you are talking about catholica. First you claimed Jesus is the pope but Jesus is not the pope. Then you claimed the church is a king. But the church is not a king its a kingdom. Now you claim Jesus comes in the flesh but deny God gives the Holy Spirit to men. When will you stop waivering between two opinions? It will not be until you surrender "I" to God so that "I" no longer live but Christ=anointing lives in you! 1 John 2:26 understand the catholic church is not alone in this so it is not a personal attack against you or anyone but a heart felt desire to see none perish. Then read 1 John 2:27 and realize the scripture is spirit-pure water able to wash your mind and renew it in the knowledge of its creator and by faith receive the Holy Spirit!
: Visionary Thu Oct 07, 2010 - 11:52:36
It is clear you dont know what you are talking about catholica. First you claimed Jesus is the pope but Jesus is not the pope. Then you claimed the church is a king. But the church is not a king its a kingdom. Now you claim Jesus comes in the flesh but deny God gives the Holy Spirit to men. When will you stop waivering between two opinions? It will not be until you surrender "I" to God so that "I" no longer live but Christ=anointing lives in you! 1 John 2:26 understand the catholic church is not alone in this so it is not a personal attack against you or anyone but a heart felt desire to see none perish. Then read 1 John 2:27 and realize the scripture is spirit-pure water able to wash your mind and renew it in the knowledge of its creator and by faith receive the Holy Spirit!
I never claimed that Jesus was the Pope, nor did I claim that the Pope was Jesus. The Pope is not Jesus. I never claimed that the Church is a king. I do not deny that God gives men the Holy Spirit. My beliefs are the same as the Catholic Church teaches. It has never taught that the Pope is God, that the Pope is Jesus, that the Church is a king. It teaches that men do receive the Holy Spirit. You have been reading too many nonsense anti-Catholic websites. They intentionally distort what the Catholic Church teaches. Why not actually seek to understand what the Church teaches rather than going by what other people say it teaches?
I believe that God gives the Holy Spirit to men, but I also believe that those men who receive the Holy Spirit do not become the Holy Spirit. These men who receive the Holy Spirit do not become God, that is, since the Holy Spirit is God.
For reference:
1 John 2
26 I write you these things about those who would deceive you.
27 As for you, the anointing that you received from him remains in you, so that you do not need anyone to teach you. But his anointing teaches you about everything and is true and not false; just as it taught you, remain in him.
There have been five main distinctions between catholics and the reformed church. It is important to find out what individuals think of these differences. JC Ryle wrote a book called "beware Churches" which highlights these differences, as an Anglican Bishop in the 19 C he didnt pull his punches, so rememeber the context he wrote in if you decide to read.
He sais they were:
1. That the Pope when speaking Ex Cathedra is not infallible, but that scripture is the final test of what God says to us. The teaching is Sola Scripture.
2. That the Priesthood do not have an elevated position, rather there is a Royal priesthood of all believers, based on the "torn curtain"
3. No transubstantiation. That is that bread and wine actually change to the body of Christ at Mass. It is at this point that the Holy Spirit dwells in us according to the teaching.
4. That the Church is not on a level with scripture, that is that Church tradition is on a level with Biblical teaching.
5. That the birth of Mary was a Virgin Birth did not happen. This was an 18 C vision apparently. Known as the Immaculate Conception, it is this that leads to the worship of Mary.
Not all catholics believe this of course, so you have to check. However the dangers of these teachings are self evident.
Ok Catholics. Here it is... you choose whether to obey God or men. Come out of her my people, so that you will not share in her sins, so that you will not receive any of her plagues. Revelation 18:4 As God has said, I will live among them and I will be their God and they will be my people. Therefore come out from them and be separate, says the Lord. Touch no unclean thing and I will receive you. I will be a Father to you and you will be my sons and daughters. Says, The Lord Almighty.
: Visionary Thu Oct 07, 2010 - 13:12:51
Ok Catholics. Here it is... you choose whether to obey God or men. Come out of her my people, so that you will not share in her sins, so that you will not receive any of her plagues. Revelation 18:4 As God has said, I will live among them and I will be their God and they will be my people. Therefore come out from them and be separate, says the Lord. Touch no unclean thing and I will receive you. I will be a Father to you and you will be my sons and daughters. Says, The Lord Almighty.
Do you believe that Jesus is God?
Do you still not understand chester? When I asked you, When you enter Gods presence who is there? I dont just believe Jesus is God - I KNOW JESUS IS GOD!
: Visionary Thu Oct 07, 2010 - 13:18:55
Do you still not understand chester? When I asked you, When you enter Gods presence who is there? I dont just believe Jesus is God - I KNOW JESUS IS GOD!
Here's what God said regarding the men he sent:
Luke 10
16"He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."
John 20
21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."
Matt 16
19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
What makes you believe that you can ignore God's instructions?
Huh Chester? Do You Think I Should Become Like You And Be A Slave To Catholic Heresies And Ignore What God Says? Maybe you should know something about me personally. I was not raised in a home that taught anything religious. In fact the opposite. My parents told us as children not to go to church to do whatever I wanted but with exception not to hide it from them. Then when I reached the age of accountability according to the scriptures Jesus appeared to me several times! He saved me not because of what I did but because of his mercy! HOW IS IT THEN THAT YOU DO NOT OBEY GOD???
I tell you the truth and anyone else who has ever seen the Lord will tell you the same thing... When you enter Gods presence YOU DIE! John 3:21
: Visionary Thu Oct 07, 2010 - 13:33:37
Huh Chester? Do You Think I Should Become Like You And Be A Slave To Catholic Heresies And Ignore What God Says? Maybe you should know something about me personally. I was not raised in a home that taught anything religious. In fact the opposite. My parents told us as children not to go to church to do whatever I wanted but with exception not to hide it from them. Then when I reached the age of accountability according to the scriptures Jesus appeared to me several times! He saved me not because of what I did but because of his mercy! HOW IS IT THEN THAT YOU DO NOT OBEY GOD???
I doubt that Jesus appeared to you, simply because it seems to have made you think that you are God's high prophet, but not in a humble way but in a very prideful way. But you could prove us wrong. Right now, you sound like a noisy gong because you have acted without charity. (1 Cor. 13:1)
Maybe you could write exactly what this vision said down for us, so that we might know this great vision of prophecy. After all, we are not to hide our light under a basket, but to place it on a lampstand for all to see. Matthew 5:15.
It is written: Do not cast your pearls before swine. If you do they may trample them under their feet and then turn and tear you to pieces. Matthew 7:6 The fact that you demand proof catholica is the fact you do not have faith. 2 Corinthians 13:3-5
: Visionary Thu Oct 07, 2010 - 13:33:37
Huh Chester? Do You Think I Should Become Like You And Be A Slave To Catholic Heresies And Ignore What God Says? Maybe you should know something about me personally. I was not raised in a home that taught anything religious. In fact the opposite. My parents told us as children not to go to church to do whatever I wanted but with exception not to hide it from them. Then when I reached the age of accountability according to the scriptures Jesus appeared to me several times! He saved me not because of what I did but because of his mercy! HOW IS IT THEN THAT YOU DO NOT OBEY GOD???
I provided the words of God for you. Do you obey them? Please explain what these words mean to you:
Luke 10
16"He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."
John 20
21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."
Matt 16
19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
: Visionary Thu Oct 07, 2010 - 14:07:57
It is written: Do not cast your pearls before swine. If you do they may trample them under their feet and then turn and tear you to pieces. Matthew 7:6 The fact that you demand proof catholica is the fact you do not have faith. 2 Corinthians 13:3-5
Visionary, I have faith in God, not you. Regardless of what you believe, you are not God.
2 Corinthians 13:1b
"On the testimony of two or three witnesses a fact shall be established."
And verse 3 is referring to Paul, not you.
And so because so many of you are focused on men and do not hear the Lord will make something perfectly clear to you... 2 Corinthians 5:11-17
: chestertonrules Thu Oct 07, 2010 - 13:23:44
: Visionary Thu Oct 07, 2010 - 13:18:55
Do you still not understand chester? When I asked you, When you enter Gods presence who is there? I dont just believe Jesus is God - I KNOW JESUS IS GOD!
Here's what God said regarding the men he sent:
Luke 10
16"He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."
John 20
21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."
Matt 16
19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
Chesterton not wanting to have a war. But we need to be clear on differences. My view as you will have noted is that we look at scripture. For me the fact that we have scripture is the point of Luke 10:16.
I also believe that the Apostles had a distinct role, now completed. and the loosed in heaven and earth is within scripture, We can know what our sins are. It is clear that we do not need a Pope/ Apostle to bring this to us, he has been brought.
I'm assuming the reference to Chesterton is because you are Catholic, do you think the post I made earlier is a fair reflection of our differences.
What makes you believe that you can ignore God's instructions?
Funny thing Catholica. I cant count how many times those in rebellion to God have said to me, "you are not God" when I have never ever claimed to be anything! I have not even called myself a christian anywhere in this forum. But interestingly enough those who think I claimed to be God have heard the truth from Gods lips and have rejected it!
Therefore, go back to the beginning of this topic and read and understand all the scriptures that were given you concerning the topics discussed in this forum and HEAR THE WORD OF THE LORD exposing catholic fallacies.
: Visionary Thu Oct 07, 2010 - 14:15:57
And so because so many of you are focused on men and do not hear the Lord will make something perfectly clear to you... 2 Corinthians 5:11-17
You have to be rational for us, Visionary, and you have not been. Thus you are not a very good prophet.
2 Corinthians 5:13
For if we are out of our minds, it is for God; if we are rational, it is for you.
I think a word for you is here: 2 Corinthians 11:13-15
: islanddogs Thu Oct 07, 2010 - 14:20:04
Chesterton not wanting to have a war. But we need to be clear on differences. My view as you will have noted is that we look at scripture. For me the fact that we have scripture is the point of Luke 10:16.
I also believe that the Apostles had a distinct role, now completed. and the loosed in heaven and earth is within scripture, We can know what our sins are. It is clear that we do not need a Pope/ Apostle to bring this to us, he has been brought.
I'm assuming the reference to Chesterton is because you are Catholic, do you think the post I made earlier is a fair reflection of our differences.
[/quote]
We have scripture, but scripture alone does not lead us to the Truth. This is clearly the case because many Christians believe that the bible is the Word of God, but there are multiple contradictory beliefs among these bible believing Christians.
For example:
Baptism: Necessary for Salvation or Not?
Once saved always saved?
Infant baptism valid?
Salvation by faith alone? etc.
These are central matters of our faith and I don't believe Jesus wants us to be in error regarding these questions.
What do you think?
: chestertonrules Thu Oct 07, 2010 - 14:31:03
For example:
Baptism: Necessary for Salvation or Not?
Once saved always saved?
Infant baptism valid?
Salvation by faith alone? etc.
These are central matters of our faith and I don't believe Jesus wants us to be in error regarding these questions.
What do you think?
Baptism: Necessary for Salvation or Not?
Yes it is. Not the baptism of water, per se, but the baptism of repentance, and the baptism of the Spirit. But really, why wouldnt' one want the water as well? They're all part of the same thing...
OSAS - is built on a faulty premise, since it assumes that some parts of salvation, which are yet in teh future, are present realities.
Infant baptism valid?
The rite of water is certainly valid for the purpose of adding the person to the church's membership. It doesn't confer salvation though, unless it is accompanied by the repentance and the spirit.
Salvation by faith alone?
That describes what we have to do to maintain and keep our salvation. But it does nothing to describe God's part in it. In my experience, Catholics and Protestants alike don't understand the original intent of the statement. But that doesn't stop them from arguing over it.
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Thu Oct 07, 2010 - 14:51:27
: chestertonrules Thu Oct 07, 2010 - 14:31:03
For example:
Baptism: Necessary for Salvation or Not?
Once saved always saved?
Infant baptism valid?
Salvation by faith alone? etc.
These are central matters of our faith and I don't believe Jesus wants us to be in error regarding these questions.
What do you think?
Baptism: Necessary for Salvation or Not?
Yes it is. Not the baptism of water, per se, but the baptism of repentance, and the baptism of the Spirit. But really, why wouldnt' one want the water as well? They're all part of the same thing...
OSAS - is built on a faulty premise, since it assumes that some parts of salvation, which are yet in teh future, are present realities.
Infant baptism valid?
The rite of water is certainly valid for the purpose of adding the person to the church's membership. It doesn't confer salvation though, unless it is accompanied by the repentance and the spirit.
Salvation by faith alone?
That describes what we have to do to maintain and keep our salvation. But it does nothing to describe God's part in it. In my experience, Catholics and Protestants alike don't understand the original intent of the statement. But that doesn't stop them from arguing over it.
You are offering your opinions on these issues, but you are not addressing my point.
If the bible is all we need to find the Truth, then why are there so many different interpretations on central matters of the faith?
Jesus didn't write book, he built a Church. His Church wrote down his teachings with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and this Church was given authority by Jesus and a promise that the Holy Spirit would guide it into all Truth.
Outside of the Church you will find division, pride, and personal whim guiding Christians.
Hi Chesterton
As you did not answer my question I will assume that a) you are Catholic and b) that you agree with my general points as to the difference between the Catholic and reformed teachings (reformed in the broad sense).
On Baptism, or the mode of baptism, I do not make this a matter of division. For Baptists it is the full immersion( the one I chose) for the Anglicans, it would be infant, However that is to forget that their confession of faith comes at confirmation.
I have no doubt that the teaching for both Baptism and Confirmation is that you should know Jesus Christ.
As to once saved always saved, I do believe this, but this comes down to the difference around Transubstantiation, you see Jesus says "none will be lost out of his hand" so our salvation once we have placed our trust in him relies on Jesus not us. Secondly Jesus has prayed for the believers, John 17.
Your last point seems to refer to the comment before the Transfiguration of Christ,
Matthew 16: 16 " Simon Peter answered 'you are the Christ the Son of the Living God' 17 Jesus replied 'blessed are you Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but my Father in heaven18 And I tell you that you are Peter and on this rock I will build my church and the gates of Hades will not overcome it".
There were more Apostles than just Peter. So I believe that the rock was the confession and believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, this is what the church is built on. The truth that is eluciadated throughout the scriptures, time and again. If you want the verses, they can be found in Galatians 1, I corinthians 1, Ephesians 1, and others.
Hope that helps, I just want the dividing lines to be clear rather than have a personalised debate.
: chestertonrules Thu Oct 07, 2010 - 14:56:43
You are offering your opinions on these issues, but you are not addressing my point.
True enough, but this thread is so far off topic, and so malignant in its attitudes, that I was actually HOPING to create a tangent that would be... less yucky.
If the bible is all we need to find the Truth, then why are there so many different interpretations on central matters of the faith?
As you yourself pointed out, I didn't make the argument that the Bible is all we need.
Outside of the Church you will find division, pride, and personal whim guiding Christians.
Those are funny names for GPS units... ;-)
: chestertonrules Thu Oct 07, 2010 - 14:56:43
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Thu Oct 07, 2010 - 14:51:27
: chestertonrules Thu Oct 07, 2010 - 14:31:03
For example:
Baptism: Necessary for Salvation or Not?
Once saved always saved?
Infant baptism valid?
Salvation by faith alone? etc.
These are central matters of our faith and I don't believe Jesus wants us to be in error regarding these questions.
What do you think?
Baptism: Necessary for Salvation or Not?
Yes it is. Not the baptism of water, per se, but the baptism of repentance, and the baptism of the Spirit. But really, why wouldnt' one want the water as well? They're all part of the same thing...
OSAS - is built on a faulty premise, since it assumes that some parts of salvation, which are yet in teh future, are present realities.
Infant baptism valid?
The rite of water is certainly valid for the purpose of adding the person to the church's membership. It doesn't confer salvation though, unless it is accompanied by the repentance and the spirit.
Salvation by faith alone?
That describes what we have to do to maintain and keep our salvation. But it does nothing to describe God's part in it. In my experience, Catholics and Protestants alike don't understand the original intent of the statement. But that doesn't stop them from arguing over it.
You are offering your opinions on these issues, but you are not addressing my point.
If the bible is all we need to find the Truth, then why are there so many different interpretations on central matters of the faith?
Jesus didn't write book, he built a Church. His Church wrote down his teachings with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and this Church was given authority by Jesus and a promise that the Holy Spirit would guide it into all Truth.
Outside of the Church you will find division, pride, and personal whim guiding Christians.
Let me make a correction if i may. True he started a church. That church was not just an authority thing. The church consists of all believers. It was not the church that wrote Christs teaching, but it was his apostles under the guidance of the holy spirit. It is not the church authority that guides in to all truth but the Holy Spirit. But he Holy Spirit does not guide every believer, or church leader but those who are truly indwelt with Him and are led of Him. Not all in the church or the authority are guided of Him but are men of pride and self serving
God bless
: mclees8 Thu Oct 07, 2010 - 21:34:04
Let me make a correction if i may. True he started a church. That church was not just an authority thing. The church consists of all believers. It was not the church that wrote Christs teaching, but it was his apostles under the guidance of the holy spirit. It is not the church authority that guides in to all truth but the Holy Spirit. But he Holy Spirit does not guide every believer, or church leader but those who are truly indwelt with Him and are led of Him. Not all in the church or the authority are guided of Him but are men of pride and self serving
God bless
The Holy Spirit placed bishops to rule over the Church.
Acts 20:28 Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
And the people in the Church are to obey the bishops and the priest. So, yes, it is an authority thing.
Hebrews 13:17 Obey your prelates, and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls; that they may do this with joy, and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you.
God bless mclees. May I ask you. Are these quarrelsome catholics a joy to you when they refuse to love the truth and be saved from a corrupt catholic church government?
: Visionary Thu Oct 07, 2010 - 22:54:29
God bless mclees. May I ask you. Are these quarrelsome catholics a joy to you when they refuse to love the truth and be saved from a corrupt catholic church government?
Religious pride is very hard to brake. Not even Jesus forced truth on those who would not hear it. How ever we must speak the truth with as much patients love as possible and not argue with anyone. The day will come when The lord will reveal the truth to them and they will know a prophet has been amongst them.
god bless
: Selene Thu Oct 07, 2010 - 22:37:27
: mclees8 Thu Oct 07, 2010 - 21:34:04
Let me make a correction if i may. True he started a church. That church was not just an authority thing. The church consists of all believers. It was not the church that wrote Christs teaching, but it was his apostles under the guidance of the holy spirit. It is not the church authority that guides in to all truth but the Holy Spirit. But he Holy Spirit does not guide every believer, or church leader but those who are truly indwelt with Him and are led of Him. Not all in the church or the authority are guided of Him but are men of pride and self serving
God bless
The Holy Spirit placed bishops to rule over the Church.
Acts 20:28 Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
And the people in the Church are to obey the bishops and the priest. So, yes, it is an authority thing.
Hebrews 13:17 Obey your prelates, and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls; that they may do this with joy, and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you.
One of the first and greatest requirements of the Lords leadership is to be filled with the Holy Spirit. If one who has managed to achieve a position of authority and not be led of the spirit or ceases to be led of Him He is not a true bishop of the Lords church but just one who has a title position. This is in the church much more than we know. but yes we are to obey those who are over us yet we are not to be as blind fools either. If we do not know the word as we are admonished to then we will be as blind being led by the blind.
God bless
Selene I would be really grateful, if you could tell me which translation you use. I have a number but that is not amongst them. Thanks
: islanddogs Fri Oct 08, 2010 - 04:22:58
Selene I would be really grateful, if you could tell me which translation you use. I have a number but that is not amongst them. Thanks
I used the Douay-Rheims Bible, which is a Catholic Bible. If I am not mistaken, the Douay-Rheims is the oldest English Bible of the Catholic Church. However, it is not the oldest Bible we have. We have a much older one written during the fourth century, but I can't read Latin.
: mclees8 Fri Oct 08, 2010 - 02:01:56
One of the first and greatest requirements of the Lords leadership is to be filled with the Holy Spirit. If one who has managed to achieve a position of authority and not be led of the spirit or ceases to be led of Him He is not a true bishop of the Lords church but just one who has a title position. This is in the church much more than we know. but yes we are to obey those who are over us yet we are not to be as blind fools either. If we do not know the word as we are admonished to then we will be as blind being led by the blind.
God bless
Didn't you just posted that the Church that Christ built is not an "authority" thing?
: Selene Fri Oct 08, 2010 - 05:26:40
: islanddogs Fri Oct 08, 2010 - 04:22:58
Selene I would be really grateful, if you could tell me which translation you use. I have a number but that is not amongst them. Thanks
I used the Douay-Rheims Bible, which is a Catholic Bible. If I am not mistaken, the Douay-Rheims is the oldest English Bible of the Catholic Church. However, it is not the oldest Bible we have. We have a much older one written during the fourth century, but I can't read Latin.
Thanks selene, I will check on line, I did not know of its existence.
: Selene Fri Oct 08, 2010 - 05:29:19
: mclees8 Fri Oct 08, 2010 - 02:01:56
One of the first and greatest requirements of the Lords leadership is to be filled with the Holy Spirit. If one who has managed to achieve a position of authority and not be led of the spirit or ceases to be led of Him He is not a true bishop of the Lords church but just one who has a title position. This is in the church much more than we know. but yes we are to obey those who are over us yet we are not to be as blind fools either. If we do not know the word as we are admonished to then we will be as blind being led by the blind.
God bless
Didn't you just posted that the Church that Christ built is not an "authority" thing?
Yes i did. But as you should know that all true leadership are men who have recieved the Holy Spirit, but this is not just leadership but all who come to Christ. The church is the whole body of christ and it is not just hierarchical leaders .
Being Born again of the Spirit is not going to some religious seminary and getting a degree in divinity. it is not just choosing a religious vocation. It is not having some church position or office. It is Gods indwelt spirit that lives within our hearts. I can say much more on this giving scripture and verse but as one who professes Christ and knows as much as you do you should know this.
God bless
Dear Selene i posted this a couple of days ago. I wonder if by chance you read it. If not could you read it now. I wonder if you would agree with it. I got no responses and not even an amen or a thank you not that anyone hast to. I am thankful for any who did. But if this message is for all of us how much more for those who lead us.
A personal message
This comes from one of my two devotionals that I read daily. I especially thought this was a message for every believer and church goer. I am not the judge of any man but we all can judge ourselves. I pray this will be a blessing to all who read it. This is where the sheep are separated from the goats and tares from the wheat. This is what sustains every true believer even beyond his church walls no matter what denominational experience you have. We are not saved by affiliation but by relation. Not of institutions or men, But Jesus Christ The day may come when you will have to make a choice to stand on your faith in Christ alone without any crutch to hold you up but the hand of Jesus. When Jesus bid Peter to come out on the water he left the safety of the boat alone and the others did not join him. He had only Jesus to look to. And when he took his eyes off him he began to sink and only the hand of Christ was left to save him
God bless
And be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is by faith in Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith. Philippians 3:9
Paul could have boasted of noble birth, special privileges, and rank and pedigree. He had religious background and training. He was active and zealous for a religious cause. But such things alone could not bring him salvation or peace with God.
Religion with out a relationship with Christ puts us on a wrong road. Such was the case with Paul before his conversion experience. A person can be very religious but still not be right with God. Sadly this is the plight of many nominal church members. They may have been raised in Christian homes and had a Christian education. They may go to church, make a lip profession, outwardly comply with church standards, and lead respectable lives. But that is not enough. From today's Bible reading we see that religious education, activity and credentials avail nothing apart from a personal faith in Jesus Christ and a relationship with Him. We do not earn salvation through good works or self achieved righteousness, but we are saved by faith through grace through faith. The basis for our assurance hope and confidence is in the person of the lord Jesus.
Those things Paul once counted as gain he later counted as loss compared to the priceless privilege of knowing Christ as Savior and lord. Then his focus became, " that I might know Him
: mclees8 Thu Oct 07, 2010 - 21:34:04
Let me make a correction if i may. True he started a church. That church was not just an authority thing. The church consists of all believers. It was not the church that wrote Christs teaching, but it was his apostles under the guidance of the holy spirit. It is not the church authority that guides in to all truth but the Holy Spirit. But he Holy Spirit does not guide every believer, or church leader but those who are truly indwelt with Him and are led of Him. Not all in the church or the authority are guided of Him but are men of pride and self serving
God bless
The apostles were the leaders of the Church. The Church, ie. the apostles and elders, was given authority by Jesus.
If we are Christians then we should accept the authority of the Church Jesus started, right?
Do you believe that the apostles passed on their authority to successors, or that the authority died when the apostles died?
[quote author=chestertonrules
The apostles were the leaders of the Church. The Church, ie. the apostles and elders, was given authority by Jesus.
If we are Christians then we should accept the authority of the Church Jesus started, right?
Do you believe that the apostles passed on their authority to successors, or that the authority died when the apostles died?
[/quote]
I was unsure of whether you wanted to answer my post. However I will attempt to reply to this even though it was not specifically for me.
The Apostles were chosen to take the Gospel into the world, the Commission Matthew 28:18-20 for instance. The Church itself has the foundation of the word, that is the Believe that Jesus is truly the Son of God. The Apostles were also confirmed by Jesus through Miracles. The elders were given to continue the teachings passed down by the Apostles, 2 Timothy 1 :12-13, and written down for our benefit 2 Peter 1:12-16.
The authority of the Church can only remain in so far as it agrees with the bible teaching(doctrine) the church cannot pervert, change or add to the message which was given for the Salvation of man/woman. Tradition added is not tradition 2 Thess 3:6.
I believed that the Apostles passed on their teaching, not their authority, this was linked directly with the Gospel message.
For instance there is no biblical evidence for the Immaculate Conception. I would be grateful if you could post a verse or verses which point to this teaching.
Thanks Chesterton
Hi again Selene
I have checked about the Dhouay - Rheims Bible. Apparently it was written as a Catholic defence against the reformers. It was unashamedly a Polemic to guard the Catholic traditions. The OT was translated at the University of Douai , the NT at Riems.
The writers worked I believe with the Jesuits set up to bring an intellectual rigour to the Catholic polemic. Unfortunately they did not go back to the Greek, this was an argument of Erasmus, who supported some of the reformers only because they studied the Greek. The reformers also studied the Hebrew. It was the adherence to the Latin that caused some of the translation problems, which is what I noticed in the posts from Hebrews and Acts.
I would like to discuss your use of prelate and Bishop on the forum if you dont mind, without personalising the comments. I would be grateful if you and Chesterton would be prepared to look at some of the bible passages toghether. I will not claim any authority over either of you. I'm certainly not a Prophet or an Apostle, or even a teacher. But I would like to look at the Bible.
: islanddogs Fri Oct 08, 2010 - 12:11:04
The authority of the Church can only remain in so far as it agrees with the bible teaching(doctrine) the church cannot pervert, change or add to the message which was given for the Salvation of man/woman. Tradition added is not tradition 2 Thess 3:6.
I believed that the Apostles passed on their teaching, not their authority, this was linked directly with the Gospel message.
For instance there is no biblical evidence for the Immaculate Conception. I would be grateful if you could post a verse or verses which point to this teaching.
Thanks Chesterton
The bible does not teach doctrine in the sense that it can be interpreted in many different ways. Only a church can teach doctrine.
Many who claim to believe the bible teach contradicting doctrines.
Jesus understood human nature, so he gave us a teaching authority to protect the Truth.
The books of the New Testament weren't even selected for more than 200 years after the death of Jesus, yet the Church thrived and grew during this period.
Some scripture for you to consider:
1 Timothy 3
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.
2 Thes 2
15So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.
1 John 4
6We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.
Note that when a question of doctrine arose in Antioch(see Acts 15), they didn't resolve it themselves, they consulted the Church.
Regarding the Immaculate Conception:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp
Thanks again Chesterton. I will try to go through the verses one by one.
Some scripture for you to consider:
1 Timothy 3
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.
It is true that the church is the chosen vehicle of God to convey his meassage, however when a church change a foundational truth, then it gives over this ground. verses I would like you to consider here are Revelation 2:5, Rev 3:3, Rev 3:8, Rev 3:14-22.
Hebrews 12:23 and Rev 1:4 which talks of 7 churches, or local churches. I think the local church is vital, a group may be acceptable, but the local gathering is too important to the ongoing message.
2 Thes 2
15So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.
I agree, but this is the bible, not the church, as I said I gave the example of the Immaculate Conception, if you could show me the verse for this teaching I would appreciate it. If there is not one perhaps you could acknowledge this.
1 John 4
6We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.
I agree , but this is the Apostles, John was an Apostle the fact that he uses the third person reflects on the other Apostles.
Note that when a question of doctrine arose in Antioch(see Acts 15), they didn't resolve it themselves, they consulted the Church.
They consulted the Apostles. Acts 15:6. I'm not refuting the need for elders. I'm refuting only the elevation of unbiblical traditions. If you could give me verses on the five I posted I would be grateful. If they extra biblical then they are unwarranted teachings.
Regarding the Immaculate Conception:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp
[/quote]
If you could post the verses please.
: islanddogs Fri Oct 08, 2010 - 13:51:28
It is true that the church is the chosen vehicle of God to convey his meassage, however when a church change a foundational truth, then it gives over this ground. verses I would like you to consider here are
It is the Church that decides foundational Truth. Where do you think foundational Truth is found?
Revelation 2:5, Rev 3:3, Rev 3:8, Rev 3:14-22.
Hebrews 12:23 and Rev 1:4 which talks of 7 churches, or local churches. I think the local church is vital, a group may be acceptable, but the local gathering is too important to the ongoing message.
Local Churches do not have the authority to teach doctrine contray to the universal Church.
I agree, but this is the bible, not the church, as I said I gave the example of the Immaculate Conception, if you could show me the verse for this teaching I would appreciate it. If there is not one perhaps you could acknowledge this.
The bible does not contain all Truth, but all of the bible is True. That being said, the immaculate conception is scriptural and I have previously provided you an explanation.
I agree , but this is the Apostles, John was an Apostle the fact that he uses the third person reflects on the other Apostles.
So do you believe that the authority of the Church died with the last apostle?
Here's something from Clement, the fifth pope, that addresses this point:
"And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture a certain place, 'I will appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.'... Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry...For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties." Pope Clement, Epistle to Corinthians, 42, 44 (A.D. 98).
Note that when a question of doctrine arose in Antioch(see Acts 15), they didn't resolve it themselves, they consulted the Church.
They consulted the Apostles. Acts 15:6. I'm not refuting the need for elders. I'm refuting only the elevation of unbiblical traditions. If you could give me verses on the five I posted I would be grateful. If they extra biblical then they are unwarranted teachings.
They consulted church leadership, they didn't formulate their own doctrine.
If you could post the verses please.
Scripture is quoted in the article:
Regarding the Immaculate Conception:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp
I managed to check the verse Luke1:28.
Hail- is a general greeting, so there is nothing conferred on Mary at this point.
Favoured is Charitoo- and that means to indue with favour, or make accepted. Again the word does not in any way constitute an Immaculate birth.
Blessed is Eulogeo- most will see that our word eulogy comes from this, it means to speak well of.
In addition there are the verses when Jesus refers to Mary in a sense Mother being meter, and from where the Latin MATER came from.
Matthew 12:49, Mark 3:35, Luke 8:21 and also at the crucifixion John 19:27.
Hope that helps, and thank you, hope we can avoid the personalised comments. If we all look at scripture then Jesus will convince us of truth at his own time.
: chestertonrules Fri Oct 08, 2010 - 14:01:40
: islanddogs Fri Oct 08, 2010 - 13:51:28
It is the Church that decides foundational Truth. Where do you think foundational Truth is found?
Local Churches do not have the authority to teach doctrine contray to the universal Church.
The bible does not contain all Truth, but all of the bible is True. That being said, the immaculate conception is scriptural and I have previously provided you an explanation.
They consulted church leadership, they didn't formulate their own doctrine.
Chesterton I have put your comments here. I have deleted mine for brevity.
It isnt the church that decided foundational truth. Foundational Truth is in the bible, it is clear and evident. I would disagree as it does contain all we need for Salvation. The Immaculate Conception you can read my post above at no time was this made clear in the bible, and it was a late 17c vision which resulted in doctrine. The consultation took place with the Apostles and the Elders, they went away from the church Acts 15:6 to check their answer. True, however with the Bible we have a final word on Doctrine.
Hope we can keep the debate friendly, we both disagree, I do not take your views personal, hope you can see mine in the same way. We both hopefully will look to our bibles.
: islanddogs Fri Oct 08, 2010 - 14:19:52
Chesterton I have put your comments here. I have deleted mine for brevity.
It isnt the church that decided foundational truth. Foundational Truth is in the bible, it is clear and evident. I would disagree as it does contain all we need for Salvation. The Immaculate Conception you can read my post above at no time was this made clear in the bible, and it was a late 17c vision which resulted in doctrine. The consultation took place with the Apostles and the Elders, they went away from the church Acts 15:6 to check their answer. True, however with the Bible we have a final word on Doctrine.
Hope we can keep the debate friendly, we both disagree, I do not take your views personal, hope you can see mine in the same way. We both hopefully will look to our bibles.
The Church does decide foundational Truth. Included among these Truths are the books of the New Testament, which were selected by the Church with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
I'll repeat this because I think it is important. The bible is not doctrine. Multiple doctrines have been developed based on the bible, but they contradict each other. Without an infallible guide scripture can lead one into error.
I'm sure we can keep the debate friendly. Your questions are great and I understand where you are coming from.
: islanddogs Fri Oct 08, 2010 - 12:19:35
Hi again Selene
I have checked about the Dhouay - Rheims Bible. Apparently it was written as a Catholic defence against the reformers. It was unashamedly a Polemic to guard the Catholic traditions. The OT was translated at the University of Douai , the NT at Riems.
The writers worked I believe with the Jesuits set up to bring an intellectual rigour to the Catholic polemic. Unfortunately they did not go back to the Greek, this was an argument of Erasmus, who supported some of the reformers only because they studied the Greek. The reformers also studied the Hebrew. It was the adherence to the Latin that caused some of the translation problems, which is what I noticed in the posts from Hebrews and Acts.
I would like to discuss your use of prelate and Bishop on the forum if you dont mind, without personalising the comments. I would be grateful if you and Chesterton would be prepared to look at some of the bible passages toghether. I will not claim any authority over either of you. I'm certainly not a Prophet or an Apostle, or even a teacher. But I would like to look at the Bible.
Actually, the Douay-Rheims is a translation from the Latin Vulgate, which was written in the fourth century. The person who wrote the Latin Vulgate knew how to speak Greek and Hebrew. It was St. Jerome who translated the Greek and Hebrew into the Latin Vulgate. St. Jerome was also very familiar with the culture and idioms of the time period.
The Douay-Rheims was written for two reasons 1) to provide the faithful with a Bible that they could read and 2) many of the Protestant translation at that time included controversial and biased translations to support their views of the Reformation. As a matter of fact, the Protestant Bible even took out 7 books out of the Old Testament including parts of Daniel and Esther. The Douay-Rheims did not take out those books.
http://www.aquinasandmore.com/catholic-articles/What-is-the-Douay-Rheims-Bible/article/190
: chestertonrules Fri Oct 08, 2010 - 10:22:56
: mclees8 Thu Oct 07, 2010 - 21:34:04
Let me make a correction if i may. True he started a church. That church was not just an authority thing. The church consists of all believers. It was not the church that wrote Christs teaching, but it was his apostles under the guidance of the holy spirit. It is not the church authority that guides in to all truth but the Holy Spirit. But he Holy Spirit does not guide every believer, or church leader but those who are truly indwelt with Him and are led of Him. Not all in the church or the authority are guided of Him but are men of pride and self serving
God bless
The apostles were the leaders of the Church. The Church, ie. the apostles and elders, was given authority by Jesus.
If we are Christians then we should accept the authority of the Church Jesus started, right?
Do you believe that the apostles passed on their authority to successors, or that the authority died when the apostles died?
Just what point are trying to make here Chesterton.? Jesus said we were to obey those in authority over us. And yes the apostles wrote what they taught under the Guidance of the Holy Spirit. What was written was to be our foundational truth. It could be trusted and did not change. When they laid hands on others to be the teaching authority. they were to hold to what the apostles taught, for what they taught was our foundation for truth. just as they learned from Christ. Jesus taught humility as servants. They did not make a big show of authority nor were they dogmatically claiming authority which the papacy seems to flaunt demand that they are. The apostles did not change into religious clothes to flaunt their office as the popes and the hierarchy does .
As Jesus said in all that they do they do to be seen of men. They also overstep the apostles by giving themselves the right to invent and create doctrines that scripture does not support. And the list goes on and on.
So you were wanting to justify the papacy
God bless
The Church does decide foundational Truth. Included among these Truths are the books of the New Testament, which were selected by the Church with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Chesterton, Galatians 1:6-9 gives some strong warnings about the Gospel received.
I'll repeat this because I think it is important. The bible is not doctrine. Multiple doctrines have been developed based on the bible, but they contradict each other. Without an infallible guide scripture can lead one into error.
Chesterton I did not say that the Bible was doctrine, I did say that an accumulation of passages around certain teachings helped to form the doctrines. For instance of Salvation. Ephesians 2:1-10. Of the Resurrection 1 Cor 15. On scripture (Law and Testimony) Isaiah 8:20 and Romans 2:14-15, there are others.
So the Bible has already given us Doctrine/teaching to follow, teaching comes from the greek didaskalia. The strongest evidence is Matthew 28:20, the Apostles and disciples were told to take the message about what they had already been taught.
I'm sure we can keep the debate friendly. Your questions are great and I understand where you are coming from.
[/quote]
Thank you for this and I hope so. I work for an Irish organisation, who are predominantly Catholic, mainly lapsed, but I'm not going to sink to being rude. Have a Good weekend.
Hi Selene sorry if I sounded flippant or condenscending, I'm truly not looking for a fight.
This is what my research gleaned. The 1st edition was printed at the University in Reims (Rhiems) in 1852 and was the New Testament and was a translation of the Latin Vulgate. At the University of Douai (Dhouay) the OT was pronted Gen-Job in 1609 and Psalms to Maccabees in 1610.
It is often described as Polemic and Patristic ( theological academics) and to support the counter reformation, as the reformation was reliant on the bible being translated into the language of the particular nation. Luther (German) Tyndale (English) Calvin and his friends (French) for instance.
It was reprinted in 1600,1621,1633 the NT and 1635 the OT. Although still heavily reliant on Latin Vocabulary.
Richard Challinor was given the task of another translation and In 1749,1750, and 1752 the NT was republished. and in 1750 the OT (without the Apocrypha) was published. One difference was that Challinor took the KJV as his base, he also used the Clementine Vulgate.
Then between 1783 and 1810 MacMahon reprinted in Dublin and this apparently is the version most used in the US versions of the 20th C.
Most of the information came from the Wiki. Sorry again if I offended you, not my intention, really. Just wanted clarity that the Latin was used as the base, and not Hebrew or Greek, the languages of the bible.
Have a good weekend.
: islanddogs Sat Oct 09, 2010 - 05:12:42
Hi Selene sorry if I sounded flippant or condenscending, I'm truly not looking for a fight.
This is what my research gleaned. The 1st edition was printed at the University in Reims (Rhiems) in 1852 and was the New Testament and was a translation of the Latin Vulgate. At the University of Douai (Dhouay) the OT was pronted Gen-Job in 1609 and Psalms to Maccabees in 1610.
It is often described as Polemic and Patristic ( theological academics) and to support the counter reformation, as the reformation was reliant on the bible being translated into the language of the particular nation. Luther (German) Tyndale (English) Calvin and his friends (French) for instance.
It was reprinted in 1600,1621,1633 the NT and 1635 the OT. Although still heavily reliant on Latin Vocabulary.
Richard Challinor was given the task of another translation and In 1749,1750, and 1752 the NT was republished. and in 1750 the OT (without the Apocrypha) was published. One difference was that Challinor took the KJV as his base, he also used the Clementine Vulgate.
Then between 1783 and 1810 MacMahon reprinted in Dublin and this apparently is the version most used in the US versions of the 20th C.
Most of the information came from the Wiki. Sorry again if I offended you, not my intention, really. Just wanted clarity that the Latin was used as the base, and not Hebrew or Greek, the languages of the bible.
Have a good weekend.
Why are you sorry? This is what Wiki stated:
The Douay–Rheims Bible (also known as the Rheims–Douai Bible or Douai Bible, and abbreviated as D–R) is a translation of the Bible from the Latin Vulgate into English undertaken by members of the English College, Douai. The New Testament was published in Reims (France) in 1582, in one volume with extensive commentary and notes. The Old Testament, which was published by the University of Douai, followed nearly thirty years later in two volumes; the first volume (Genesis to Job) in 1609, the second (Psalms to 2 Machabees plus the apocrypha of the Clementine Vulgate) in 1610. Marginal notes took up the bulk of the volumes and had a strong polemical and patristic character. They also offered insights on issues of translation, and on the Hebrew and Greek source texts of the Vulgate. The purpose of the version, both the text and notes, was to uphold Catholic tradition in the face of the Protestant Reformation which up till then had ovewhelmingly dominated Elizabethan religion and academic debate. As such it was an impressive effort by English Catholics to support the Counter-ReformationThe Douay-Rheims was a translation from the Latin Vulgate, which was a Bible written by St. Jerome in the 4th century who knew how to speak Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. The Bible was written to
uphold Catholic traditions in the face of the Protestant Reformation, who ended up removing 7 books including parts of Esther and Daniel. Our intention was never to change the Bible by removing some books or by using controversial translations as the Protestants did.
Chesterton, Galatians 1:6-9 gives some strong warnings about the Gospel received.
Forgive me if I don't understand your reply. Are you saying that the reason the protestants kept the NT books unchanged as opposed to the OT books is that the NT is the "gospel" and using scripture as the base they decided not to change the "gospel" as if "the gospel" is synonymous with the NT books?
If this is what you are saying then how do you view the canonization of the NT by the early church?
1. When the NT epistles and the four gospels references scripture it refers to the Old Testament books.
2. When the early Church was in process of the canonization of the NT there were other epistles being called scripture that were in accordance with the Apostolic epistles and the four gospels such as the letters of St. Clement.
3. The "good news" was not necessarily synonymous with Holy Scripture. Refer to Acts perhaps and see that they often referred to, The Way which was also not synonymous with Holy Scripture.
Again, I apologize if I misread your reply.
Chesterton: I'll repeat this because I think it is important. The bible is not doctrine. Multiple doctrines have been developed based on the bible, but they contradict each other. Without an infallible guide scripture can lead one into error.
... and your reply
Islanddogs: Chesterton I did not say that the Bible was doctrine, I did say that an accumulation of passages around certain teachings helped to form the doctrines. For instance of Salvation. Ephesians 2:1-10. Of the Resurrection 1 Cor 15. On scripture (Law and Testimony) Isaiah 8:20 and Romans 2:14-15, there are others.
Again I am not sure if I am misreading your reply. You are saying that an accumulation of passages around specific teachings helped to form doctrines. However, are you talking about from a modern protestant perspective or something that is true not only of protestants but also the early Church?
What makes me wonder about the implication of your reply is that the early Church did not formulate doctrine based* on an accumulation of passages, let alone did they derive their set of specific teachings from scripture. I do not know if you are implying that because Holy Scripture taught on salvation, the Resurrection and Holy Scripture that this is why the early Church taught on salvation, the Resurrection and Holy Scripture.
Holy Scripture does in fact speak about these topics but what Chesterton pointed out is that canonization is considered to be Holy in all traditions and yet there is no Holy Index and it is hard to derive the canon itself from the Holy Scriptures.
So the Bible has already given us Doctrine/teaching to follow, teaching comes from the greek didaskalia. The strongest evidence is Matthew 28:20, the Apostles and disciples were told to take the message about what they had already been taught.
What Chesterton points out is that if the bible is dispensing "doctrine/teaching" and you have a large myriad of contradictory interpretations of what those doctrines and teachings are and the bible is your only constitution then our justification in what each individual or group of individuals believe the constitution means to say is only self confirming.
You have mentioned the word didaskalia but what of the word paradosis? Tradition. Can we derive paradosis from the Holy Scriptures as a means within itself? Can we say with honesty that paradosis points to Holy Scripture and, in the cases where the word paradosis is used, not the other way around? I do not believe that paradosis is a means within itself and, like Holy Scripture, also has it's base, not on the Holy Scriptures, but on the Church.
Is it incorrect to say that the early Christian Church's set of doctrines and teachings are not based on or derived from Holy Scripture or Holy Tradition but instead the revelation of God as it was deposited into the very communities who received both the Holy Scriptures and Holy Traditions from the Holy Apostles? Did they not then use that experience to inform Holy Scripture, Holy Tradition and determine which set of teachings were in fact teachings and which set of traditions were in fact Holy? And does not Holy Scripture and Holy Paradosis affirm this reality that was already in place prior to both?
Thanks for replying islanddogs. It is refreshing to have someone post in this forum who is non-combative and whose sincerity is made apparent.
ICXC NIKA
I'll repeat this because I think it is important. The bible is not doctrine. Multiple doctrines have been developed based on the bible, but they contradict each other. Without an infallible guide scripture can lead one into error.
John 7:16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.
17
If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.
Jesus seems to be saying that that infallible guide is God, and that those who do His will, shall know the doctrine.
1 Tim 6:3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words,
even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.
It seems, one cannot go wrong when following the instruction of the words of Jesus Christ.
2 Tim 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:17
That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.Seems pretty clear to me.
II Jn 1:8 Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward.
9
Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
Again, one cannot go wrong following the words and doctrines set forth by Christ.
John 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.
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.
Here is one a lot of people won't like. Those who keep the commandments of God, are given the Spirit of truth. I guess this is for the simple reason, that they obviously wish to submit to God's authority.
John 14:21
He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.22 Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?
23 Jesus answered and said unto him,
If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.
25 These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you.
26
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.You can't go wrong following the words of Jesus. Obey His commandments, and He will manifest Himself to you. He will give you the Comforter, who will bring to your remembrance His words.
John 15:9 As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love.
10
If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.11 These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full.
God is infallible. No man can stand in His place. Anyone who tries to do so, is standing in the place of anti-Christ.
: Amo Sat Oct 09, 2010 - 10:34:31
I'll repeat this because I think it is important. The bible is not doctrine. Multiple doctrines have been developed based on the bible, but they contradict each other. Without an infallible guide scripture can lead one into error.
John 7:16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.
17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.
Jesus seems to be saying that that infallible guide is God, and that those who do His will, shall know the doctrine.
1 Tim 6:3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.
It seems, one cannot go wrong when following the instruction of the words of Jesus Christ.
2 Tim 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
Seems pretty clear to me.
II Jn 1:8 Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward.
9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
Again, one cannot go wrong following the words and doctrines set forth by Christ.
John 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.
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.
Here is one a lot of people won't like. Those who keep the commandments of God, are given the Spirit of truth. I guess this is for the simple reason, that they obviously wish to submit to God's authority.
John 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.
22 Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?
23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.
25 These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you.
26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
You can't go wrong following the words of Jesus. Obey His commandments, and He will manifest Himself to you. He will give you the Comforter, who will bring to your remembrance His words.
John 15:9 As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love.
10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.
11 These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full.
God is infallible. No man can stand in His place. Anyone who tries to do so, is standing in the place of anti-Christ.
Thanks amo I love a good defender of Gods word. it is a lamp unto our feet and a light unto our path. There will always be those who misuse and abuse Gods word to there own destruction and take many with them. this is sad. But what would be even more dangerous is for some one to teach that the word can be dangerous so they must only listen to men who say they know Gods word. It is the Holy spirit that guides into all truth and those who Love the Lord with a pure heart will find truth and guidance in it. In the end all men shall be judged by it. It will be our indictment for good or for evil.
Again thanks
God bless
: islanddogs Fri Oct 08, 2010 - 12:19:35
Hi again Selene
I have checked about the Dhouay - Rheims Bible. Apparently it was written as a Catholic defence against the reformers. It was unashamedly a Polemic to guard the Catholic traditions. The OT was translated at the University of Douai , the NT at Riems.
The writers worked I believe with the Jesuits set up to bring an intellectual rigour to the Catholic polemic. Unfortunately they did not go back to the Greek, this was an argument of Erasmus, who supported some of the reformers only because they studied the Greek. The reformers also studied the Hebrew. It was the adherence to the Latin that caused some of the translation problems, which is what I noticed in the posts from Hebrews and Acts.
I would like to discuss your use of prelate and Bishop on the forum if you dont mind, without personalising the comments. I would be grateful if you and Chesterton would be prepared to look at some of the bible passages toghether. I will not claim any authority over either of you. I'm certainly not a Prophet or an Apostle, or even a teacher. But I would like to look at the Bible.
I decided to look up what translation the KJV used, and I found that they used what is called "Textus Receptus." I looked up "Textus Receptus" on Wiki (By the way, I don't really find Wiki very reliable) but at any rate, Wiki had some information about Eramus who supported the reformers by claiming that they studied Greek and Hebrew. Wiki had this to say and I provided the weblink below:
Textus Receptus (Latin: "received text") is the name subsequently given to the succession of printed Greek texts of the New Testament which constituted the translation base for the original German Luther Bible, for the translation of the New Testament into English by William Tyndale, the King James Version, and for most other Reformation-era New Testament translations throughout Western and Central Europe. The series originated with the first printed Greek New Testament to be published; a work undertaken in Basel by the Dutch Catholic scholar and humanist Desiderius Erasmus in 1516, on the basis of some six manuscripts, containing between them not quite the whole of the New Testament. The lacking text was translated from Vulgate. Although based mainly on late manuscripts of the Byzantine text-type, Erasmus's edition differed markedly from the classic form of that text.
The Dutch humanist Erasmus had been working for years on two projects: a collation of Greek texts and a fresh Latin New Testament. In 1512, he began his work on a fresh Latin New Testament. He collected all the Vulgate manuscripts he could find to create a critical edition. Then he polished the Latin. He declared, "It is only fair that Paul should address the Romans in somewhat better Latin."[1] In the earlier phases of the project, he never mentioned a Greek text: "My mind is so excited at the thought of emending Jerome's text, with notes, that I seem to myself inspired by some god. I have already almost finished emending him by collating a large number of ancient manuscripts, and this I am doing at enormous personal expense."[2]
The last page of the Erasmian New Testament (Rev 22:8-21)While his intentions for publishing a fresh Latin translation are clear, it is less clear why he included the Greek text. Though some speculate that he intended on producing a critical Greek text or that he wanted to beat the Complutensian Polyglot into print, there is no evidence to support this. Rather his motivation seems to be simpler: he included the Greek text to prove the superiority of his Latin version. He wrote, "There remains the New Testament translated by me, with the Greek facing, and notes on it by me."[3] He further demonstrated the reason for the inclusion of the Greek text when defending his work: "But one thing the facts cry out, and it can be clear, as they say, even to a blind man, that often through the translator's clumsiness or inattention the Greek has been wrongly rendered; often the true and genuine reading has been corrupted by ignorant scribes, which we see happen every day, or altered by scribes who are half-taught and half-asleep."[4] Erasmus's new work was published by Froben of Basel in 1516 and thence became the first published Greek New Testament, the Novum Instrumentum omne, diligenter ab Erasmo Rot. Recognitum et Emendatum. He used manuscripts: 1, 1rK, 2e, 2ap, 4ap, 7, 817.[5] The second edition used the more familiar term Testamentum instead of Instrumentum, and eventually became a major source for Luther's German translation. In second edition (1519) Erasmus used also Minuscule 3.
Typographical errors (attributed to the rush to complete the work) abounded in the published text. Erasmus also lacked a complete copy of the book of Revelation and was forced to translate the last six verses back into Greek from the Latin Vulgate in order to finish his edition. Erasmus adjusted the text in many places to correspond with readings found in the Vulgate, or as quoted in the Church Fathers; consequently, although the Textus Receptus is classified by scholars as a late Byzantine text, it differs in nearly two thousand readings from standard form of that text-type, as represented by the "Majority Text" of Hodges and Farstad (Wallace 1989). The edition was a sell-out commercial success and was reprinted in 1519, with most—though not all—the typographical errors corrected.[6] http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/catholic-forum/papacy-right-or-wrong/330/?action=post;quote=833685;num_replies=349;sesc=60330be676df6463325c0bb89f2a68a7
John 7:16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.
17
If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.
Jesus seems to be saying that that infallible guide is God, and that those who do His will, shall know the doctrine.
Agree. I will go out on a limb and say that even the RCC agrees with this. As Chesterton pointed out, the problem arises when there are contradictory positions on
what the bible means to say vs
what we believe the bible means to say.
This is where many if not most protestants would say that this is where Hermeneutics and Exegesis comes in. In short, the position is that the way to know what "right" belief is, what the bible truly means to say, is to be had by applying a scientific approach to reading comprehension.
Those approaches vary from Historical analysis to looking up root meanings for words and trying to either deconstruct the present back to the linear point in question and then reconstruct that point based on scientific rationalizations about what they believe the bible means to say.
1 Tim 6:3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words,
even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.
It seems, one cannot go wrong when following the instruction of the words of Jesus Christ.
Every individual and sec and denomination/sub-denomination would agree with this statement. However, where the problem arises is in the contradictory positions on what the bible truly means to say. Or what Jesus meant to say.
You see this in the Eucharist, Baptism, the Laying on of hands, the resurrection, repentance etc. Everyone and group seems to have a different and contradictory stance on what Jesus meant to say and even who Jesus is.
We may say in unison that the Son of God is Jesus and Jesus is the Son of God but then someone comes along and says that he has one nature, three natures, seven spirits, wasn't "begotten" until his baptism, wasn't fully human but instead fully God, on and on and on.
No group or individual with the exception of a few theists that call themselves "christian" would deny the authority of Holy Scripture.
2 Tim 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:17
That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
Seems pretty clear to me.
Again, if we are going to mine the Holy Scriptures for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness we must, in order for Holy Scripture to be any use to us at all, be in accordance with what the bible truly means to say. The Holy Scriptures must have context and not be seen as an end within itself.
That you have two groups that can not agree on a single elementary teaching should give us pause.
Another note I will add is that on a certain level we know that when this passage was written and to whom it was written reveals that it is speaking of not necessarily the epistles and the four gospels but instead the Old testament Holy Scriptures.
The Old Testament is not any less authoritative. No sect would deny this. Though there are some that attempted to but I am not going to categorize them as Christian.
II Jn 1:8 Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward.
9
Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
Again, one cannot go wrong following the words and doctrines set forth by Christ.
What translation changes "teachings" to the word "doctrine"?
Again, I will point out that though the general statement is true and all sects, denominations and sub-denomination will agree on this "general" truth, the problem arises (hence the sects, denominations) when we hold contradictory teachings.
If this is true then we have to know that there is something that this community who received this letter had that protestantism as a whole does not - an authoritative teaching in place.
That teaching couldn't be born out of the Holy epistles because they did not even have this epistle yet when it was written. However, though they didn't have the Holy epistle delivered to them yet they were still carrying within them as a community the authoritative teaching concerning the revelation of God.
John 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.
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.
Here is one a lot of people won't like. Those who keep the commandments of God, are given the Spirit of truth. I guess this is for the simple reason, that they obviously wish to submit to God's authority.
Though I think you meant to write, "they obviously (don't) wich to submit to God's authority", I believe this is telling. You underline "commandments" here and wonder if you are not hinting to your firm belief that one such commandment is the observance of the Sabbath as your community has transmitted that teaching to you. Are you still a Seventh Day Adventist?
This precise reality is why after two sides have slung their cache of bible passages at one another in defense or offense of their position the only thing left is to assert that the Holy Spirit guides. This is not particularly a bad thing and believe that it is far healthier to believe such a thing than it is to say that we must employ a scientific approach to unearth the meaning of the Holy passages in our Holy books.
Laying this issue aside, we still are faced with the problem of interpretation. Either way.
John 14:21
He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.22 Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?
23 Jesus answered and said unto him,
If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.
25 These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you.
26
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.You can't go wrong following the words of Jesus. Obey His commandments, and He will manifest Himself to you. He will give you the Comforter, who will bring to your remembrance His words.
Again, every one and every group would agree but the reality is that we do not agree on the meaning of His words let alone who the Word is beyond the general statement that Jesus is the Word.
If you see the bible as the Logos himself and your interpretation as right then you will assert that anyone who positions himself against your interpretive position is not following the word of God. We see this throughout the forums and experience this in inter-denominational dialogue.
Protestant #1: I am just telling you what it says.
Protestant #2: That is not what it says.
Protestant #1: If you don't believe the words in the bible then that's between you and God.
John 15:9 As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love.
10
If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.11 These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full.
God is infallible. No man can stand in His place. Anyone who tries to do so, is standing in the place of anti-Christ.
In regards to what you are saying on a higher level I think you will find that everyone agrees. However, on another level we could also say that we disagree. You might find that you even disagree with what you are saying on some levels.
If you look at the passage wherein Jacob wrestles with a man who is an angel, you find that after this wrestling match Jacob says that he has seen the face of God and yet has lived.
Now, can a man or an angel take the place of God? No. Yet, did Jacob truly wrestle God the Father? Possibly he wrestled the Son of God but I don't think we want to go there with the interpretation. So then how is it that Jacob can say that he saw the face of God or that he even wrestled with God?
Think of Aaron being sent to speak the words of Moses to Pharaoh which were given to Moses by I AM that which I AM. What Pharaoh said and did in response to Aaron was said and done in response to Moses. What was said to Moses was said and done to God.
To use a more modern example, Jesus, Our Lord, says that if they reject His Holy Apostles then they will reject him. How is this? Are they not men? How is it that if we reject those who are sent, we reject Him who sent them?
This is often what is meant by "taking His place" or standing in His "place". It's not that we are saying that they ARE Him but on a certain level we are saying that they are Him.
When Jesus, the Son of God, Blessed Savior, said, "I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was naked and you clothed me..." The response to his words was, "when was this? we did not see you." (my paraphrase). The Lord who is, replied that what we do to others we do unto him.
So you can see what is and isn't being said by the ancient faiths (think of St. Ignatius words about the Overseer) when they say things like standing in His place or in the place of Him. It is not a denial or rejection of Him who sends but an acceptance of those sent on His behalf.
To use an even more recent illustration of this idea of man standing in His place:
(http://iranpoliticsclub.net/history/300/images/Leonidas%20and%20Persian%20Messenger%203.jpg)
Was this kick in the well not a kick in the well done to the Persian King? Did not the Persian Emperor send his messenger to stand in his place? Did not the Persian King respond to this kick?
This. Is. Spartaaaaaaaaa!
Well. Not really Sparta. But you get the picture.
No one wants to shoot the messenger. The problem is, we have a lot of messengers and only One King.
Glory to Jesus Christ
Hi Selene, Chesterton and Ryan.
I need to go through all your posts and then try and get a post together rather than have three online conversations. I probably agree with Amo doctrinally, however I do not wish to get into I say, you say argument.
Initially I wanted to look at the general differences, and I still do, however I needed to check which versions of the bible people were using. I can then check back in certain instances, it is one thing to disagree about teaching, another to disagree simply because we are holding to a particular text. There are some words I may disagree with as I may view them as ecclesiaistical. I will try to be clear when I think this.
Amo, I hold to the truth and I'm not an apologist. I may disagree with some people, but I have to accept that they are genuine in their own beliefs, it requires patience so that we can all express our views in a way that does not embarrass unbelievers. ::cool::
Hi again Ryan, Chesterton and Selene.
Here is my view. The Catholic tradition was not really built until the the late 10th,11th and 12th Centuries. The church patriarchs, started to form groups, eventually splitting the church into the Roman Catholic tradition and the Byzantine. However some teachings had already been seeping into the church. Eventually the church sank into so called indulgences which led to first the Spanish inquisition and later the reformation. I of course take a reformed view. Another key consideration was the fact that only the academics and priests understood the Latin.
Galatians 1:6-9 talks about not changing the gospel, which is one of the reasons that the canon was established. Heresies had been challenged at various times, However the Gospel is not synonomous with the New Testament. The Gospel began with Genesis 3:15
" And I will put emnity between thee and the woman and between thy seed and her seed it shall bruise thy head and thou shalt bruise his heel"
It is sometimes called the proto evangel. The first mention of a coming saviour, who would defeat the devil/serpent. Roamns 3:21-31 explains this further and the Salvation that comes through the shed blood of Christ as propitiation for our sin.
The canon was mainly to combat heresies and to withdraw letters/ books that were leading people astray. Heresies such as antinominianism. Letters such as Barnabas, I can give you links to books that refute the Da Vinci Code for instance.
The way is referred to and it came from the fact that the early followers of Jesus met in synagogies and the temple, they were known as a sect who followed the way. Probably although not definitely a reference to John 14:6 " I am the way, the truth and the life".
John 14:6, Acts 18:25, 19:9,19:23 ,24:14 and 24:22.
The early church was not papal, and Peter confirmed Paul as a speaker of truth 2 Peter 3:15.
I was trying to explain that doctrine comes from the fact that the teaching of the bible, the foundational teaching, is repeated often, ie How we can be saved, the resurrection, sanctification, in other words internal evidence for teaching that comes not from man, but from the received word of God. Even the Catholics do try and justify ex cathedra announcements through scripture. Pope Pius X1 and the Immaculate conception used Luke 1:26 to justify that Mary was sinless I hope I have shown that this evidence is weak.
In addition there are distinct differences around Salvation. Again I would suggest that the Catholic tradition cannot be justified by scripture, whilst the reformed view can be amply. Because the biblical evidence is strong, then it is not opinion. Tradition within the church can be helpful only in so far as it maintains scriptural integrity. I do not believe we have had any traditions passed on, obviously you could post scripture and I will read it, and consider it.
In answer to the question on Holy Scripture and where it came from I disagree, here are some of the verses which help me form that view. 1 Cor 2:10,12 John 6:45, Ephesians 3:5, Col 1:26, 1Tim 1:11, 2 Tim 1:6-14, 3:16-17.
I would like to thank you all for the debate, and hope you have good Lords Day, My sickness as lasted longer than I thought, so I will be staying at home. ::tippinghat::Goodnight ::destroyingcomputer::
I agree , but this is the Apostles, John was an Apostle the fact that he uses the third person reflects on the other Apostles.
So do you believe that the authority of the Church died with the last apostle?
Here's something from Clement, the fifth pope, that addresses this point:
"And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture a certain place, 'I will appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.'... Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry...For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties." Pope Clement, Epistle to Corinthians, 42, 44 (A.D. 98).
Mike>
If i may, I could not help but notice something here as i was reading The last comment as to the author is stated as"Pope Clement, Epistle to the Corithians AD98"
I do not recall any Bishop being addressed as or addressing himself as pope at that time or after untill maybe the fith century.
I googled the epistle to see how it is addressed. It's opening statement says" From Clement who sojourns at Rome to the bishop who sojourns at Corinth". No title of pope is used but we do see that he addressed each of them as equals. As one bishop to another. Check it out
So how is it that RC,s want to add the title pope when clement himself did not give himself any supreme title. There is a certain word used for all bishops of Rome. Petrine succession. I believe it is a lot hooy to try and justify the papacy claim to linage of popes all the way back to Peter. it is vital to all their claims. A cleever invention of men
One other observation. If it was excepted by all the churches that that the Roman bishops were popes over all of them then why the great split between the East and the west centuries latter? The answer is simple, there was no Petrine succession.
Any comments on this? Any one know of any bishop of Rome in any letter or epistle addressing himself as pope before the fifth century ?
God bless
: mclees8 Sun Oct 10, 2010 - 17:29:06
I agree , but this is the Apostles, John was an Apostle the fact that he uses the third person reflects on the other Apostles.
So do you believe that the authority of the Church died with the last apostle?
Here's something from Clement, the fifth pope, that addresses this point:
"And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture a certain place, 'I will appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.'... Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry...For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties." Pope Clement, Epistle to Corinthians, 42, 44 (A.D. 98).
Mike>
If i may, I could not help but notice something here as i was reading The last comment as to the author is stated as"Pope Clement, Epistle to the Corithians AD98"
I do not recall any Bishop being addressed as or addressing himself as pope at that time or after untill maybe the fith century.
I googled the epistle to see how it is addressed. It's opening statement says" From Clement who sojourns at Rome to the bishop who sojourns at Corinth". No title of pope is used but we do see that he addressed each of them as equals. As one bishop to another. Check it out
So how is it that RC,s want to add the title pope when clement himself did not give himself any supreme title. There is a certain word used for all bishops of Rome. Petrine succession. I believe it is a lot hooy to try and justify the papacy claim to linage of popes all the way back to Peter. it is vital to all their claims. A cleever invention of men
One other observation. If it was excepted by all the churches that that the Roman bishops were popes over all of them then why the great split between the East and the west centuries latter? The answer is simple, there was no Petrine succession.
Any comments on this? Any one know of any bishop of Rome in any letter or epistle addressing himself as pope before the fifth century ?
God bless
Thats a good point. It is true that Catholic Church bestowed the same title to Peter when in all reality I can't find a definitive instance in Sacred Scripture when Peter shows any leadership role or exerts any authority thereof.
: LightHammer Sun Oct 10, 2010 - 19:24:03
: mclees8 Sun Oct 10, 2010 - 17:29:06
I agree , but this is the Apostles, John was an Apostle the fact that he uses the third person reflects on the other Apostles.
So do you believe that the authority of the Church died with the last apostle?
Here's something from Clement, the fifth pope, that addresses this point:
"And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture a certain place, 'I will appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.'... Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry...For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties." Pope Clement, Epistle to Corinthians, 42, 44 (A.D. 98).
Mike>
If i may, I could not help but notice something here as i was reading The last comment as to the author is stated as"Pope Clement, Epistle to the Corithians AD98"
I do not recall any Bishop being addressed as or addressing himself as pope at that time or after untill maybe the fith century.
I googled the epistle to see how it is addressed. It's opening statement says" From Clement who sojourns at Rome to the bishop who sojourns at Corinth". No title of pope is used but we do see that he addressed each of them as equals. As one bishop to another. Check it out
So how is it that RC,s want to add the title pope when clement himself did not give himself any supreme title. There is a certain word used for all bishops of Rome. Petrine succession. I believe it is a lot hooy to try and justify the papacy claim to linage of popes all the way back to Peter. it is vital to all their claims. A cleever invention of men
One other observation. If it was excepted by all the churches that that the Roman bishops were popes over all of them then why the great split between the East and the west centuries latter? The answer is simple, there was no Petrine succession.
Any comments on this? Any one know of any bishop of Rome in any letter or epistle addressing himself as pope before the fifth century ?
God bless
Thats a good point. It is true that Catholic Church bestowed the same title to Peter when in all reality I can't find a definitive instance in Sacred Scripture when Peter shows any leadership role or exerts any authority thereof.
Hi Lighthammer
I don't try to disprove or take anything away from Peter. I think he was natural leader type person. He was always the most vocal and the first to speak up. he was loved and respected amongst the apostles. What i don't believe though is that he was or thought of himself as their chief apostle. I don't believe he would ever thought of himself as set apart from the others and have a title office role. I don't believe that Peter would allow any of them to treat him as having a title position over them. I don't believe any of them including Peter would put on special religious robes to be set apart from the common. I don't believe in the councils he had a special seat signifying an official position.
In short i don't believe he was anything like papal popes and would not ever sit as one. I guess that's my 2cents on this matter. My grip is the whole RC exalted religious system that finds it so necessary that they be seen and known as church authority with positions of rank They want everyone to know who they are and to treat them as one who has title and office. they go to great lengths to impress everyone that they alone are the church institutionally and the laity; well i guess we don't know who we are. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
God bless
God bless
Hi again Ryan, Chesterton and Selene.
Here is my view. The Catholic tradition was not really built until the the late 10th,11th and 12th Centuries. The church patriarchs, started to form groups, eventually splitting the church into the Roman Catholic tradition and the Byzantine.
But prior to this you believe that there was The Church? You believe that the councils leading up to that point are valid? I will be surprised that you do. Which groups outside of the Roman Catholic tradition and "Byzantine" jurisdictions would you call, "christian" and yet do not fall into communion with either "tradition"?
However some teachings had already been seeping into the church. Eventually the church sank into so called indulgences which led to first the Spanish inquisition and later the reformation. I of course take a reformed view.
I am not sure how you see that indulgences led to the Spanish inquisition. Would you say that if Rome got rid of indulgences that they would then be considered reformed?
Another key consideration was the fact that only the academics and priests understood the Latin.
But the Holy Scriptures are written in Greek and in Hebrew/Aramaic. Surely they must have had some knowledge of these languages. You believe that their focus on a language means that they changed the faith?
Galatians 1:6-9 talks about not changing the gospel, which is one of the reasons that the canon was established. Heresies had been challenged at various times, However the Gospel is not synonomous with the New Testament. The Gospel began with Genesis 3:15
Does the good news start with the book of Genesis or did the good news begin In the beginning? There is a difference. If the good news didn't begin until the book was written then there was no beginning of the good news until the book came into existence? Where is the verse that says, "the beginning starts at the beginning of the writing of this book..." ?
" And I will put emnity between thee and the woman and between thy seed and her seed it shall bruise thy head and thou shalt bruise his heel"
It is sometimes called the proto evangel. The first mention of a coming saviour, who would defeat the devil/serpent. Roamns 3:21-31 explains this further and the Salvation that comes through the shed blood of Christ as propitiation for our sin.
Is not Jesus who is the Christ, the divine Logos of the Father? I would push that story of man's salvation as we read about it in the Holy book back to the point wherein we read, "and God said"
St. John the beloved begins the gospel accordingly. In the beginning was the Word.
The canon was mainly to combat heresies and to withdraw letters/ books that were leading people astray. Heresies such as antinominianism. Letters such as Barnabas, I can give you links to books that refute the Da Vinci Code for instance.
You will find no disagreement here. The Church had to define what is not of the Church by defining what IS of the Church. However, if Holy Scripture is the sole authority then where in the Holy Scriptures is the canon defined? Which ample number of verses gives us the books which should be considered the rule (canon)?
The way is referred to and it came from the fact that the early followers of Jesus met in synagogies and the temple, they were known as a sect who followed the way. Probably although not definitely a reference to John 14:6 " I am the way, the truth and the life".
John 14:6, Acts 18:25, 19:9,19:23 ,24:14 and 24:22.
So "the way" is only a historical context and is only understood as "meeting in synagogues and temples". That they were known as a sect is true but as St. Paul said in his defense, they are not a "sect" but a pure expression of what we would today call Judaism. It is in Antioch that we were first called, "Christians". We are not a sect but hope to be True Israel.
The early church was not papal, and Peter confirmed Paul as a speaker of truth 2 Peter 3:15.
I am not sure what you mean by "papal". 1. Papa is just a word that means, "father". Both St. Peter and St. Paul called themselves fathers. 2. Do you believe that St. Peter was an elder/overseer? He certainly is as are the other Apostles. However, unlike overseers and elders, they could go from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. But if you look closely you will also find that the Apostles themselves were also "sent" by the Church. The Church sent St. Paul to such and such a place.
I was trying to explain that doctrine comes from the fact that the teaching of the bible, the foundational teaching, is repeated often, ie How we can be saved, the resurrection, sanctification, in other words internal evidence for teaching that comes not from man, but from the received word of God.
But there is doctrine mentioned in the Holy Scriptures prior to their even being a certain epistle that mentions it. How is it that we a different standard for making something a "doctrine" if the early Church did not adhere to our modern way of "discerning" doctrine.
Where is the doctrine of Sheol or Heaven? Was it not believed or revealed to and by the community prior to having been written down?
Where is the doctrine of Gehenna or of certain duties or functions or categories of the angels or of baptism even. Where in the Old Testament is there the ablution rights as we see the Jews performing during Jesus and St. John the forerunner's time?
Where is the teaching of Moses seat having authority regardless that the Pharisees sit on Moses seat in the Old Testament?
How is it that they had different doctrines never heard of before in other books and yet believed and taught on those things with full authority?
Even the Catholics do try and justify ex cathedra announcements through scripture. Pope Pius X1 and the Immaculate conception used Luke 1:26 to justify that Mary was sinless I hope I have shown that this evidence is weak.
Well, sure, the Holy Scriptures testify about Christ and so it is good to have the Holy Scriptures rightly divided. It keeps us from error. However, to reduce the authority of the Church or of Holy Tradition to zero will giving all authority to a book which can be interpreted is not even found in the Holy Scriptures themselves and can not be justified using the very tenants it sets up itself.
In addition there are distinct differences around Salvation. Again I would suggest that the Catholic tradition cannot be justified by scripture, whilst the reformed view can be amply.
There is no single unified teaching on Salvation in protestantism as a whole. The problem with trying to "justify" the scriptures based on the bible is that there is a subtle distinction that you may be overlooking. It all depends on what you believe the bible means to say, no? If you believe the bible means to say B then A can not be right but only insofar as your interpretation goes. So how do you tell the difference between such a marketplace of ideas and opinions? The bible? That would be a circular affair.
Because the biblical evidence is strong, then it is not opinion.
Again, if you merely are making a case for your opinion by using bible verses to justify it you will have as many contradictory teachings as there are readers of Holy Scripture. Just because you may have 12 bible verses and your opponent only 3 does this necessarily mean that your opponent is wrong?
Heaven forbid!
Tradition within the church can be helpful only in so far as it maintains scriptural integrity. I do not believe we have had any traditions passed on, obviously you could post scripture and I will read it, and consider it.
Look up the word "paradosis" and perhaps start there. There are many many bible passages that speak of the teachings of Christ being passed on and being used to inform the text and this of course makes perfect sense. If I taught you and showed you how to do a certain thing and then wrote you a letter to say that you remember to do X,Y,Z in addition to what I showed you, then you will have a fuller frame of reference. Reduce that frame of experience to the letter alone and you will be subject to the interpretations of any given reader.
In answer to the question on Holy Scripture and where it came from I disagree, here are some of the verses which help me form that view. 1 Cor 2:10,12 John 6:45, Ephesians 3:5, Col 1:26, 1Tim 1:11, 2 Tim 1:6-14, 3:16-17.
All believe that Holy Scripture is from God. We are in agreement here. Where we differ is that what you and or others believe the bible means to say and the way in which we discern between the two contradictory positions.
I would like to thank you all for the debate, and hope you have good Lords Day, My sickness as lasted longer than I thought, so I will be staying at home. ::tippinghat::Goodnight ::destroyingcomputer::
There is a bug going around here that lasts like ten days. Long suffering and patience dear brother. Christ is risen. Glory to Jesus Christ. I pray you will endure and heal well.
The early church was not papal, and Peter confirmed Paul as a speaker of truth 2 Peter 3:15.
I am not sure what you mean by "papal". 1. Papa is just a word that means, "father". Both St. Peter and St. Paul called themselves fathers. 2. Do you believe that St. Peter was an elder/overseer? He certainly is as are the other Apostles. However, unlike overseers and elders, they could go from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. But if you look closely you will also find that the Apostles themselves were also "sent" by the Church. The Church sent St. Paul to such and such a place.
Mike> I don't know about you but I believe i know exactly what he means. There was no papacy that seats itself in Rome in a palace city called Vatican claiming they are the true church and vicar of Christ. this was not the early church or the church Christ started.
God bless
1Thessalonians 2:11,12 unfortunately the popel has taken these words to an extreme and called itself father - forbidden by Jesus... Matthew 23:9,10
::sleepingsoundly:: don't be found sleeping!!!
: Visionary Mon Oct 11, 2010 - 16:32:02
1Thessalonians 2:11,12 unfortunately the popel has taken these words to an extreme and called itself father - forbidden by Jesus... Matthew 23:9,10
::sleepingsoundly:: don't be found sleeping!!!
If Jesus forbid the use of the word, "father," then why does He and His Apostles use it?
John 8:56 Abraham your father rejoiced that he might see my day: he saw it, and was glad.
The above verse is what Jesus said to the Jews. So, how do you explain this verse where Jesus mentions to the Jews that Abraham is their father.
Romans 4:16 Therefore is it of faith, that according to grace the promise might be firm to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all,
The above verse was said by St. Paul, and he called Abraham a father to all of us. How do you explain that?
: Selene Tue Oct 12, 2010 - 07:32:55
: Visionary Mon Oct 11, 2010 - 16:32:02
1Thessalonians 2:11,12 unfortunately the popel has taken these words to an extreme and called itself father - forbidden by Jesus... Matthew 23:9,10
::sleepingsoundly:: don't be found sleeping!!!
If Jesus forbid the use of the word, "father," then why does He and His Apostles use it?
John 8:56 Abraham your father rejoiced that he might see my day: he saw it, and was glad.
The above verse is what Jesus said to the Jews. So, how do you explain this verse where Jesus mentions to the Jews that Abraham is their father.
Romans 4:16 Therefore is it of faith, that according to grace the promise might be firm to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all,
The above verse was said by St. Paul, and he called Abraham a father to all of us. How do you explain that?
Not that I challenge, but while we are at it could you explain Selene why Jesus said "and call no man your Father on the earth. For one is your Father, which is in heaven.
Jesu never made frivolous statements or contradictions. So if you justify calling priests father Why did he make this statement? what was he referring to?
Just asking
Gos bless
: islanddogs Sat Oct 09, 2010 - 15:16:57
Hi again Ryan, Chesterton and Selene.
Here is my view. The Catholic tradition was not really built until the the late 10th,11th and 12th Centuries.
When you start from such a faulty premise, you are sure to end up with incorrect conclusions.
What do you make of these quotes from Clement, Justin Martyr and Ignatius from the late first and early second centuries?
"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).
"For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh." Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).
"And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture a certain place, 'I will appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.'... Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry...For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties." Pope Clement, Epistle to Corinthians, 42, 44 (A.D. 98).
"For what is the bishop but one who beyond all others possesses all power and authority, so far as it is possible for a man to possess it, who according to his ability has been made an imitator of the Christ off God? And what is the presbytery but a sacred assembly, the counselors and assessors of the bishop? And what are the deacons but imitators of the angelic powers, fulfilling a pure and blameless ministry unto him, as...Anencletus and Clement to Peter?" Ignatius, To the Trallians, 7 (A.D. 110).
"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).
: mclees8 Tue Oct 12, 2010 - 08:34:12
Not that I challenge, but while we are at it could you explain Selene why Jesus said "and call no man your Father on the earth. For one is your Father, which is in heaven.
Jesu never made frivolous statements or contradictions. So if you justify calling priests father Why did he make this statement? what was he referring to?
Just asking
Gos bless
Yes. In that verse, Jesus' words are not meant to be taken literally. Jesus words were spoken only to His disciples (verse 8). Jesus criticized the Pharisees for their hypocrasy by using their title "Rabbi" in pride. He warned His disciples that they were not to use their titles
"father,"
"master" or
"teacher" in the same way as the Pharisees did. It was at the end of his talk, it explaines that.
Matthew 23:8-12 You, however, must not allow yourselves to be called
Rabbi, since you have only one Master, and you are all brothers. You must call no one on earth your
father, since you have only one Father and He is in Heaven. Nor must you allow yourselves to be called
teachers, for you have only one ]Teacher, the Christ.
The greatest among you must be your severant. Anyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and anyone who humbles himself will be exalted. Visionary ONLY sees the word "father" in here despite the fact that Jesus was telling His disciples not to call anyone "master," "father," "and "teacher" and Visionary didn't read the rest of the Scripture which explains why. What Jesus said here is not meant to be taken literally because in other parts of Scripture, He and His disciples do use the words "father," "master" and "teacher." Jesus is telling His disciples that they are not to use any of these titles (Master, Father, and Teacher) with pride. In other words, they can use these titles so long as it is not with pride as the Pharisees had done,
I am still waiting for Visionary's explaination.......He hasn't answered my question.
: Selene Tue Oct 12, 2010 - 17:21:41
: mclees8 Tue Oct 12, 2010 - 08:34:12
Not that I challenge, but while we are at it could you explain Selene why Jesus said "and call no man your Father on the earth. For one is your Father, which is in heaven.
Jesu never made frivolous statements or contradictions. So if you justify calling priests father Why did he make this statement? what was he referring to?
Just asking
Gos bless
Yes. In that verse, Jesus' words are not meant to be taken literally. Jesus words were spoken only to His disciples (verse 8). Jesus criticized the Pharisees for their hypocrasy by using their title "Rabbi" in pride. He warned His disciples that they were not to use their titles "father," "master" or "teacher" in the same way as the Pharisees did. It was at the end of his talk, it explaines that.
Matthew 23:8-12 You, however, must not allow yourselves to be called Rabbi, since you have only one Master, and you are all brothers. You must call no one on earth your father, since you have only one Father and He is in Heaven. Nor must you allow yourselves to be called teachers, for you have only one ]Teacher, the Christ. The greatest among you must be your severant. Anyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and anyone who humbles himself will be exalted.
Visionary ONLY sees the word "father" in here despite the fact that Jesus was telling His disciples not to call anyone "master," "father," "and "teacher" and Visionary didn't read the rest of the Scripture which explains why. What Jesus said here is not meant to be taken literally because in other parts of Scripture, He and His disciples do use the words "father," "master" and "teacher." Jesus is telling His disciples that they are not to use any of these titles (Master, Father, and Teacher) with pride. In other words, they can use these titles so long as it is not with pride as the Pharisees had done,
I am still waiting for Visionary's explaination.......He hasn't answered my question.
A couple of posts back I was talking to Lighthammer Of course It was just a personal observation at t he time and I was not thinking about these verses which we are on now. But see the stark contrast
Hi Lighthammer
I don't try to disprove or take anything away from Peter. I think he was natural leader type person. He was always the most vocal and the first to speak up. he was loved and respected amongst the apostles. What i don't believe though is that he was or thought of himself as their chief apostle. I don't believe he would ever thought of himself as set apart from the others and have a title office role. I don't believe that Peter would allow any of them to treat him as having a title position over them. I don't believe any of them including Peter would put on special religious robes to be set apart from the common. I don't believe in the councils he had a special seat signifying an official position.
In short i don't believe he was anything like papal popes and would not ever sit as one. I guess that's my 2cents on this matter. My grip is the whole RC exalted religious system that finds it so necessary that they be seen and known as church authority with positions of rank They want everyone to know who they are and to treat them as one who has title and office. they go to great lengths to impress everyone that they alone are the church institutionally and the laity; well i guess we don't know who we are. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
Selene Jesus wanted his leaders to be humble and not seek self exaltation. They had authority and power by the Holy Ghost and the church was humble for at least until the apostles were still with us.
Can you see Peter as a modern day pope. Would you even dare to think of Him in that light.
I like the way you would say things like John chapter six is literal but when you come to some that is obviously literal you say Oh that was not literal.
Really now
God bless
: mclees8 Wed Oct 13, 2010 - 17:33:28
: Selene Tue Oct 12, 2010 - 17:21:41
: mclees8 Tue Oct 12, 2010 - 08:34:12
Not that I challenge, but while we are at it could you explain Selene why Jesus said "and call no man your Father on the earth. For one is your Father, which is in heaven.
Jesu never made frivolous statements or contradictions. So if you justify calling priests father Why did he make this statement? what was he referring to?
Just asking
Gos bless
Yes. In that verse, Jesus' words are not meant to be taken literally. Jesus words were spoken only to His disciples (verse 8). Jesus criticized the Pharisees for their hypocrasy by using their title "Rabbi" in pride. He warned His disciples that they were not to use their titles "father," "master" or "teacher" in the same way as the Pharisees did. It was at the end of his talk, it explaines that.
Matthew 23:8-12 You, however, must not allow yourselves to be called Rabbi, since you have only one Master, and you are all brothers. You must call no one on earth your father, since you have only one Father and He is in Heaven. Nor must you allow yourselves to be called teachers, for you have only one ]Teacher, the Christ. The greatest among you must be your severant. Anyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and anyone who humbles himself will be exalted.
Visionary ONLY sees the word "father" in here despite the fact that Jesus was telling His disciples not to call anyone "master," "father," "and "teacher" and Visionary didn't read the rest of the Scripture which explains why. What Jesus said here is not meant to be taken literally because in other parts of Scripture, He and His disciples do use the words "father," "master" and "teacher." Jesus is telling His disciples that they are not to use any of these titles (Master, Father, and Teacher) with pride. In other words, they can use these titles so long as it is not with pride as the Pharisees had done,
I am still waiting for Visionary's explaination.......He hasn't answered my question.
A couple of posts back I was talking to Lighthammer Of course It was just a personal observation at t he time and I was not thinking about these verses which we are on now. But see the stark contrast
Hi Lighthammer
I don't try to disprove or take anything away from Peter. I think he was natural leader type person. He was always the most vocal and the first to speak up. he was loved and respected amongst the apostles. What i don't believe though is that he was or thought of himself as their chief apostle. I don't believe he would ever thought of himself as set apart from the others and have a title office role. I don't believe that Peter would allow any of them to treat him as having a title position over them. I don't believe any of them including Peter would put on special religious robes to be set apart from the common. I don't believe in the councils he had a special seat signifying an official position.
In short i don't believe he was anything like papal popes and would not ever sit as one. I guess that's my 2cents on this matter. My grip is the whole RC exalted religious system that finds it so necessary that they be seen and known as church authority with positions of rank They want everyone to know who they are and to treat them as one who has title and office. they go to great lengths to impress everyone that they alone are the church institutionally and the laity; well i guess we don't know who we are. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
Selene Jesus wanted his leaders to be humble and not seek self exaltation. They had authority and power by the Holy Ghost and the church was humble for at least until the apostles were still with us.
Can you see Peter as a modern day pope. Would you even dare to think of Him in that light.
I like the way you would say things like John chapter six is literal but when you come to some that is obviously literal you say Oh that was not literal.
Really now
God bless
I didn't mean to diminish the role of the apostles or of the necessity of a church that is infallible when declaring official doctrine. My position is so unique and sense I don't play for any denomination I sometimes find myself defending those who I disagree with on certain things and vice versa. This has led some to question my sincerety so I've just decided to observe dialogue rather than participate in them.
I didn't mean to diminish the role of the apostles or of the necessity of a church that is infallible when declaring official doctrine. My position is so unique and sense I don't play for any denomination I sometimes find myself defending those who I disagree with on certain things and vice versa. This has led some to question my sincerety so I've just decided to observe dialogue rather than participate in them.
Mike> I am also non denominational. Meaning neither Catholic or Protestant and I did not think you were diminishing anyone. I defend what i know is true . I also see the church as one body of Christ and there are no perfect denominations.
God bless
I am still waiting for Visionary's answer! A day has already gone by, and still no answer. I'm here waiting!
: Selene Thu Oct 14, 2010 - 06:02:16
I am still waiting for Visionary's answer! A day has already gone by, and still no answer. I'm here waiting!
You are waiting for Visionary. What about the question i posed. Do you think Peter would put on the big show and sit as a pope? What is you honest thought?
How long will I wait?
God bless.
: mclees8 Thu Oct 14, 2010 - 11:12:07
: Selene Thu Oct 14, 2010 - 06:02:16
I am still waiting for Visionary's answer! A day has already gone by, and still no answer. I'm here waiting!
You are waiting for Visionary. What about the question i posed. Do you think Peter would put on the big show and sit as a pope? What is you honest thought?
How long will I wait?
God bless.
Peter didn't choose his role, it was given to him by God. The current pope is not different. The pomp surrounding the pope is due to his role as Vicar of Christ and the ceremony is to honor God, not man.
::announcment::
Selene.
It has been made perfectly clear to all here that the Catholic church has so perverted Jesus teaching that it is now the prostitute of Revelation 17.
As far as I am concerned in this topic all has been said and I will not be dragged again into your flood of dissipation.
Come out and be separate, says the Lord, and learn from me. Revelation 22:17
From this one statement we see the Catholic church has placed before its eyes idols to worship in the image of men and angels...something that ought not be done!!!
God bless. Galatians 3:14
: Visionary Thu Oct 14, 2010 - 13:56:49
::announcment::
Selene.
It has been made perfectly clear to all here that the Catholic church has so perverted Jesus teaching that it is now the prostitute of Revelation 17.
You are a proven liar who can't back up your slander.
Do you consider this to be a Christian witness?
: Visionary Thu Oct 14, 2010 - 13:56:49
::announcment::
Selene.
It has been made perfectly clear to all here that the Catholic church has so perverted Jesus teaching that it is now the prostitute of Revelation 17.
As far as I am concerned in this topic all has been said and I will not be dragged again into your flood of dissipation.
Come out and be separate, says the Lord, and learn from me. Revelation 22:17
From this one statement we see the Catholic church has placed before its eyes idols to worship in the image of men and angels...something that ought not be done!!!
God bless. Galatians 3:14
Visionary, what has this have to do with the question I asked you? Did you forget the question I asked you? ::chicken::
: mclees8 Thu Oct 14, 2010 - 11:12:07
: Selene Thu Oct 14, 2010 - 06:02:16
I am still waiting for Visionary's answer! A day has already gone by, and still no answer. I'm here waiting!
You are waiting for Visionary. What about the question i posed. Do you think Peter would put on the big show and sit as a pope? What is you honest thought?
How long will I wait?
God bless.
Excuse me......I already answered your first question. You asked me to explain why Jesus said not to call anyone "father." I answered and you have absolutely nothing to say about it. Yet, you ask another question and want me to answer it? Visionary hasn't even answered my question, and you want to know about St. Peter?
Visionary accused the Catholic Church of not following the Bible because we call our priests "father" and according to Visionary, Jesus says not to call anyone "father." I gave Visionary biblical scriptures where Jesus and the Apostles used the word "father." I asked Visionary to explain why Jesus went against His own word when He told His disciples not to call anyone "father" and why the Apostles went against Jesus when they used the word "father?" So far, Visionary has not given any answer. What's up with that?
: Selene Fri Oct 15, 2010 - 07:51:46
: mclees8 Thu Oct 14, 2010 - 11:12:07
: Selene Thu Oct 14, 2010 - 06:02:16
I am still waiting for Visionary's answer! A day has already gone by, and still no answer. I'm here waiting!
You are waiting for Visionary. What about the question i posed. Do you think Peter would put on the big show and sit as a pope? What is you honest thought?
How long will I wait?
God bless.
Excuse me......I already answered your first question. You asked me to explain why Jesus said not to call anyone "father." I answered and you have absolutely nothing to say about it. Yet, you ask another question and want me to answer it? Visionary hasn't even answered my question, and you want to know about St. Peter?
Visionary accused the Catholic Church of not following the Bible because we call our priests "father" and according to Visionary, Jesus says not to call anyone "father." I gave Visionary biblical scriptures where Jesus and the Apostles used the word "father." I asked Visionary to explain why Jesus went against His own word when He told His disciples not to call anyone "father" and why the Apostles went against Jesus when they used the word "father?" So far, Visionary has not given any answer. What's up with that?
Sure i said something about it Selene. And yes it was about pride. I call it the exalted clergy. I contrasted what i said earlier as compared to the verses Jesus spoke of the pharisees. You said it was not to be taken literal but it was very literal. He spoke of how they dressed to be seen as being set apart from the common.
He spoke of how they love titles and be be greeted in community. Sit special seats to be recognized for their position .
Jesus was saying see that you don't exalt yourselves as the Pharisees want to be exalted. It was very literal don't you see. I pointed out all these things when i answered Light hammer. Almost a perfect contrast we see in the RCC hierarchy
I don't know when exactly Bishops might have started waring religious garments but I doubt it was during the time of the apostles. some think it might have been the Nicolaitans
So now i present the question to you if you thought if Peter would ever put on all this big show and sit on a throne like the popes. What is your honest opinion. read again what I said to light hammer and just be truly honest.
God bless
: mclees8 Fri Oct 15, 2010 - 09:09:38
Sure i said something about it Selene. And yes it was about pride. I call it the exalted clergy. I contrasted what i said earlier as compared to the verses Jesus spoke of the pharisees. You said it was not to be taken literal but it was very literal. He spoke of how they dressed to be seen as being set apart from the common.
He spoke of how they love titles and be be greeted in community. Sit special seats to be recognized for their position .
Jesus was saying see that you don't exalt yourselves as the Pharisees want to be exalted. It was very literal don't you see. I pointed out all these things when i answered Light hammer. Almost a perfect contrast we see in the RCC hierarchy
I don't know when exactly Bishops might have started waring religious garments but I doubt it was during the time of the apostles. some think it might have been the Nicolaitans
So now i present the question to you if you thought if Peter would ever put on all this big show and sit on a throne like the popes. What is your honest opinion. read again what I said to light hammer and just be truly honest.
God bless
And you think that because of the way the Pope dresses, that shows pride? My friend, pride is in the attitude. It has nothing to do with the clothes a person wears. A person who doesn't wear expensive clothes can show a lot of pride, and a person who dresses decently can be humble. Just look at the Apostles themselves when they ask Jesus to let them sit on His right side (See Mark 10:37-41).
If you look at Mark 10:37-41, you will read about James and John asking Jesus to grant them a place to sit at His right and left side. The rest of the 10 Apostles got jealous upon hearing it. Therefore, pride has nothing to do with the clothes you wear. Many people have pride. For example, if a person got a promotion that you think that should go to you instead, that is pride. And it has nothing to do with the clothes you wear. The Pope is not showing pride because of what he wears. He is actually very humble beccause he washes the feet of the bishops....something that not many people would want to do. As for the Pope who greeted a lot of people. What has pride to do with greetings? Jesus greeted a lot of people as well. As a matter of fact, everyone was hailing him as he rode on a donkey, but Jesus was still humble in attitude.
: chestertonrules Thu Oct 14, 2010 - 13:20:04
: mclees8 Thu Oct 14, 2010 - 11:12:07
: Selene Thu Oct 14, 2010 - 06:02:16
I am still waiting for Visionary's answer! A day has already gone by, and still no answer. I'm here waiting!
You are waiting for Visionary. What about the question i posed. Do you think Peter would put on the big show and sit as a pope? What is you honest thought?
How long will I wait?
God bless.
Peter didn't choose his role, it was given to him by God. The current pope is not different. The pomp surrounding the pope is due to his role as Vicar of Christ and the ceremony is to honor God, not man.
chesterton then i will pose the same question to you about Peter sitting as a pope.
You say this is to glorify God, then why did Jesus say to the disciples see that you don't do it. The minute you put on special robes and take on titles and sit in special seats. you are exalting yourself above men. Not glorifying God, but glorifying self
God bless
I'm still waiting for Visionary to answer my question. It's going on two days now. ::eatingpopcorn:
: Selene Fri Oct 15, 2010 - 09:49:15
I'm still waiting for Visionary to answer my question. It's going on two days now. ::eatingpopcorn:
Yes I guess I am waiting also I sure would like to hear what think. I guess you know but don't want to admit it. Pride can be a terrible stumbling block to truth. That is sad. ::shrug::
God bless
: mclees8 Fri Oct 15, 2010 - 09:34:38
chesterton then i will pose the same question to you about Peter sitting as a pope.
You say this is to glorify God, then why did Jesus say to the disciples see that you don't do it. The minute you put on special robes and take on titles and sit in special seats. you are exalting yourself above men. Not glorifying God, but glorifying self
God bless
What did Jesus tell the disciples not to do? Giving proper respect to those representing Jesus is appropriate and to be expected.
Your mockery of the leaders of the Church is what Jesus said not to do. Jesus said to listen to the Church. You don't.
: chestertonrules Sat Oct 16, 2010 - 17:57:30
: mclees8 Fri Oct 15, 2010 - 09:34:38
chesterton then i will pose the same question to you about Peter sitting as a pope.
You say this is to glorify God, then why did Jesus say to the disciples see that you don't do it. The minute you put on special robes and take on titles and sit in special seats. you are exalting yourself above men. Not glorifying God, but glorifying self
God bless
What did Jesus tell the disciples not to do? Giving proper respect to those representing Jesus is appropriate and to be expected.
Your mockery of the leaders of the Church is what Jesus said not to do. Jesus said to listen to the Church. You don't.
I believe I already answered that question Chesterton . When did i show disrespect. I just gave an honest observation based on what Jesus taught. You know I might not like the way a president dresses, but that does not mean I would not respect his office.
No one was criticized more by Jesus than the Pharisees and scribes yet he said we must respect their position.
My question to you involves an honest opinion. Of course you do not have to answer but silence or dodging the issue sometimes is an answer in itself.
So how about it, do you think that Peter would ever sit as a pope on a throne surrounded with grandeur with and men bowing at his feet calling him Holy Father or your eminence. Think did Jesus instruct his disciples or Peter that when he gave them authority you must now change your cloths so as to seen and known as my vicars. And since we know he did not, then why not ?
god bless
: mclees8 Sat Oct 16, 2010 - 21:25:43
So how about it, do you think that Peter would ever sit as a pope on a throne surrounded with grandeur with and men bowing at his feet calling him Holy Father or your eminence. Think did Jesus instruct his disciples or Peter that when he gave them authority you must now change your cloths so as to seen and known as my vicars. And since we know he did not, then why not ?
god bless
St. Peter was the Bishop of Rome. That was his throne. He had some people attending him. In fact, St. Mark was his secretary. St. Peter was called 'father" and highly respected (See John 20:3-4). As you can see, St. John was the first one to get to the empty tomb of Jesus, but he didn't enter it. He waited until St. Peter got there and then allowed St. Peter the privilege to enter the tomb FIRST. That was a sign of respect.
And yes, St. Peter took the title "Vicar of Christ." because he was the one who was given the Keys by Christ and told to take care of the flock. St. Peter was seen, and he became famous. How else did you know and heard about him? St. Peter took all these, but he still remained humble because humility is not found in the clothes or the status you have. It's found in your attitude. It's in your heart.
Now, perhaps you can encourage your fellow Protestant Visionary to answer my question. As you can see, I answered your questions. Now, it's Visionary's turn to answer mine. I'm still waiting.
: Selene Sat Oct 16, 2010 - 22:51:04
: mclees8 Sat Oct 16, 2010 - 21:25:43
So how about it, do you think that Peter would ever sit as a pope on a throne surrounded with grandeur with and men bowing at his feet calling him Holy Father or your eminence. Think did Jesus instruct his disciples or Peter that when he gave them authority you must now change your cloths so as to seen and known as my vicars. And since we know he did not, then why not ?
god bless
St. Peter was the Bishop of Rome. That was his throne. He had some people attending him. In fact, St. Mark was his secretary. St. Peter was called 'father" and highly respected (See John 20:3-4). As you can see, St. John was the first one to get to the empty tomb of Jesus, but he didn't enter it. He waited until St. Peter got there and then allowed St. Peter the privilege to enter the tomb FIRST. That was a sign of respect.
And yes, St. Peter took the title "Vicar of Christ." because he was the one who was given the Keys by Christ and told to take care of the flock. St. Peter was seen, and he became famous. How else did you know and heard about him? St. Peter took all these, but he still remained humble because humility is not found in the clothes or the status you have. It's found in your attitude. It's in your heart.
Now, perhaps you can encourage your fellow Protestant Visionary to answer my question. As you can see, I answered your questions. Now, it's Visionary's turn to answer mine. I'm still waiting.
Then answer the question. If you go back to when I answered Lighthammer you will see I took nothing away from Peter. and yes you are right about attitude.
So how about it Selene. Do you think Peter and the apostles put on the fancy robes after Jesus ascended. Would you say Peter if given the opportunity to jump forward in time to when popes sat on real thrones in a Palace in a grand religious city and ware royal religious robes and hats that he would take their place.? Did Jesus ever teach Him or any of the apostles to do this knowing what Jesus taught about the Pharisees?
Would you say yes he would? Why after 400 years did the popes do this?
I have thoughts on this . But give me your honest answer first.
There is much more that plays into this than just the these outward shows.
There is only one worthy of such honor and He sits on His throne in heaven at the right hand of God.
god bless
I would just like to add one other thought here Selene. Where was Jesus born and to who did he most identify with. When Jesus came to call His disciples to whom did he go to. to well dressed religious Pharisees or the lowly and humble Fishermen. do you think he came wareing robes like popes. Do you think Jesus would have sat as a pope?
Just asking.
God bless
For Brevity I have deleted a number of my posts, also not sure how to quote a quote.
But prior to this you believe that there was The Church? You believe that the councils leading up to that point are valid? I will be surprised that you do. Which groups outside of the Roman Catholic tradition and "Byzantine" jurisdictions would you call, "christian" and yet do not fall into communion with either "tradition"?
Yes I believe there was a church. For instance Rev 2:1 "To the Angel of the Church in Ephesus write" or Paul, Silas, Timothy To the Church of the Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. 1 Thessolonians 1:1. Or Romans 16:5 "Greet also the Church that meets at their house. Also I do not discount all of the Catholic Church, I have pointed to the five doctrines that I think cause the major differences, they have been the major disagreements since the reformation.I am not sure how you see that indulgences led to the Spanish inquisition. Would you say that if Rome got rid of indulgences that they would then be considered reformed?
No. The Inquisition and the indulgences were examples of a corrupt papacy, which in my opinion had been sinking into corruption since Circa 8/9th Century.But the Holy Scriptures are written in Greek and in Hebrew/Aramaic. Surely they must have had some knowledge of these languages. You believe that their focus on a language means that they changed the faith?
Yes, they are and most of the reformist translations looked at the Greek Septugaint in particular, as I ahve said Tyndale who was the main (not the only) author of the KJV, sought the advice of many Greek Scholars. I believe the Latin translation was written as the Roman Empire was the main inspiration on language at the time. Some may even say that the Conversion of Constantine was the beginning of the Catholic, I disagree, I also disagree with the view that the Latin translations are by definition bad, I would check, using my Greek Dictionary/Hebrew Dictionary.Does the good news start with the book of Genesis or did the good news begin In the beginning? There is a difference. If the good news didn't begin until the book was written then there was no beginning of the good news until the book came into existence? Where is the verse that says, "the beginning starts at the beginning of the writing of this book..." ?
Is not Jesus who is the Christ, the divine Logos of the Father? I would push that story of man's salvation as we read about it in the Holy book back to the point wherein we read, "and God said"
St. John the beloved begins the gospel accordingly. In the beginning was the Word.
No. The good news begins after the fall. Mans natural position was with God, Adam sinned and we were "cast out", the Good News (Gospel) is that Adam and Eve were promised a seed, a way back into the prescence of God. The Good news came with the promise. The book was written By Moses, in my view as it was revealed by God. Prior to that there was a verbal message passed down through families, why do even disparate cultures talk of a flood . Jesus is the Logos(Word). However he was with God in the beginning as you say, but the Good news came when the promise was made Genesis 3;15 that he would defeat the devil on our behalf. "And God Said" was creation, it was perfect, and not in need of redemption, Genesis 1:31 "God saw all that he had made, and it was very good"
It was the fall that meant we needed the cross, the Gospel.The canon was mainly to combat heresies and to withdraw letters/ books that were leading people astray. Heresies such as antinominianism. Letters such as Barnabas, I can give you links to books that refute the Da Vinci Code for instance.
You will find no disagreement here. The Church had to define what is not of the Church by defining what IS of the Church. However, if Holy Scripture is the sole authority then where in the Holy Scriptures is the canon defined? Which ample number of verses gives us the books which should be considered the rule (canon)?
So "the way" is only a historical context and is only understood as "meeting in synagogues and temples". That they were known as a sect is true but as St. Paul said in his defense, they are not a "sect" but a pure expression of what we would today call Judaism. It is in Antioch that we were first called, "Christians". We are not a sect but hope to be True Israel.
The true Israel is made up of all the saints in glory. Hebrews 11:39-40. I do not hold to the replacement theolgy, rather to Paul's view Romans 9-11.
The "Way" is used to designate those jews who followed Jesus, one of whom was Peter. I agree they were not a sect, I answered a question as to why the "way" was mentioned. They were Jews by birth, remember 2 Corinthians 11:22, the Jews called the "way" a sect not Paul. The "way" said that Jesus Christ was the promised Messiah.
The early church was not papal, and Peter confirmed Paul as a speaker of truth 2 Peter 3:15.
I am not sure what you mean by "papal". 1. Papa is just a word that means, "father". Both St. Peter and St. Paul called themselves fathers. 2. Do you believe that St. Peter was an elder/overseer? He certainly is as are the other Apostles. However, unlike overseers and elders, they could go from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. But if you look closely you will also find that the Apostles themselves were also "sent" by the Church. The Church sent St. Paul to such and such a place.
They called themselves fathers in the context of being over the Family of the Church. Peter and the other 10 were not sent by the Church but designated. Luke 6:12-16. Matthaus was chosen by lot Acts 1:23-26. Paul was chosen by Jesus , Acts 9:15-16
I believe Peter was an Apostle, overseers are Pastors (in my view). Evangelists can also go jurisdiction to jurisdiction as the great commission gives us the authority. Matthew 28:16-20. Although obviously we need to be careful, it is vital that the Bible is the authority, many people travel with a message, ie Richard Dawkins, he is not sent by God. So the authority of the Church stems form the Bible, when this collapses its authority over people does also. The Apostles were chosen By Jesus,, and sent by him through prophetic messages . Acts 10:9-23, Acts 13:1-3 (Commissioned by the Holy Spirit).
It may help if I say that I do not hold to the fact that Apostles are operating today in the same way Paul and Peter did. Which means I needed a stronger suit of armour, as I will now incur the wrath of many who do.But there is doctrine mentioned in the Holy Scriptures prior to their even being a certain epistle that mentions it. How is it that we a different standard for making something a "doctrine" if the early Church did not adhere to our modern way of "discerning" doctrine.
Where is the doctrine of Sheol or Heaven? Was it not believed or revealed to and by the community prior to having been written down?
Where is the doctrine of Gehenna or of certain duties or functions or categories of the angels or of baptism even. Where in the Old Testament is there the ablution rights as we see the Jews performing during Jesus and St. John the forerunner's time?
Where is the teaching of Moses seat having authority regardless that the Pharisees sit on Moses seat in the Old Testament?
How is it that they had different doctrines never heard of before in other books and yet believed and taught on those things with full authority?
I agree, however we need to accept that the full revelation only came with Christ. Doctrine just means teaching. The Jews had a view of Sheol/Heaven. Jesus decribed heaven for us The parables of Chapter 13 show some insight. However you cannot have a doctrine of heaven as you cannot describe it. the mercy seat, is now Jesus. Judgement and Mercy are in his hands. Rev 20:11-15. Only primary teachings are doctrine in my view, secondary teachings are open to opinion, such as eschatology, yes there is teaching but not a doctrine, other than there is an end. Omega.Well, sure, the Holy Scriptures testify about Christ and so it is good to have the Holy Scriptures rightly divided. It keeps us from error. However, to reduce the authority of the Church or of Holy Tradition to zero will giving all authority to a book which can be interpreted is not even found in the Holy Scriptures themselves and can not be justified using the very tenants it sets up itself.
I do not reduce the Church to zero, and I do accept the authority of the Church, however there are teachings which need to be substantiated from scripture, I tend to pepper these posts with scripture so that people can read. I would ask people to read the Bible and see what it says.1 John 4:1-6. We are all called to test the spirits, authority for authorities sake is wrong.There is no single unified teaching on Salvation in protestantism as a whole.
Yes there is. There is no clearly defined view of protestantism. The bible is clear about the way to Salvation from Jesus own lips, John 3:16, but I would ask everyone to read the whole of John 3.The problem with trying to "justify" the scriptures based on the bible is that there is a subtle distinction that you may be overlooking. It all depends on what you believe the bible means to say, no?
No. This is a problem concerning our attitude, Matthew 17:17b " this was not revealed to you by man, but by my father" Again Galatians 1:6-9, the Gospel is received, not taught. If you believe the bible means to say B then A can not be right but only insofar as your interpretation goes. So how do you tell the difference between such a marketplace of ideas and opinions? The bible? That would be a circular affair.
No For instance Isaiah 53 amply verifies the means of death of the Messiah, Luke 23.Again, if you merely are making a case for your opinion by using bible verses to justify it you will have as many contradictory teachings as there are readers of Holy Scripture. Just because you may have 12 bible verses and your opponent only 3 does this necessarily mean that your opponent is wrong?
Heaven forbid!
No I'm asking that you check that opinions can be verified by scripture, you then have to apply the test of context, whether the verse is allegorical or literal, prophetic , narrative, historical. Are you saying you need to be the Pope to understand. Micah 6:8. An opinion without scripture in my view is just that, when we read a scripture it should give us pause for thought.Look up the word "paradosis" and perhaps start there. There are many many bible passages that speak of the teachings of Christ being passed on and being used to inform the text and this of course makes perfect sense. If I taught you and showed you how to do a certain thing and then wrote you a letter to say that you remember to do X,Y,Z in addition to what I showed you, then you will have a fuller frame of reference. Reduce that frame of experience to the letter alone and you will be subject to the interpretations of any given reader.
No , with scripture you will have added to it. Remember the bible is concerned about our Salvation and our souls. The story you tell is not within the frame of reference, is it God's word, yes/no. All believe that Holy Scripture is from God. We are in agreement here. Where we differ is that what you and or others believe the bible means to say and the way in which we discern between the two contradictory positions.
Then we come back to the beginning, please do not think that I'm a reformists who believes it is my job to convert people, it is my job only to express my view based on scripture and for others to make their minds up, it is Jesus who converts.
George Whitfield was once addressed by a drunk after a meeting. the drunk said, "I was converted by you last year" Whitfield replied " I can believe that, however if you had been converted by Jesus Christ you would have been sober now"
Isaiah 42:1-9 A prophesy concerning Jesus, but the fact remains God will take all the Glory.
Lunch time in Blighty. ::applause::
: mclees8 Sun Oct 17, 2010 - 06:54:43
Then answer the question. If you go back to when I answered Lighthammer you will see I took nothing away from Peter. and yes you are right about attitude.
So how about it Selene. Do you think Peter and the apostles put on the fancy robes after Jesus ascended. Would you say Peter if given the opportunity to jump forward in time to when popes sat on real thrones in a Palace in a grand religious city and ware royal religious robes and hats that he would take their place.? Did Jesus ever teach Him or any of the apostles to do this knowing what Jesus taught about the Pharisees?
Would you say yes he would? Why after 400 years did the popes do this?
I have thoughts on this . But give me your honest answer first.
There is much more that plays into this than just the these outward shows.
There is only one worthy of such honor and He sits on His throne in heaven at the right hand of God.
god bless
More questions and still no response from Visionary. And this is already the THIRD DAY!
You ask if the Apostles would sit on a throne in a palace even after I showed you Scripture stating that James and John asked Jesus to reserve a place for them to sit at His right and left side? Christ gave them the honor of being an Apostle, which is a rank higher than a disciple, and the Apostles accepted that rank. Today, the Apostles are already living in a palace in Heaven because they understood that they are the heirs to the Kingdom of Heaven.
God gave the Israelites the land of Canaan and made them kings? Did they refuse God's gift? No. David was given the status of a king. Did he refuse God's gift? No. We were also given God's gift. We did not refuse, and neither would the Apostles before us.
: mclees8 Sun Oct 17, 2010 - 07:55:25
I would just like to add one other thought here Selene. Where was Jesus born and to who did he most identify with. When Jesus came to call His disciples to whom did he go to. to well dressed religious Pharisees or the lowly and humble Fishermen. do you think he came wareing robes like popes. Do you think Jesus would have sat as a pope?
Just asking.
God bless
Jesus went to all the sinners, and that included the Pharisees because they were sinners too. Jesus also sat and ate with the Pharisees and not just with the lowly and tax collectors.
Luke 7:36 And one of the Pharisees desired him to eat with him. And he went into the house of the Pharisee, and sat down to meat.
Do I think that Jesus would sat as a Pope? McClees, Christ is the Head of our Church, so why should he sit as a Pope? Christ is higher than a Pope and that seat is reserved only for His Apostles and their successors. Now, if you don't mind, I'm still waiting for Visionary's response to MY question.
: mclees8 Fri Oct 15, 2010 - 09:34:38
chesterton then i will pose the same question to you about Peter sitting as a pope.
You say this is to glorify God, then why did Jesus say to the disciples see that you don't do it. The minute you put on special robes and take on titles and sit in special seats. you are exalting yourself above men. Not glorifying God, but glorifying self
God bless
Peter would do whatever was necessary to keep the Church unified in Truth.
Peter's role, as pope, is a role of exalting Jesus. Peter represents the Body of Christ.
The Glory of God is more evident in the Catholic Church than anywhere else on earth.
Attend a Catholic Church if you want to experience the glory of God.
: chestertonrules Sun Oct 17, 2010 - 19:40:26
: mclees8 Fri Oct 15, 2010 - 09:34:38
chesterton then i will pose the same question to you about Peter sitting as a pope.
You say this is to glorify God, then why did Jesus say to the disciples see that you don't do it. The minute you put on special robes and take on titles and sit in special seats. you are exalting yourself above men. Not glorifying God, but glorifying self
God bless
Peter would do whatever was necessary to keep the Church unified in Truth.
Peter's role, as pope, is a role of exalting Jesus. Peter represents the Body of Christ.
The Glory of God is more evident in the Catholic Church than anywhere else on earth.
Attend a Catholic Church if you want to experience the glory of God.
Now that was a stretch. ::reading::
: Selene Sun Oct 17, 2010 - 19:22:03
: mclees8 Sun Oct 17, 2010 - 06:54:43
Then answer the question. If you go back to when I answered Lighthammer you will see I took nothing away from Peter. and yes you are right about attitude.
So how about it Selene. Do you think Peter and the apostles put on the fancy robes after Jesus ascended. Would you say Peter if given the opportunity to jump forward in time to when popes sat on real thrones in a Palace in a grand religious city and ware royal religious robes and hats that he would take their place.? Did Jesus ever teach Him or any of the apostles to do this knowing what Jesus taught about the Pharisees?
Would you say yes he would? Why after 400 years did the popes do this?
I have thoughts on this . But give me your honest answer first.
There is much more that plays into this than just the these outward shows.
There is only one worthy of such honor and He sits on His throne in heaven at the right hand of God.
god bless
More questions and still no response from Visionary. And this is already the THIRD DAY!
You ask if the Apostles would sit on a throne in a palace even after I showed you Scripture stating that James and John asked Jesus to reserve a place for them to sit at His right and left side? Christ gave them the honor of being an Apostle, which is a rank higher than a disciple, and the Apostles accepted that rank. Today, the Apostles are already living in a palace in Heaven because they understood that they are the heirs to the Kingdom of Heaven.
God gave the Israelites the land of Canaan and made them kings? Did they refuse God's gift? No. David was given the status of a king. Did he refuse God's gift? No. We were also given God's gift. We did not refuse, and neither would the Apostles before us.
The brothers did not understand what they were asking and that position was never granted to them. Jesus does not sit on an earthly throne. It is carnal to want to be exalted upon the earth. there is only one exalted one and he sits at the right hand of the Father . Still waiting for an answer selene
To think in terms of rank is carnal. Where ever pride and ambition is the holy spirit is not.
God bless
To think in terms of rank is carnal. Where ever pride and ambition is the holy spirit is not.
God bless
Selene, It is snot only carnal it is antichrist
Yes I believe there was a church. For instance Rev 2:1 "To the Angel of the Church in Ephesus write" or Paul, Silas, Timothy To the Church of the Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. 1 Thessolonians 1:1. Or Romans 16:5 "Greet also the Church that meets at their house. Also I do not discount all of the Catholic Church, I have pointed to the five doctrines that I think cause the major differences, they have been the major disagreements since the reformation.
For clarity's sake what again are the major disagreements between protestants and Catholics? Also, can you find support for those protestant positions against the RCC prior to the reformation in a community that you would call Christian?
No. The Inquisition and the indulgences were examples of a corrupt papacy, which in my opinion had been sinking into corruption since Circa 8/9th Century.
What do you believe happened in the 8th and 9th centuries that led to this corruption?
Yes, they are and most of the reformist translations looked at the Greek Septugaint in particular, as I have said Tyndale who was the main (not the only) author of the KJV, sought the advice of many Greek Scholars. I believe the Latin translation was written as the Roman Empire was the main inspiration on language at the time. Some may even say that the Conversion of Constantine was the beginning of the Catholic, I disagree, I also disagree with the view that the Latin translations are by definition bad, I would check, using my Greek Dictionary/Hebrew Dictionary.
But the protestant canon of scripture is not based on the Septuagint. Luther's translation was but the canon was not as Luther felt that the Hebrew was superior. He added words and phrases into his translation in order to doctrinal massage the scriptures to support his view. Though he or other protestants did not remove books of the NT, Luther never the less had disdain for the book of James, Jude, Revelation and Hebrews. He did translate them. He did translate the OT books that protestants now call apocrypha as well and all protestant bibles and translations included those OT books that are called apocryphal. It was not until it saved on publishing costs that those books were printed without those books so familiar to Western Christians up to that point.
So is your position that Rome was keeping the bible's language out of reach of the common person so that it might hide a clear meaning of scripture that they knew to be in direct violation of?
No. The good news begins after the fall. Mans natural position was with God, Adam sinned and we were "cast out", the Good News (Gospel) is that Adam and Eve were promised a seed, a way back into the prescence of God.
The tradition I adhere to would disagree. There is nowhere we can escape the presence of God and the only person known to be cast out of the presence of God was not Adam and Eve but rather it was Cain. Adam and Eve were not cast out of the presence of God.
The nature of the good news changes when the beginning of the narrative of the good news changes. If we begin with the expulsion of man from the garden of Eden then the beginning of the narrative changes and all that rests upon that narrative is colored by that change.
Though I agree that good news is that God became incarnate, became one with creation, I would have to say that the beginning of this is proclaimed with the proclamation who IS the Word of God. It is through the Word that all that is, is.
The Good news came with the promise. The book was written By Moses, in my view as it was revealed by God. Prior to that there was a verbal message passed down through families, why do even disparate cultures talk of a flood . Jesus is the Logos(Word). However he was with God in the beginning as you say, but the Good news came when the promise was made Genesis 3;15 that he would defeat the devil on our behalf. "And God Said" was creation, it was perfect, and not in need of redemption, Genesis 1:31 "God saw all that he had made, and it was very good"
I do not believe that Adam and Eve, the creation, was made perfect in the beginning but as God said, it was good and after the fall was still good and is still good today. However, now that the Word has become a part of creation, all of creation can continue on where Adam and Eve left off - the path of perfection.
It was the fall that meant we needed the cross, the Gospel.
So Adam and Eve prior to partaking of the forbidden fruit had no need of the cross? Then why place the tree of life in the garden?
If we read the story of Genesis through Christ as our lens in order to arrive at the true inner meaning of the Holy book of Genesis then how can we not see the cross in the tree of life? The cross was placed in the garden prior to the expulsion of the garden.
Genesis 3:24
After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.
Proverbs 15:4
The tongue that brings healing is a tree of life, but a deceitful tongue crushes the spirit.
Genesis 1:3
And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
St. John the beloved begins the narrative of the good news not with the darkness of mankind but rather, the Word with God who was and is God.
John 1
The Word Became Flesh
1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.
3
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4
In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5
The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.
6There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. 7He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. 8He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. 9
The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.
The true Israel is made up of all the saints in glory. Hebrews 11:39-40. I do not hold to the replacement theolgy, rather to Paul's view Romans 9-11.
Can I convert to Judaism and still become a saint in glory? Or must I be born Jewish in order to inherit this opportunity that gentiles do not have? Who or what can replace the Christ and yet still have the Father?
They called themselves fathers in the context of being over the Family of the Church. Peter and the other 10 were not sent by the Church but designated. Luke 6:12-16. Matthaus was chosen by lot Acts 1:23-26. Paul was chosen by Jesus , Acts 9:15-16
I believe the context you provided is no less applicable when it comes to our priests in the ancient traditions.
What is the difference between being sent by The Church and being designated by The Church? I am not saying that the Church does this in and of themselves apart from God otherwise they would not pray and fast.
I believe Peter was an Apostle, overseers are Pastors (in my view).
But Pastors are mentioned so few times in the Holy Scriptures. How can you be sure that overseers are pastors? Pastor, literally translated, means, "shepherd". Is it possible that elders are pastors? Perhaps both elders and overseers are pastors. Using the tenants of sola scriptura how can you designate this title of pastor over the usage and function of overseer?
What then is an elder?
Presbus/Presbyteros/Episkopoi
What word? is being translated as "bishop" when St. Ignatius of Antioch says:
"Plainly therefore we ought to regard the bishop as the Lord Himself" — Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians 6:1.
"your godly bishop" — Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians 2:1.
"the bishop presiding after the likeness of God and the presbyters after the likeness of the council of the Apostles, with the deacons also who are most dear to me, having been entrusted with the diaconate of Jesus Christ" — Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians 6:1.
"Therefore as the Lord did nothing without the Father, [being united with Him], either by Himself or by the Apostles, so neither do ye anything without the bishop and the presbyters." — Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians 7:1.
"Be obedient to the bishop and to one another, as Jesus Christ was to the Father [according to the flesh], and as the Apostles were to Christ and to the Father, that there may be union both of flesh and of spirit." — Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians 13:2.
"In like manner let all men respect the deacons as Jesus Christ, even as they should respect the bishop as being a type of the Father and the presbyters as the council of God and as the college of Apostles. Apart from these there is not even the name of a church." — Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallesians 3:1.
"follow your bishop, as Jesus Christ followed the Father, and the presbytery as the Apostles; and to the deacons pay respect, as to God's commandment" — Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnans 8:1.
"He that honoureth the bishop is honoured of God; he that doeth aught without the knowledge of the bishop rendereth service to the devil" — Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnans 9:1.
Evangelists can also go jurisdiction to jurisdiction as the great commission gives us the authority.
Can an evangelist from another jurisdiction depose or defrock or fire (not sure which terminology you use) a pastor in a neighboring jurisdiction? Can he change policies or practices or authoritatively find someone guilty of teaching false doctrine and or settle disputes between jurisdictions?
When I say "authoritatively" I mean, can he, because he is an evangelist, be considered a worthy teacher of the faith who is over others as a servant of servants and so has a function in the body of being able to correct others even if he is in direct contradiction to the majority at any given parish or local church?
Where is this evangelist title in the Holy Scriptures and by what authority is this title used?
Matthew 28:16-20. Although obviously we need to be careful, it is vital that the Bible is the authority, many people travel with a message, ie Richard Dawkins, he is not sent by God. So the authority of the Church stems form the Bible, when this collapses its authority over people does also.
If the authority of the Church stems from the bible then doesn't that mean that what you believe the bible means to say is the true authority?
Private interpretation subjects the Church and even the Holy Scriptures to what seems right to the mind of the individual. The seeming mind subjects even the individual in such a case.
Is this where the science of reading comprehension comes in to deliver to us the right meaning of Holy Scripture?
If there is a dispute between two groups of people as to what the bible means to say then how can either group exercise their authority as the church?
If Luther and Zwingli could not agree on their interpretation of "communion" and neither of them could take the matter beyond their personal interpretation of scriptures, then where is the authority of the Church?
This would not be authority granted by the Holy books but rather great numbers of teachers gathering around them like-minds in order to affirm personal interpretation.
It may help if I say that I do not hold to the fact that Apostles are operating today in the same way Paul and Peter did. Which means I needed a stronger suit of armour, as I will now incur the wrath of many who do.
You believe that the reason the bible became more authoritative was to make up for the loss of the Apostles. Ok. But give the bible to any two hundred people and you will have two hundred and seven contradictory positions as to what the bible means to say. How is this armor stronger? Or is this where we rest in assurance of the scientific endeavors of man and point to hermeneutics and exegesis?
Literary science is an art and within art there are many genres and opposing types, all of which suffer at the hands of the artist's vacuum of experience.
(http://www.crunchgear.com/wp-content/photos/thinking_man.gif)
Only primary teachings are doctrine in my view, secondary teachings are open to opinion, such as eschatology, yes there is teaching but not a doctrine, other than there is an end. Omega.
Who decides which group of doctrines are primary and which groups of doctrines are secondary? Where in the Holy Scriptures are these categories of primary and secondary? If you say the bible decides, surely you know that each individual or group of individuals can agree on what those primary and secondary doctrines are if they even exist.
Would you say that a doctrine about baptism is about Christ? Would not that "teaching" answer the question that Jesus asks, "who do you say that I am?"
Again, how do we categorize the difference between primary and secondary and who gets to set those parameters and then dispense them? If we say that it is the bible then we are only ignoring the context our interpretive role in regards to the Holy Scriptures.
How do you avoid the middle man? Is the answer in the study of the study of interpretation and the scientific approach to exegesis?
I do not reduce the Church to zero, and I do accept the authority of the Church, however there are teachings which need to be substantiated from scripture, I tend to pepper these posts with scripture so that people can read. I would ask people to read the Bible and see what it says.1 John 4:1-6. We are all called to test the spirits, authority for authorities sake is wrong.
I see what you are saying.
However, when you say "sola" it is often understood that this means "alone". It's like saying that faith alone justifies a man. Luther for this very reason put in the word, "alone" in his personal interpretation/translation. But here you say that you believe that the church has authority which seems to keep Holy Scripture company.
The fundamental difference between your approach and the more ancient faith's way is that you base the Church on what you believe the scripture means to say whereas we base scripture on the Church (the revelation of God as it has been deposited into the community of believers in communion with the Apostles, prophets and above all, the Holy Trinity)
I agree that we are to test whether or not a thing is true and authority for authority's sake is wrong unless of course we are talking about God's authority. If that is the case then we must take Him at His Word.
Yes there is. There is no clearly defined view of protestantism. The bible is clear about the way to Salvation from Jesus own lips, John 3:16, but I would ask everyone to read the whole of John 3.
I think you explained it well. There is no agreement within Protestantism on what Protestantism is. It is subject to the interpretation of the reader or group of readers calling themselves reformed or protestant. One group may say what protestantism "is not", but all they have to give them this authority of what "is not" is their personal interpretation against the personal interpretation of those who also call themselves truly reformed.
No. This is a problem concerning our attitude, Matthew 17:17b " this was not revealed to you by man, but by my father" Again Galatians 1:6-9, the Gospel is received, not taught.
We agree. God reveals Himself to us. However, if you have two contradictory positions regarding that revelation then one or both are necessarily not from God.
No For instance Isaiah 53 amply verifies the means of death of the Messiah, Luke 23.
Which verse amply verified Isaiah 53?
This leads us to canonization of scripture and the context that the scriptures are subject to. Remove the scriptures from that context and the scriptures cease to be Holy.
No I'm asking that you check that opinions can be verified by scripture, you then have to apply the test of context, whether the verse is allegorical or literal, prophetic , narrative, historical. Are you saying you need to be the Pope to understand. Micah 6:8. An opinion without scripture in my view is just that, when we read a scripture it should give us pause for thought.
But then the issue becomes authority because everyone who has the ability to read will have different interpretations and affirm or reject what is right to their own mind. I do not think that you need to be a Pope to understand but rather than the Church should be the context in which the Holy Scriptures are couched. Remove the Scriptures from the context, which is the Church, and you hold clay in your hands.
I am not a Roman Catholic.
No , with scripture you will have added to it. Remember the bible is concerned about our Salvation and our souls. The story you tell is not within the frame of reference, is it God's word, yes/no.
So if we interpret, then this interpretation should not be considered to be "adding to it" but if it is a tradition, even if this tradition is an interpretation, then this tradition will have been found to be an addition to the Holy Scripture?
When the bible speaks of Tradition why does it say to not associate with one who rejects Tradition if tradition is "adding to the word"?
If you could expound upon your interpretation, please.
George Whitfield was once addressed by a drunk after a meeting. the drunk said, "I was converted by you last year" Whitfield replied " I can believe that, however if you had been converted by Jesus Christ you would have been sober now"
I like this. Thank you for sharing.
Isaiah 42:1-9 A prophesy concerning Jesus, but the fact remains God will take all the Glory.
John 17:22
He will also give the glory.
ICXC NIKA
You believe that the reason the bible became more authoritative was to make up for the loss of the Apostles. Ok. But give the bible to any two hundred people and you will have two hundred and seven contradictory positions as to what the bible means to say. How is this armor stronger? Or is this where we rest in assurance of the scientific endeavors of man and point to hermeneutics and exegesis?
Literary science is an art and within art there are many genres and opposing types, all of which suffer at the hands of the artist's vacuum of experience.
Mike
Ryan you have more time to waste on your hands than i do. I only lightly scanned all this, but i will comment on this one thing. Yes it is a shame that there are so many who misinterpret and abuse scripture. What is more a same is when the very ones who claim true authority and interpretation have in fact them selves abused and misinterpreted scripture. Who have added to and and set there own standard for authority and interpretation. This is really why we need the authrtity of scripture. Our leaders who have charge over the scripture will be held most accountable for their abuse.
In that day The written word will be our indictment for both good and evil. And none more so than the church authority.
God bless
The Papacy is right. Final answer!
: mclees8 Mon Oct 18, 2010 - 08:57:19
The brothers did not understand what they were asking and that position was never granted to them. Jesus does not sit on an earthly throne. It is carnal to want to be exalted upon the earth. there is only one exalted one and he sits at the right hand of the Father . Still waiting for an answer selene
To think in terms of rank is carnal. Where ever pride and ambition is the holy spirit is not.
God bless
Jesus does not sit on an earthly throne? By this, I then take it that you do not believe that Jesus does not sit as Head of the Church, which is against the Bible. His Church is visible on this earth because He built it on this earth for all people to see (Matthew 5:16 and 1 Corinthians 4:6). He built His Church on earth to to guide all people to Christ and Christ leads all people to our Father in Heaven.
: Selene Mon Oct 18, 2010 - 18:07:35
: mclees8 Mon Oct 18, 2010 - 08:57:19
The brothers did not understand what they were asking and that position was never granted to them. Jesus does not sit on an earthly throne. It is carnal to want to be exalted upon the earth. there is only one exalted one and he sits at the right hand of the Father . Still waiting for an answer selene
To think in terms of rank is carnal. Where ever pride and ambition is the holy spirit is not.
God bless
Jesus does not sit on an earthly throne? By this, I then take it that you do not believe that Jesus does not sit as Head of the Church, which is against the Bible. His Church is visible on this earth because He built it on this earth for all people to see (Matthew 5:16 and 1 Corinthians 4:6). He built His Church on earth to to guide all people to Christ and Christ leads all people to our Father in Heaven.
I spoke the truth Selene. Your misuse of scripture will not change that.
Steven said before they stoned Him while staring into heaven " I see Jesus sitting at the right hand of the Father"
It is the Holy spirit given to us that abides with us on the earth. The Holy spirit glorifies Christ in our hearts and in all our works which is a light to all men. This is first our personal light and secondly through our corporate works as a church body. The light is not just the institution but the Holy spirit in all true believers.
Why do you try to twist what I say? The Holy spirit will not abide in prideful ambitious men who desire to be exalted before man.
: mclees8 Mon Oct 18, 2010 - 22:13:37
: Selene Mon Oct 18, 2010 - 18:07:35
: mclees8 Mon Oct 18, 2010 - 08:57:19
The brothers did not understand what they were asking and that position was never granted to them. Jesus does not sit on an earthly throne. It is carnal to want to be exalted upon the earth. there is only one exalted one and he sits at the right hand of the Father . Still waiting for an answer selene
To think in terms of rank is carnal. Where ever pride and ambition is the holy spirit is not.
God bless
Jesus does not sit on an earthly throne? By this, I then take it that you do not believe that Jesus does not sit as Head of the Church, which is against the Bible. His Church is visible on this earth because He built it on this earth for all people to see (Matthew 5:16 and 1 Corinthians 4:6). He built His Church on earth to to guide all people to Christ and Christ leads all people to our Father in Heaven.
I spoke the truth Selene. Your misuse of scripture will not change that.
Steven said before they stoned Him while staring into heaven " I see Jesus sitting at the right hand of the Father"
It is the Holy spirit given to us that abides with us on the earth. The Holy spirit glorifies Christ in our hearts and in all our works which is a light to all men. This is first our personal light and secondly through our corporate works as a church body. The light is not just the institution but the Holy spirit in all true believers.
Why do you try to twist what I say? The Holy spirit will not abide in prideful ambitious men who desire to be exalted before man.
McClees, Catholics believe in the Holy Trinity. We believe that God is three persons in one. Christ is the Head of the Church. That is what Scripture says. The Holy Spirit dwells in the Church for Christ sent the Holy Spirit to His Apostles and to those on Pentecost. He did not send the Holy Spirit to everyone. After that, those who repented and were baptized would also receive the Holy Spirit (See Acts 2:38). God, the Father is everywhere.
McClees, you only see Jesus sittig at the right hand of the Father. That is not my problem. You want me to believe that Jesus is sitting at the right hand of the Father and NOT as Head of the Church?
Ephesians 5:23 Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church. He is the saviour of his body.
I think all of you guys know what mclees is trying to ask and its kindof sad that you can;t just the guy a simple yes or no.
Do you believe that Peter or any of the Original 12 would sit as Pope Benedict sits? Would Peter where the Ring of The Fisherman. Would he live in a fancy palace home? Would he allowed people to kneel before him and call Holy?
And please don't try to referrence that the disciples are already esteemed in heaven because that is a completely different scenario. The least in heaven shall be greater than the greatest on earth so we all can expect to be dressed nicer than this worlds finest and living better than Bill Gates. Thats not the point my friend and you know it. So please don't to justify the pope's extravangance by comparing it to life in paradise.lol ::cool::
: LightHammer Tue Oct 19, 2010 - 03:44:56
I think all of you guys know what mclees is trying to ask and its kindof sad that you can;t just the guy a simple yes or no.
Do you believe that Peter or any of the Original 12 would sit as Pope Benedict sits? Would Peter where the Ring of The Fisherman. Would he live in a fancy palace home? Would he allowed people to kneel before him and call Holy?
And please don't try to referrence that the disciples are already esteemed in heaven because that is a completely different scenario. The least in heaven shall be greater than the greatest on earth so we all can expect to be dressed nicer than this worlds finest and living better than Bill Gates. Thats not the point my friend and you know it. So please don't to justify the pope's extravangance by comparing it to life in paradise.lol ::cool::
I believe that Peter would have dressed and acted exactly as his role required, in whatever time he happened to live.
I think a person sizing up the situation could reasonably come to the conclusion that the papacy is probably the hardest job in the entire world. The manner of respect we give to the papacy is in turn an acknowledgment of the authority that comes from God. Just as we dress nice for Church to glorify God, so having those in authority dress nice brings glory to God and is a reflection of God's glory to the world.
No one gets upset when government leaders wear suits to work. Yet they are supposed to be public servants. So the dignity of the office of the papacy is reflected in his garments. The beauty and majesty of God is reflected in the sculptures and paintings at the Vatican and at Catholic and Orthodox Churches around the world. These things draw us into the mystery of God and help us to experience the spiritual. The pope's garments only serve to glorify God, not the pope himself.
1 Thess. 5:11-22
Therefore, encourage one another and build one another up, as indeed you do.
We ask you, brothers, to respect those who are laboring among you and who are over you in the Lord and who admonish you, and to show esteem for them with special love on account of their work. Be at peace among yourselves. We urge you, brothers, admonish the idle, cheer the fainthearted, support the weak, be patient with all. See that no one returns evil for evil; rather, always seek what is good [both] for each other and for all. Rejoice always. Pray without ceasing. In all circumstances give thanks, for this is the will of God for you in Christ Jesus. Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise prophetic utterances.
Test everything; retain what is good. Refrain from every kind of evil.
Dressing in appropriate clothing for the office is a good thing. It used to be that the pope would wear a crown. But times change, and the papal crown has been set aside. They tested it, and for awhile it was good, but now it has been set aside. Yet the garments he wears are still a good thing, they help us as humans to acknowledge the pope's authority and the respect that the office of the papacy deserves. So while in Peter's time, it may have been a scandal to wear fine clothing, it was inappropriate for the job they had to do, but in this day and age it is perfectly appropriate, and if Peter lived now, I think he would live exactly as Pope Benedict lives, and do exactly what Pope Benedict is doing, simply because that is what is appropriate for the role of the papacy
right now.
: Selene Mon Oct 18, 2010 - 22:53:48
: mclees8 Mon Oct 18, 2010 - 22:13:37
: Selene Mon Oct 18, 2010 - 18:07:35
: mclees8 Mon Oct 18, 2010 - 08:57:19
The brothers did not understand what they were asking and that position was never granted to them. Jesus does not sit on an earthly throne. It is carnal to want to be exalted upon the earth. there is only one exalted one and he sits at the right hand of the Father . Still waiting for an answer selene
To think in terms of rank is carnal. Where ever pride and ambition is the holy spirit is not.
God bless
Jesus does not sit on an earthly throne? By this, I then take it that you do not believe that Jesus does not sit as Head of the Church, which is against the Bible. His Church is visible on this earth because He built it on this earth for all people to see (Matthew 5:16 and 1 Corinthians 4:6). He built His Church on earth to to guide all people to Christ and Christ leads all people to our Father in Heaven.
I spoke the truth Selene. Your misuse of scripture will not change that.
Steven said before they stoned Him while staring into heaven " I see Jesus sitting at the right hand of the Father"
It is the Holy spirit given to us that abides with us on the earth. The Holy spirit glorifies Christ in our hearts and in all our works which is a light to all men. This is first our personal light and secondly through our corporate works as a church body. The light is not just the institution but the Holy spirit in all true believers.
Why do you try to twist what I say? The Holy spirit will not abide in prideful ambitious men who desire to be exalted before man.
McClees, Catholics believe in the Holy Trinity. We believe that God is three persons in one. Christ is the Head of the Church. That is what Scripture says. The Holy Spirit dwells in the Church for Christ sent the Holy Spirit to His Apostles and to those on Pentecost. He did not send the Holy Spirit to everyone. After that, those who repented and were baptized would also receive the Holy Spirit (See Acts 2:38). God, the Father is everywhere.
McClees, you only see Jesus sittig at the right hand of the Father. That is not my problem. You want me to believe that Jesus is sitting at the right hand of the Father and NOT as Head of the Church?
Ephesians 5:23 Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church. He is the saviour of his body.
Have a nice day Selene ::kissing::
: LightHammer Mon Oct 18, 2010 - 03:06:23
Now that was a stretch. ::reading::
No more so than the incarnation!
The pillar and foundation of the Truth is the Church.
What good is a hidden pillar and foundation?
: LightHammer Tue Oct 19, 2010 - 03:44:56
I think all of you guys know what mclees is trying to ask and its kindof sad that you can;t just the guy a simple yes or no.
Do you believe that Peter or any of the Original 12 would sit as Pope Benedict sits? ::
The answer is absolutely YES. Peter would act in such a manner to proclaim the power of the gospel and provide a unified image for the world of the Glory of Jesus Christ and his body on earth.
The popes are not self aggrandizing, they are performing a service as members of the body of Christ.
Think about sitting in those robes for hours during those long services which the pope is constantly attending. There is nothing appealing about such a role other than the opportunity to serve Jesus in the fullest capacity. He is a slave to the Church.
See chester and Catholica, those are plauisble positions to take. I'm interested to see how mclees will tackle your points.
That was alot better than last time.
: chestertonrules Tue Oct 19, 2010 - 13:59:33
: LightHammer Tue Oct 19, 2010 - 03:44:56
I think all of you guys know what mclees is trying to ask and its kindof sad that you can;t just the guy a simple yes or no.
Do you believe that Peter or any of the Original 12 would sit as Pope Benedict sits? ::
The answer is absolutely YES. Peter would act in such a manner to proclaim the power of the gospel and provide a unified image for the world of the Glory of Jesus Christ and his body on earth.
The popes are not self aggrandizing, they are performing a service as members of the body of Christ.
Think about sitting in those robes for hours during those long services which the pope is constantly attending. There is nothing appealing about such a role other than the opportunity to serve Jesus in the fullest capacity. He is a slave to the Church.
So you really think he would sit in a palace on a royal throne wareing all the royal vestments.
Now the apostles rained in the first hundred years of church. Do we have any clue that any of the church authority wore any robes unique to their position that would exalt or elivate themselves above the common Body of Christ. do we have any thing in scripture that Jesus would have wanted or instructed them to.
Do you think that once Jesus ascended they ran for the first tailor to have religious vestments made. And lets think if they had what would that be saying about exaltation.
If not why not, knowing what Jesus taught about the pharisees?
As uncomfortable as you try to make the vestments sound they put them on to exclaim one thing. The need to be seen and known as religious authority. To be exalted above the common. Some thing we do not see in the early church authority. Right or wrong?
: mclees8 Tue Oct 19, 2010 - 16:18:35
: chestertonrules Tue Oct 19, 2010 - 13:59:33
: LightHammer Tue Oct 19, 2010 - 03:44:56
I think all of you guys know what mclees is trying to ask and its kindof sad that you can;t just the guy a simple yes or no.
Do you believe that Peter or any of the Original 12 would sit as Pope Benedict sits? ::
The answer is absolutely YES. Peter would act in such a manner to proclaim the power of the gospel and provide a unified image for the world of the Glory of Jesus Christ and his body on earth.
The popes are not self aggrandizing, they are performing a service as members of the body of Christ.
Think about sitting in those robes for hours during those long services which the pope is constantly attending. There is nothing appealing about such a role other than the opportunity to serve Jesus in the fullest capacity. He is a slave to the Church.
So you really think he would sit in a palace on a royal throne wareing all the royal vestments.
Now the apostles rained in the first hundred years of church. Do we have any clue that any of the church authority wore any robes unique to their position that would exalt or elivate themselves above the common Body of Christ. do we have any thing in scripture that Jesus would have wanted or instructed them to.
Do you think that once Jesus ascended they ran for the first tailor to have religious vestments made. And lets think if they had what would that be saying about exaltation.
If not why not, knowing what Jesus taught about the pharisees?
As uncomfortable as you try to make the vestments sound they put them on to exclaim one thing. The need to be seen and known as religious authority. To be exalted above the common. Some thing we do not see in the early church authority. Right or wrong?
It would be as wrong for the apostles to have run to the first tailor to have vestments made as it would be for someone to be elected pope and then to decide to throw out all vestments. Either way, they are proclaiming that they "know better" than those who came before. Both would have been prideful.
Jesus was not against *that* the pharisees wore religious vestments, in fact, God himself prescribed fancy vestments for the OT priesthood. Rather Jesus was against people getting puffed up in their heart about wearing the vestments. If God had wanted them to wear rags, he would have prescribed it in the law. But rather, they wore elaborate vestments to obey the law. See Exodus 28.
Jesus cares about the heart, and the sin of pride comes within, not without. Just as a rich man can be humble, so a poor man can be prideful.
Considering the above, I don't think that Jesus cares that the Pope wears vestments appropriate for his office. So why do you?
: Catholica Tue Oct 19, 2010 - 17:04:42
It would be as wrong for the apostles to have run to the first tailor to have vestments made as it would be for someone to be elected pope and then to decide to throw out all vestments. Either way, they are proclaiming that they "know better" than those who came before. Both would have been prideful.
Jesus was not against *that* the pharisees wore religious vestments, in fact, God himself prescribed fancy vestments for the OT priesthood. Rather Jesus was against people getting puffed up in their heart about wearing the vestments. If God had wanted them to wear rags, he would have prescribed it in the law. But rather, they wore elaborate vestments to obey the law. See Exodus 28.
Jesus cares about the heart, and the sin of pride comes within, not without. Just as a rich man can be humble, so a poor man can be prideful.
Considering the above, I don't think that Jesus cares that the Pope wears vestments appropriate for his office. So why do you?
Exactly, I have been telling McClees that pride is not found in the clothes a person wears. A person wearing tee-shirt and jeans can have just as much pride as one wearing a suit and tie. Pride is a sin, and it's not found in clothes. But he thinks the sin of pride is in the clothes a person wears.
: Selene Tue Oct 19, 2010 - 18:08:01
: Catholica Tue Oct 19, 2010 - 17:04:42
It would be as wrong for the apostles to have run to the first tailor to have vestments made as it would be for someone to be elected pope and then to decide to throw out all vestments. Either way, they are proclaiming that they "know better" than those who came before. Both would have been prideful.
Jesus was not against *that* the pharisees wore religious vestments, in fact, God himself prescribed fancy vestments for the OT priesthood. Rather Jesus was against people getting puffed up in their heart about wearing the vestments. If God had wanted them to wear rags, he would have prescribed it in the law. But rather, they wore elaborate vestments to obey the law. See Exodus 28.
Jesus cares about the heart, and the sin of pride comes within, not without. Just as a rich man can be humble, so a poor man can be prideful.
Considering the above, I don't think that Jesus cares that the Pope wears vestments appropriate for his office. So why do you?
Exactly, I have been telling McClees that pride is not found in the clothes a person wears. A person wearing tee-shirt and jeans can have just as much pride as one wearing a suit and tie. Pride is a sin, and it's not found in clothes. But he thinks the sin of pride is in the clothes a person wears.
No Selene I know it is not the clothes but what one wears and why they are wearing them does make a statement. Jesus said and all that they do they do to be seen of men.
All that the papacy has done has institutionalized the church. Something you will not understand. All that is of the flesh is carnal it is all that is outward. From the vestments to religious cathedrals and stained glass windows, rituals and forms. In short it is mans religion.
When the papacy gained religious political power it was necessary for them to become visible. the more the bishops were flattered by recognition the more they needed to look like authority not just for the believers but for the whole empire. It was a church system that was never of Jesus. There was a reason why Jesus would have never encouraged all this outward religion and I don't believe Peter would ever have fallen into this carnality.
: mclees8 Tue Oct 19, 2010 - 20:13:19
No Selene I know it is not the clothes but what one wears and why they are wearing them does make a statement. Jesus said and all that they do they do to be seen of men.
Mike, it is the clothes that bothers you. Just look at your quote above. You said, "I know it is not the clothes,
BUT what one wears and why they are wearing them does make a statement." It's the clothes that bothers you.
: Selene Wed Oct 20, 2010 - 06:21:07
: mclees8 Tue Oct 19, 2010 - 20:13:19
No Selene I know it is not the clothes but what one wears and why they are wearing them does make a statement. Jesus said and all that they do they do to be seen of men.
Mike, it is the clothes that bothers you. Just look at your quote above. You said, "I know it is not the clothes, BUT what one wears and why they are wearing them does make a statement." It's the clothes that bothers you.
Yes selene it is the clothes, but not the cloths but the reason for the cloths. Can you understand that. In this we have the exalting of the clergy before men. Yet the apostles did not ware such things but they walked in the power of God that even the popes don't have. we are not impressing the world but we are to walk in the salvation of Christ who does not sit on an eartly throne but on a heavenly throne.
God bless
Let me say one other thing here. If the popes as we know and see them, walked in the same spirit and knowledge of God that the apostles did they would have not lusted for power and recognition, nor put on Vestments to be seen as authority. There would not be a Vatican to impress the world.
God bless
: mclees8 Wed Oct 20, 2010 - 06:54:30
: Selene Wed Oct 20, 2010 - 06:21:07
: mclees8 Tue Oct 19, 2010 - 20:13:19
No Selene I know it is not the clothes but what one wears and why they are wearing them does make a statement. Jesus said and all that they do they do to be seen of men.
Mike, it is the clothes that bothers you. Just look at your quote above. You said, "I know it is not the clothes, BUT what one wears and why they are wearing them does make a statement." It's the clothes that bothers you.
Yes selene it is the clothes, but not the cloths but the reason for the cloths. Can you understand that. In this we have the exalting of the clergy before men. Yet the apostles did not ware such things but they walked in the power of God that even the popes don't have. we are not impressing the world but we are to walk in the salvation of Christ who does not sit on an eartly throne but on a heavenly throne.
God bless
Mike, if you really want to know the reason for the priestly vestments, I included a weblink below that you can read about it.
The Catholic Church can trace her lineage to the Apostles, and she can also trace her heritage to Judaism. After all, the Apostles were Jewish and even Jesus was Jewish. According to the weblink below:
"We find our Jewish heritage in the Church's liturgy as well. The priest's vestments at Mass have ancient origins. His outer garment, the chasuble, a large cone-shaped cloth with a hole for the head, was often worn in Palestine during the Creek and Roman occupations. Its beauty and adornments go all the way back to Aaron. God had told Moses, "You shall make holy garments for Aaron your brother, for glory and for beauty. These are the garments which they shall make: a breastpiece, an ephod, a robe, a coat of checker work, a turban, and a girdle; they shall make holy garments for Aaron your brother and his sons to serve Me as priests. They shall receive gold, blue and purple and scarlet stuff, and fine twined linen
: Selene Wed Oct 20, 2010 - 07:32:38
: mclees8 Wed Oct 20, 2010 - 06:54:30
: Selene Wed Oct 20, 2010 - 06:21:07
: mclees8 Tue Oct 19, 2010 - 20:13:19
No Selene I know it is not the clothes but what one wears and why they are wearing them does make a statement. Jesus said and all that they do they do to be seen of men.
Mike, it is the clothes that bothers you. Just look at your quote above. You said, "I know it is not the clothes, BUT what one wears and why they are wearing them does make a statement." It's the clothes that bothers you.
Yes selene it is the clothes, but not the cloths but the reason for the cloths. Can you understand that. In this we have the exalting of the clergy before men. Yet the apostles did not ware such things but they walked in the power of God that even the popes don't have. we are not impressing the world but we are to walk in the salvation of Christ who does not sit on an eartly throne but on a heavenly throne.
God bless
Mike, if you really want to know the reason for the priestly vestments, I included a weblink below that you can read about it. The Catholic Church can trace her lineage to the Apostles, and she can also trace her heritage to Judaism. After all, the Apostles were Jewish and even Jesus was Jewish. According to the weblink below:
"We find our Jewish heritage in the Church's liturgy as well. The priest's vestments at Mass have ancient origins. His outer garment, the chasuble, a large cone-shaped cloth with a hole for the head, was often worn in Palestine during the Creek and Roman occupations. Its beauty and adornments go all the way back to Aaron. God had told Moses, "You shall make holy garments for Aaron your brother, for glory and for beauty. These are the garments which they shall make: a breastpiece, an ephod, a robe, a coat of checker work, a turban, and a girdle; they shall make holy garments for Aaron your brother and his sons to serve Me as priests. They shall receive gold, blue and purple and scarlet stuff, and fine twined linen
Forgive me Selene for my impatience.
God bless and i pray that you will pray
Did you ever know something was true that others did not believe, yet in you heart you know, you know that you know that you know. It can be exremely fustrating.
God Himself will have to confirm and reveal all that I have said.
Im not second guessing about this.
God bless
: mclees8 Wed Oct 20, 2010 - 08:37:56
Dear Selene I know I am wasting my time here for you are just not going to understand. This is not about some heritage from the old testament priest hood. The New covenant is the priest hood of all believers established in the Holy spirit. The apostles didn't inherit any heritage from the Old testament priests. If they had they would have put on all same stuff the the Old testament priests did, but no they did not. It was the fifth century popes wanting recognition and power and to be seen of men that use carnal things and heritage to explain and justify their own parade.
Ask your self why the apostles did not do this and why they walk in such power and authority. not the authority of men. but he authority and power of God in the spirit.
I don't think I can say much more. If you do not understand by now then I leave you to God
Dear Mike,
The Old Testament is still the Word of God. It is part of the Bible. In fact, the Old Testament is a foreshadow of the New Testament. Jesus often quotes the Old Testament because there is always a parallel from the Old Testament to the New Testament. For example, the Passover in Egypt is a parallel to Christ's sacrifice on the cross. In the Old Testament, the Hebrews were told to sacrifice an unblemished male lamb. This unblemished male lamb signifies the lamb of God in the New Testament, which is Christ.
There is also a parallel of the Seat of St. Peter in the Old Testament. In Isaiah 22:20-24, it says:
And this shall be in that day: I will call my servant Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah. And I will clothe him with your vestment, and I will strengthen him with your belt, and I will give your authority to his hand. And he shall be like a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. And I will place the key of the house of David upon his shoulder. And when he opens, no one will close. And when he closes, no one will open. And I will fasten him like a peg in a trustworthy place. And he will be upon a throne of glory in the house of his father. And they will suspend over him all the glory of his father's house: various kinds of vessels and every little article, from the vessels of bowls even to every instrument of music.
In this passage, God gives the key to Eliakim, tells him that what he opens no one will close and what he closes no one will open. God also dresses him in priestly vestments. God gives Eliakim a throne of glory in the house of his father. Compare that to the New Testament in which Christ gave St. Peter the keys and tells him that what he binds on earth will be bound in heaven and whatever he loosen on earth will also be loosen in Heaven. Our Pope who sits on the chair of the Apostle Peter wear the priestly vestments. This is the parallel from the Old to the New Testament, which you cannot understand.
The Catholic Church is the Church that Christ built because she can trace her lineage to the Apostle Peter and she can trace her Jewish heritage to our brothers in Israel. I will pray that God will light a little candle for you to help you get out of the darkness that you are in so that you can see better. It's time for me to go to sleep. Good night. ::sleepingsoundly::
In Christ,
Selene
: Selene Wed Oct 20, 2010 - 09:01:53
: mclees8 Wed Oct 20, 2010 - 08:37:56
Dear Selene I know I am wasting my time here for you are just not going to understand. This is not about some heritage from the old testament priest hood. The New covenant is the priest hood of all believers established in the Holy spirit. The apostles didn't inherit any heritage from the Old testament priests. If they had they would have put on all same stuff the the Old testament priests did, but no they did not. It was the fifth century popes wanting recognition and power and to be seen of men that use carnal things and heritage to explain and justify their own parade.
Ask your self why the apostles did not do this and why they walk in such power and authority. not the authority of men. but he authority and power of God in the spirit.
I don't think I can say much more. If you do not understand by now then I leave you to God
Dear Mike,
The Old Testament is still the Word of God. It is part of the Bible. In fact, the Old Testament is a foreshadow of the New Testament. Jesus often quotes the Old Testament because there is always a parallel from the Old Testament to the New Testament. For example, the Passover in Egypt is a parallel to Christ's sacrifice on the cross. In the Old Testament, the Hebrews were told to sacrifice an unblemished male lamb. This unblemished male lamb signifies the lamb of God in the New Testament, which is Christ.
There is also a parallel of the Seat of St. Peter in the Old Testament. In Isaiah 22:20-24, it says:
And this shall be in that day: I will call my servant Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah. And I will clothe him with your vestment, and I will strengthen him with your belt, and I will give your authority to his hand. And he shall be like a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. And I will place the key of the house of David upon his shoulder. And when he opens, no one will close. And when he closes, no one will open. And I will fasten him like a peg in a trustworthy place. And he will be upon a throne of glory in the house of his father. And they will suspend over him all the glory of his father's house: various kinds of vessels and every little article, from the vessels of bowls even to every instrument of music.
In this passage, God gives the key to Eliakim, tells him that what he opens no one will close and what he closes no one will open. God also dresses him in priestly vestments. God gives Eliakim a throne of glory in the house of his father. Compare that to the New Testament in which Christ gave St. Peter the keys and tells him that what he binds on earth will be bound in heaven and whatever he loosen on earth will also be loosen in Heaven. Our Pope who sits on the chair of the Apostle Peter wear the priestly vestments. This is the parallel from the Old to the New Testament, which you cannot understand.
The Catholic Church is the Church that Christ built because she can trace her lineage to the Apostle Peter and she can trace her Jewish heritage to our brothers in Israel. I will pray that God will light a little candle for you to help you get out of the darkness that you are in so that you can see better. It's time for me to go to sleep. Good night. ::sleepingsoundly::
In Christ,
Selene
Please don't try to justify the papacy with on Old testament passage that does not reflect in the New. Peter was given authority in the Power of the spirit. He did not put on all those vestments because that was for the New Testament church. If it was then Peter would have put on vestments. Why did Jesus have to go back to the father, who was in heaven. He could have had an earthly throne. Now you say he gave that to Peter but Peter never sat on a throne let alone ware vestments.
It is true the Old testament for shadows Christ but the covenant is New.
Here an Old testament verse that speaks of the New Covenant.
Eze 11: 19
And I will give them one heart, and
I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh: 20 That they may walk in my statutes, and keep mine ordinances, and do them: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God.
This was fulfilled when Christ gave the disciples the Holy spirit. This was to be for all believers and it was fulfilled at Pentecost.
John 14:15 ,17
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. Acts 1:8
But ye shall receive powera, 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.
acts 2:1
And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. 2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
This was not just for those who were there but for all blievers whom the apostles laid hand on.
This is the New Covenant church that does not have to ware authority for men but walk in the power of the Holy Spirit.
Sleep well Selene
: mclees8 Tue Oct 19, 2010 - 16:18:35
As uncomfortable as you try to make the vestments sound they put them on to exclaim one thing. The need to be seen and known as religious authority. To be exalted above the common.
This is a false statement made in ignorance.
Some thing we do not see in the early church authority. Right or wrong?
Wrong. The Church leaders were set aside to serve God in a way that is differentiated from the role of the laity:
"Accordingly, elect for yourselves bishops and deacons, men who are an honor to the Lord, of gentle disposition, not attached to money, honest and well-tried; for they, too, render you the sacred service of the prophets and teachers." The Didache (c. A.D. 90).
"Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry." Clement of Rome, Pope, 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 44:1-2 (c. A.D. 96).
"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyraens, 8 (c. A.D. 110).
: mclees8 Wed Oct 20, 2010 - 10:07:03
Please don't try to justify the papacy with on Old testament passage that does not reflect in the New. Peter was given authority in the Power of the spirit. He did not put on all those vestments because that was for the New Testament church. If it was then Peter would have put on vestments. Why did Jesus have to go back to the father, who was in heaven. He could have had an earthly throne. Now you say he gave that to Peter but Peter never sat on a throne let alone ware vestments.
It is true the Old testament for shadows Christ but the covenant is New.
Here an Old testament verse that speaks of the New Covenant.
In the New Testament, St. Peter was given the keys just as Eliakim was given the keys in the Old Testament. God dressed Eliakin in priestly vestments. Therefore, St. Peter and his successors would also be dressed in priestly vestments.
So, now you switch to the New Covenant? Weren't we speaking about the clothes of the Pope? How did you go from clothes to the New Covenant?
Oh Dear, so little time, but I couldnt sleep, so here goes. Many posts to answer so forgive me for any brevity, I do not mean to presume on people.
1 Thessalonians is a father like care for believers. Abraham was a Father to the Jews genetically, Gen 15:4-5, he is the Father of the church spiritually as our faith should be like his, taking Jesus at his word.
The Eucharist is taken in remembrance 1 Cor 11:24. Luke 22:19
There is a Royal Priesthood this is explained in the book of Peter, I do not think that a vicar of Christ is mentioned. Vicar comes from the word Vicarious I believe , which roughly translated means deputed, delegated.
I for one do not mock the Roman Catholic Church, and I do not feel I have done this, I have tried to be respectful, forgive me if I have appeared mocking. However I do, as can any other person, ask the church, mine and yours to be accountable.
In John 20:3-4 the reason John mark, whom we believe was with Peter gave way, was not due to his status, but probably his age. Remember that the Hebrew culture respected age and elders, the opposite of western Culture, where Youth and Beauty are idolised.
The keys, are not actual keys, but symbolic of truth, the truth concerning Jesus, is the only way to heaven, Faith in Jesus Christ is what will open the doors of heaven.
If the Pope is descended from Peter, then why not 12 Apostles, all with equal authority, as they did in the bible. Romans 3:9-18 as well.
Yes there are disagreements in the church in the 8th, 9th and 10th Century and onwards. The split occurred as people sought political power, and it is this political power which is wrong, whether reformed or Catholic. Heresies had already surfaced hence Chalcedon and other meetings to discuss Canon, the Letters in the NT were often written to address these questions, there are very few new heresies, they just reformulate. I do not use a Lutherian Bible, I use the KJV, NKJV and the NIV predominantly. The reformers that I read such as Tyndale, found that the people could not read Latin and so were unable to recognise the words, they were relaint on mediators, the reformists held the view that God could call people without mediators
Galatians 3:1-5, Ephesians 2:1-10, 1 Peter 2:4-12, John 17:20, all relate to faith, and how it is an individual call and personal relationship(knowing God). The reformists wanted not to challenge the Church but to reform it, the Catholics refused, hence the split. The five main area's of disgareement I have, which would mean more, I just see these as root causes;
1. The Royal Priesthood v the Catholic Priesthood, ie direct access to God, through the Blood of christ.
2. The Immaculate Conception as discussed, Romans 3:21
3. Papal excathedra speeches.
4. Sufficiency of scripture, that we are saved by faith, which makes us part of the church, back to Hebrews 11:39-40
5.Transubstantiation, that the Wine and the Bread, are transformed, we view this as remembrance.
I mean have been loose in my phraseology, however Adam and Eve and the fall, was the end of a relationship with God, and the promised seed was the only way back into that relationship, the fall changed creation, which will be renewed Rev 21:1. Back to Hebrews 11 I'm afriad we can only be made perfect together.
The tree of life, is not literal, and in proverbs the context is the tongue and the hurt it causes. The tree of life in Genesis relates to immortality, and this tree of life, is shown to be Jesus in Revelation. We need to look into the original authors meaning, what was he trying to say at that particular time and to who, this does not mean we cannot apply it, and a kind tongue does bring healing. John1:10-18 again.
Ryan if I misunderstood I apologise but basically I understood that you felt that the Jews had been replaced by the Catholic Church, or another Church, in respect of Romans 9-11 I do not see this, we are only grafted on to the true vine, which means Jews who believe in Jesus as Messiah/Christ.
The Apostles took their call directly from Jesus, it was not designated as such, they spoke Face to face, this is something we cannot do in this life. We will see him face to face.
Chesterton, If we could stay on the common chapters in the Bible, use of old "saints" and unaccepted books does not help, as I would not see them as proof text, I accept you do, but you must not expect me to. Our authority is to preach teach the bible, and Jesus does warn of many false prophets. To try and assert that the Catholic Church is of unified opinion is slightly disingenuous.
Evangelists are functional and biblical, Ephesians 4: 11-12. I personally can only say what I believe the bible to say as a believer , I'm not an Evangelist, but I am evangelical. It is the Lord's work to call people not mine, which is why I try to discuss without sinking to name calling. I take a Reformed view of scripture, I cannot force, bribe or otherwise cajole people, it is God who calls, people can disagree with me. I accept that even if I hope that people will change thier view. I believe scripture to be inspired, 2 Peter 1:12-21.
I have given examples of primary doctrine. Salvation is one I would say was essential. Eschatology one that I would call secondary. I hold Baptism (the form of it) as secondary, whether infant / full Immersion , as I see confirmation as confirming faith which is what Baptism in water is.
Jesus asked Peter the question about who he was, because the recognition that he was the promised Messiah/ Christ was essential, this is the Key and pivotal believe that links OT believers and gentiles. The Holy Spirit is the middle man Galtians 1;6. In regards to faith alone, Ephesians 2:5-6, Romans 3:21-31, 2 Tim 1:13-14, 2 Tim 3: 14-17. Hebrews 4:14-16, Hebrews 8, Hebrews 9:11-15.
Like Catholics, some protestants go outside the biblical authority for their raison d'etre. I disagree with them too. Isaiah 53 amplifies, briongs into focus, the fact that the Crucifixion of Jesus, was prophesied. This makes it rather than the crucifixion of a good man, the Crucifixion of the suffering servant, the second person of the Trinity, in other words God. It is the Bible that explains that and not the church.
Glory for us is reflected, his light shines upon us, Rev 22:5.
As to the Kingdom John 14:1-4, John 18:36
As to the Holy spirit being for all and not the few, Acts 10:44 for example.
The pillar and foundation is Jesus Christ, psalm 62:1-2
Regarding the Pope, I for one do not really care about the clothes. The problem is what it represents, its claim to an authority he does not have. I accept that he heads the Catholic Church what is in dispute is whether this is from God, and whether it is biblical, our answer is No. Also we need to be careful when applying ceromonial Law to the church, this was ended when the Curtain was torn. The curtain was the entrance to the Holy of Holies, where only God.s pries, Aarons line could enter (Levites), however it was torn open when Jesus died, the significance being we can now enter the holy of holies by our believe, not through mediators. Matthew 27:51-53.
Its now 6am here, and I'm just going to work, I guess some of you are getting ready to sleep, I have a 15 hour day ahead of me, so forgive me again if I have misunderstood or appeared rude, please accept that it was not my intention. Time to ::reading::
: chestertonrules Wed Oct 20, 2010 - 13:39:43
: mclees8 Tue Oct 19, 2010 - 16:18:35
As uncomfortable as you try to make the vestments sound they put them on to exclaim one thing. The need to be seen and known as religious authority. To be exalted above the common.
This is a false statement made in ignorance.
Some thing we do not see in the early church authority. Right or wrong?
Wrong. The Church leaders were set aside to serve God in a way that is differentiated from the role of the laity:
"Accordingly, elect for yourselves bishops and deacons, men who are an honor to the Lord, of gentle disposition, not attached to money, honest and well-tried; for they, too, render you the sacred service of the prophets and teachers." The Didache (c. A.D. 90).
"Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry." Clement of Rome, Pope, 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 44:1-2 (c. A.D. 96).
"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyraens, 8 (c. A.D. 110).
Mike
The first letter you use, speaks of the personal Christian character of those who are to be leaders. For the most part all believers should have these characters. But since not all believers are mature enough the instruction is stated for those who would be chosen so as to be good examples before the body.. The apostles themselves were to set the greatest example of Christian character in leadership and they felt no need to put on religious vestments to call attention to their position of authority. They just simply were authority by Gods grace through the Holy Spirit.. I do not see what you are trying to justify here about vestments
How ever there are other characters here they have not mentioned.. And that is they should be humble and not self seeking or flaunt with pride and ambition their position And nothing stated by your bishops, who were not popes, has anything to do with wearing vestments. Your letter states them as pope dated Ad 90. They were bishops at that time that never addressed themselves as pope or presented themselves in any way as having any superior authority over all bishops, To present them as pope is added and is deception, used to present a false idea to the body. To deceive the body is lying. It is false representation . It should never be in the church. .
Your second letter by Clement is also deceptive representation. You will only find letter addressing himself as one bishop to another bishop being equals. The subject was one of successors. The instruction is again as one bishop to another, and has no reflection on wearing any vestments which they probably did not wear being so close the original apostles.
The last letter from is not deceptive addressing Ignatius as Bishop of Antioch . How ever of all the letters used by Catholic theologians and apologists this one is the most misused and abuse to justify RCC authority. Now this does not mean we are to not obey and respect authority. But what I see is they find it necessary to put the double exclamation point on their authority. It is their whole thrust to prove they are the true church and sit in the seat of Peter. To drive that point home so as to intimidate and control the body, and more than the body but project themselves as the authority of God on the earth They incorporate all this in their teaching. It is to bad that Ignatius stated and emphasized this idea in his epistle for if he had known how the papacy would misuse and abuse his comments he may have greatly regretted saying it, and most of all using of the word catholic
Again this has no justification at all for the vestments. Especially because he was a direct disciple of John, whom I am sure would not have encouraged pride and exaltation in any way by the wearing of religious vestment,
God bless
: Selene Wed Oct 20, 2010 - 22:38:57
: mclees8 Wed Oct 20, 2010 - 10:07:03
Please don't try to justify the papacy with on Old testament passage that does not reflect in the New. Peter was given authority in the Power of the spirit. He did not put on all those vestments because that was for the New Testament church. If it was then Peter would have put on vestments. Why did Jesus have to go back to the father, who was in heaven. He could have had an earthly throne. Now you say he gave that to Peter but Peter never sat on a throne let alone ware vestments.
It is true the Old testament for shadows Christ but the covenant is New.
Here an Old testament verse that speaks of the New Covenant.
In the New Testament, St. Peter was given the keys just as Eliakim was given the keys in the Old Testament. God dressed Eliakin in priestly vestments. Therefore, St. Peter and his successors would also be dressed in priestly vestments.
So, now you switch to the New Covenant? Weren't we speaking about the clothes of the Pope? How did you go from clothes to the New Covenant?
But Peter nor his succesors were given vestments were they.
Under the new covenant the old testament style priest hood was done away with. Now were are clothed in the spirit.
: mclees8 Thu Oct 21, 2010 - 02:19:15
: Selene Wed Oct 20, 2010 - 22:38:57
: mclees8 Wed Oct 20, 2010 - 10:07:03
Please don't try to justify the papacy with on Old testament passage that does not reflect in the New. Peter was given authority in the Power of the spirit. He did not put on all those vestments because that was for the New Testament church. If it was then Peter would have put on vestments. Why did Jesus have to go back to the father, who was in heaven. He could have had an earthly throne. Now you say he gave that to Peter but Peter never sat on a throne let alone ware vestments.
It is true the Old testament for shadows Christ but the covenant is New.
Here an Old testament verse that speaks of the New Covenant.
In the New Testament, St. Peter was given the keys just as Eliakim was given the keys in the Old Testament. God dressed Eliakin in priestly vestments. Therefore, St. Peter and his successors would also be dressed in priestly vestments.
So, now you switch to the New Covenant? Weren't we speaking about the clothes of the Pope? How did you go from clothes to the New Covenant?
But Peter nor his succesors were given vestments were they.
Under the new covenant the old testament style priest hood was done away with. Now were are clothed in the spirit.
Just wanted to commend mcless in the unbiased unproach he's taken in this thread. If you guys didn't notice, not once has mclees resorted to the common undeucated anticatholic rants that some of our other protestant brothers and sisters like to practice. Manna to all of you.
This dialogue has put a smile on my face.
: mclees8 Thu Oct 21, 2010 - 02:19:15
But Peter nor his succesors were given vestments were they.
Under the new covenant the old testament style priest hood was done away with. Now were are clothed in the spirit.
In the Old Testament, God went through great lengths explaining about the priestly vestments just as He went through great lengths to explain details on how to prepare the Passover. Because it's already in the Old Testament, God does not need to tell it again in the New Testament. Look at the Ten Commandments. Do you think that was done away with despite that it's not in the New Testament? Of course not. Do not steal, do not commit murder, do not commit adultery, do not covet thy neighbor's wife and goods, honor your mother and father, etc. still applies to the New Testament. God did not need to send another stone tablet in the New Testament. Furthermore, the fact that the Catholic Church has retained her Jewish heritage is evidence that she is indeed the Church that Christ built.
: mclees8 Thu Oct 21, 2010 - 01:56:58
Again this has no justification at all for the vestments. Especially because he was a direct disciple of John, whom I am sure would not have encouraged pride and exaltation in any way by the wearing of religious vestment,
God bless
The problem here is that you see the sin of pride in a person's clothes. So, if the Pope were to take off those clothes, would you see humility? How simple it would be if our sins were in the clothes. By taking off our clothes, we would be taking away our sins and don't need to repent.
: mclees8 Thu Oct 21, 2010 - 01:56:58
: chestertonrules Wed Oct 20, 2010 - 13:39:43
: mclees8 Tue Oct 19, 2010 - 16:18:35
As uncomfortable as you try to make the vestments sound they put them on to exclaim one thing. The need to be seen and known as religious authority. To be exalted above the common.
This is a false statement made in ignorance.
Some thing we do not see in the early church authority. Right or wrong?
Wrong. The Church leaders were set aside to serve God in a way that is differentiated from the role of the laity:
"Accordingly, elect for yourselves bishops and deacons, men who are an honor to the Lord, of gentle disposition, not attached to money, honest and well-tried; for they, too, render you the sacred service of the prophets and teachers." The Didache (c. A.D. 90).
"Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry." Clement of Rome, Pope, 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 44:1-2 (c. A.D. 96).
"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyraens, 8 (c. A.D. 110).
The first letter you use, speaks of the personal Christian character of those who are to be leaders.
So we are in agreement that the early Church had leaders and followers.
Your second letter by Clement is also deceptive representation. You will only find letter addressing himself as one bishop to another bishop being equals. The subject was one of successors. The instruction is again as one bishop to another, and has no reflection on wearing any vestments which they probably did not wear being so close the original apostles.
The point is that the leaders of the Church appointed successors. I'm not sure what you think is deceptive about it.
The last letter from is not deceptive addressing Ignatius as Bishop of Antioch . How ever of all the letters used by Catholic theologians and apologists this one is the most misused and abuse to justify RCC authority. Now this does not mean we are to not obey and respect authority. But what I see is they find it necessary to put the double exclamation point on their authority. It is their whole thrust to prove they are the true church and sit in the seat of Peter. To drive that point home so as to intimidate and control the body, and more than the body but project themselves as the authority of God on the earth They incorporate all this in their teaching. It is to bad that Ignatius stated and emphasized this idea in his epistle for if he had known how the papacy would misuse and abuse his comments he may have greatly regretted saying it, and most of all using of the word catholic
Jesus put the double exclamation point when he said,"he who listens to you listens to me."
Ignatius was a personal friend of the apostle John and he was eaten by lions for his faith. His Christian credentials are well established. I wouldn't dismiss him if I were you, I would study him, and the other early fathers, to help you find the Truth.
: chestertonrules Thu Oct 21, 2010 - 07:23:29
: mclees8 Thu Oct 21, 2010 - 01:56:58
: chestertonrules Wed Oct 20, 2010 - 13:39:43
: mclees8 Tue Oct 19, 2010 - 16:18:35
As uncomfortable as you try to make the vestments sound they put them on to exclaim one thing. The need to be seen and known as religious authority. To be exalted above the common.
This is a false statement made in ignorance.
Some thing we do not see in the early church authority. Right or wrong?
Wrong. The Church leaders were set aside to serve God in a way that is differentiated from the role of the laity:
"Accordingly, elect for yourselves bishops and deacons, men who are an honor to the Lord, of gentle disposition, not attached to money, honest and well-tried; for they, too, render you the sacred service of the prophets and teachers." The Didache (c. A.D. 90).
"Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry." Clement of Rome, Pope, 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 44:1-2 (c. A.D. 96).
"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyraens, 8 (c. A.D. 110).
The first letter you use, speaks of the personal Christian character of those who are to be leaders.
So we are in agreement that the early Church had leaders and followers.
Your second letter by Clement is also deceptive representation. You will only find letter addressing himself as one bishop to another bishop being equals. The subject was one of successors. The instruction is again as one bishop to another, and has no reflection on wearing any vestments which they probably did not wear being so close the original apostles.
The point is that the leaders of the Church appointed successors. I'm not sure what you think is deceptive about it.
The last letter from is not deceptive addressing Ignatius as Bishop of Antioch . How ever of all the letters used by Catholic theologians and apologists this one is the most misused and abuse to justify RCC authority. Now this does not mean we are to not obey and respect authority. But what I see is they find it necessary to put the double exclamation point on their authority. It is their whole thrust to prove they are the true church and sit in the seat of Peter. To drive that point home so as to intimidate and control the body, and more than the body but project themselves as the authority of God on the earth They incorporate all this in their teaching. It is to bad that Ignatius stated and emphasized this idea in his epistle for if he had known how the papacy would misuse and abuse his comments he may have greatly regretted saying it, and most of all using of the word catholic
Jesus put the double exclamation point when he said,"he who listens to you listens to me."
Ignatius was a personal friend of the apostle John and he was eaten by lions for his faith. His Christian credentials are well established. I wouldn't dismiss him if I were you, I would study him, and the other early fathers, to help you find the Truth.
I never denied that the was a succession. what i deny is that Roman bishops were papal bishops being recognized as supreme pope, even by other bishops or that the early church ever recognized them in that role. the letters do not reflect this yet the RC's add the title as if they were. You present these letter using the added title pope
What I did not see in any of the presentation anything that justified wearing religious robes and vestments. or are you just trying to run me around.
The early church fathers were not popes. but just Bishops like there were bishops in any other city and church. There was no petrine succession of popes From Peter in Rome that made all Roman bishops popes ( supreme papa, or supreme pontiff or supreme anything. Examination of the original letters will bare this out but don;t look at catholic reproductions of them that add they were popes always being recognized in that title role by all bishops.
Were you trying to justify vestment or something else.
Are we on the same page yet?
: Selene Thu Oct 21, 2010 - 04:45:21
: mclees8 Thu Oct 21, 2010 - 02:19:15
But Peter nor his succesors were given vestments were they.
Under the new covenant the old testament style priest hood was done away with. Now were are clothed in the spirit.
In the Old Testament, God went through great lengths explaining about the priestly vestments just as He went through great lengths to explain details on how to prepare the Passover. Because it's already in the Old Testament, God does not need to tell it again in the New Testament. Look at the Ten Commandments. Do you think that was done away with despite that it's not in the New Testament? Of course not. Do not steal, do not commit murder, do not commit adultery, do not covet thy neighbor's wife and goods, honor your mother and father, etc. still applies to the New Testament. God did not need to send another stone tablet in the New Testament. Furthermore, the fact that the Catholic Church has retained her Jewish heritage is evidence that she is indeed the Church that Christ built.
If it is as you want to think then Why did the apostles not put on vestments. And why did Jusus castigate the Pharisees, Yes it is a pride problem.
God bless
: mclees8 Thu Oct 21, 2010 - 18:00:09
: Selene Thu Oct 21, 2010 - 04:45:21
: mclees8 Thu Oct 21, 2010 - 02:19:15
But Peter nor his succesors were given vestments were they.
Under the new covenant the old testament style priest hood was done away with. Now were are clothed in the spirit.
In the Old Testament, God went through great lengths explaining about the priestly vestments just as He went through great lengths to explain details on how to prepare the Passover. Because it's already in the Old Testament, God does not need to tell it again in the New Testament. Look at the Ten Commandments. Do you think that was done away with despite that it's not in the New Testament? Of course not. Do not steal, do not commit murder, do not commit adultery, do not covet thy neighbor's wife and goods, honor your mother and father, etc. still applies to the New Testament. God did not need to send another stone tablet in the New Testament. Furthermore, the fact that the Catholic Church has retained her Jewish heritage is evidence that she is indeed the Church that Christ built.
If it is as you want to think then Why did the apostles not put on vestments. And why did Jusus castigate the Pharisees, Yes it is a pride problem.
God bless
Mike, Jesus castigated them for their hypocracy. He did not castigate them for their robes. God allowed the robes. He did not allow the hypocrasy and the pride. As I said, you are mistakenly thinking that the sin of pride is in a person's clothes when it isn't.
: Selene Thu Oct 21, 2010 - 18:11:02
: mclees8 Thu Oct 21, 2010 - 18:00:09
: Selene Thu Oct 21, 2010 - 04:45:21
: mclees8 Thu Oct 21, 2010 - 02:19:15
But Peter nor his succesors were given vestments were they.
Under the new covenant the old testament style priest hood was done away with. Now were are clothed in the spirit.
In the Old Testament, God went through great lengths explaining about the priestly vestments just as He went through great lengths to explain details on how to prepare the Passover. Because it's already in the Old Testament, God does not need to tell it again in the New Testament. Look at the Ten Commandments. Do you think that was done away with despite that it's not in the New Testament? Of course not. Do not steal, do not commit murder, do not commit adultery, do not covet thy neighbor's wife and goods, honor your mother and father, etc. still applies to the New Testament. God did not need to send another stone tablet in the New Testament. Furthermore, the fact that the Catholic Church has retained her Jewish heritage is evidence that she is indeed the Church that Christ built.
If it is as you want to think then Why did the apostles not put on vestments. And why did Jusus castigate the Pharisees, Yes it is a pride problem.
God bless
Mike, Jesus castigated them for their hypocracy. He did not castigate them for their robes. God allowed the robes. He did not allow the hypocrasy and the pride. As I said, you are mistakenly thinking that the sin of pride is in a person's clothes when it isn't.
I believe we have discussed this already. There is a reason why the apostles did not put on vestments. Yet they had a greater power and authority and spirit of God than any Pope. they did not have flaunt their authority by looking like religious authority. But this is the part you Refuse to acknowledges or understand.
So I am going to have to end this endless dialog. But I pray the Lord reveal the truth for you
God bless ans by for now.
: mclees8 Thu Oct 21, 2010 - 22:25:33
I believe we have discussed this already. There is a reason why the apostles did not put on vestments. Yet they had a greater power and authority and spirit of God than any Pope. they did not have flaunt their authority by looking like religious authority. But this is the part you Refuse to acknowledges or understand.
So I am going to have to end this endless dialog. But I pray the Lord reveal the truth for you
God bless ans by for now.
You don't know what the apostles wore.
More importantly, there is a huge difference between exercising legitimate authority and flaunting authority.
The role of the Church leaders was to lead.
: chestertonrules Thu Oct 21, 2010 - 22:40:40
: mclees8 Thu Oct 21, 2010 - 22:25:33
I believe we have discussed this already. There is a reason why the apostles did not put on vestments. Yet they had a greater power and authority and spirit of God than any Pope. they did not have flaunt their authority by looking like religious authority. But this is the part you Refuse to acknowledges or understand.
So I am going to have to end this endless dialog. But I pray the Lord reveal the truth for you
God bless ans by for now.
You don't know what the apostles wore.
More importantly, there is a huge difference between exercising legitimate authority and flaunting authority.
The role of the Church leaders was to lead.
They never wore vestments like any pope. I have no doubt about that what soever. They had very ligament power and authority but never sat as a pope.
God bless.
Wait thats it? Really? Oh come on! I want my money back!
::eatingpopcorn:
: mclees8 Fri Oct 22, 2010 - 01:00:49
They never wore vestments like any pope. I have no doubt about that what soever. They had very ligament power and authority but never sat as a pope.
God bless.
How do you know that? Were you there?
: mclees8 Fri Oct 22, 2010 - 01:00:49
They never wore vestments like any pope. I have no doubt about that what soever. They had very ligament power and authority but never sat as a pope.
God bless.
You are just making a guess based on your biases.
It makes no difference as to their authority anyway, so it is irrelevant.
: chestertonrules Fri Oct 22, 2010 - 10:24:53
: mclees8 Fri Oct 22, 2010 - 01:00:49
They never wore vestments like any pope. I have no doubt about that what soever. They had very ligament power and authority but never sat as a pope.
God bless.
You are just making a guess based on your biases.
It makes no difference as to their authority anyway, so it is irrelevant.
No bias. I am not catholic or protestant and I despise showy religious leaders in protestantism also. It has everything to with position and office and the need to be seen as that. There is no other reason for religious vestments but to be recognized and known for ones office and title. All this Jesus pointed to in the Pharisees. This is why i know that The apostles did not ware vestments nor did Jesus ever say they needed to be seen as authority by warring such.
The apostles never wore vestments for they would have been in carnal pride if they had. I am not second guessing this.
God bless
: mclees8 Fri Oct 22, 2010 - 22:15:23
No bias. I am not catholic or protestant and I despise showy religious leaders in protestantism also. It has everything to with position and office and the need to be seen as that. There is no other reason for religious vestments but to be recognized and known for ones office and title. All this Jesus pointed to in the Pharisees. This is why i know that The apostles did not ware vestments nor did Jesus ever say they needed to be seen as authority by warring such.
The apostles never wore vestments for they would have been in carnal pride if they had. I am not second guessing this.
God bless
You despise religious leaders in Protestantism because of what they wear? So, you are also against the Protestant preachers for wearing a suit and tie? Do you ever wear a suit and tie? And if so, why did you wear a suit and tie? Was it because you felt proud at that time when you wore a suit and tie?
: Selene Sat Oct 23, 2010 - 08:55:56
: mclees8 Fri Oct 22, 2010 - 22:15:23
No bias. I am not catholic or protestant and I despise showy religious leaders in protestantism also. It has everything to with position and office and the need to be seen as that. There is no other reason for religious vestments but to be recognized and known for ones office and title. All this Jesus pointed to in the Pharisees. This is why i know that The apostles did not ware vestments nor did Jesus ever say they needed to be seen as authority by warring such.
The apostles never wore vestments for they would have been in carnal pride if they had. I am not second guessing this.
God bless
You despise religious leaders in Protestantism because of what they wear? So, you are also against the Protestant preachers for wearing a suit and tie? Do you ever wear a suit and tie? And if so, why did you wear a suit and tie? Was it because you felt proud at that time when you wore a suit and tie?
I am not talking about suits an ties. Would a despise the President because he wears a suit and tie. I know that i am being misunderstood and that maybe my fault. I am talking about vestments that makes a show or statement. Religious vestments says I am a religious man and I want that recognition. They like the stage and to be seen of men. The way some carry themselves is almost theatrical. they love the spotlight. I see this all the time. You might say I am judgmental but i cannot help what i see. These people are anything but humble but full of pride an arrogance Bishop Long is a good example
Oh yes I very rarely if ever wear a suit. Maybe to a funeral.
Ok can a man wear religious garments and be Humble. Yes they can but when you wear vestments like popes who sit on a throne surrounded with grandeur the whole setting is anything but humble but is to impress people for who they are as in position. These things impress men but they do not impress God. Try seeing the pope wearing a suit an tie.
People want to see Him in all this grand array This is a product of carnal men. But i tell you Peter never followed after any of that but far greater power than any pope.
How many popes raised anyone from the dead. And when he went to Tabitha can you picture him looking like any pope.
: mclees8 Sat Oct 23, 2010 - 13:18:35
I am not talking about suits an ties. Would a despise the President because he wears a suit and tie. I know that i am being misunderstood and that maybe my fault. I am talking about vestments that makes a show or statement. Religious vestments says I am a religious man and I want that recognition. They like the stage and to be seen of men. The way some carry themselves is almost theatrical. they love the spotlight. I see this all the time. You might say I am judgmental but i cannot help what i see. These people are anything but humble but full of pride an arrogance Bishop Long is a good example
Oh yes I very rarely if ever wear a suit. Maybe to a funeral.
Ok can a man wear religious garments and be Humble. Yes they can but when you wear vestments like popes who sit on a throne surrounded with grandeur the whole setting is anything but humble but is to impress people for who they are as in position. These things impress men but they do not impress God. Try seeing the pope wearing a suit an tie.
People want to see Him in all this grand array This is a product of carnal men. But i tell you Peter never followed after any of that but far greater power than any pope.
How many popes raised anyone from the dead. And when he went to Tabitha can you picture him looking like any pope.
The way we judge others speaks more about ourselves rather than about them. A person's judgement of another is really a reflection of that person.
There was a priest who complained to his bishop about the showy wealth of the Catholic Church. His superior said nothing. When the young priest brought up the complaint a third time, the bishop finally said to him, "How much did you steal from your parish?" The priest was shocked but later ended up confessing that he stole some money from his parish. The way we judge others speaks more about ourselves rather than about the people we judge.
: Selene Sat Oct 23, 2010 - 16:29:00
: mclees8 Sat Oct 23, 2010 - 13:18:35
I am not talking about suits an ties. Would a despise the President because he wears a suit and tie. I know that i am being misunderstood and that maybe my fault. I am talking about vestments that makes a show or statement. Religious vestments says I am a religious man and I want that recognition. They like the stage and to be seen of men. The way some carry themselves is almost theatrical. they love the spotlight. I see this all the time. You might say I am judgmental but i cannot help what i see. These people are anything but humble but full of pride an arrogance Bishop Long is a good example
Oh yes I very rarely if ever wear a suit. Maybe to a funeral.
Ok can a man wear religious garments and be Humble. Yes they can but when you wear vestments like popes who sit on a throne surrounded with grandeur the whole setting is anything but humble but is to impress people for who they are as in position. These things impress men but they do not impress God. Try seeing the pope wearing a suit an tie.
People want to see Him in all this grand array This is a product of carnal men. But i tell you Peter never followed after any of that but far greater power than any pope.
How many popes raised anyone from the dead. And when he went to Tabitha can you picture him looking like any pope.
The way we judge others speaks more about ourselves rather than about them. A person's judgement of another is really a reflection of that person.
There was a priest who complained to his bishop about the showy wealth of the Catholic Church. His superior said nothing. When the young priest brought up the complaint a third time, the bishop finally said to him, "How much did you steal from your parish?" The priest was shocked but later ended up confessing that he stole some money from his parish. The way we judge others speaks more about ourselves rather than about the people we judge.
Is that what you think about me Selene? I don't buy your analogy. I have nothing to hide. Im just stating how i see it
: mclees8 Sat Oct 23, 2010 - 16:59:58
Is that what you think about me Selene? I don't buy your analogy. I have nothing to hide. Im just stating how i see it
You seem to be very judgmental. Catholics honor priests because priests represent Christ.
It is not difficult to grasp unless you have a less than sincere motivation, IMO.
: chestertonrules Sun Oct 24, 2010 - 15:51:32
Catholics honor priests because priests represent Christ.
Protestants believe everyone who enters the kingdon of God by being born again as Jesus revealed in John 3:3-7 represent Christ to one degree or another, some honorably and some dishonorably. To be a Christian means that we are little Christs because Christ has given to us of His Spirit.
Blessings
: John 10:10 Sun Oct 24, 2010 - 16:12:04
: chestertonrules Sun Oct 24, 2010 - 15:51:32
Catholics honor priests because priests represent Christ.
Protestants believe everyone who enters the kingdon of God by being born again as Jesus revealed in John 3:3-7 represent Christ to one degree or another, some honorably and some dishonorably. To be a Christian means that we are little Christs because Christ has given to us of His Spirit.
Blessings
This is a new idea spread by the Reformers who chose to lean on their own understanding and pride. It is foreign to biblical and traditional Christianity.
: chestertonrules Sun Oct 24, 2010 - 17:09:01
: John 10:10 Sun Oct 24, 2010 - 16:12:04
: chestertonrules Sun Oct 24, 2010 - 15:51:32
Catholics honor priests because priests represent Christ.
Protestants believe everyone who enters the kingdon of God by being born again as Jesus revealed in John 3:3-7 represent Christ to one degree or another, some honorably and some dishonorably. To be a Christian means that we are little Christs because Christ has given to us of His Spirit.
Blessings
This is a new idea spread by the Reformers who chose to lean on their own understanding and pride. It is foreign to biblical and traditional Christianity.
No tahts not necessarily true. Scripture is clear that we all are meant to live a life that brings glory to God. We are children of God which means that we mirror Christ in our daily lives.
I can provide scripture for this but I think you may agree with what mclees is saying more with the way I read worded it.
: LightHammer Sun Oct 24, 2010 - 18:09:47
No tahts not necessarily true. Scripture is clear that we all are meant to live a life that brings glory to God. We are children of God which means that we mirror Christ in our daily lives.
I can provide scripture for this but I think you may agree with what mclees is saying more with the way I read worded it.
Yes, I do agree with you.
: chestertonrules Sun Oct 24, 2010 - 15:51:32
: mclees8 Sat Oct 23, 2010 - 16:59:58
Is that what you think about me Selene? I don't buy your analogy. I have nothing to hide. Im just stating how i see it
You seem to be very judgmental. Catholics honor priests because priests represent Christ.
It is not difficult to grasp unless you have a less than sincere motivation, IMO.
I'm sorry if I seem judgmental
It is not about honoring priests. I can honor any authority that truly and with a pure heart sincerely loves Christ and is a good representative of Him. It is the exalting of the clergy and the need to be exalted that I find fault with. All that is outward is carnal. and all that is spirit is spirit.
God bless
: mclees8 Mon Oct 25, 2010 - 08:24:43
: chestertonrules Sun Oct 24, 2010 - 15:51:32
: mclees8 Sat Oct 23, 2010 - 16:59:58
Is that what you think about me Selene? I don't buy your analogy. I have nothing to hide. Im just stating how i see it
You seem to be very judgmental. Catholics honor priests because priests represent Christ.
It is not difficult to grasp unless you have a less than sincere motivation, IMO.
I'm sorry if I seem judgmental
It is not about honoring priests. I can honor any authority that truly and with a pure heart sincerely loves Christ and is a good representative of Him. It is the exalting of the clergy and the need to be exalted that I find fault with. All that is outward is carnal. and all that is spirit is spirit.
God bless
Mike, Jesus became incarnate, and therefore was carnal. Being "carnal" is not evil.
: Catholica Mon Oct 25, 2010 - 10:07:24
: mclees8 Mon Oct 25, 2010 - 08:24:43
: chestertonrules Sun Oct 24, 2010 - 15:51:32
: mclees8 Sat Oct 23, 2010 - 16:59:58
Is that what you think about me Selene? I don't buy your analogy. I have nothing to hide. Im just stating how i see it
You seem to be very judgmental. Catholics honor priests because priests represent Christ.
It is not difficult to grasp unless you have a less than sincere motivation, IMO.
I'm sorry if I seem judgmental
It is not about honoring priests. I can honor any authority that truly and with a pure heart sincerely loves Christ and is a good representative of Him. It is the exalting of the clergy and the need to be exalted that I find fault with. All that is outward is carnal. and all that is spirit is spirit.
God bless
Mike, Jesus became incarnate, and therefore was carnal. Being "carnal" is not evil.
Catholica you sound like Nicodemus. He did not understand either . I find it uncanny that Paul wrote these verses here in his epistle to the Romans
Romans 8:6
5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. 6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. 8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. 9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
I said before that carnal religion is mans religion. It is all that is outward. vain shows like forms and ritual. it is vestments, Grand cathedrals and stained glass windows that look impressive to men. but God looks on the things of the spirit. That which dwells in the heart of a man who woships God in spirit and in Truth.
the vatican is just man wanting to establish god upon the earth. But those who are of the Spirit assend all the way to heaven where God truly resides
God bless
Hi
Jesus was incarnate, Emmanuel "God with us" he was not carnal. I think you will find a number of scriptures which point to the sinlessness of Jesus.
To paraphrase "He became sin for us, yet was without sin". That is he carried our sin, he was the scapegoat, of Deuteronomy, and the lamb.
Incarnate and carnal may share the same root, but not the same root meaning.
: chestertonrules Sun Oct 24, 2010 - 17:09:01
: John 10:10 Sun Oct 24, 2010 - 16:12:04
: chestertonrules Sun Oct 24, 2010 - 15:51:32
Catholics honor priests because priests represent Christ.
Protestants believe everyone who enters the kingdon of God by being born again as Jesus revealed in John 3:3-7 represent Christ to one degree or another, some honorably and some dishonorably. To be a Christian means that we are little Christs because Christ has given to us of His Spirit.
Blessings
This is a new idea spread by the Reformers who chose to lean on their own understanding and pride. It is foreign to biblical and traditional Christianity.
In truth, this is God's truth come to life in the lives of His children when we return to the truth and authority of Scripture.
To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours. 1 Cor 1:2
One does not have to be a John Huss to understand this. If you want to lean on your traditions, that is your choice. But as for me, I will lean on the truth of who God is as revealed in His Word and by the gift of His Spirit.
Blessings
: mclees8 Tue Oct 26, 2010 - 06:08:22
: Catholica Mon Oct 25, 2010 - 10:07:24
Mike, Jesus became incarnate, and therefore was carnal. Being "carnal" is not evil.
Catholica you sound like Nicodemus. He did not understand either . I find it uncanny that Paul wrote these verses here in his epistle to the Romans
Romans 8:6
5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. 6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. 8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. 9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
I said before that carnal religion is mans religion. It is all that is outward. vain shows like forms and ritual. it is vestments, Grand cathedrals and stained glass windows that look impressive to men. but God looks on the things of the spirit. That which dwells in the heart of a man who woships God in spirit and in Truth.
At its heart, our religion is very spiritual. It seems that you have chosen to focus only on the physical.
You are trying too hard to fit carnal desires with the existence of vestments together. God established a religion (Judaism) that explicitly had to use vestments, who built a huge exotic beautiful temple which contained the very presence of God for a very long time. If you are trying to connect the existence of vestments and beautiful places of worship to carnal desires, then you are going to fail, because God himself endorsed or prescribed these very things in Israel.
Only God can judge a man if he enjoys wearing vestments to appear important. You cannot judge the hearts of men, so you are not able to say that vestments, cathedrals and stained glass windows were made to "look impressive to men". What we have been telling you all along is that we build them to give glory to God. How is that hard to understand? And stained glass windows are a long-standing tradition that depicted the truths of scripture in a visual format so that those who could not read could still understand the gospel. This came from the rampant illiteracy in the world that existed until the 20th century. So stained glass windows have always been very functional. Beautiful to glorify God, useful to spread the gospel.
: mclees8 Tue Oct 26, 2010 - 06:08:22
the vatican is just man wanting to establish god upon the earth. But those who are of the Spirit assend all the way to heaven where God truly resides
God has not left us orphans. That is what Jesus said. I pray that you come to understand the profound reality of God, that he is very near to us and not distant.
: islanddogs Tue Oct 26, 2010 - 07:33:41
Hi
Jesus was incarnate, Emmanuel "God with us" he was not carnal. I think you will find a number of scriptures which point to the sinlessness of Jesus.
To paraphrase "He became sin for us, yet was without sin". That is he carried our sin, he was the scapegoat, of Deuteronomy, and the lamb.
Incarnate and carnal may share the same root, but not the same root meaning.
True. It is just important to remember that just because a physical thing exists, simply because it is not spiritual, that does not make it evil. Such was the gnostic heresy and what it taught. Thus vestments in themselves are not evil, and people are not evil for wearing them. If they became prideful because they were wearing them, then that is sin, but simply by wearing them does not mean that a person is prideful. In fact, a priest who thought he knew better and eschewed his vestments would be more prideful than one who simply wore the vestments because that is part of his role. God would be angry with the first, the one who eschewed vestments, and not angry at the second, who submitted to rightful authority.
: Catholica Tue Oct 26, 2010 - 10:22:00
: mclees8 Tue Oct 26, 2010 - 06:08:22
: Catholica Mon Oct 25, 2010 - 10:07:24
Mike, Jesus became incarnate, and therefore was carnal. Being "carnal" is not evil.
Catholica you sound like Nicodemus. He did not understand either . I find it uncanny that Paul wrote these verses here in his epistle to the Romans
Romans 8:6
5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. 6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. 8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. 9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
I said before that carnal religion is mans religion. It is all that is outward. vain shows like forms and ritual. it is vestments, Grand cathedrals and stained glass windows that look impressive to men. but God looks on the things of the spirit. That which dwells in the heart of a man who woships God in spirit and in Truth.
At its heart, our religion is very spiritual. It seems that you have chosen to focus only on the physical.
You are trying too hard to fit carnal desires with the existence of vestments together. God established a religion (Judaism) that explicitly had to use vestments, who built a huge exotic beautiful temple which contained the very presence of God for a very long time. If you are trying to connect the existence of vestments and beautiful places of worship to carnal desires, then you are going to fail, because God himself endorsed or prescribed these very things in Israel.
Only God can judge a man if he enjoys wearing vestments to appear important. You cannot judge the hearts of men, so you are not able to say that vestments, cathedrals and stained glass windows were made to "look impressive to men". What we have been telling you all along is that we build them to give glory to God. How is that hard to understand? And stained glass windows are a long-standing tradition that depicted the truths of scripture in a visual format so that those who could not read could still understand the gospel. This came from the rampant illiteracy in the world that existed until the 20th century. So stained glass windows have always been very functional. Beautiful to glorify God, useful to spread the gospel.
: mclees8 Tue Oct 26, 2010 - 06:08:22
the vatican is just man wanting to establish god upon the earth. But those who are of the Spirit assend all the way to heaven where God truly resides
God has not left us orphans. That is what Jesus said. I pray that you come to understand the profound reality of God, that he is very near to us and not distant.
Why are you wanting to rebuild the Old testament. What Jesus established for the New testament church was not to be outward forms of religion but a new and better covenant in the spirit. I am not saying that Catholics cannot hear the gospel or be of the spirit. What the papacy was born out of was carnal desires. What they became was something Jesus never established. There were no religious forms and ritual or the wearing of vestments nor a Vatican city in all its religious architecture when Jesus started his church. It was established in humility but they walked in the power of the Holy Spirit. I don't know exactly when vestments showed up but when it did something was lost and carnal Christianity began, but untill then there was none of that.
Jesus was walking in Jerusalem with the disciples when they saw the temple. and they were saying, see the temple how beautiful it was. Jesus said not one stone will be left on another. And i say to you that just as that came to pass the Vatican will also be a ruins.
When the Christians found favor with Constantine the church authority took a nose dive into apostasy. Lust for power and position quickly set in and the Holy Spirit quickly moved out. When after a long spell the bishops of Rome finally got what they wanted. and all that was vain religion was established they became a religious political entity with all its corruptions. It married into Babylon and walked hand and hand and slept in the same bed. This is why Rev 17 is so vividly described and foresaw by John. This same worldly spirit still exists today and will take the church to antichrist. but the Lord warns his church to come out of her or be judged with her.
God bless
: mclees8 Tue Oct 26, 2010 - 12:08:11
Why are you wanting to rebuild the Old testament.
We're not. I'm trying to point out how your argument is false, the argument that seems to be that wearing vestments and building beautiful buildings indicate sinful pride.
: mclees8 Tue Oct 26, 2010 - 12:08:11
What Jesus established for the New testament church was not to be outward forms of religion but a new and better covenant in the spirit.
That is your opinion. In fact our Lord speaks highly of religion in the New Testament. James 1:27 describes the important purpose of religion. In other places, piety as a synonym to religion is spoken highly of. The fact that the New Covenant is in the spirit does not preclude outward signs to glorify God. How can we glorify God? Can I do it through prayer? How about playing a worship song? How about living out the gospel in my life, at my job? What if my gift is for building buildings or making clothes? Can I make clothes that glorify God? Can I build a building to glorify God? Are other people edified by worshiping within a building that is so beautiful that it gives glory to God? Can that building help us raise our spirit to God? Yes! Can a worship song do that? Yes! Can dressing up for Church do that? Yes!
The vestments that the priest wears are all symbolic of spiritual truths. Every piece of clothing was made and a prayer is said by the priest when he puts it on. They all are there to glorify God. But don't take my word for it...
http://www.vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/details/ns_lit_doc_20100216_vestizione_en.html
: mclees8 Tue Oct 26, 2010 - 12:08:11
What the papacy was born out of was carnal desires.
I disagree. That is just your opinion.
: mclees8 Tue Oct 26, 2010 - 12:08:11
What they became was something Jesus never established. There were no religious forms and ritual or the wearing of vestments nor a Vatican city in all its religious architecture when Jesus started his church.
The kingdom of God is like a mustard seed that grows and grows and grows. Of course there was no Church before Jesus. After Jesus there was one Church, the Catholic Church.
: mclees8 Tue Oct 26, 2010 - 12:08:11
It was established in humility but they walked in the power of the Holy Spirit. I don't know exactly when vestments showed up but when it did something was lost and carnal Christianity began, but untill then there was none of that.
Test everything, keep what is good. The early Church saw the reverence and beauty of the wearing of vestments within the religions in Rome that existed at the time, and they saw that as a way to bring glory to our God. So we adopted this practice, but added sacred meanings and prayers to them to sanctify this, to make it not carnal, but spiritual, and something that glorifies God.
: mclees8 Tue Oct 26, 2010 - 12:08:11
Jesus was walking in Jerusalem with the disciples when they saw the temple. and they were saying, see the temple how beautiful it was. Jesus said not one stone will be left on another. And i say to you that just as that came to pass the Vatican will also be a ruins.
2000 years. Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it. If the Vatican and the Church could be destroyed, it would prove that Jesus lied. But the Church will always be, until the end of the world, like it or not.
: mclees8 Tue Oct 26, 2010 - 12:08:11
When the Christians found favor with Constantine the church authority took a nose dive into apostasy.
Show us how the doctrines changed, from the early Church to when the Catholic Church gained favor with Constantine. Your claim of apostasy is completely unsubstantiated. It is something that you have to believe to support your own personal beliefs but cannot prove is true.
: mclees8 Tue Oct 26, 2010 - 12:08:11
Lust for power and position quickly set in and the Holy Spirit quickly moved out. When after a long spell the bishops of Rome finally got what they wanted. and all that was vain religion was established they became a religious political entity with all its corruptions. It married into Babylon and walked hand and hand and slept in the same bed. This is why Rev 17 is so vividly described and foresaw by John. This same worldly spirit still exists today and will take the church to antichrist. but the Lord warns his church to come out of her or be judged with her.
Substantiation please. No doubt the Church is filled with sinners. Every man is a sinner. No doubt that some bishops abused their power. None of that sin, though, ever changed the Catholic Church's moral teachings, has it? Amazing. Nor has the Church contradicted previous doctrines or abandoned the fullness of the truth given by Christ. It seems that the promise of the Holy Spirit, that God himself is more powerful than sin.
I can't say the same thing for heretics though. Look at the Anglican Church, look at the ELCA Lutherans. That, my friend, is what we call apostasy. And the beliefs of the Anglicans and the Lutherans started so close to the beliefs of the Catholic Church. Yet there was something critical they all lacked, which was the promise of the Holy Spirit to lead them into all truth and the authority to proclaim the gospel and consecrate the Eucharist. They were not founded by Jesus, and they will fail. No organization on Earth has lasted as long as the Catholic Church.
Why not substantiate your opinions? You talk like you know a lot of history. Rather just your fallible opinion of what scripture is saying. Your beliefs are based on you.
: mclees8 Tue Oct 26, 2010 - 12:08:11
: Catholica Tue Oct 26, 2010 - 10:22:00
: mclees8 Tue Oct 26, 2010 - 06:08:22
: Catholica Mon Oct 25, 2010 - 10:07:24
Mike, Jesus became incarnate, and therefore was carnal. Being "carnal" is not evil.
Catholica you sound like Nicodemus. He did not understand either . I find it uncanny that Paul wrote these verses here in his epistle to the Romans
Romans 8:6
5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. 6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. 8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. 9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
I said before that carnal religion is mans religion. It is all that is outward. vain shows like forms and ritual. it is vestments, Grand cathedrals and stained glass windows that look impressive to men. but God looks on the things of the spirit. That which dwells in the heart of a man who woships God in spirit and in Truth.
At its heart, our religion is very spiritual. It seems that you have chosen to focus only on the physical.
You are trying too hard to fit carnal desires with the existence of vestments together. God established a religion (Judaism) that explicitly had to use vestments, who built a huge exotic beautiful temple which contained the very presence of God for a very long time. If you are trying to connect the existence of vestments and beautiful places of worship to carnal desires, then you are going to fail, because God himself endorsed or prescribed these very things in Israel.
Only God can judge a man if he enjoys wearing vestments to appear important. You cannot judge the hearts of men, so you are not able to say that vestments, cathedrals and stained glass windows were made to "look impressive to men". What we have been telling you all along is that we build them to give glory to God. How is that hard to understand? And stained glass windows are a long-standing tradition that depicted the truths of scripture in a visual format so that those who could not read could still understand the gospel. This came from the rampant illiteracy in the world that existed until the 20th century. So stained glass windows have always been very functional. Beautiful to glorify God, useful to spread the gospel.
: mclees8 Tue Oct 26, 2010 - 06:08:22
the vatican is just man wanting to establish god upon the earth. But those who are of the Spirit assend all the way to heaven where God truly resides
God has not left us orphans. That is what Jesus said. I pray that you come to understand the profound reality of God, that he is very near to us and not distant.
Why are you wanting to rebuild the Old testament. What Jesus established for the New testament church was not to be outward forms of religion but a new and better covenant in the spirit. I am not saying that Catholics cannot hear the gospel or be of the spirit. What the papacy was born out of was carnal desires. What they became was something Jesus never established. There were no religious forms and ritual or the wearing of vestments nor a Vatican city in all its religious architecture when Jesus started his church. It was established in humility but they walked in the power of the Holy Spirit. I don't know exactly when vestments showed up but when it did something was lost and carnal Christianity began, but untill then there was none of that.
Jesus was walking in Jerusalem with the disciples when they saw the temple. and they were saying, see the temple how beautiful it was. Jesus said not one stone will be left on another. And i say to you that just as that came to pass the Vatican will also be a ruins.
When the Christians found favor with Constantine the church authority took a nose dive into apostasy. Lust for power and position quickly set in and the Holy Spirit quickly moved out. When after a long spell the bishops of Rome finally got what they wanted. and all that was vain religion was established they became a religious political entity with all its corruptions. It married into Babylon and walked hand and hand and slept in the same bed. This is why Rev 17 is so vividly described and foresaw by John. This same worldly spirit still exists today and will take the church to antichrist. but the Lord warns his church to come out of her or be judged with her.
God bless
With all due respect brother I think you're missing our brother's point. You say that it is man's carnal nature that brought about the vestments and grand structures of Catholicism. You then go on to make "carnal" and "sinful" synonymous.
Catholica's first point goes back to the one of the very first foundations of Christianity. Jesus Christ was both fully God and fully man. If, by your reasoning, "carnal"(man) and "sinful" are infact synonymous, then you would be indirectly advocating that Jesus, being both fully God(divine) and fully Man(carnal), would have share a synonymous essence with sin. Catholica is saying that of course is not the case. Just because something is carnal, physical or nonspiritual that does not mean that it is automatically sinful as well. Therefore YOU can not accurately and credibly discern that Catholic Church clergy wear vestments and build grand establishments as means to be prideful and/or flaunt their authoritive positions.
Our brother's second point is more of a supportive piece, in which he refers to God Himself ordaining His servants to build a grand temple and wear fine vestments not as a means to glorify themselves but as a means to bring glory to Him. Catholica is not saying that this is ironclad proof. He is however saying that this is scriptural and historic evidence to support the Catholic practices you oppose while not having any scriptural or historic backing refuting them as wrong.
: Catholica Tue Oct 26, 2010 - 10:27:45
: islanddogs Tue Oct 26, 2010 - 07:33:41
Hi
Jesus was incarnate, Emmanuel "God with us" he was not carnal. I think you will find a number of scriptures which point to the sinlessness of Jesus.
To paraphrase "He became sin for us, yet was without sin". That is he carried our sin, he was the scapegoat, of Deuteronomy, and the lamb.
Incarnate and carnal may share the same root, but not the same root meaning.
True. It is just important to remember that just because a physical thing exists, simply because it is not spiritual, that does not make it evil. Such was the gnostic heresy and what it taught. Thus vestments in themselves are not evil, and people are not evil for wearing them. If they became prideful because they were wearing them, then that is sin, but simply by wearing them does not mean that a person is prideful. In fact, a priest who thought he knew better and eschewed his vestments would be more prideful than one who simply wore the vestments because that is part of his role. God would be angry with the first, the one who eschewed vestments, and not angry at the second, who submitted to rightful authority.
The point about the vestments is that they have given authority. They are not worn as close. Carnal within the bible is specifically about our carnal nature, which Yes is sinful.
Therefore you have to show that the significance of the apparel is negligible, then the authority vested in them would be nullified, and the word vestments would not apply. The idea is that people are set apart for what reason, you must state, either the Catholic position or your own.
If it is the Catholic position then the clothes they wear, invest in them authority, so Mclees would actually be correct.
The traditional view of the Papal vestments are that they infer upon the wearer authority, which is why when the pope speaks Ex CATHEDRA he does so in full regalia. Thank you for answering by the way, apprecaited.
: islanddogs Wed Oct 27, 2010 - 08:00:40
The traditional view of the Papal vestments are that they infer upon the wearer authority, which is why when the pope speaks Ex CATHEDRA he does so in full regalia. Thank you for answering by the way, apprecaited.
Stop making things up. You obviously have no clue.
: islanddogs Wed Oct 27, 2010 - 08:00:40
: Catholica Tue Oct 26, 2010 - 10:27:45
: islanddogs Tue Oct 26, 2010 - 07:33:41
Hi
Jesus was incarnate, Emmanuel "God with us" he was not carnal. I think you will find a number of scriptures which point to the sinlessness of Jesus.
To paraphrase "He became sin for us, yet was without sin". That is he carried our sin, he was the scapegoat, of Deuteronomy, and the lamb.
Incarnate and carnal may share the same root, but not the same root meaning.
True. It is just important to remember that just because a physical thing exists, simply because it is not spiritual, that does not make it evil. Such was the gnostic heresy and what it taught. Thus vestments in themselves are not evil, and people are not evil for wearing them. If they became prideful because they were wearing them, then that is sin, but simply by wearing them does not mean that a person is prideful. In fact, a priest who thought he knew better and eschewed his vestments would be more prideful than one who simply wore the vestments because that is part of his role. God would be angry with the first, the one who eschewed vestments, and not angry at the second, who submitted to rightful authority.
The point about the vestments is that they have given authority. They are not worn as close. Carnal within the bible is specifically about our carnal nature, which Yes is sinful.
Therefore you have to show that the significance of the apparel is negligible, then the authority vested in them would be nullified, and the word vestments would not apply. The idea is that people are set apart for what reason, you must state, either the Catholic position or your own.
If it is the Catholic position then the clothes they wear, invest in them authority, so Mclees would actually be correct.
The traditional view of the Papal vestments are that they infer upon the wearer authority, which is why when the pope speaks Ex CATHEDRA he does so in full regalia. Thank you for answering by the way, apprecaited.
That is not Catholic teaching at all. Oh man here we go.
Catholicism teaches that the only authoritive power of the Church is in the office ir the title. It does not teach that clothes endow a man with authority or that man himself is the authority. It is the office that holds the authority and the person chosen to hold that office, inherits the characteristics of the office.
The vestments the Catholic Church wears are no different from the uniforms of a military or company. They are meant to distinguish those aflliated with ced organization from those who are not and specify a certain rank structure.
It is a little ridiculous and kind of unfair to imply that every single clergy that wears vestments does so as a surrender to their own sinful pride and boastfulness.
: LightHammer Wed Oct 27, 2010 - 03:06:18
: mclees8 Tue Oct 26, 2010 - 12:08:11
: Catholica Tue Oct 26, 2010 - 10:22:00
: mclees8 Tue Oct 26, 2010 - 06:08:22
: Catholica Mon Oct 25, 2010 - 10:07:24
Mike, Jesus became incarnate, and therefore was carnal. Being "carnal" is not evil.
Catholica you sound like Nicodemus. He did not understand either . I find it uncanny that Paul wrote these verses here in his epistle to the Romans
Romans 8:6
5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. 6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. 8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. 9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
I said before that carnal religion is mans religion. It is all that is outward. vain shows like forms and ritual. it is vestments, Grand cathedrals and stained glass windows that look impressive to men. but God looks on the things of the spirit. That which dwells in the heart of a man who woships God in spirit and in Truth.
At its heart, our religion is very spiritual. It seems that you have chosen to focus only on the physical.
You are trying too hard to fit carnal desires with the existence of vestments together. God established a religion (Judaism) that explicitly had to use vestments, who built a huge exotic beautiful temple which contained the very presence of God for a very long time. If you are trying to connect the existence of vestments and beautiful places of worship to carnal desires, then you are going to fail, because God himself endorsed or prescribed these very things in Israel.
Only God can judge a man if he enjoys wearing vestments to appear important. You cannot judge the hearts of men, so you are not able to say that vestments, cathedrals and stained glass windows were made to "look impressive to men". What we have been telling you all along is that we build them to give glory to God. How is that hard to understand? And stained glass windows are a long-standing tradition that depicted the truths of scripture in a visual format so that those who could not read could still understand the gospel. This came from the rampant illiteracy in the world that existed until the 20th century. So stained glass windows have always been very functional. Beautiful to glorify God, useful to spread the gospel.
: mclees8 Tue Oct 26, 2010 - 06:08:22
the vatican is just man wanting to establish god upon the earth. But those who are of the Spirit assend all the way to heaven where God truly resides
God has not left us orphans. That is what Jesus said. I pray that you come to understand the profound reality of God, that he is very near to us and not distant.
Why are you wanting to rebuild the Old testament. What Jesus established for the New testament church was not to be outward forms of religion but a new and better covenant in the spirit. I am not saying that Catholics cannot hear the gospel or be of the spirit. What the papacy was born out of was carnal desires. What they became was something Jesus never established. There were no religious forms and ritual or the wearing of vestments nor a Vatican city in all its religious architecture when Jesus started his church. It was established in humility but they walked in the power of the Holy Spirit. I don't know exactly when vestments showed up but when it did something was lost and carnal Christianity began, but untill then there was none of that.
Jesus was walking in Jerusalem with the disciples when they saw the temple. and they were saying, see the temple how beautiful it was. Jesus said not one stone will be left on another. And i say to you that just as that came to pass the Vatican will also be a ruins.
When the Christians found favor with Constantine the church authority took a nose dive into apostasy. Lust for power and position quickly set in and the Holy Spirit quickly moved out. When after a long spell the bishops of Rome finally got what they wanted. and all that was vain religion was established they became a religious political entity with all its corruptions. It married into Babylon and walked hand and hand and slept in the same bed. This is why Rev 17 is so vividly described and foresaw by John. This same worldly spirit still exists today and will take the church to antichrist. but the Lord warns his church to come out of her or be judged with her.
God bless
With all due respect brother I think you're missing our brother's point. You say that it is man's carnal nature that brought about the vestments and grand structures of Catholicism. You then go on to make "carnal" and "sinful" synonymous.
Catholica's first point goes back to the one of the very first foundations of Christianity. Jesus Christ was both fully God and fully man. If, by your reasoning, "carnal"(man) and "sinful" are infact synonymous, then you would be indirectly advocating that Jesus, being both fully God(divine) and fully Man(carnal), would have share a synonymous essence with sin. Catholica is saying that of course is not the case. Just because something is carnal, physical or nonspiritual that does not mean that it is automatically sinful as well. Therefore YOU can not accurately and credibly discern that Catholic Church clergy wear vestments and build grand establishments as means to be prideful and/or flaunt their authoritive positions.
Our brother's second point is more of a supportive piece, in which he refers to God Himself ordaining His servants to build a grand temple and wear fine vestments not as a means to glorify themselves but as a means to bring glory to Him. Catholica is not saying that this is ironclad proof. He is however saying that this is scriptural and historic evidence to support the Catholic practices you oppose while not having any scriptural or historic backing refuting them as wrong.
Brother I don't think I am being understood. I am not saying that carnal things are sinful. I am say love not he world or the things of it. Not all that is in the world is sinful but not all things are expedient for Believers I will try to define this more latter. remember the apostles never wore such things.
God bless
Of Tunics, Togas, and Tradition
- the opinionated Tailor
The liturgical vesture tradition of the Orthodox Christian Church is a tradition of great beauty, theological significance, and profound historical continuity. It is a garment tradition that originates in the very dawn of humanity with the clothing of Adam and Eve after the Fall, continues with the prototypical garments of Mesopotamia and Egypt, proceeds through Greek and Roman attire, and finally culminates and finds a standard expression in the comprehensive Christian vision of the Byzantine Roman Empire. It is a tradition that has outlasted nations, empires and cultures; a truly remarkable pedigree when one considers that an Orthodox priest today wears garments that have, in essential type, been in use by mankind in one form or another for over 6000 years. Perhaps even more astonishing is the fact that the specific garments of Orthodox liturgical dress have enjoyed an unbroken chain of design for the past 1500 years, making the prototypes of vestments worn by deacons, priests, and bishops today easily recognized in icons dating as far back as the fifth century in such historically significant churches as San Vitale in Ravenna and San Apollinare in Classe.
Because the origins of Orthodox Christian liturgical vestments are found in some of the earliest garments of mankind, it is helpful to begin a study of Orthodox ecclesiastical vesture with an overview of the garments of the ancient world. To begin we will focus primarily on the clothing of ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt, since in these regions we have the greatest amount of information pertaining to early garment history. This is a radical departure from the time period considered by most writers on Church vestments, most of whom have contented themselves with observations on the historical antecedents of liturgical vesture beginning with the garments of ancient Greece and Rome. While the immediate origins of Orthodox Christian vestments are observed most clearly in the garments of ancient Greece and Rome, a study of the garments that in their turn influenced those of the classical age leads us to a greater, more spiritually significant story that must be told. When one examines the earliest garments of civilized man–the archetypical garments that will develop into the daily dress of ancient Greece and Rome and, in turn, our Orthodox Christian liturgical vestments–one observes with startling clarity the common origins of this entire historical trajectory of clothing. The very garments that Adam and Eve used to cover their nakedness become transfigured through God's merciful economy into Orthodox Christian liturgical vesture: "the garments of salvation
Figure 5. A Roman toga shown draped on the body and laid out as a flattened semi-circle.
At the height of its usage, there were eight separate types of toga, ranging from those worn by ordinary citizens to those worn in mourning to the special toga candida, reserved for use by candidates for public office. There was a specific toga to be worn by a victorious general (and later by emperors and consuls) and another worn by youths under sixteen. The toga was the garment par excellence among the Romans and they valued it greatly. Despite its simple shape, it was a complex garment to wear because, in the time-honored fashion of the ancient Greeks, it required a highly distinctive form of draping to be worn correctly. To give an idea of its complexity, garment historian Mary G. Houston gives these directions for its proper draping (see Fig 5):
The method of draping is as follows: Begin by making toga into folds of about eight inches wide and arrange them so the stripe will show. Wind one end backwards from the wrist to the shoulder of the left arm so that the arm is entirely covered...Now pass over the left shoulder and draw it downwards across the back until it rests at right side of waist, and, having sufficiently loosened the folds to allow the curved edge to reach the ankles, draw the straight edge onwards across the front of the waist, still keeping it in folds to prevent trailing. Continue round the back of waist until the right side is reached again. Now take the whole garment and throw upwards across the chest and over the left shoulder, taking care to display the band. Draw downwards across the back to the right side again. Now unwind the portion of toga from the left arm and allow it to hang down to the feet from the left shoulder. Last of all, take the still undraped portion of the toga and throw it across the front of the body and across the crook of the left elbow, the left arm being bent at a right angle to thus receive it. [iii]
In addition to the tunica and the toga, there were other garments in use during Roman times that influenced Orthodox Christian liturgical dress and thus must be mentioned. The colobium was a version of the tunica that had shortened sleeves. It was worn by Roman men of free birth and eventually became the liturgical garment referred to in the West as the dalmatic and in the Orthodox Church as the deacon's sticharion. The colobium reached its most elaborate and ornamented version as the court robes of Byzantine emperors and empresses (commonly seen in early Byzantine mosaics) which garments in turn served as the source of the bishop's sakkos and, in a historically significant parallel development, influenced the court dress of almost every royal house in Western Europe[iv]. The paneula, a cloak in a semi-circular shape, was worn by both men and women, primarily for travel or in place of the toga in the case of those residing in the country, and did not have the same high status as the toga. Another form of the cloak, the pallium, was a long, rectangular garment distantly related to the toga which, while rarely worn by ancient Romans, being considered too distinctly Greek (since it was identical with the Greek himation), came back into vogue sometime prior to the founding of Constantinople.
[Insert figures of paneula and pallium]
Thus at the beginning of the Christian era we see two distinct categories of garments, tunics and cloaks. All too often in the research of liturgical garments a critical error is made in presenting liturgical garments as far more complicated and convoluted in their evolution than they actually are. For instance, it is vitally important to understand pre-Christian dress in order to ascertain the simple fact that tunics were often layered, a necessity in colder climates or for general comfort and modesty. A person wearing a colobium, a specialized type of tunic, must also wear a lighter tunic as an undergarment for modesty, but despite the fact that they are two separate garments, in their essence they are the same design: both are tunics. When studying the origins of Orthodox Christian dress, it is helpful to view garments according to their basic design, and not necessarily by the various terminology that has been applied to them throughout different ages. In this way, a universality of design can be seen in Orthodox Christian vesture that illustrates its origins in ancient garment usages.
The Roman dress described thus far remained in use until the 3rd century AD and the subsequent founding of Constantinople as the "New Rome
: Ryan2010 Thu Oct 28, 2010 - 11:02:36
Figure 5. A Roman toga shown draped on the body and laid out as a flattened semi-circle.
At the height of its usage, there were eight separate types of toga, ranging from those worn by ordinary citizens to those worn in mourning to the special toga candida, reserved for use by candidates for public office. There was a specific toga to be worn by a victorious general (and later by emperors and consuls) and another worn by youths under sixteen. The toga was the garment par excellence among the Romans and they valued it greatly. Despite its simple shape, it was a complex garment to wear because, in the time-honored fashion of the ancient Greeks, it required a highly distinctive form of draping to be worn correctly. To give an idea of its complexity, garment historian Mary G. Houston gives these directions for its proper draping (see Fig 5):
The method of draping is as follows: Begin by making toga into folds of about eight inches wide and arrange them so the stripe will show. Wind one end backwards from the wrist to the shoulder of the left arm so that the arm is entirely covered...Now pass over the left shoulder and draw it downwards across the back until it rests at right side of waist, and, having sufficiently loosened the folds to allow the curved edge to reach the ankles, draw the straight edge onwards across the front of the waist, still keeping it in folds to prevent trailing. Continue round the back of waist until the right side is reached again. Now take the whole garment and throw upwards across the chest and over the left shoulder, taking care to display the band. Draw downwards across the back to the right side again. Now unwind the portion of toga from the left arm and allow it to hang down to the feet from the left shoulder. Last of all, take the still undraped portion of the toga and throw it across the front of the body and across the crook of the left elbow, the left arm being bent at a right angle to thus receive it. [iii]
In addition to the tunica and the toga, there were other garments in use during Roman times that influenced Orthodox Christian liturgical dress and thus must be mentioned. The colobium was a version of the tunica that had shortened sleeves. It was worn by Roman men of free birth and eventually became the liturgical garment referred to in the West as the dalmatic and in the Orthodox Church as the deacon's sticharion. The colobium reached its most elaborate and ornamented version as the court robes of Byzantine emperors and empresses (commonly seen in early Byzantine mosaics) which garments in turn served as the source of the bishop's sakkos and, in a historically significant parallel development, influenced the court dress of almost every royal house in Western Europe[iv]. The paneula, a cloak in a semi-circular shape, was worn by both men and women, primarily for travel or in place of the toga in the case of those residing in the country, and did not have the same high status as the toga. Another form of the cloak, the pallium, was a long, rectangular garment distantly related to the toga which, while rarely worn by ancient Romans, being considered too distinctly Greek (since it was identical with the Greek himation), came back into vogue sometime prior to the founding of Constantinople.
[Insert figures of paneula and pallium]
Thus at the beginning of the Christian era we see two distinct categories of garments, tunics and cloaks. All too often in the research of liturgical garments a critical error is made in presenting liturgical garments as far more complicated and convoluted in their evolution than they actually are. For instance, it is vitally important to understand pre-Christian dress in order to ascertain the simple fact that tunics were often layered, a necessity in colder climates or for general comfort and modesty. A person wearing a colobium, a specialized type of tunic, must also wear a lighter tunic as an undergarment for modesty, but despite the fact that they are two separate garments, in their essence they are the same design: both are tunics. When studying the origins of Orthodox Christian dress, it is helpful to view garments according to their basic design, and not necessarily by the various terminology that has been applied to them throughout different ages. In this way, a universality of design can be seen in Orthodox Christian vesture that illustrates its origins in ancient garment usages.
The Roman dress described thus far remained in use until the 3rd century AD and the subsequent founding of Constantinople as the "New Rome
: LightHammer Wed Oct 27, 2010 - 12:18:56
: islanddogs Wed Oct 27, 2010 - 08:00:40
: Catholica Tue Oct 26, 2010 - 10:27:45
: islanddogs Tue Oct 26, 2010 - 07:33:41
Hi
Jesus was incarnate, Emmanuel "God with us" he was not carnal. I think you will find a number of scriptures which point to the sinlessness of Jesus.
To paraphrase "He became sin for us, yet was without sin". That is he carried our sin, he was the scapegoat, of Deuteronomy, and the lamb.
Incarnate and carnal may share the same root, but not the same root meaning.
True. It is just important to remember that just because a physical thing exists, simply because it is not spiritual, that does not make it evil. Such was the gnostic heresy and what it taught. Thus vestments in themselves are not evil, and people are not evil for wearing them. If they became prideful because they were wearing them, then that is sin, but simply by wearing them does not mean that a person is prideful. In fact, a priest who thought he knew better and eschewed his vestments would be more prideful than one who simply wore the vestments because that is part of his role. God would be angry with the first, the one who eschewed vestments, and not angry at the second, who submitted to rightful authority.
The point about the vestments is that they have given authority. They are not worn as close. Carnal within the bible is specifically about our carnal nature, which Yes is sinful.
Therefore you have to show that the significance of the apparel is negligible, then the authority vested in them would be nullified, and the word vestments would not apply. The idea is that people are set apart for what reason, you must state, either the Catholic position or your own.
If it is the Catholic position then the clothes they wear, invest in them authority, so Mclees would actually be correct.
The traditional view of the Papal vestments are that they infer upon the wearer authority, which is why when the pope speaks Ex CATHEDRA he does so in full regalia. Thank you for answering by the way, apprecaited.
That is not Catholic teaching at all. Oh man here we go.
Catholicism teaches that the only authoritive power of the Church is in the office ir the title. It does not teach that clothes endow a man with authority or that man himself is the authority. It is the office that holds the authority and the person chosen to hold that office, inherits the characteristics of the office.
The vestments the Catholic Church wears are no different from the uniforms of a military or company. They are meant to distinguish those aflliated with ced organization from those who are not and specify a certain rank structure.
It is a little ridiculous and kind of unfair to imply that every single clergy that wears vestments does so as a surrender to their own sinful pride and boastfulness.
Then please state why you believe they are important and why they are worn. They are vestements, invested with something. By the way the rules on the regalia have changed over time.
Neither have I said the wearing of them equals pride. I'm trying to establish why they are worn. McLees at the moment has set out an argument, you have not.
Yes, the clothes display rank, thank you. Rank equals authority. The regalia is meant to distinguish. By the way I have not been rude and would prefer that others wernt, taking into account American Culture, I still believe Lighthammer and Chestertonrules, were rude.
Dear Ryan I do not think the apostles were class minded.
In the way you mean it I agree.
And i do not think they ever changed from the clothes they always wore.
Not entirely sure what you mean there.
Now I don't know the time that bishops started wearing vestments that made them look like some king but it is all about a great need to separate the leadership from the common laity in an exalted way.
Well I think I agree with you to some extent but would disagree with some of your finer points. I disagree that they made the vestments to look like some king but rather the vestments point toward, The King. That is, Christ.
This is a finer point here. They are not robing themselves "in Majesty" but rather they are using office and function as a "type" of The King. It's not the person of the bishop sotospeak that is robbed in Majesty but in the context of the Church, the Overseer is there looking "over" the house as Christ looks over the house.
We are not saying that the bishop IS Christ but instead that the bishop is a "type" of Christ in regards to the "structure" of the liturgical Church.
Big difference there.
Pastor for instance means, "Shepherd". Now we all know that there is only 1 Shepherd and that IS Christ. Right? But insofar as Christ's "body" functions, some have been appointed to "Shepherd" not as an end within themselves but as a type, a window into the revelation of who God is.
Having said that also know that that ancient faiths DO believe that "all Christians" are to be and ARE a "priesthood". In short, the ancient faiths also believe that the people are a priesthood of believers.
But we are careful not to over-spiritualize this because we are also given function. I mean, a man and a woman who marry are still a man and a woman despite becoming One. It is true that there is no man or woman, slave or free, etc. "IN CHRIST" yet it's not as though we are not men or women. If that hyper-literalization of this spiritual reality were true against our biological bodies, then homosexuals really could marry one another or be ordained etc. But we know that there is function and purpose and office.
So the vestments are not there to glorify a person OVER another as we think of it in a carnal sense. However, that temptation IS there. One of our bishops said that we take a monk (our bishops are monks) and we dress him up in these fancy clothes and give him double honor (that's biblical) and heap all these "things" on him and then ask him to be humble.
How hard! Of course it is hard. I don't think we should refute that. After all, what layman ever started a schism or attempted to ruin a Church? More often than not it is the Overseers and Elders who fall to such temptations.
We should, if we adhere to an ancient faith, admit this. McClees has a point.
However, the vestments are not there to tempt our leaders to fall to pride. Please know this. Please don't accuse us of trying to make those who are over us (look up that phrase, "over you" in the Holy Scriptures) fall to pride.
I want to know when this happened and why.
Me too. However, if you have already made up your mind and only wish to find proof to support your view you might, if you are wrong, distort whatever history you might dig up. So I only advise you to be cautious. Discover instead what the ancient faith in question sought to teach through the vestments.
Because the vestments themselves are Evangelistic and proclaim the glory of God. They also reflect the mirror or image of God in which man is made and which ONLY shines, when the light of Christ shines on that mirror.
Vestments should not be an end within itself but a window into the Majesty of God. If you can not see this and only see pride, then do know that if the man who wears such a vestment is not found by God to be prideful, you might have judged him falsely and accused him of something he has not done.
Those who need to look religious and be known as authority and want recognition. A fleshly human thing.
I agree that if they only seek to want recognition and wear the vestment as such then perhaps that individual IS prideful but I don't believe that this is the purpose of the vestments themselves.
If Jesus never did this himself and I doubt the Apostles ever did. then what happened to These carnal bishops who's claim for authority is all they have amongst men But the apostles authority was not of this world.
You have a valid point. Jesus came into this world born in a cave, swaddled in rags as it were and did not wear his glory on his sleeve sotospeak. However, the transfiguration speaks volumes of His glory, the glory that He now radiates and shines forth while at the right hand of the Father.
And so it is that this is where the story of Christianity left off and continued onward and through cultural lenses, was proclaimed in various ways to the glory of God, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
God bless
The Transfiguration
(http://www.orthodoxlivonia.org/images/Transfiguration.jpg)
Glory to Jesus Christ
: islanddogs Fri Oct 29, 2010 - 07:58:36
The regalia is meant to distinguish. By the way I have not been rude and would prefer that others wernt, taking into account American Culture, I still believe Lighthammer and Chestertonrules, were rude.
I didn't mean to be rude. I'm not sure what you are referring to.
I believe that Lighthammer and I can strongly disagree with each other and others without being rude.
Are we still talking about clothes? I haven't been on this forum for a while, and we're still talking about clothes?
The reason is the significance given to them. Also I'm still waiting for the answer to the question where is the biblical evidence for the Apostolic authority to be passed on, None has been provided.
The only Apostle who passed on anything was Paul to Timothy and Titus. It was not Apostolic authority, but the gospel message which was to be taught, as far as Biblical evidence goes neither of these two held an office in Rome.
They were told to appoint Deacons- Gk Diakonos, an attendant, a waiter, are the best descriptions. Unlike Prelate, which is first, pre. 2 Thess 3:2 is useful.
2 Timothy 4:1 uses the word Depart, it is gk aphistemi, it is to revolt, desist, withdraw,refrain (from the faith in this case) or to desert. Basically there will be an apostatcy, a departing from the Faith.
2 Timothy 2:14-15, 22, 2 Timothy 3:8-9.
On apparel Luke 12:27-31.
The Priesthood within the Catholic church cannot go into purgatory, which is why they have so much difficulty with Priests who are found to be living a lie. In the case of the scandals the Pope would have to ex-communicate all of them, bishops, cardinals, and also reprospectively.
We of course will go to purgatory, which resulted in the reformation baulking at indulgences, buying favour, which of course led to a burgeoning sainthood, relics, for instance the Turin Shroud.
Why is it vital to establish the truth on this question. Because it changes the biblical exhortation of Peter for a Royal Priesthood, a born again, spirit filled church, who serve each other, under the authority of scripture.
: Selene Fri Oct 29, 2010 - 18:21:02
Are we still talking about clothes? I haven't been on this forum for a while, and we're still talking about clothes?
Yes. It is not just about clothes but why they wear them. It touches on everything the papacy is founded on, which is the need to look like religious authority in a very exalted way. Why the apostles did not do this. Did Jesus institute this exalted clergy
that rules an empire religiously and politically with all its pomp and finery the fact that this religious authority still exalts itself among men is not to the glory of God but its carnal ambitions.
The reason is not hard to figure out. The bishops ambition was be supreme authority not only religiously but politically . So Just like kings and emperors sat on thrones in grand palaces they needed to be visible, not just for the believers but as the religious authority of the empire. This was not about salvation but adherence to religious political rule.
God bless
: islanddogs Sat Oct 30, 2010 - 13:22:28
The only Apostle who passed on anything was Paul to Timothy and Titus. It was not Apostolic authority, but the gospel message which was to be taught, as far as Biblical evidence goes neither of these two held an office in Rome.
Where did you come up with that?
For one thing, the whole point of apostolic succession is to preserve the gospel message. Who has authority to teach?
We can read about it here:
Acts 15
22Then
the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas.
They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, two men who were leaders among the brothers. 23With them they sent the following letter: The apostles and elders, your brothers, To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: Greetings. 24We have heard that
some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said.
Acts 9
15But the Lord said to Ananias, "Go! ::groupprayer:: to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel. 16I will show him how much he must suffer for my name."
17Then Ananias went to the house and entered it.
Placing his hands on Saul, he said, "Brother Saul, the Lord—
Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here—has
sent me so that you may see again and
be filled with the Holy Spirit."
John a lasco in Reformation of the Church, edited by Iain Murray. stated that the first Bishop of Rome was Celestius who said that the elders were not to wear clothing that distinguished them form the common people. It was Sylvester who began the change, completed by Charlemagne. The priesthood, ir Chrit's priesthood was in the line of Melchizedek. there was no need for shadows when we have the light.
The change from the Royal Priesthood to a corrupt church was slow. Benedict began a monastic existence in Naples 529, there followed Carthusians, Cisterians. There were still only elders known as Bishops, only later did they become Pope's.
However a group raised up under the name of patriarchs, Rome, Jerusalem, Antioch, Constantinople, Ephesus, Alexandria, and Corinth, were the main churches which vied for position. Eventually resulting in a struggle between Constantinople and what became the Orthodox Churches, initially the Greek.
Peter may have died in Rome, he probably did not live there, or sit as Pope, no biblical evidence of this. In the 6th Century Innocent 1, began to establish Rome as the authority. Zosimus eventually stating that no right existed to question the Bishop of Rome, Then came Leo1 and Gregory 1, who established the Pall or Pallium to distinguish the deputies/vicars.
Pope Leo 111 said that the Bishop could oppose /depose Kings. Two faked letters were found the Donation of Constantine, and the Decretals. One saying that the Pope could wear a crown, the other establishing the Apostolic line.
The split with the Orthodox church eventually came over form whom the Holy Spirit proceeded, God and son, or just God.
Churches used to be split into three , 1. where those awaiting baptism sat, 2 . A place for the laity 3. A place where only the Bishops and elders could sit.. This resulted from the dress and specifically form the Papal dress.
Popes were deposed regularly. Pope Boniface V11 murdered his predecessor, John X11 . In 1073 Hildebrand became Pope, named Gregory V11, he said the Pope was head of the church, and eventually the representative of Christ, he abolished simony, the right of clergy to marry. Alexander 111 and Innocent 111, both strengthened the Pope's rule.
In England Henry 11, fought with Beckett, and eventually with the Pope concerning his succesor, the King supporting John De Gray, the Pope Langton. King John was excommunicated as was Henry V11 The saxon king by Gregory V11. John was forced to sign the Magna Carta. There was a General (lateran) Council, shortly after that a statement was made concerning the Pope's being the heirs to Peter as Bishop of Rome, given the intrigue and murder that occurred this was somewhat disengenous. At this time we also had the dcotrine of transubstantiation being first aired.
From the doctrine of Purgatory, came the Medieval corruption of indulgences, and buying less time spent in purgatory, we also saw the developement of pilgramages to relics, saints and an extension of the Worship of Mary as the "queen of heaven". In the 13th C came the Council of Toulouse and the beginnings of the Inquisition, and there hunting of in particular the Waldenses. It was seen by the reformers that the external abuses did not get to the core of the problem, it was the corrupt doctrine of the Church of Rome.
Chesterton that is Historical, you may not like it, but I have seen no biblical evidence.
An Apostle must have seen Christ face to face and been designated an Apostle by him. Signs and wonders would attest to that. We have only ever had twelve prophets, I did say, I do not hold to the modern teaching of Apostolic authority within the charismatic and North AmericanChurches. It is called the church of glory, rather than church of the cross and suffering.
I again hope you have a good week, ::tippinghat::
Where did you come up with that?
For one thing, the whole point of apostolic succession is to preserve the gospel message. Who has authority to teach?
We can read about it here:
Acts 15
22Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, two men who were leaders among the brothers. 23With them they sent the following letter: The apostles and elders, your brothers, To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: Greetings. 24We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said.
This did not make them Apostles Chesterton. The church still has the authority to send people, however as the Royal priesthood we are allowed to preach the Gospel. It is a simple message, and we should be taught by Christ.Acts 9
15But the Lord said to Ananias, "Go! ::groupprayer:: to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel. 16I will show him how much he must suffer for my name."
This is Paul, Ananias spoke as a prophet as I understand, he was sent with this message. Who was the Apostle.
17Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, "Brother Saul, the Lord—Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here—has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit."
[/quote]
The elders were also given this right, James Chapter 5. This does not point to Papal succession, Peter was the Pope according to the Catholics not Ananias. ::whistle::
: islanddogs Fri Oct 29, 2010 - 07:58:36
: LightHammer Wed Oct 27, 2010 - 12:18:56
: islanddogs Wed Oct 27, 2010 - 08:00:40
: Catholica Tue Oct 26, 2010 - 10:27:45
: islanddogs Tue Oct 26, 2010 - 07:33:41
Hi
Jesus was incarnate, Emmanuel "God with us" he was not carnal. I think you will find a number of scriptures which point to the sinlessness of Jesus.
To paraphrase "He became sin for us, yet was without sin". That is he carried our sin, he was the scapegoat, of Deuteronomy, and the lamb.
Incarnate and carnal may share the same root, but not the same root meaning.
True. It is just important to remember that just because a physical thing exists, simply because it is not spiritual, that does not make it evil. Such was the gnostic heresy and what it taught. Thus vestments in themselves are not evil, and people are not evil for wearing them. If they became prideful because they were wearing them, then that is sin, but simply by wearing them does not mean that a person is prideful. In fact, a priest who thought he knew better and eschewed his vestments would be more prideful than one who simply wore the vestments because that is part of his role. God would be angry with the first, the one who eschewed vestments, and not angry at the second, who submitted to rightful authority.
The point about the vestments is that they have given authority. They are not worn as close. Carnal within the bible is specifically about our carnal nature, which Yes is sinful.
Therefore you have to show that the significance of the apparel is negligible, then the authority vested in them would be nullified, and the word vestments would not apply. The idea is that people are set apart for what reason, you must state, either the Catholic position or your own.
If it is the Catholic position then the clothes they wear, invest in them authority, so Mclees would actually be correct.
The traditional view of the Papal vestments are that they infer upon the wearer authority, which is why when the pope speaks Ex CATHEDRA he does so in full regalia. Thank you for answering by the way, apprecaited.
That is not Catholic teaching at all. Oh man here we go.
Catholicism teaches that the only authoritive power of the Church is in the office ir the title. It does not teach that clothes endow a man with authority or that man himself is the authority. It is the office that holds the authority and the person chosen to hold that office, inherits the characteristics of the office.
The vestments the Catholic Church wears are no different from the uniforms of a military or company. They are meant to distinguish those aflliated with ced organization from those who are not and specify a certain rank structure.
It is a little ridiculous and kind of unfair to imply that every single clergy that wears vestments does so as a surrender to their own sinful pride and boastfulness.
Then please state why you believe they are important and why they are worn. They are vestements, invested with something. By the way the rules on the regalia have changed over time.
Neither have I said the wearing of them equals pride. I'm trying to establish why they are worn. McLees at the moment has set out an argument, you have not.
Yes, the clothes display rank, thank you. Rank equals authority. The regalia is meant to distinguish. By the way I have not been rude and would prefer that others wernt, taking into account American Culture, I still believe Lighthammer and Chestertonrules, were rude.
I've barely posted in this thread so I'm failing to see how I was, in any way shape form or fashion, rude. However I understand that I have a way of putting things that offends people so I apologize for that but I wasn't attempting to be offensive or even sarcastic.
: islanddogs Sat Oct 30, 2010 - 10:42:56
The reason is the significance given to them. Also I'm still waiting for the answer to the question where is the biblical evidence for the Apostolic authority to be passed on, None has been provided.
You won't find biblical evidence to apostolic succession. I'm sorry about that. Apostloc Succession is proven only by history, which for one reason or another you dispute the validity of. The disciples were commanded by Christ to remain in Jerusalem until they had recieved the gift of the Holy Ghost. After the Pentecost they went out into the world setting up churches in major cities and charging trusted men to carry on church leadership as they moved on. Before their deaths they did the same. That is apostolic succession. Every church that bares the name of Christ has some form of succession of its leadership so I really never understand when so many of my brothers and sisters always demand biblical proof for a practice they all adhere to?
There is however scriptural support for the Apostles' view of the importance of a "complete" apostolic authority. There is also an example of the remaining 11 exercise their Christ-given gift to choose a successors for Judas Ischariot.
Act1:20For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.
21Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
22Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.
23And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.
24And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,
25That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.
26And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.
: LightHammer Mon Nov 01, 2010 - 03:42:54
: islanddogs Sat Oct 30, 2010 - 10:42:56
The reason is the significance given to them. Also I'm still waiting for the answer to the question where is the biblical evidence for the Apostolic authority to be passed on, None has been provided.
You won't find biblical evidence to apostolic succession. I'm sorry about that. Apostloc Succession is proven only by history, which for one reason or another you dispute the validity of. The disciples were commanded by Christ to remain in Jerusalem until they had recieved the gift of the Holy Ghost. After the Pentecost they went out into the world setting up churches in major cities and charging trusted men to carry on church leadership as they moved on. Before their deaths they did the same. That is apostolic succession. Every church that bares the name of Christ has some form of succession of its leadership so I really never understand when so many of my brothers and sisters always demand biblical proof for a practice they all adhere to?
There is however scriptural support for the Apostles' view of the importance of a "complete" apostolic authority. There is also an example of the remaining 11 exercise their Christ-given gift to choose a successors for Judas Ischariot.
Act1:20For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.
21Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
22Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.
23And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.
24And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,
25That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.
26And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.
Lighthamer I'm not always sure what side you are on. That is if there is a side to be on. There is a succession and i have no problem with that. The real question is Petrine succession which says that all Bishops of Rome succeeded Peter as popes of all bishops. So far only a couple of misconstrued letter have produced as evidence.
This succession is a lot hooy. The papacy was not established until after 400 AD and it was not ordained of God because it came out of a lust for power and they were willing to lie to get it. Petrine succession was also a clever invention.
God bless
God bless
: Selene Fri Oct 29, 2010 - 18:21:02
Are we still talking about clothes? I haven't been on this forum for a while, and we're still talking about clothes?
Yes, we talk about clothes when one wants to divert from the truth and authority of Scripture.
: John 10:10 Mon Nov 01, 2010 - 13:34:14
: Selene Fri Oct 29, 2010 - 18:21:02
Are we still talking about clothes? I haven't been on this forum for a while, and we're still talking about clothes?
Yes, we talk about clothes when one wants to divert from the truth and authority of Scripture.
Where have you been during the course of this thread? ::headscratch::
: mclees8 Mon Nov 01, 2010 - 08:36:53
: LightHammer Mon Nov 01, 2010 - 03:42:54
: islanddogs Sat Oct 30, 2010 - 10:42:56
The reason is the significance given to them. Also I'm still waiting for the answer to the question where is the biblical evidence for the Apostolic authority to be passed on, None has been provided.
You won't find biblical evidence to apostolic succession. I'm sorry about that. Apostloc Succession is proven only by history, which for one reason or another you dispute the validity of. The disciples were commanded by Christ to remain in Jerusalem until they had recieved the gift of the Holy Ghost. After the Pentecost they went out into the world setting up churches in major cities and charging trusted men to carry on church leadership as they moved on. Before their deaths they did the same. That is apostolic succession. Every church that bares the name of Christ has some form of succession of its leadership so I really never understand when so many of my brothers and sisters always demand biblical proof for a practice they all adhere to?
There is however scriptural support for the Apostles' view of the importance of a "complete" apostolic authority. There is also an example of the remaining 11 exercise their Christ-given gift to choose a successors for Judas Ischariot.
Act1:20For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.
21Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
22Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.
23And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.
24And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,
25That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.
26And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.
Lighthamer I'm not always sure what side you are on. That is if there is a side to be on. There is a succession and i have no problem with that. The real question is Petrine succession which says that all Bishops of Rome succeeded Peter as popes of all bishops. So far only a couple of misconstrued letter have produced as evidence.
This succession is a lot hooy. The papacy was not established until after 400 AD and it was not ordained of God because it came out of a lust for power and they were willing to lie to get it. Petrine succession was also a clever invention.
God bless
God bless
Peace brother. ::tippinghat:: I assure you that I don't take "sides" in matters of Truth because no side is ever as absolute as it wants to claim it is. I just try to be as unbias as possible to reach an unadulterated Truth.
I know YOU do not dispute apostolic succession but rather Petrine succession but islanddogs does however. He, like most of my brothers and sisters, does not understand that there is a history of God's people and the practices of the Disciples out side of the timeline of scripture. So if something that is clearly proven by historic writings but not mentioned in scriptural writings is being taught, Islanddogs and those like him will immediately dismiss it as heresy.
I don't blame him for this fearful lifestyle. God did warn us and tell us to be alert against false prophets so I see why men and women only rely on the concrete Truth of scripture. However they simply MUST come to the realization that the Twelve disciples didn't just stop being the Twelve after John was given Revelations. The Church(ekkelesia) did endure, grow and expand throughout the world after scripture recorded its last event. So if one is inquirying on the Truths that the disciples and early church adhered to you must also search deep in the archives of history and not simply scripture.
: islanddogs Sun Oct 31, 2010 - 14:27:19
[b]This did not make them Apostles Chesterton. The church still has the authority to send people, however as the Royal priesthood we are allowed to preach the Gospel. It is a simple message, and we should be taught by Christ.[/b]Acts 9
15But the Lord said to Ananias, "Go! ::groupprayer:: to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel. 16I will show him how much he must suffer for my name."
It made them successors of the apostles. They were sent by the apostles as Jesus sent them. They are the leaders of the Church. Without this authority an individual could not be authorized to teach true Christian doctrine.
1 John 4
. 6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.
That's what apostolic succession is. You and I, unless we are ordained by a successor of the apostles, don't have authority to teach.
Each Catholic priest was ordained by a Bishop. Each Bishop was ordained by a Bishop. This trail of hands laid on heads for ordination is traceable all the way back to the apostles.
: LightHammer Mon Nov 01, 2010 - 15:24:08
: John 10:10 Mon Nov 01, 2010 - 13:34:14
: Selene Fri Oct 29, 2010 - 18:21:02
Are we still talking about clothes? I haven't been on this forum for a while, and we're still talking about clothes?
Yes, we talk about clothes when one wants to divert from the truth and authority of Scripture.
Where have you been during the course of this thread? ::headscratch::
Generally giving Scripture to back up what I believe, which is mostly ignored (see post on 10/26).
: John 10:10 Wed Nov 03, 2010 - 13:43:01
: LightHammer Mon Nov 01, 2010 - 15:24:08
: John 10:10 Mon Nov 01, 2010 - 13:34:14
: Selene Fri Oct 29, 2010 - 18:21:02
Are we still talking about clothes? I haven't been on this forum for a while, and we're still talking about clothes?
Yes, we talk about clothes when one wants to divert from the truth and authority of Scripture.
Where have you been during the course of this thread? ::headscratch::
Generally giving Scripture to back up what I believe, which is mostly ignored (see post on 10/26).
It was sarcasm brother.lol I was saying that you must be a little confused if you don't realize that the OP of this thread was meant to discuss "clothes" and therefore your condescending opposittion was a little unwarranted.
: LightHammer Wed Nov 03, 2010 - 14:03:06
: John 10:10 Wed Nov 03, 2010 - 13:43:01
: LightHammer Mon Nov 01, 2010 - 15:24:08
: John 10:10 Mon Nov 01, 2010 - 13:34:14
: Selene Fri Oct 29, 2010 - 18:21:02
Are we still talking about clothes? I haven't been on this forum for a while, and we're still talking about clothes?
Yes, we talk about clothes when one wants to divert from the truth and authority of Scripture.
Where have you been during the course of this thread? ::headscratch::
Generally giving Scripture to back up what I believe, which is mostly ignored (see post on 10/26).
It was sarcasm brother.lol I was saying that you must be a little confused if you don't realize that the OP of this thread was meant to discuss "clothes" and therefore your condescending opposittion was a little unwarranted.
Ignoring the clear meaning of Scripture is not!
: John 10:10 Mon Nov 08, 2010 - 06:25:07
Ignoring the clear meaning of Scripture is not!
John 6
53 Jesus said to them, "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.
: John 10:10 Mon Nov 08, 2010 - 06:25:07
: LightHammer Wed Nov 03, 2010 - 14:03:06
: John 10:10 Wed Nov 03, 2010 - 13:43:01
: LightHammer Mon Nov 01, 2010 - 15:24:08
: John 10:10 Mon Nov 01, 2010 - 13:34:14
: Selene Fri Oct 29, 2010 - 18:21:02
Are we still talking about clothes? I haven't been on this forum for a while, and we're still talking about clothes?
Yes, we talk about clothes when one wants to divert from the truth and authority of Scripture.
Where have you been during the course of this thread? ::headscratch::
Generally giving Scripture to back up what I believe, which is mostly ignored (see post on 10/26).
It was sarcasm brother.lol I was saying that you must be a little confused if you don't realize that the OP of this thread was meant to discuss "clothes" and therefore your condescending opposittion was a little unwarranted.
Ignoring the clear meaning of Scripture is not!
::giggle:: What are you talking about?
No one is ignoring the authority of scripture. This topic is simply not about scripture.
Take it down a few notches there.
: LightHammer Mon Nov 08, 2010 - 21:58:27
: John 10:10 Mon Nov 08, 2010 - 06:25:07
: LightHammer Wed Nov 03, 2010 - 14:03:06
: John 10:10 Wed Nov 03, 2010 - 13:43:01
: LightHammer Mon Nov 01, 2010 - 15:24:08
: John 10:10 Mon Nov 01, 2010 - 13:34:14
: Selene Fri Oct 29, 2010 - 18:21:02
Are we still talking about clothes? I haven't been on this forum for a while, and we're still talking about clothes?
Yes, we talk about clothes when one wants to divert from the truth and authority of Scripture.
Where have you been during the course of this thread? ::headscratch::
Generally giving Scripture to back up what I believe, which is mostly ignored (see post on 10/26).
It was sarcasm brother.lol I was saying that you must be a little confused if you don't realize that the OP of this thread was meant to discuss "clothes" and therefore your condescending opposittion was a little unwarranted.
Ignoring the clear meaning of Scripture is not!
::giggle:: What are you talking about?
No one is ignoring the authority of scripture. This topic is simply not about scripture.
Take it down a few notches there.
The subject of this topic thread is "Papacy - right or wrong?" Catholics use Scripture and their interpretation of "select passages" to support the Papacy, its teachings and traditions. When Scriptures clearly proclaim truth that the Papacy does not practice or support, it is either ignored or explained away that Reformation fathers got it all wrong. When Huss and other Reformers were burned at the stake, what was their sin worthy of death? When Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the Whittenburg church door, about 85 were against the practice of indulgences which a person could pay money to the Catholic church or do a good deed and obtain remission of the temporal punishment due to sin. Do Catholics still believe burning Reformers and the practice of indulgences were Scriptural? Paul declared all "those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus" are
saints by calling (1 Cor 1:2), not just those who are recognized by the Catholic Church for exceptional holiness and are then canonized. Why do Catholics still support the practice of canonization in order to be saints?
Maybe we need to take it up a few Scriptural notches, if you are really interested in the authority of Scripture?
Quote: "Paul declared all "those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus" are saints by calling (1 Cor 1:2), not just those who are recognized by the Catholic Church for exceptional holiness and are then canonized. Why do Catholics still support the practice of canonization in order to be saints?" End Quote.
Rather then post a bunch of scripture declaring who the saints are anyone may read the first few verses of every epistle in the new testament and be equipped to refute the Catholic canonization of Saints which is based on miracles done in the name of men after their death.
Explanation: According to Catholics a person is not recognized as a saint until two miracles are confirmed in that persons name after their death!
Can we conclude Galatians 3 was written specifically for us today so that we might not be carried away by Catholics deceitful scheming? "Does God work miracles because..."
Just think. According to Catholics a person can pray in the name of holy moly and if you receive two answers to prayer in holy moly's name then holy moly must be a saint!
HOW FOOLISH IS THAT TO REJECT THE NAME OF THE LIVING GOD! THE ONLY ONE, THE ONLY SAVIOR WHO HEARS AND ANSWERS PRAYERS!
::giggle:: Remove the veil of the teaching of men! ::cool::
: Visionary Wed Nov 10, 2010 - 16:11:27
Quote: "Paul declared all "those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus" are saints by calling (1 Cor 1:2), not just those who are recognized by the Catholic Church for exceptional holiness and are then canonized. Why do Catholics still support the practice of canonization in order to be saints?" End Quote.
Rather then post a bunch of scripture declaring who the saints are anyone may read the first few verses of every epistle in the new testament and be equipped to refute the Catholic canonization of Saints which is based on miracles done in the name of men after their death.
Explanation: According to Catholics a person is not recognized as a saint until two miracles are confirmed in that persons name after their death!
Can we conclude Galatians 3 was written specifically for us today so that we might not be carried away by Catholics deceitful scheming? "Does God work miracles because..."
Just think. According to Catholics a person can pray in the name of holy moly and if you receive two answers to prayer in holy moly's name then holy moly must be a saint!
HOW FOOLISH IS THAT TO REJECT THE NAME OF THE LIVING GOD! THE ONLY ONE, THE ONLY SAVIOR WHO HEARS AND ANSWERS PRAYERS!
::giggle:: Remove the veil of the teaching of men! ::cool::
You should stop posting about the Catholic Church. You don't know what you are talking about.
Nothing personal.
: John 10:10 Wed Nov 10, 2010 - 15:04:20
: LightHammer Mon Nov 08, 2010 - 21:58:27
: John 10:10 Mon Nov 08, 2010 - 06:25:07
: LightHammer Wed Nov 03, 2010 - 14:03:06
: John 10:10 Wed Nov 03, 2010 - 13:43:01
: LightHammer Mon Nov 01, 2010 - 15:24:08
: John 10:10 Mon Nov 01, 2010 - 13:34:14
: Selene Fri Oct 29, 2010 - 18:21:02
Are we still talking about clothes? I haven't been on this forum for a while, and we're still talking about clothes?
Yes, we talk about clothes when one wants to divert from the truth and authority of Scripture.
Where have you been during the course of this thread? ::headscratch::
Generally giving Scripture to back up what I believe, which is mostly ignored (see post on 10/26).
It was sarcasm brother.lol I was saying that you must be a little confused if you don't realize that the OP of this thread was meant to discuss "clothes" and therefore your condescending opposittion was a little unwarranted.
Ignoring the clear meaning of Scripture is not!
::giggle:: What are you talking about?
No one is ignoring the authority of scripture. This topic is simply not about scripture.
Take it down a few notches there.
The subject of this topic thread is "Papacy - right or wrong?" Catholics use Scripture and their interpretation of "select passages" to support the Papacy, its teachings and traditions. When Scriptures clearly proclaim truth that the Papacy does not practice or support, it is either ignored or explained away that Reformation fathers got it all wrong. When Huss and other Reformers were burned at the stake, what was their sin worthy of death? When Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the Whittenburg church door, about 85 were against the practice of indulgences which a person could pay money to the Catholic church or do a good deed and obtain remission of the temporal punishment due to sin. Do Catholics still believe burning Reformers and the practice of indulgences were Scriptural? Paul declared all "those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus" are saints by calling (1 Cor 1:2), not just those who are recognized by the Catholic Church for exceptional holiness and are then canonized. Why do Catholics still support the practice of canonization in order to be saints?
Maybe we need to take it up a few Scriptural notches, if you are really interested in the authority of Scripture?
Actually those who were actually partaking in the discussion were discussing the vestments of the clergy and what they represent.
So again what are you talking about? ::headscratch::
: LightHammer Thu Nov 11, 2010 - 03:26:14
: John 10:10 Wed Nov 10, 2010 - 15:04:20
: LightHammer Mon Nov 08, 2010 - 21:58:27
: John 10:10 Mon Nov 08, 2010 - 06:25:07
: LightHammer Wed Nov 03, 2010 - 14:03:06
: John 10:10 Wed Nov 03, 2010 - 13:43:01
: LightHammer Mon Nov 01, 2010 - 15:24:08
: John 10:10 Mon Nov 01, 2010 - 13:34:14
: Selene Fri Oct 29, 2010 - 18:21:02
Are we still talking about clothes? I haven't been on this forum for a while, and we're still talking about clothes?
Yes, we talk about clothes when one wants to divert from the truth and authority of Scripture.
Where have you been during the course of this thread? ::headscratch::
Generally giving Scripture to back up what I believe, which is mostly ignored (see post on 10/26).
It was sarcasm brother.lol I was saying that you must be a little confused if you don't realize that the OP of this thread was meant to discuss "clothes" and therefore your condescending opposittion was a little unwarranted.
Ignoring the clear meaning of Scripture is not!
::giggle:: What are you talking about?
No one is ignoring the authority of scripture. This topic is simply not about scripture.
Take it down a few notches there.
The subject of this topic thread is "Papacy - right or wrong?" Catholics use Scripture and their interpretation of "select passages" to support the Papacy, its teachings and traditions. When Scriptures clearly proclaim truth that the Papacy does not practice or support, it is either ignored or explained away that Reformation fathers got it all wrong. When Huss and other Reformers were burned at the stake, what was their sin worthy of death? When Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the Whittenburg church door, about 85 were against the practice of indulgences which a person could pay money to the Catholic church or do a good deed and obtain remission of the temporal punishment due to sin. Do Catholics still believe burning Reformers and the practice of indulgences were Scriptural? Paul declared all "those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus" are saints by calling (1 Cor 1:2), not just those who are recognized by the Catholic Church for exceptional holiness and are then canonized. Why do Catholics still support the practice of canonization in order to be saints?
Maybe we need to take it up a few Scriptural notches, if you are really interested in the authority of Scripture?
Actually those who were actually partaking in the discussion were discussing the vestments of the clergy and what they represent.
So again what are you talking about? ::headscratch::
I was talking about the topic thread, but if you want to talk about "vestments," let's talk about these clothes:
Revelation 7:9
After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could count, from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb,
clothed in white robes, and palm branches were in their hands.
Revelation 7:13
Then one of the elders answered, saying to me, "
These who are clothed in the white robes, who are they, and where have they come from?"
Revelation 7:14
I said to him, "My lord, you know." And he said to me, "These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation,
and they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
Revelation 22:14
Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city.
: John 10:10 Thu Nov 11, 2010 - 10:33:09
: LightHammer Thu Nov 11, 2010 - 03:26:14
: John 10:10 Wed Nov 10, 2010 - 15:04:20
: LightHammer Mon Nov 08, 2010 - 21:58:27
: John 10:10 Mon Nov 08, 2010 - 06:25:07
: LightHammer Wed Nov 03, 2010 - 14:03:06
: John 10:10 Wed Nov 03, 2010 - 13:43:01
: LightHammer Mon Nov 01, 2010 - 15:24:08
: John 10:10 Mon Nov 01, 2010 - 13:34:14
: Selene Fri Oct 29, 2010 - 18:21:02
Are we still talking about clothes? I haven't been on this forum for a while, and we're still talking about clothes?
Yes, we talk about clothes when one wants to divert from the truth and authority of Scripture.
Where have you been during the course of this thread? ::headscratch::
Generally giving Scripture to back up what I believe, which is mostly ignored (see post on 10/26).
It was sarcasm brother.lol I was saying that you must be a little confused if you don't realize that the OP of this thread was meant to discuss "clothes" and therefore your condescending opposittion was a little unwarranted.
Ignoring the clear meaning of Scripture is not!
::giggle:: What are you talking about?
No one is ignoring the authority of scripture. This topic is simply not about scripture.
Take it down a few notches there.
The subject of this topic thread is "Papacy - right or wrong?" Catholics use Scripture and their interpretation of "select passages" to support the Papacy, its teachings and traditions. When Scriptures clearly proclaim truth that the Papacy does not practice or support, it is either ignored or explained away that Reformation fathers got it all wrong. When Huss and other Reformers were burned at the stake, what was their sin worthy of death? When Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the Whittenburg church door, about 85 were against the practice of indulgences which a person could pay money to the Catholic church or do a good deed and obtain remission of the temporal punishment due to sin. Do Catholics still believe burning Reformers and the practice of indulgences were Scriptural? Paul declared all "those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus" are saints by calling (1 Cor 1:2), not just those who are recognized by the Catholic Church for exceptional holiness and are then canonized. Why do Catholics still support the practice of canonization in order to be saints?
Maybe we need to take it up a few Scriptural notches, if you are really interested in the authority of Scripture?
Actually those who were actually partaking in the discussion were discussing the vestments of the clergy and what they represent.
So again what are you talking about? ::headscratch::
I was talking about the topic thread, but if you want to talk about "vestments," let's talk about these clothes:
Revelation 7:9
After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could count, from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, and palm branches were in their hands.
Revelation 7:13
Then one of the elders answered, saying to me, "These who are clothed in the white robes, who are they, and where have they come from?"
Revelation 7:14
I said to him, "My lord, you know." And he said to me, "These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
Revelation 22:14
Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city.
May we all pray to be found worthy of these garments. However these are spiritiual and heavenly. The religious vestments of earthly priests are for man serve a carnal purpose
God bless
: mclees8 Thu Nov 11, 2010 - 11:14:05
: John 10:10 Thu Nov 11, 2010 - 10:33:09
: LightHammer Thu Nov 11, 2010 - 03:26:14
: John 10:10 Wed Nov 10, 2010 - 15:04:20
: LightHammer Mon Nov 08, 2010 - 21:58:27
: John 10:10 Mon Nov 08, 2010 - 06:25:07
: LightHammer Wed Nov 03, 2010 - 14:03:06
: John 10:10 Wed Nov 03, 2010 - 13:43:01
: LightHammer Mon Nov 01, 2010 - 15:24:08
: John 10:10 Mon Nov 01, 2010 - 13:34:14
: Selene Fri Oct 29, 2010 - 18:21:02
Are we still talking about clothes? I haven't been on this forum for a while, and we're still talking about clothes?
Yes, we talk about clothes when one wants to divert from the truth and authority of Scripture.
Where have you been during the course of this thread? ::headscratch::
Generally giving Scripture to back up what I believe, which is mostly ignored (see post on 10/26).
It was sarcasm brother.lol I was saying that you must be a little confused if you don't realize that the OP of this thread was meant to discuss "clothes" and therefore your condescending opposittion was a little unwarranted.
Ignoring the clear meaning of Scripture is not!
::giggle:: What are you talking about?
No one is ignoring the authority of scripture. This topic is simply not about scripture.
Take it down a few notches there.
The subject of this topic thread is "Papacy - right or wrong?" Catholics use Scripture and their interpretation of "select passages" to support the Papacy, its teachings and traditions. When Scriptures clearly proclaim truth that the Papacy does not practice or support, it is either ignored or explained away that Reformation fathers got it all wrong. When Huss and other Reformers were burned at the stake, what was their sin worthy of death? When Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the Whittenburg church door, about 85 were against the practice of indulgences which a person could pay money to the Catholic church or do a good deed and obtain remission of the temporal punishment due to sin. Do Catholics still believe burning Reformers and the practice of indulgences were Scriptural? Paul declared all "those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus" are saints by calling (1 Cor 1:2), not just those who are recognized by the Catholic Church for exceptional holiness and are then canonized. Why do Catholics still support the practice of canonization in order to be saints?
Maybe we need to take it up a few Scriptural notches, if you are really interested in the authority of Scripture?
Actually those who were actually partaking in the discussion were discussing the vestments of the clergy and what they represent.
So again what are you talking about? ::headscratch::
I was talking about the topic thread, but if you want to talk about "vestments," let's talk about these clothes:
Revelation 7:9
After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could count, from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, and palm branches were in their hands.
Revelation 7:13
Then one of the elders answered, saying to me, "These who are clothed in the white robes, who are they, and where have they come from?"
Revelation 7:14
I said to him, "My lord, you know." And he said to me, "These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
Revelation 22:14
Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city.
May we all pray to be found worthy of these garments. However these are spiritiual and heavenly. The religious vestments of earthly priests are for man serve a carnal purpose
God bless
They are also for
NOW!1 Cor 1:30-31
But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, so that, just as it is written, "LET HIM WHO BOASTS, BOAST IN THE LORD."
: mclees8 Thu Nov 11, 2010 - 11:14:05
: John 10:10 Thu Nov 11, 2010 - 10:33:09
: LightHammer Thu Nov 11, 2010 - 03:26:14
: John 10:10 Wed Nov 10, 2010 - 15:04:20
: LightHammer Mon Nov 08, 2010 - 21:58:27
: John 10:10 Mon Nov 08, 2010 - 06:25:07
: LightHammer Wed Nov 03, 2010 - 14:03:06
: John 10:10 Wed Nov 03, 2010 - 13:43:01
: LightHammer Mon Nov 01, 2010 - 15:24:08
: John 10:10 Mon Nov 01, 2010 - 13:34:14
: Selene Fri Oct 29, 2010 - 18:21:02
Are we still talking about clothes? I haven't been on this forum for a while, and we're still talking about clothes?
Yes, we talk about clothes when one wants to divert from the truth and authority of Scripture.
Where have you been during the course of this thread? ::headscratch::
Generally giving Scripture to back up what I believe, which is mostly ignored (see post on 10/26).
It was sarcasm brother.lol I was saying that you must be a little confused if you don't realize that the OP of this thread was meant to discuss "clothes" and therefore your condescending opposittion was a little unwarranted.
Ignoring the clear meaning of Scripture is not!
::giggle:: What are you talking about?
No one is ignoring the authority of scripture. This topic is simply not about scripture.
Take it down a few notches there.
The subject of this topic thread is "Papacy - right or wrong?" Catholics use Scripture and their interpretation of "select passages" to support the Papacy, its teachings and traditions. When Scriptures clearly proclaim truth that the Papacy does not practice or support, it is either ignored or explained away that Reformation fathers got it all wrong. When Huss and other Reformers were burned at the stake, what was their sin worthy of death? When Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the Whittenburg church door, about 85 were against the practice of indulgences which a person could pay money to the Catholic church or do a good deed and obtain remission of the temporal punishment due to sin. Do Catholics still believe burning Reformers and the practice of indulgences were Scriptural? Paul declared all "those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus" are saints by calling (1 Cor 1:2), not just those who are recognized by the Catholic Church for exceptional holiness and are then canonized. Why do Catholics still support the practice of canonization in order to be saints?
Maybe we need to take it up a few Scriptural notches, if you are really interested in the authority of Scripture?
Actually those who were actually partaking in the discussion were discussing the vestments of the clergy and what they represent.
So again what are you talking about? ::headscratch::
I was talking about the topic thread, but if you want to talk about "vestments," let's talk about these clothes:
Revelation 7:9
After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could count, from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, and palm branches were in their hands.
Revelation 7:13
Then one of the elders answered, saying to me, "These who are clothed in the white robes, who are they, and where have they come from?"
Revelation 7:14
I said to him, "My lord, you know." And he said to me, "These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
Revelation 22:14
Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city.
May we all pray to be found worthy of these garments. However these are spiritiual and heavenly. The religious vestments of earthly priests are for man serve a carnal purpose
God bless
Your evidence?
: mclees8 Thu Nov 11, 2010 - 11:14:05
May we all pray to be found worthy of these garments. However these are spiritiual and heavenly. The religious vestments of earthly priests are for man serve a carnal purpose
God bless
This is a slanderous lie. You are biased against a Church you know very little about.
http://www.angelqueen.org/mass/vestments.shtml
: chestertonrules Thu Nov 11, 2010 - 13:54:40
: mclees8 Thu Nov 11, 2010 - 11:14:05
May we all pray to be found worthy of these garments. However these are spiritiual and heavenly. The religious vestments of earthly priests are for man serve a carnal purpose
God bless
This is a slanderous lie. You are biased against a Church you know very little about.
http://www.angelqueen.org/mass/vestments.shtml
Hence my frustration and disappointment. If they were actually informed and decided to protest Rome than I would not be bothered but its the exact opposite. They stand passionately against a part of our faith that they know next to nothing about. It is ignorance personified.
: chestertonrules Thu Nov 11, 2010 - 13:54:40
: mclees8 Thu Nov 11, 2010 - 11:14:05
May we all pray to be found worthy of these garments. However these are spiritiual and heavenly. The religious vestments of earthly priests are for man serve a carnal purpose
God bless
This is a slanderous lie. You are biased against a Church you know very little about.
http://www.angelqueen.org/mass/vestments.shtml
Wow! Did i touch a nerve or something?
What lie? How have I slandered anything or anyone . There is no slander here. I just stated a true fact. I am neither Catholic or Protestant so there is no bias. I could say that of protestant pastors and i do say it about them also. When clergy wares vestments is it not carnal? Is it is not a tangible material thing for the eyes of men. I could talk about the Reverend Right or Bishop Long, Robert Shuller or countless others who put on religious robes that impress men
God sees the white robes of righteousness that he will give all of us who overcome to the end and not love their life.
It is men who look to religious appearances. so tell me now what slander or false accusation have i made?
: LightHammer Thu Nov 11, 2010 - 14:02:57
: chestertonrules Thu Nov 11, 2010 - 13:54:40
: mclees8 Thu Nov 11, 2010 - 11:14:05
May we all pray to be found worthy of these garments. However these are spiritiual and heavenly. The religious vestments of earthly priests are for man serve a carnal purpose
God bless
This is a slanderous lie. You are biased against a Church you know very little about.
http://www.angelqueen.org/mass/vestments.shtml
Hence my frustration and disappointment. If they were actually informed and decided to protest Rome than I would not be bothered but its the exact opposite. They stand passionately against a part of our faith that they know next to nothing about. It is ignorance personified.
I am also saddened to here you say that Lighthamer. Who's faith are you speaking of. there is only one faith, one truth one call, one hope for all men and that is Christ and his gospel. What does Protestant or Catholic have to do with that. ?
Perhaps you make a better Catholic than a Protestant. how ever in that day neither will carry any weight
God bless
: mclees8 Fri Nov 12, 2010 - 01:48:10
: LightHammer Thu Nov 11, 2010 - 14:02:57
: chestertonrules Thu Nov 11, 2010 - 13:54:40
: mclees8 Thu Nov 11, 2010 - 11:14:05
May we all pray to be found worthy of these garments. However these are spiritiual and heavenly. The religious vestments of earthly priests are for man serve a carnal purpose
God bless
This is a slanderous lie. You are biased against a Church you know very little about.
http://www.angelqueen.org/mass/vestments.shtml
Hence my frustration and disappointment. If they were actually informed and decided to protest Rome than I would not be bothered but its the exact opposite. They stand passionately against a part of our faith that they know next to nothing about. It is ignorance personified.
I am also saddened to here you say that Lighthamer. Who's faith are you speaking of. there is only one faith, one truth one call, one hope for all men and that is Christ and his gospel. What does Protestant or Catholic have to do with that. ?
Perhaps you make a better Catholic than a Protestant. how ever in that day neither will carry any weight
God bless
Well if you actually
READ my post you will notice that I said
"a part of our faith". Christianity is the faith with catholicism being a denomination. So what are you talking about? ::headscratch::
And if being unbiased and actually understanding my fellow christians makes me a better catholic than protestant is beyond sad.
: LightHammer Fri Nov 12, 2010 - 17:18:21
: mclees8 Fri Nov 12, 2010 - 01:48:10
: LightHammer Thu Nov 11, 2010 - 14:02:57
: chestertonrules Thu Nov 11, 2010 - 13:54:40
: mclees8 Thu Nov 11, 2010 - 11:14:05
May we all pray to be found worthy of these garments. However these are spiritiual and heavenly. The religious vestments of earthly priests are for man serve a carnal purpose
God bless
This is a slanderous lie. You are biased against a Church you know very little about.
http://www.angelqueen.org/mass/vestments.shtml
Hence my frustration and disappointment. If they were actually informed and decided to protest Rome than I would not be bothered but its the exact opposite. They stand passionately against a part of our faith that they know next to nothing about. It is ignorance personified.
I am also saddened to here you say that Lighthamer. Who's faith are you speaking of. there is only one faith, one truth one call, one hope for all men and that is Christ and his gospel. What does Protestant or Catholic have to do with that. ?
Perhaps you make a better Catholic than a Protestant. how ever in that day neither will carry any weight
God bless
Well if you actually READ my post you will notice that I said "a part of our faith". Christianity is the faith with catholicism being a denomination. So what are you talking about? ::headscratch::
And if being unbiased and actually understanding my fellow christians makes me a better catholic than protestant is beyond sad.
All believers are brothers and Christ is our bond. There are no denominations in Gods Kingdom. If I may ask of what denomination are you. I think the problem between us is how we see and think.
: mclees8 Fri Nov 12, 2010 - 18:48:25
: LightHammer Fri Nov 12, 2010 - 17:18:21
: mclees8 Fri Nov 12, 2010 - 01:48:10
: LightHammer Thu Nov 11, 2010 - 14:02:57
: chestertonrules Thu Nov 11, 2010 - 13:54:40
: mclees8 Thu Nov 11, 2010 - 11:14:05
May we all pray to be found worthy of these garments. However these are spiritiual and heavenly. The religious vestments of earthly priests are for man serve a carnal purpose
God bless
This is a slanderous lie. You are biased against a Church you know very little about.
http://www.angelqueen.org/mass/vestments.shtml
Hence my frustration and disappointment. If they were actually informed and decided to protest Rome than I would not be bothered but its the exact opposite. They stand passionately against a part of our faith that they know next to nothing about. It is ignorance personified.
I am also saddened to here you say that Lighthamer. Who's faith are you speaking of. there is only one faith, one truth one call, one hope for all men and that is Christ and his gospel. What does Protestant or Catholic have to do with that. ?
Perhaps you make a better Catholic than a Protestant. how ever in that day neither will carry any weight
God bless
Well if you actually READ my post you will notice that I said "a part of our faith". Christianity is the faith with catholicism being a denomination. So what are you talking about? ::headscratch::
And if being unbiased and actually understanding my fellow christians makes me a better catholic than protestant is beyond sad.
All believers are brothers and Christ is our bond. There are no denominations in Gods Kingdom. If I may ask of what denomination are you. I think the problem between us is how we see and think.
I don't have a denomination.
And I fail to see how it would make a difference if I did. The truth of the One, Holy, Apostolic, Catholic Church is proven by the history of our faith.
IT IS DOCUMENTED HISTORY. Whether or not we hail from different denominations doesn't change history.
So if you dispuste the validity of the One, Holy, Apostolic, Catholic Church as the Church established by Christ presided over by the disciples and led to the fullness of Truth bu the Holy Spirit then I beseech you to educate me on one thing:
What is the history of the Church after the ascension of Christ? What happened to that same Church after the death of the last living disciple John?
The truth of the Catholic Church, including Eastern Orthodox and Coptic, isn't something you can search for in scripture because scripture holds it roots its beginning. The answer lies within history itself.
: LightHammer Fri Nov 12, 2010 - 19:26:59
: mclees8 Fri Nov 12, 2010 - 18:48:25
: LightHammer Fri Nov 12, 2010 - 17:18:21
: mclees8 Fri Nov 12, 2010 - 01:48:10
: LightHammer Thu Nov 11, 2010 - 14:02:57
: chestertonrules Thu Nov 11, 2010 - 13:54:40
: mclees8 Thu Nov 11, 2010 - 11:14:05
May we all pray to be found worthy of these garments. However these are spiritiual and heavenly. The religious vestments of earthly priests are for man serve a carnal purpose
God bless
This is a slanderous lie. You are biased against a Church you know very little about.
http://www.angelqueen.org/mass/vestments.shtml
Hence my frustration and disappointment. If they were actually informed and decided to protest Rome than I would not be bothered but its the exact opposite. They stand passionately against a part of our faith that they know next to nothing about. It is ignorance personified.
I am also saddened to here you say that Lighthamer. Who's faith are you speaking of. there is only one faith, one truth one call, one hope for all men and that is Christ and his gospel. What does Protestant or Catholic have to do with that. ?
Perhaps you make a better Catholic than a Protestant. how ever in that day neither will carry any weight
God bless
Well if you actually READ my post you will notice that I said "a part of our faith". Christianity is the faith with catholicism being a denomination. So what are you talking about? ::headscratch::
And if being unbiased and actually understanding my fellow christians makes me a better catholic than protestant is beyond sad.
All believers are brothers and Christ is our bond. There are no denominations in Gods Kingdom. If I may ask of what denomination are you. I think the problem between us is how we see and think.
I don't have a denomination.
And I fail to see how it would make a difference if I did. The truth of the One, Holy, Apostolic, Catholic Church is proven by the history of our faith. IT IS DOCUMENTED HISTORY.
Whether or not we hail from different denominations doesn't change history.
So if you dispuste the validity of the One, Holy, Apostolic, Catholic Church as the Church established by Christ presided over by the disciples and led to the fullness of Truth bu the Holy Spirit then I beseech you to educate me on one thing:
What is the history of the Church after the ascension of Christ? What happened to that same Church after the death of the last living disciple John?
The truth of the Catholic Church, including Eastern Orthodox and Coptic, isn't something you can search for in scripture because scripture holds it roots its beginning. The answer lies within history itself.
You are as objective as any poster I've ever come across! I can't say the same for myself!
: chestertonrules Fri Nov 12, 2010 - 21:43:58
: LightHammer Fri Nov 12, 2010 - 19:26:59
: mclees8 Fri Nov 12, 2010 - 18:48:25
: LightHammer Fri Nov 12, 2010 - 17:18:21
: mclees8 Fri Nov 12, 2010 - 01:48:10
: LightHammer Thu Nov 11, 2010 - 14:02:57
: chestertonrules Thu Nov 11, 2010 - 13:54:40
: mclees8 Thu Nov 11, 2010 - 11:14:05
May we all pray to be found worthy of these garments. However these are spiritiual and heavenly. The religious vestments of earthly priests are for man serve a carnal purpose
God bless
This is a slanderous lie. You are biased against a Church you know very little about.
http://www.angelqueen.org/mass/vestments.shtml
Hence my frustration and disappointment. If they were actually informed and decided to protest Rome than I would not be bothered but its the exact opposite. They stand passionately against a part of our faith that they know next to nothing about. It is ignorance personified.
I am also saddened to here you say that Lighthamer. Who's faith are you speaking of. there is only one faith, one truth one call, one hope for all men and that is Christ and his gospel. What does Protestant or Catholic have to do with that. ?
Perhaps you make a better Catholic than a Protestant. how ever in that day neither will carry any weight
God bless
Well if you actually READ my post you will notice that I said "a part of our faith". Christianity is the faith with catholicism being a denomination. So what are you talking about? ::headscratch::
And if being unbiased and actually understanding my fellow christians makes me a better catholic than protestant is beyond sad.
All believers are brothers and Christ is our bond. There are no denominations in Gods Kingdom. If I may ask of what denomination are you. I think the problem between us is how we see and think.
I don't have a denomination.
And I fail to see how it would make a difference if I did. The truth of the One, Holy, Apostolic, Catholic Church is proven by the history of our faith. IT IS DOCUMENTED HISTORY.
Whether or not we hail from different denominations doesn't change history.
So if you dispuste the validity of the One, Holy, Apostolic, Catholic Church as the Church established by Christ presided over by the disciples and led to the fullness of Truth bu the Holy Spirit then I beseech you to educate me on one thing:
What is the history of the Church after the ascension of Christ? What happened to that same Church after the death of the last living disciple John?
The truth of the Catholic Church, including Eastern Orthodox and Coptic, isn't something you can search for in scripture because scripture holds it roots its beginning. The answer lies within history itself.
You are as objective as any poster I've ever come across! I can't say the same for myself!
This makes me curious now. Lighthammer says he has no denomination, so he is not of the RCC. yet he believes the rcc is the true church by historical evidence yet he does not belong to it. if this is what he believes i would wonder then why not. You have said that only those of the RCC have the fullness. So what does this make light hammer in your opinion.
: mclees8 Fri Nov 12, 2010 - 22:26:12
This makes me curious now. Lighthammer says he has no denomination, so he is not of the RCC. yet he believes the rcc is the true church by historical evidence yet he does not belong to it. if this is what he believes i would wonder then why not. You have said that only those of the RCC have the fullness. So what does this make light hammer in your opinion.
I believe LightHammer is saying the RCC is the true Church, and therefore not a demomination. In LightHammer's (and the RCC's) eyes, everyone else belongs to denominations.
Protestants believe the true Church is composed of everyone who has been born again of God's Spirit, allowing Jesus the be LORD of their lives. Where one parks his car in a local body of Believers and lives out his faith is a matter of being led by God's Spirit for each individual Believer.
: mclees8 Fri Nov 12, 2010 - 22:26:12
This makes me curious now. Lighthammer says he has no denomination, so he is not of the RCC. yet he believes the rcc is the true church by historical evidence yet he does not belong to it. if this is what he believes i would wonder then why not. You have said that only those of the RCC have the fullness. So what does this make light hammer in your opinion.
There are two issues here. I would like to hear from Lighthammer, but I believe that is position is that:
1) The historical claims of the Catholic Church are legitimate
2) He is not confident that the Catholic Church of today has the same status as the original Church and has issues with serveral doctrinal positions of the Church.
Is that about it, Lighthammer?
: chestertonrules Sat Nov 13, 2010 - 10:35:04
: mclees8 Fri Nov 12, 2010 - 22:26:12
This makes me curious now. Lighthammer says he has no denomination, so he is not of the RCC. yet he believes the rcc is the true church by historical evidence yet he does not belong to it. if this is what he believes i would wonder then why not. You have said that only those of the RCC have the fullness. So what does this make light hammer in your opinion.
There are two issues here. I would like to hear from Lighthammer, but I believe that is position is that:
1) The historical claims of the Catholic Church are legitimate
2) He is not confident that the Catholic Church of today has the same status as the original Church and has issues with serveral doctrinal positions of the Church.
Is that about it, Lighthammer?
Sorry about the long absence brothers my internet connection was acting dumb. I was able to view your responses from my blackberry. Imagine the anxiety of wanting to respond immediately but being unable to.lol Maddening.
Chester is right when it comes to me.
1)Only a blind man or extremely biased man can look at history and not acknowledge the validity of the One, Holy, Apostolic, Catholic Church. It is not a matter of faith it is history.
2) The reason why I don't submit to the Mother Church is simple. I do not accepet everything it says with docility. I do not believe in the Immaculate Conception, Mary's Perpetual virginity, or in the ability of the Pope to speak ex cathedra. I do however accept the clear truth of apostolic succession and the infallibility of the Church. I believe the Church does sometimes revere the successors a bit higher than man alt to be.
: John 10:10 Sat Nov 13, 2010 - 09:50:55
: mclees8 Fri Nov 12, 2010 - 22:26:12
This makes me curious now. Lighthammer says he has no denomination, so he is not of the RCC. yet he believes the rcc is the true church by historical evidence yet he does not belong to it. if this is what he believes i would wonder then why not. You have said that only those of the RCC have the fullness. So what does this make light hammer in your opinion.
I believe LightHammer is saying the RCC is the true Church, and therefore not a demomination. In LightHammer's (and the RCC's) eyes, everyone else belongs to denominations.
Protestants believe the true Church is composed of everyone who has been born again of God's Spirit, allowing Jesus the be LORD of their lives. Where one parks his car in a local body of Believers and lives out his faith is a matter of being led by God's Spirit for each individual Believer.
I'm not saying anything of the sort. The true Church, as I have said I don't know nearly 56 times,
THE CHURCH IS THE UNIVERSAL COMMUNITY OF BELIEVERS REGARDLESS OF DENOMINATION. Stop putting words in my mouth and just accept what I say as what as I believe.
And please don't act like protestantism, a gaggle of a bunch of confused believers that can't agree on ANYTHING Christian, is superior to the Mother Church that has sheltered spread and consistently preached the Truth of God for 2,000 years.
: LightHammer Sat Nov 13, 2010 - 13:27:31
And please don't act like protestantism, a gaggle of a bunch of confused believers that can't agree on ANYTHING Christian, is superior to the Mother Church that has sheltered spread and consistently preached the Truth of God for 2,000 years.
If you believe the true
"Mother Church that has sheltered spread and consistently preached the Truth of God for 2,000 years" is composed of everyone who has been born again of God's Spirit, allowing Jesus the be LORD of their lives, then we are in agreement.
But if you believe the RCC is the
"Mother Church that has sheltered spread and consistently preached the Truth of God for 2,000 years," then we are in serious disagreement.
: John 10:10 Sat Nov 13, 2010 - 13:50:12
: LightHammer Sat Nov 13, 2010 - 13:27:31
And please don't act like protestantism, a gaggle of a bunch of confused believers that can't agree on ANYTHING Christian, is superior to the Mother Church that has sheltered spread and consistently preached the Truth of God for 2,000 years.
If you believe the true "Mother Church that has sheltered spread and consistently preached the Truth of God for 2,000 years" is composed of everyone who has been born again of God's Spirit, allowing Jesus the be LORD of their lives, then we are in agreement.
But if you believe the RCC is the "Mother Church that has sheltered spread and consistently preached the Truth of God for 2,000 years," then we are in serious disagreement.
No the Church is universal community of all believers. The Mother Church is the One, Holy, Apostolic, Catholic Church which is compromised of the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Coptic denominations which are led by hand chosen successors of the Disciples the men HAND CHOSEN BY CHRIST to recieve the Great Commission.
I couldn't really care less if you don't agree with the Truth of history and scripture. Quite frankly I'm tired of trying to sway protestants to at least understand legitimate catholicism before rejecting it. If you deny what I say just type in Catholicism in a google search and look at its origin. Then do the same serach for every other denomination of the faith and look at its origin. Every protestant denomination was started organized by men. The Mother Church was started by Christ and organized by His hand chosen Disciples.
: LightHammer Sat Nov 13, 2010 - 14:06:59
: John 10:10 Sat Nov 13, 2010 - 13:50:12
: LightHammer Sat Nov 13, 2010 - 13:27:31
And please don't act like protestantism, a gaggle of a bunch of confused believers that can't agree on ANYTHING Christian, is superior to the Mother Church that has sheltered spread and consistently preached the Truth of God for 2,000 years.
If you believe the true "Mother Church that has sheltered spread and consistently preached the Truth of God for 2,000 years" is composed of everyone who has been born again of God's Spirit, allowing Jesus the be LORD of their lives, then we are in agreement.
But if you believe the RCC is the "Mother Church that has sheltered spread and consistently preached the Truth of God for 2,000 years," then we are in serious disagreement.
No the Church is universal community of all believers. The Mother Church is the One, Holy, Apostolic, Catholic Church which is compromised of the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Coptic denominations which are led by hand chosen successors of the Disciples the men HAND CHOSEN BY CHRIST to recieve the Great Commission.
I couldn't really care less if you don't agree with the Truth of history and scripture. Quite frankly I'm tired of trying to sway protestants to at least understand legitimate catholicism before rejecting it. If you deny what I say just type in Catholicism in a google search and look at its origin. Then do the same serach for every other denomination of the faith and look at its origin. Every protestant denomination was started organized by men. The Mother Church was started by Christ and organized by His hand chosen Disciples.
Protestants understand that "legitimate Catholicism", as you call it, kept God's Word from the common man for 1000 years during the Dark Ages, considering it a crime to reproduce it and place it in common man's hands so that common man could read it for himself.
"Legitimate Catholicism", as you call it, allowed many evil Popes, un-Scriptural teachings, and practices to enter into what you call the Mother Church, from indulgences, to purgatory, to Maryology, to God's salvation only thru the Catholic Church (only recently modified after Vatican II from 1962-1965), to killing millions of people who dared to disagree with the Mother Church and its teachings and establish separate local churches.
Yes, Protestant churches were started by the Paul's of this world, men called and moved by the Holy Spirit, who took the things of Jesus as revealed in God's Word, especially God's salvation by grace through faith, to the common man.
: John 10:10 Sat Nov 13, 2010 - 20:26:59
: LightHammer Sat Nov 13, 2010 - 14:06:59
: John 10:10 Sat Nov 13, 2010 - 13:50:12
: LightHammer Sat Nov 13, 2010 - 13:27:31
And please don't act like protestantism, a gaggle of a bunch of confused believers that can't agree on ANYTHING Christian, is superior to the Mother Church that has sheltered spread and consistently preached the Truth of God for 2,000 years.
If you believe the true "Mother Church that has sheltered spread and consistently preached the Truth of God for 2,000 years" is composed of everyone who has been born again of God's Spirit, allowing Jesus the be LORD of their lives, then we are in agreement.
But if you believe the RCC is the "Mother Church that has sheltered spread and consistently preached the Truth of God for 2,000 years," then we are in serious disagreement.
No the Church is universal community of all believers. The Mother Church is the One, Holy, Apostolic, Catholic Church which is compromised of the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Coptic denominations which are led by hand chosen successors of the Disciples the men HAND CHOSEN BY CHRIST to recieve the Great Commission.
I couldn't really care less if you don't agree with the Truth of history and scripture. Quite frankly I'm tired of trying to sway protestants to at least understand legitimate catholicism before rejecting it. If you deny what I say just type in Catholicism in a google search and look at its origin. Then do the same serach for every other denomination of the faith and look at its origin. Every protestant denomination was started organized by men. The Mother Church was started by Christ and organized by His hand chosen Disciples.
Protestants understand that "legitimate Catholicism", as you call it, kept God's Word from the common man for 1000 years during the Dark Ages, considering it a crime to reproduce it and place it in common man's hands so that common man could read it for himself.
"Legitimate Catholicism", as you call it, allowed many evil Popes, un-Scriptural teachings, and practices to enter into what you call the Mother Church, from indulgences, to purgatory, to Maryology, to God's salvation only thru the Catholic Church (only recently modified after Vatican II from 1962-1965), to killing millions of people who dared to disagree with the Mother Church and its teachings and establish separate local churches.
Yes, Protestant churches were started by the Paul's of this world, men called and moved by the Holy Spirit, who took the things of Jesus as revealed in God's Word, especially God's salvation by grace through faith, to the common man.
FINALLY THE HATRED OF MEN SURFACES
Lets do it.
So what about the thousands that died at the hands of the protestant Salem Witchtrails?! What about the Southern Baptist who declared it a divine revelation of God to uphold slavery?! My race was bound in shackles, beaten and whipped like wild animals and all the while your protestant church declared it God's design for the superior race.
Don't you dare pretend evil men have not slipped into protestant churches and stained their history with the blood of inncoents just as evil men have done to the Mother Church in an attempt to bring it down?!!!!
Your way of thinking makes me sick.
Men of God ey?! None of the protestant denominations, that were started by "the Paul's of this world" as you call it even teach the same requirements for salvation. So someone is spreading falsehoods and think putting the name of Christ on a billboard outside covers it up.
Speak on it!
You ignorant thickheads!
Speak on it!
Forgive my anger I should not have lost my cool. I am sorry brother.
: John 10:10 Sat Nov 13, 2010 - 20:26:59
Protestants understand that "legitimate Catholicism", as you call it, kept God's Word from the common man for 1000 years during the Dark Ages, considering it a crime to reproduce it and place it in common man's hands so that common man could read it for himself.
"Legitimate Catholicism", as you call it, allowed many evil Popes, un-Scriptural teachings, and practices to enter into what you call the Mother Church, from indulgences, to purgatory, to Maryology, to God's salvation only thru the Catholic Church (only recently modified after Vatican II from 1962-1965), to killing millions of people who dared to disagree with the Mother Church and its teachings and establish separate local churches.
Yes, Protestant churches were started by the Paul's of this world, men called and moved by the Holy Spirit, who took the things of Jesus as revealed in God's Word, especially God's salvation by grace through faith, to the common man.
The Catholic Church wrote, compiled, perserved, and proclaims the words of scripture throughout the world as it always has.
It was the Church that translated the bible into the language of the common man.(the Vulgate, ie. vulgar, or common tongue)
You are posting falsehoods about the Catholic Church.
: chestertonrules Sat Nov 13, 2010 - 21:53:58
: John 10:10 Sat Nov 13, 2010 - 20:26:59
Protestants understand that "legitimate Catholicism", as you call it, kept God's Word from the common man for 1000 years during the Dark Ages, considering it a crime to reproduce it and place it in common man's hands so that common man could read it for himself.
"Legitimate Catholicism", as you call it, allowed many evil Popes, un-Scriptural teachings, and practices to enter into what you call the Mother Church, from indulgences, to purgatory, to Maryology, to God's salvation only thru the Catholic Church (only recently modified after Vatican II from 1962-1965), to killing millions of people who dared to disagree with the Mother Church and its teachings and establish separate local churches.
Yes, Protestant churches were started by the Paul's of this world, men called and moved by the Holy Spirit, who took the things of Jesus as revealed in God's Word, especially God's salvation by grace through faith, to the common man.
The Catholic Church wrote, compiled, perserved, and proclaims the words of scripture throughout the world as it always has.
It was the Church that translated the bible into the language of the common man.(the Vulgate, ie. vulgar, or common tongue)
You are posting falsehoods about the Catholic Church.
If I may brother. I want to take this one for now. He has caused my hands to shake and my heart to accelerate to the point of bursting from my chest with his latest response. I want to deal with him for the time being. If thats cool with you.
: LightHammer Sat Nov 13, 2010 - 21:57:53
: chestertonrules Sat Nov 13, 2010 - 21:53:58
: John 10:10 Sat Nov 13, 2010 - 20:26:59
Protestants understand that "legitimate Catholicism", as you call it, kept God's Word from the common man for 1000 years during the Dark Ages, considering it a crime to reproduce it and place it in common man's hands so that common man could read it for himself.
"Legitimate Catholicism", as you call it, allowed many evil Popes, un-Scriptural teachings, and practices to enter into what you call the Mother Church, from indulgences, to purgatory, to Maryology, to God's salvation only thru the Catholic Church (only recently modified after Vatican II from 1962-1965), to killing millions of people who dared to disagree with the Mother Church and its teachings and establish separate local churches.
Yes, Protestant churches were started by the Paul's of this world, men called and moved by the Holy Spirit, who took the things of Jesus as revealed in God's Word, especially God's salvation by grace through faith, to the common man.
The Catholic Church wrote, compiled, perserved, and proclaims the words of scripture throughout the world as it always has.
It was the Church that translated the bible into the language of the common man.(the Vulgate, ie. vulgar, or common tongue)
You are posting falsehoods about the Catholic Church.
If I may brother. I want to take this one for now. He has caused my hands to shake and my heart to accelerate to the point of bursting from my chest with his latest response. I want to deal with him for the time being. If thats cool with you.
You're doing great! Keep up the good work brother.
: chestertonrules Sat Nov 13, 2010 - 22:00:01
: LightHammer Sat Nov 13, 2010 - 21:57:53
: chestertonrules Sat Nov 13, 2010 - 21:53:58
: John 10:10 Sat Nov 13, 2010 - 20:26:59
Protestants understand that "legitimate Catholicism", as you call it, kept God's Word from the common man for 1000 years during the Dark Ages, considering it a crime to reproduce it and place it in common man's hands so that common man could read it for himself.
"Legitimate Catholicism", as you call it, allowed many evil Popes, un-Scriptural teachings, and practices to enter into what you call the Mother Church, from indulgences, to purgatory, to Maryology, to God's salvation only thru the Catholic Church (only recently modified after Vatican II from 1962-1965), to killing millions of people who dared to disagree with the Mother Church and its teachings and establish separate local churches.
Yes, Protestant churches were started by the Paul's of this world, men called and moved by the Holy Spirit, who took the things of Jesus as revealed in God's Word, especially God's salvation by grace through faith, to the common man.
The Catholic Church wrote, compiled, perserved, and proclaims the words of scripture throughout the world as it always has.
It was the Church that translated the bible into the language of the common man.(the Vulgate, ie. vulgar, or common tongue)
You are posting falsehoods about the Catholic Church.
If I may brother. I want to take this one for now. He has caused my hands to shake and my heart to accelerate to the point of bursting from my chest with his latest response. I want to deal with him for the time being. If thats cool with you.
You're doing great! Keep up the good work brother.
Well talk about hearts pounding racing I am only sorry i don't have more time at the moment. But i will be back this afternoon.
Just one thing Chester before you turn all over to light hammer. I asked a question to you. L H believes that all believers are the church and he is not of the RCC. He has certain issues. You have said that only those of the RCC have the fullness. So what in your eyes make L H To you. Is he saved or just half saved barely saved What is he now to you and please speak for the RCC. What constitutes the fullness. please explain?
God bless
: mclees8 Sun Nov 14, 2010 - 07:55:45
Just one thing Chester before you turn all over to light hammer. I asked a question to you. L H believes that all believers are the church and he is not of the RCC. He has certain issues. You have said that only those of the RCC have the fullness. So what in your eyes make L H To you. Is he saved or just half saved barely saved What is he now to you and please speak for the RCC. What constitutes the fullness. please explain?
God bless
LightHammer has his own conscience and his own set of circumstances. Even though LightHammer understands the history of the Catholic Church, there must be some issue in his conscience that keeps him from entering. If I'd been around here longer I suppose I might know what that is.
It is up to God to judge persons, not you or I. Unless LightHammer comes into the Church today, he is deprived of 5 of the 7 sacraments. And besides, now is the time of mercy. Once we die,
then the judgment. It would be better for LightHammer to be in the Catholic Church right now than outside of it, as the Catholic Church was made for all of us to help us find the path, both intellectually and spiritually. He would derive great spiritual benefit from being in the Church. And since Protestantism is so rife with various heresies in different forms, I would urge LightHammer to come into the Church. I think his charity and reasonable way of considering an argument are both great gifts from God. He is already helping the Church, why not gain the full spiritual benefit?
I have much more hope for the soul of LightHammer, which seems to have a spirit of virtue and understanding, than for many others who post hatefully and irrationally. But then again, I'm a nobody, and God can do miracles. In the meantime, we can thank those who consistently attack the Church, as they too are our gift from God.
: Catholica Sun Nov 14, 2010 - 14:03:20
: mclees8 Sun Nov 14, 2010 - 07:55:45
Just one thing Chester before you turn all over to light hammer. I asked a question to you. L H believes that all believers are the church and he is not of the RCC. He has certain issues. You have said that only those of the RCC have the fullness. So what in your eyes make L H To you. Is he saved or just half saved barely saved What is he now to you and please speak for the RCC. What constitutes the fullness. please explain?
God bless
LightHammer has his own conscience and his own set of circumstances. Even though LightHammer understands the history of the Catholic Church, there must be some issue in his conscience that keeps him from entering. If I'd been around here longer I suppose I might know what that is.
It is up to God to judge persons, not you or I. Unless LightHammer comes into the Church today, he is deprived of 5 of the 7 sacraments. And besides, now is the time of mercy. Once we die, then the judgment. It would be better for LightHammer to be in the Catholic Church right now than outside of it, as the Catholic Church was made for all of us to help us find the path, both intellectually and spiritually. He would derive great spiritual benefit from being in the Church. And since Protestantism is so rife with various heresies in different forms, I would urge LightHammer to come into the Church. I think his charity and reasonable way of considering an argument are both great gifts from God. He is already helping the Church, why not gain the full spiritual benefit?
I have much more hope for the soul of LightHammer, which seems to have a spirit of virtue and understanding, than for many others who post hatefully and irrationally. But then again, I'm a nobody, and God can do miracles. In the meantime, we can thank those who consistently attack the Church, as they too are our gift from God.
Why do you say you have hope for his soul? You are right that only God knows the true state of a man. How would you know his soul would be better if he was RC? You must think it sad the the thief on the cross had know time to come off his cross to do all his sacraments. Will he less than you in that day?
Don't get me wrong I have nothing against Catholics even though i may not like the way they have been taught to condosend and consider themselves as better or having a better salvation.
First who is the church to you? Is it all believers or only the RCC Do you believe in salvation out side the RCC, Im sure L H has good christian qualities. But that is not what i am asking. What do you really mean by only Catholics have the fullness. What do you think the fullness is that one can only have it if he becomes R C.
What state of salvation is L H. presently to you? Is he saved or can he be save and by who's criteria. Is he all the way saved or is he half save or barely saved ? Or we can say, he is saved but not as saved as Catholics are because they have more benefit
Is the fullness coming of full knowledge of christ through a living relation in the Holy Spirit. or is the fullness contingent on affiliation. You see even Protestants can be institutional minded. Everyone thinks their particular church is better.
: mclees8 Sun Nov 14, 2010 - 17:44:35
: Catholica Sun Nov 14, 2010 - 14:03:20
: mclees8 Sun Nov 14, 2010 - 07:55:45
Just one thing Chester before you turn all over to light hammer. I asked a question to you. L H believes that all believers are the church and he is not of the RCC. He has certain issues. You have said that only those of the RCC have the fullness. So what in your eyes make L H To you. Is he saved or just half saved barely saved What is he now to you and please speak for the RCC. What constitutes the fullness. please explain?
God bless
LightHammer has his own conscience and his own set of circumstances. Even though LightHammer understands the history of the Catholic Church, there must be some issue in his conscience that keeps him from entering. If I'd been around here longer I suppose I might know what that is.
It is up to God to judge persons, not you or I. Unless LightHammer comes into the Church today, he is deprived of 5 of the 7 sacraments. And besides, now is the time of mercy. Once we die, then the judgment. It would be better for LightHammer to be in the Catholic Church right now than outside of it, as the Catholic Church was made for all of us to help us find the path, both intellectually and spiritually. He would derive great spiritual benefit from being in the Church. And since Protestantism is so rife with various heresies in different forms, I would urge LightHammer to come into the Church. I think his charity and reasonable way of considering an argument are both great gifts from God. He is already helping the Church, why not gain the full spiritual benefit?
I have much more hope for the soul of LightHammer, which seems to have a spirit of virtue and understanding, than for many others who post hatefully and irrationally. But then again, I'm a nobody, and God can do miracles. In the meantime, we can thank those who consistently attack the Church, as they too are our gift from God.
Why do you say you have hope for his soul? You are right that only God knows the true state of a man. How would you know his soul would be better if he was RC? You must think it sad the the thief on the cross had know time to come off his cross to do all his sacraments. Will he less than you in that day?
Don't get me wrong I have nothing against Catholics even though i may not like the way they have been taught to condosend and consider themselves as better or having a better salvation.
Because we all live in the hope that we will be saved. I still have hope for my own soul too. None of us is guaranteed salvation, salvation is a process, not a one-time event. I'm not being condescending. We all live with the hope that we are saved. That's what hope
is.
: mclees8 Sun Nov 14, 2010 - 17:44:35
First who is the church to you? Is it all believers or only the RCC Do you believe in salvation out side the RCC, Im sure L H has good christian qualities. But that is not what i am asking. What do you really mean by only Catholics have the fullness. What do you think the fullness is that one can only have it if he becomes R C.
"The" Church is two things. The Church is an organized hierarchy with authority from God, "sent" to carry the gospel to all nations. The members of the Church are all validly baptized believers. The first is a physical institution, the second a mystical organism, the body of Christ.
One can still be mystically part of the Church (through baptism) without being in full communion with the Catholic Church. That is an imperfect communion. When one is in full communion, then one is allowed to partake in the sacraments of the Church, especially the Eucharist, as everything flows from that. Any person can receive the sacrament of baptism, as it does not require apostolic authority. Also the ministers of marriage are the husband and wife, and the church is just a witness, though anyone can be a witness to marriage. Marriage is a sacrament, a source of God's grace, in which the spouses become channels of that grace to each other. The other sacraments, confirmation, penance, Eucharist, holy orders and the annointing of the sick are nominally only available to those in full communion (except in cases where a person is near death, they could receive the annointing, penance and Eucharist IIRC even if they have not been formally received. Don't quote me on that, though, I'm not 100% if all 3 are available.
: mclees8 Sun Nov 14, 2010 - 17:44:35
What state of salvation is L H. presently to you? Is he saved or can he be save and by who's criteria. Is he all the way saved or is he half save or barely saved ? Or we can say, he is saved but not as saved as Catholics are because they have more benefit
We don't believe that salvation is a done deal, a one time event. I can not be sure of anyone's salvation except my own at any time, and I believe that I can lose mine too were I to commit a mortal sin, but then through the sacrament of penance I could be absolved from that sin. That is why Jesus instituted confession, the authority to the apostles (alone) to forgive sins. Not that we believe that God could also forgive sins outside of confession if the proper contrition is demonstrated, but for a mortal sin that would have to be "perfect" contrition. So again, I would have to be able to be God to actually know if LightHammer would go to heaven or hell right now if he died. Its all up to God. The same I would say for any Catholic. We are not saved because we are Catholic, but because of Jesus, the sacraments he gave us, and the grace that exists in a person's soul at the moment of their death.
: mclees8 Sun Nov 14, 2010 - 17:44:35
Is the fullness coming of full knowledge of christ through a living relation in the Holy Spirit. or is the fullness contingent on affiliation. You see even Protestants can be institutional minded. Everyone thinks their particular church is better.
The fullness of the truth is taught by the Catholic Church. Anyone can learn this truth by hearing the truth taught to them. With the fullness of the truth it is easiest to find the narrow path. The narrow path leads us to become more like Jesus, and the grace offered to us in the sacraments give us the spiritual fuel to do God's will, to accept the sufferings God asks us to bear and to do great things for God for his glory.
So salvation is through a relationship, and that relationship is personal and communal, where he desires us to grow in holiness and gives us the means of grace to do so. It is not a distant relationship. Christ comes to us in a very real way through the sacraments.
Andre
: LightHammer Sat Nov 13, 2010 - 21:25:14
Forgive my anger I should not have lost my cool. I am sorry brother.
Forgiveness asked for is forgiveness extended.
Blessings
: John 10:10 Mon Nov 15, 2010 - 14:08:53
: LightHammer Sat Nov 13, 2010 - 21:25:14
Forgive my anger I should not have lost my cool. I am sorry brother.
Forgiveness asked for is forgiveness extended.
Blessings
Thank you.
There was meaning in my words. I would like you to address my response if you could overlook the extremeties.
Catholica: "Because we all live in the hope that we will be saved. I still have hope for my own soul too. None of us is guaranteed salvation, salvation is a process, not a one-time event. I'm not being condescending. We all live with the hope that we are saved. That's what hope is.
If all you have is "hope" you must live in doubt. The first "pope" (Peter) as you call him makes it quit clear on the Day of Pentecost what one must do to be saved. "Repent and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the PROMISE is to you and to your children and to those that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call" (Acts 2:38-39).
That, Catholica, is a PROMISE. A promise goes beyond "hope." Those who were "added" by God to His church at Pentecost did not rely on "hope" that their souls would be saved. No! they obeyed Peter's command. Those who "gladly received his (Peter's) words were baptized and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls" (Acts 2:41) If you have not obeyed this command, then you have no hope, no promise. I can pray for you to be saved until my socks fall off....but if you do not obey by your own volition....there is no hope.
You wrote: "The" Church is two things. The Church is an organized hierarchy with authority from God, "sent" to carry the gospel to all nations. The members of the Church are all validly baptized believers. The first is a physical institution, the second a mystical organism, the body of Christ."
No, the church is the "bride of Christ" (Eph. 5:25) Jesus Christ as the head. Paul is very clear on the credentials of "those desiring the office of a bishop (pastor) to take care of the house of God."
"One must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach, One that rules well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity" no lover of money, etc. (1 Timothy 3ff).
God never intended for His church to be a "mystical organism." The church is a body of believers.....warm blooded people who are living stones in His church at the corner of walk and don't walk who carry on the affairs of the local church of Christ as servants.
Paul is quit clear who makes up the church of Christ in 1 Corinthians 12. Nothing "mystical" about His church. A "valid believer" are those who have obeyed Peter's command in Acts 2:38 and continue to walk in His statues and commands as revealed in the New Testament.
: chestertonrules Sat Nov 13, 2010 - 21:53:58
: John 10:10 Sat Nov 13, 2010 - 20:26:59
Protestants understand that "legitimate Catholicism", as you call it, kept God's Word from the common man for 1000 years during the Dark Ages, considering it a crime to reproduce it and place it in common man's hands so that common man could read it for himself.
"Legitimate Catholicism", as you call it, allowed many evil Popes, un-Scriptural teachings, and practices to enter into what you call the Mother Church, from indulgences, to purgatory, to Maryology, to God's salvation only thru the Catholic Church (only recently modified after Vatican II from 1962-1965), to killing millions of people who dared to disagree with the Mother Church and its teachings and establish separate local churches.
Yes, Protestant churches were started by the Paul's of this world, men called and moved by the Holy Spirit, who took the things of Jesus as revealed in God's Word, especially God's salvation by grace through faith, to the common man.
The Catholic Church wrote, compiled, perserved, and proclaims the words of scripture throughout the world as it always has.
It was the Church that translated the bible into the language of the common man.(the Vulgate, ie. vulgar, or common tongue)
You are posting falsehoods about the Catholic Church.
The first translation of the English Bible for the common man was initiated by John Wycliffe and completed by John Purvey in 1388, not the Catholic Church! Until then, the Popes forbid that the people had the right to read it for themselves, reserving the Bible written only in Latin or Hebrew to priests, monks, bishops, and other prelates of the Catholic Church.
Maybe you should read your Catholic Church history with open eyes, instead of closing your eyes to what Wycliffe, Huss, Luther and many other reformers did.
: John 10:10 Mon Nov 15, 2010 - 14:40:41
: chestertonrules Sat Nov 13, 2010 - 21:53:58
: John 10:10 Sat Nov 13, 2010 - 20:26:59
Protestants understand that "legitimate Catholicism", as you call it, kept God's Word from the common man for 1000 years during the Dark Ages, considering it a crime to reproduce it and place it in common man's hands so that common man could read it for himself.
"Legitimate Catholicism", as you call it, allowed many evil Popes, un-Scriptural teachings, and practices to enter into what you call the Mother Church, from indulgences, to purgatory, to Maryology, to God's salvation only thru the Catholic Church (only recently modified after Vatican II from 1962-1965), to killing millions of people who dared to disagree with the Mother Church and its teachings and establish separate local churches.
Yes, Protestant churches were started by the Paul's of this world, men called and moved by the Holy Spirit, who took the things of Jesus as revealed in God's Word, especially God's salvation by grace through faith, to the common man.
The Catholic Church wrote, compiled, perserved, and proclaims the words of scripture throughout the world as it always has.
It was the Church that translated the bible into the language of the common man.(the Vulgate, ie. vulgar, or common tongue)
You are posting falsehoods about the Catholic Church.
The first translation of the English Bible for the common man was initiated by John Wycliffe and completed by John Purvey in 1388, not the Catholic Church! Until then, the Popes forbid that the people had the right to read it for themselves, reserving the Bible written only in Latin or Hebrew to priests, monks, bishops, and other prelates of the Catholic Church.
Maybe you should read your Catholic Church history with open eyes, instead of closing your eyes to what Wycliffe, Huss, Luther and many other reformers did.
Wrong about about 500 years:
Eighth to tenth century
In the first period extending from the eighth to the tenth century we meet: (1) St. Bede's translation of John 1:1-6:9; (2) interlinear glosses on the Psalms; (3) the Paris Psalter; (4) the so-called Lindisfarne Gospels; (5) the Rushworth version; (6) the West-Saxon Gospels; (7) Ælfric's version of a number of Old-Testament books.
(1) The proof for the existence of St. Bede's work rests on the authority of his pupil Guthberht who wrote about this fact to his fellow-student Cuthwine (see Mayor and Lumby, "Bedæ hist. eccl.", 178).
(2) The "Glossed Psalters" have come down to us in twelve manuscripts, six of which represent the Roman Psalter, and six the Gallican. The oldest and most important of these manuscripts is the so called Vespesian Psalter, written in Mercia in the first half of the ninth century.
(3) The Paris Psalter advances beyond the glosses in as far as it is a real translation of Psalm 1:1-50:10, ascribed by some scholars to King Alfred (d. 901), though others deny this view. Cf. William of Malmesbury. "Gesta regum Anglorum", II, 123.
(4) The Lindisfarne Gospels, called also the Durham Book, the Book of St. Cuthbert, present the Latin text of the Gospels dating from Redfrith, Bishop of Lindisfarne (698-721), with the so-called Northumbrian Gloss on the Gospels, added about 950 by Aldred. Cf. Dr. Charles O'Conor, "Bibl. stowensis", II (1818-19), 180.
(5) The Rushworth version of the first Gospel, with glosses on the second, third, and fourth Gospels, based on the Lindisfarne glosses. Faerman, a priest of Harewood (Harwood), made the translation of St. Matthew and furnished the glosses on St. Mark, i, 1-ii, 15; St. John, xviii, 1-3; the rest of the work is taken from Owun's glosses.
(6) The West-Saxon Gospels are a rendering of the Gospels originating in the south of England about the year 1000; seven manuscripts of this version have come down to us. Cf. W.W. Skeat, "The Gospels in Anglo-Saxon etc." (Cambridge, 1871-87).
(7) Ælfric himself states in his work "De vetere testamento", written about 1010, that he had translated the Pentateuch, Josue, Judges, Kings, Job, Esther, Judith, and the Books of the Machabees. The translator frequently abridges, slightly in Genesis, more notably in the Book of Judges and the following books; he adopts a metrical form in Judith. Cf. Nieder in "Zeitschrift für historische Theologie" (1855-56).
Fourteenth century and after
The third period extends from the late fourteenth to the sixteenth or early seventeenth century, and has furnished us with the pre-Wyclifite, the Wyclif, and the printed versions of the Bible.
(1) Pre-Wyclifite Translations
Among the pre-Wyclifite translations we may note:
* The West Midland Psalter, probably written between 1340 and 1350; some attribute it to William of Shoreham. It contains the whole Psalter, eleven canticles, and the Athanasian Creed, and is preserved in three manuscripts (cd. Bülbring, "The Earliest Complete English Prose Psalter", I, London, 1891).
* Richard Rolle's (d. 1349) English version of the "Commentary on the Psalms" by Peter Lombard spread in numerous copies throughout the country (cf. Bramley, "The Psalter and Certain Canticles...by Richard Rolle of Hampole", Oxford, 1884).
* Here belongs a version of the Apocalypse with a commentary; the latter was for some time attributed to Wyclif, but is really a version of a Norman commentary from the first half of the thirteenth century. Its later revisions agree so well with the Wyclif version that they must have been utilized in its preparation.
* The Pauline Epistles were rendered in the North Midlands or the North; they are still extant in a manuscript of the fifteenth century.
* Another version of the Pauline Epistles, and of the Epistles of St. James and St. Peter (only the first) originated in the south of England somewhere in the fourteenth century (cf. the edition of A.C. Paves, Cambridge, 1904).
* A scholar of the north of England translated also commentaries on the Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke.
* Several manuscripts preserve to us a version of the Books of Acts and the Catholic Epistles, either separately or in conjunction with a fragmentary Southern version of the Pauline Epistles and part of the Catholic Epistles, mentioned under (5). Cf. A.C. Paves, "A Fourteenth-Century English Biblical Version", Cambridge, 1904.
* Besides these versions of particular books of Holy Scripture, there existed numerous renderings of the Our Father, the Ten Commandments, the Life, Passion, and Resurrection of Christ, and of the parts read on Sundays and Feastdays in the Mass. In general, if we may believe the testimony of Archbishop Cranmer, Sir Thomas More, Foxe the martyrologist, and the authors of the Preface to the Reims Testament, the whole Bible was to be found in the mother tongue long before John Wyclif was born (cf. "American Ecclesiastical Review", XXXII, Philadelphia, June, 1905, 594).
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15367a.htm
: pointmade Mon Nov 15, 2010 - 14:37:35
Catholica: "Because we all live in the hope that we will be saved. I still have hope for my own soul too. None of us is guaranteed salvation, salvation is a process, not a one-time event. I'm not being condescending. We all live with the hope that we are saved. That's what hope is.
If all you have is "hope" you must live in doubt. The first "pope" (Peter) as you call him makes it quit clear on the Day of Pentecost what one must do to be saved. "Repent and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the PROMISE is to you and to your children and to those that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call" (Acts 2:38-39).[
That, Catholica, is a PROMISE. A promise goes beyond "hope." Those who were "added" by God to His church at Pentecost did not rely on "hope" that their souls would be saved. No! they obeyed Peter's command. Those who "gladly received his (Peter's) words were baptized and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls" (Acts 2:41) If you have not obeyed this command, then you have no hope, no promise. I can pray for you to be saved until my socks fall off....but if you do not obey by your own volition....there is no hope.
This verse is a promise that a baptized person will receive the Holy Spirit. It doesn't promise that he will ultimately go to heaven. Thereby there are two different aspects of salvation, which is a process that starts in a tangible way at baptism (though God must give his grace to get you that far).
Now as for your verse, I have no idea whether LightHammer has done his part thus far. He may be baptized, he may have repented, how am I to know? Only God is the judge. But I sense the spirit in LightHammer, so I have hope that he will be saved in the end. But until he is in heaven, all we can do is hope. In Catholic belief, we are not free to love unless we are also free to reject. If LightHammer should fall away and turn bitter against God, that is his free will; God will not force him to worship him forever in eternity. A god that would force worship for eternity on someone who did not love him would be a very narcissistic god indeed, but that is not God, our Heavenly Father.
: pointmade Mon Nov 15, 2010 - 14:37:35
You wrote: "The" Church is two things. The Church is an organized hierarchy with authority from God, "sent" to carry the gospel to all nations. The members of the Church are all validly baptized believers. The first is a physical institution, the second a mystical organism, the body of Christ."
No, the church is the "bride of Christ" (Eph. 5:25) Jesus Christ as the head. Paul is very clear on the credentials of "those desiring the office of a bishop (pastor) to take care of the house of God."
"One must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach, One that rules well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity" no lover of money, etc. (1 Timothy 3ff).
God never intended for His church to be a "mystical organism." The church is a body of believers.....warm blooded people who are living stones in His church at the corner of walk and don't walk who carry on the affairs of the local church of Christ as servants.
You basically told me I was wrong and then went on to describe the two aspects of the Church that I was outlining - the bishops (and ordained) that care for the house of God (1) and the people that are their flock, including themselves (2).
: pointmade Mon Nov 15, 2010 - 14:37:35
Paul is quit clear who makes up the church of Christ in 1 Corinthians 12. Nothing "mystical" about His church. A "valid believer" are those who have obeyed Peter's command in Acts 2:38 and continue to walk in His statues and commands as revealed in the New Testament.
When Jesus says that we are the body of Christ, that is a very real saying. When Jesus blinded Paul, he asked him "Why are you persecuting
me?" We as members of Christ's body are united in a very real way. How can it be real if not mystical? We surely aren't physically one body...
: 1 Cor 12:12-31
As a body is one though it has many parts, and all the parts of the body, though many, are one body, so also Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, slaves or free persons, and we were all given to drink of one Spirit. Now the body is not a single part, but many. If a foot should say, "Because I am not a hand I do not belong to the body," it does not for this reason belong any less to the body. Or if an ear should say, "Because I am not an eye I do not belong to the body," it does not for this reason belong any less to the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole body were hearing, where would the sense of smell be? But as it is, God placed the parts, each one of them, in the body as he intended. If they were all one part, where would the body be?
But as it is, there are many parts, yet one body. The eye cannot say to the hand, "I do not need you," nor again the head to the feet, "I do not need you." Indeed, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are all the more necessary, and those parts of the body that we consider less honorable we surround with greater honor, and our less presentable parts are treated with greater propriety, whereas our more presentable parts do not need this. But God has so constructed the body as to give greater honor to a part that is without it, so that there may be no division in the body, but that the parts may have the same concern for one another. If (one) part suffers, all the parts suffer with it; if one part is honored, all the parts share its joy.
Now you are Christ's body, and individually parts of it. Some people God has designated in the church to be, first, apostles; second, prophets; third, teachers; then, mighty deeds; then, gifts of healing, assistance, administration, and varieties of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work mighty deeds? Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? Strive eagerly for the greatest spiritual gifts. But I shall show you a still more excellent way.
That is what I call a mystical organism. It is an organism because it is real and living, it is mystical because it is not what we consider a natural organism. We are all connected as one in some spiritual way that we cannot perceive with our physical senses.
From your definition of "valid believer" a Catholic would say that such a person is in a "state of grace". So if to you a "valid believer" is the only kind who are "saved", to us a person in the "state of grace" are the ones who will be saved. The difference is that we recognize that some people (using your terminology) are "valid believers" at one time and not "valid believers" later on, but when they come to repentance again, they are once again "valid believers". So in actuality what you are saying describes exactly what Catholics believe, but in a different way, though I'm not sure what you believe about a "valid believer" becoming not a "valid believer". I'm guessing that you might say that "those people weren't saved in the first place". I have heard the same from some Protestants I have talked with on another board.
: chestertonrules Mon Nov 15, 2010 - 14:58:44
: John 10:10 Mon Nov 15, 2010 - 14:40:41
: chestertonrules Sat Nov 13, 2010 - 21:53:58
: John 10:10 Sat Nov 13, 2010 - 20:26:59
Protestants understand that "legitimate Catholicism", as you call it, kept God's Word from the common man for 1000 years during the Dark Ages, considering it a crime to reproduce it and place it in common man's hands so that common man could read it for himself.
"Legitimate Catholicism", as you call it, allowed many evil Popes, un-Scriptural teachings, and practices to enter into what you call the Mother Church, from indulgences, to purgatory, to Maryology, to God's salvation only thru the Catholic Church (only recently modified after Vatican II from 1962-1965), to killing millions of people who dared to disagree with the Mother Church and its teachings and establish separate local churches.
Yes, Protestant churches were started by the Paul's of this world, men called and moved by the Holy Spirit, who took the things of Jesus as revealed in God's Word, especially God's salvation by grace through faith, to the common man.
The Catholic Church wrote, compiled, perserved, and proclaims the words of scripture throughout the world as it always has.
It was the Church that translated the bible into the language of the common man.(the Vulgate, ie. vulgar, or common tongue)
You are posting falsehoods about the Catholic Church.
The first translation of the English Bible for the common man was initiated by John Wycliffe and completed by John Purvey in 1388, not the Catholic Church! Until then, the Popes forbid that the people had the right to read it for themselves, reserving the Bible written only in Latin or Hebrew to priests, monks, bishops, and other prelates of the Catholic Church.
Maybe you should read your Catholic Church history with open eyes, instead of closing your eyes to what Wycliffe, Huss, Luther and many other reformers did.
Wrong about about 500 years:
Eighth to tenth century
In the first period extending from the eighth to the tenth century we meet: (1) St. Bede's translation of John 1:1-6:9; (2) interlinear glosses on the Psalms; (3) the Paris Psalter; (4) the so-called Lindisfarne Gospels; (5) the Rushworth version; (6) the West-Saxon Gospels; (7) Ælfric's version of a number of Old-Testament books.
(1) The proof for the existence of St. Bede's work rests on the authority of his pupil Guthberht who wrote about this fact to his fellow-student Cuthwine (see Mayor and Lumby, "Bedæ hist. eccl.", 178).
(2) The "Glossed Psalters" have come down to us in twelve manuscripts, six of which represent the Roman Psalter, and six the Gallican. The oldest and most important of these manuscripts is the so called Vespesian Psalter, written in Mercia in the first half of the ninth century.
(3) The Paris Psalter advances beyond the glosses in as far as it is a real translation of Psalm 1:1-50:10, ascribed by some scholars to King Alfred (d. 901), though others deny this view. Cf. William of Malmesbury. "Gesta regum Anglorum", II, 123.
(4) The Lindisfarne Gospels, called also the Durham Book, the Book of St. Cuthbert, present the Latin text of the Gospels dating from Redfrith, Bishop of Lindisfarne (698-721), with the so-called Northumbrian Gloss on the Gospels, added about 950 by Aldred. Cf. Dr. Charles O'Conor, "Bibl. stowensis", II (1818-19), 180.
(5) The Rushworth version of the first Gospel, with glosses on the second, third, and fourth Gospels, based on the Lindisfarne glosses. Faerman, a priest of Harewood (Harwood), made the translation of St. Matthew and furnished the glosses on St. Mark, i, 1-ii, 15; St. John, xviii, 1-3; the rest of the work is taken from Owun's glosses.
(6) The West-Saxon Gospels are a rendering of the Gospels originating in the south of England about the year 1000; seven manuscripts of this version have come down to us. Cf. W.W. Skeat, "The Gospels in Anglo-Saxon etc." (Cambridge, 1871-87).
(7) Ælfric himself states in his work "De vetere testamento", written about 1010, that he had translated the Pentateuch, Josue, Judges, Kings, Job, Esther, Judith, and the Books of the Machabees. The translator frequently abridges, slightly in Genesis, more notably in the Book of Judges and the following books; he adopts a metrical form in Judith. Cf. Nieder in "Zeitschrift für historische Theologie" (1855-56).
Fourteenth century and after
The third period extends from the late fourteenth to the sixteenth or early seventeenth century, and has furnished us with the pre-Wyclifite, the Wyclif, and the printed versions of the Bible.
(1) Pre-Wyclifite Translations
Among the pre-Wyclifite translations we may note:
* The West Midland Psalter, probably written between 1340 and 1350; some attribute it to William of Shoreham. It contains the whole Psalter, eleven canticles, and the Athanasian Creed, and is preserved in three manuscripts (cd. Bülbring, "The Earliest Complete English Prose Psalter", I, London, 1891).
* Richard Rolle's (d. 1349) English version of the "Commentary on the Psalms" by Peter Lombard spread in numerous copies throughout the country (cf. Bramley, "The Psalter and Certain Canticles...by Richard Rolle of Hampole", Oxford, 1884).
* Here belongs a version of the Apocalypse with a commentary; the latter was for some time attributed to Wyclif, but is really a version of a Norman commentary from the first half of the thirteenth century. Its later revisions agree so well with the Wyclif version that they must have been utilized in its preparation.
* The Pauline Epistles were rendered in the North Midlands or the North; they are still extant in a manuscript of the fifteenth century.
* Another version of the Pauline Epistles, and of the Epistles of St. James and St. Peter (only the first) originated in the south of England somewhere in the fourteenth century (cf. the edition of A.C. Paves, Cambridge, 1904).
* A scholar of the north of England translated also commentaries on the Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke.
* Several manuscripts preserve to us a version of the Books of Acts and the Catholic Epistles, either separately or in conjunction with a fragmentary Southern version of the Pauline Epistles and part of the Catholic Epistles, mentioned under (5). Cf. A.C. Paves, "A Fourteenth-Century English Biblical Version", Cambridge, 1904.
* Besides these versions of particular books of Holy Scripture, there existed numerous renderings of the Our Father, the Ten Commandments, the Life, Passion, and Resurrection of Christ, and of the parts read on Sundays and Feastdays in the Mass. In general, if we may believe the testimony of Archbishop Cranmer, Sir Thomas More, Foxe the martyrologist, and the authors of the Preface to the Reims Testament, the whole Bible was to be found in the mother tongue long before John Wyclif was born (cf. "American Ecclesiastical Review", XXXII, Philadelphia, June, 1905, 594).
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15367a.htm
I was talking about the COMPLETED Bible in English that could be read by the common man for himself. Until 1388, the Catholic Church reserved the Bible written only in Latin or Hebrew to priests, monks, bishops, and other prelates of the Catholic Church. For a long period of time after 1388, the Catholic Church continued to persecute those who took God's Word and preached the truths therein.
For what crime did John Huss and other reformers deserve to be killed or burned at the stake by the Catholic Church for proclaiming the truths of the completed Bible to the common man?
: John 10:10 Mon Nov 15, 2010 - 15:21:55
I was talking about the COMPLETED Bible in English that could be read by the common man for himself. Until 1388, the Catholic Church reserved the Bible written only in Latin or Hebrew to priests, monks, bishops, and other prelates of the Catholic Church. For a long period of time after 1388, the Catholic Church continued to persecute those who took God's Word and preached the truths therein.
For what crime did John Huss and other reformers deserve to be killed or burned at the stake by the Catholic Church for proclaiming the truths of the completed Bible to the common man?
John, the only ones who used to be able to read were the clergy and elite. And Latin was the Common (vulgate derives vulgar, or common) language of the people for a long long time. The Church made the Bible available in Churches in the common tongue of people. They used to be extremely expensive to make and only a select few could have afforded copies. We think so 21st century where we can send a Bible overseas for $4. In those days, Bibles would cost more than a year's wages for most people, and most people couldn't read anyway! So the Church made the Bible available how it could, through the mass, in the Church, in the common tongue. And the Bible WAS translated into many, many languages. The Protestant reformers were no "heroes" that "liberated the Bible". They just happened to come along after the invent of the printing press, which was invented by a Catholic (Gutenberg) and the first thing he did with his new invention was to print a Catholic Bible.
: John 10:10 Mon Nov 15, 2010 - 15:21:55
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15367a.htm
I was talking about the COMPLETED Bible in English that could be read by the common man for himself. Until 1388, the Catholic Church reserved the Bible written only in Latin or Hebrew to priests, monks, bishops, and other prelates of the Catholic Church. For a long period of time after 1388, the Catholic Church continued to persecute those who took God's Word and preached the truths therein.
For what crime did John Huss and other reformers deserve to be killed or burned at the stake by the Catholic Church for proclaiming the truths of the completed Bible to the common man?
[/quote]
The Catholic Church has consistently fought to keep the bible from being distorted and mistranslated, true enough.
The Church has also consistently worked to spread the entire Word of God throughout the world.
You are posting biased and inaccurate opinion.
what sin this "papacy" is in, the Lord is mad, the Lord is sad. The least of these will be first. Man places himself in authority, above His other children.
The humble will reap their harvest, repent great church of Satan, repent great church of pride, your sins are many, repent of your self righteousness, repent you Pharisees.
all Gods children are equal through Jesus Christ, through my son's blood and body. Salvation does not come through the church, but my Son, His perfect sacrifice, there is no perfect church, perfect ritual, who can save a life from damnation...Only my Son.
message from the Holy Spirit
: Debrah Mon Nov 15, 2010 - 20:19:42
what sin this "papacy" is in, the Lord is mad, the Lord is sad. The least of these will be first. Man places himself in authority, above His other children.
The humble will reap their harvest, repent great church of Satan, repent great church of pride, your sins are many, repent of your self righteousness, repent you Pharisees.
all Gods children are equal through Jesus Christ, through my son's blood and body. Salvation does not come through the church, but my Son, His perfect sacrifice, there is no perfect church, perfect ritual, who can save a life from damnation...Only my Son.
message from the Holy Spirit
Matthew 16
17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.
18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
Matthew 18
17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and
if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.Luke 10
16"He who listens to you listens to me;
he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."
John 20
21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you!
As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."
: chestertonrules Mon Nov 15, 2010 - 17:46:55
The Catholic Church has consistently fought to keep the bible from being distorted and mistranslated, true enough.
The Church has also consistently worked to spread the entire Word of God throughout the world.
You are posting biased and inaccurate opinion.
Again you fail to answer the question: For what crime did John Huss and other reformers deserve to be killed or burned at the stake by the Catholic Church for proclaiming the truths of the completed Bible to the common man?
For hundreds of years after 1388, the Catholic Church continued to persecute, imprison and kill Christians who dared to take the Bible and teach/practice their beliefs apart from the Catholic Church, considering them heretics.
To ignore this truth of history is to live in denial.
Protestants too have had our share of pastors who were/are wolves in sheep clothing.
: Debrah Mon Nov 15, 2010 - 20:19:42
what sin this "papacy" is in, the Lord is mad, the Lord is sad. The least of these will be first. Man places himself in authority, above His other children.
The humble will reap their harvest, repent great church of Satan, repent great church of pride, your sins are many, repent of your self righteousness, repent you Pharisees.
all Gods children are equal through Jesus Christ, through my son's blood and body. Salvation does not come through the church, but my Son, His perfect sacrifice, there is no perfect church, perfect ritual, who can save a life from damnation...Only my Son.
message from the Holy Spirit
Thank you Debra for hearing the Lord and speaking the Holy Spirit.
The is a true message.
Praise the Lord for truth. Amen.
: chestertonrules Mon Nov 15, 2010 - 20:47:41
: Debrah Mon Nov 15, 2010 - 20:19:42
what sin this "papacy" is in, the Lord is mad, the Lord is sad. The least of these will be first. Man places himself in authority, above His other children.
The humble will reap their harvest, repent great church of Satan, repent great church of pride, your sins are many, repent of your self righteousness, repent you Pharisees.
all Gods children are equal through Jesus Christ, through my son's blood and body. Salvation does not come through the church, but my Son, His perfect sacrifice, there is no perfect church, perfect ritual, who can save a life from damnation...Only my Son.
message from the Holy Spirit
Matthew 16
17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
Matthew 18
17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
Luke 10
16"He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."
John 20
21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."
Yes this is true that He sent us the apostles and true they laid hands on others to carry on the work. It is true that we should obey all authority religiously and politically. Jesus said of the Pharisees do as they say but do not be as they are. Ultimately it is Christ whom we hear and obey but not all who say they are sent are sent. Jesus warned of the false teachers who would fool even the elect. What is deception but clever lie that poses as the truth. When the disciples were with Jesus at the configuration they wanted to build an alter to Moses and Elija When the Lord said of Jesus. This is my Son whom i am well pleased. Hear ye Him.
If a leader who is not truly led of the Holy spirit but is proclaiming authority then he is only one of authority that says he is authority. The pharisees sat in a sat of authority but they were not sent, nor was he pleased with them. A lot is done in the name of authority but not all authority is truly the Lords authority. We have the gospels and the Epistles. they are a solid mearsure of truth. and all men will be judged by them. The word of God will be our indictment for the good and the Evil.
God bless
: John 10:10 Mon Nov 15, 2010 - 23:06:14
Again you fail to answer the question: For what crime did John Huss and other reformers deserve to be killed or burned at the stake by the Catholic Church for proclaiming the truths of the completed Bible to the common man?
For hundreds of years after 1388, the Catholic Church continued to persecute, imprison and kill Christians who dared to take the Bible and teach/practice their beliefs apart from the Catholic Church, considering them heretics.
To ignore this truth of history is to live in denial.
Protestants too have had our share of pastors who were/are wolves in sheep clothing.
It was not teaching the bible that the Church condemned, it was the teaching of heresy.
Huss was a heretic. He leaned on his own understanding and led people astray. He taught the doctrine of impanation, as did Wycliffe.
: chestertonrules Tue Nov 16, 2010 - 08:50:03
: John 10:10 Mon Nov 15, 2010 - 23:06:14
Again you fail to answer the question: For what crime did John Huss and other reformers deserve to be killed or burned at the stake by the Catholic Church for proclaiming the truths of the completed Bible to the common man?
For hundreds of years after 1388, the Catholic Church continued to persecute, imprison and kill Christians who dared to take the Bible and teach/practice their beliefs apart from the Catholic Church, considering them heretics.
To ignore this truth of history is to live in denial.
Protestants too have had our share of pastors who were/are wolves in sheep clothing.
It was teaching the bible that the Church condemned, it was the teaching of heresy.
Huss was a heretic. He leaned on his own understanding and led people astray. He taught the doctrine of impanation, as did Wycliffe.
I must have missed something. Most Protestants
DO NOT believe in the doctrine of impanation (the doctrine that the body and blood of Christ are in the bread and wine after consecration), but the Papacy does!
Now I get it. Everyone that taught/teaches the Bible different than the Papacy is a heritic, and therefore worthy persecution, imprisonment, and even being burned at the stake.
Since the Papacy only recently mofified its teaching that God's salvation was only thru the Catholic Church via Vatican II from 1962-1965, did the Papacy get it all wrong for all the years before then?
: Debrah Mon Nov 15, 2010 - 20:19:42
what sin this "papacy" is in, the Lord is mad, the Lord is sad. The least of these will be first. Man places himself in authority, above His other children.
The humble will reap their harvest, repent great church of Satan, repent great church of pride, your sins are many, repent of your self righteousness, repent you Pharisees.
all Gods children are equal through Jesus Christ, through my son's blood and body. Salvation does not come through the church, but my Son, His perfect sacrifice, there is no perfect church, perfect ritual, who can save a life from damnation...Only my Son.
message from the Holy Spirit
That is the is the essence of Protestantism. Every random joker showing up with a message they think is right and labeling it of the Holy Spirit.
: mclees8 Tue Nov 16, 2010 - 07:15:43
: Debrah Mon Nov 15, 2010 - 20:19:42
what sin this "papacy" is in, the Lord is mad, the Lord is sad. The least of these will be first. Man places himself in authority, above His other children.
The humble will reap their harvest, repent great church of Satan, repent great church of pride, your sins are many, repent of your self righteousness, repent you Pharisees.
all Gods children are equal through Jesus Christ, through my son's blood and body. Salvation does not come through the church, but my Son, His perfect sacrifice, there is no perfect church, perfect ritual, who can save a life from damnation...Only my Son.
message from the Holy Spirit
Thank you Debra for hearing the Lord and speaking the Holy Spirit.
The is a true message.
Praise the Lord for truth. Amen.
A message that rallies clueless believers who rather listen to it than obey God's established design for HIS Church.
: John 10:10 Tue Nov 16, 2010 - 12:41:49
Now I get it. Everyone that taught/teaches the Bible different than the Papacy is a heritic,
Exactly.
So, when you say that the Church was trying to stop the spread of scripture you are incorrect.
The Church was trying to stop the spread of heresy.
: LightHammer Sat Nov 13, 2010 - 21:22:07
So what about the thousands that died at the hands of the protestant Salem Witchtrails?
Actually, only nineteen people were hanged, one person was pressed to death, and as many as thirteen people may have died in prison as a result of the Salem Witch Trials during the late 1600's. Compared to those who were imprisoned and killed over the centuries for teaching/living God's Word apart from the RCC, this is but a small drop in a vast ocean of atrocities committed by those who sought to keep their churches pure. Only after the 1776 revolution did true freedom of religion enter into the American way of life.
What about the Southern Baptist who declared it a divine revelation of God to uphold slavery?! My race was bound in shackles, beaten and whipped like wild animals and all the while your protestant church declared it God's design for the superior race.
Preserving one's power, way of life, and prosperity has led many groups of people, including the RCC, to justify all manner of evil practices to start and continue within their midst, ignoring the light and truth of Scripture. This many Southerners and Northerners did in order to tame the new American continent, and to prosper therein. Once evil of any kind enters into one's midst, it rarely is overcome without strife and even bloodshed. Look at the drug wars going on at our Southern borders, and in our cities. The Civil War cost 620,000 lives, 2/3 of which died of disease! The only slavery the Bible condones is being a bond slave, which is where one voluntarily agrees to serve another person. This is how we serve our Lord Jesus Christ, becoming His friend (John 15:15)
Don't you dare pretend evil men have not slipped into protestant churches and stained their history with the blood of innocents just as evil men have done to the Mother Church in an attempt to bring it down?!!!!
I never pretended for one moment that Protestant churches have not allowed evil within their midst. The difference is this: When the RCC did so through evil Popes, priests & bishops, it affected the entire RCC. When individual Protestant churches do, it usually affects a single local church or denomination, not all Protestant churches everywhere! Protestant churches are mostly autonomous. This can be both a strength and a weakness, but Protestants trust in God's Word and the power of God's Spirit to make needed corrections, rather than a "Mother Church" telling everyone what to do and believe.
Men of God ey?! None of the protestant denominations, that were started by "the Paul's of this world" as you call it even teach the same requirements for salvation. So someone is spreading falsehoods and think putting the name of Christ on a billboard outside covers it up.
God's salvation is given as man repents of his sin, and then calls upon the name of the Lord to be saved (Acts 3:38-39, Rom 10:8-13). This truth as revealed in God's Word can be defined in many different ways within Protestantism, some very good and some not so good. But for most of its existence, the RCC considered God's salvation came only through the RCC. Vatican II (1962-65) at least made this concession, "Nevertheless, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside its visible confines."
I'm thankful God's salvation came to me when I was a sinner who repented, not because of where I attended church.
: chestertonrules Tue Nov 16, 2010 - 13:46:10
: John 10:10 Tue Nov 16, 2010 - 12:41:49
Now I get it. Everyone that taught/teaches the Bible different than the Papacy is a heritic,
Exactly.
So, when you say that the Church was trying to stop the spread of scripture you are incorrect.
The Church was trying to stop the spread of heresy.
And this justifies all those who were killed in the name of the RCC because they dared to proclaim God's Word differently than the RCC!!!
Are you sure you want to say this was OK for the RCC to do this to stop what the RCC considered heresy?
PS - I noticed you didn't copy my entire quote: Now I get it. Everyone that taught/teaches the Bible different than the Papacy is a heritic, and therefore worthy persecution, imprisonment, and even being burned at the stake.
: John 10:10 Tue Nov 16, 2010 - 15:04:43
And this justifies all those who were killed in the name of the RCC because they dared to proclaim God's Word differently than the RCC!!!
Are you sure you want to say this was OK for the RCC to do this to stop what the RCC considered heresy?
I don't claim that this justifies violence, but I wanted to clarify the motivations. The Church has always striven to keep the message of the gospel that was handed down by Jesus to the apostles.
The middle ages were a violent time, and Catholics were just as sinful as anyone else.
Both protestant and Catholics did terrible things to each other, and much of it was motivated by worldly desires rather than religious conviction.
If you knew more about what the Church was up against you wouldn't be so judgmental. Catholics had been brutally attacked by the Roman empire, Muslims, Carthars, and other radical groups for centuries.
: John 10:10 Tue Nov 16, 2010 - 14:51:02
: LightHammer Sat Nov 13, 2010 - 21:22:07
So what about the thousands that died at the hands of the protestant Salem Witchtrails?
Actually, only nineteen people were hanged, one person was pressed to death, and as many as thirteen people may have died in prison as a result of the Salem Witch Trials during the late 1600's. Compared to those who were imprisoned and killed over the centuries for teaching/living God's Word apart from the RCC, this is but a small drop in a vast ocean of atrocities committed by those who sought to keep their churches pure. Only after the 1776 revolution did true freedom of religion enter into the American way of life.
What about the Southern Baptist who declared it a divine revelation of God to uphold slavery?! My race was bound in shackles, beaten and whipped like wild animals and all the while your protestant church declared it God's design for the superior race.
Preserving one's power, way of life, and prosperity has led many groups of people, including the RCC, to justify all manner of evil practices to start and continue within their midst, ignoring the light and truth of Scripture. This many Southerners and Northerners did in order to tame the new American continent, and to prosper therein. Once evil of any kind enters into one's midst, it rarely is overcome without strife and even bloodshed. Look at the drug wars going on at our Southern borders, and in our cities. The Civil War cost 620,000 lives, 2/3 of which died of disease! The only slavery the Bible condones is being a bond slave, which is where one voluntarily agrees to serve another person. This is how we serve our Lord Jesus Christ, becoming His friend (John 15:15)
Don't you dare pretend evil men have not slipped into protestant churches and stained their history with the blood of innocents just as evil men have done to the Mother Church in an attempt to bring it down?!!!!
I never pretended for one moment that Protestant churches have not allowed evil within their midst. The difference is this: When the RCC did so through evil Popes, priests & bishops, it affected the entire RCC. When individual Protestant churches do, it usually affects a single local church or denomination, not all Protestant churches everywhere! Protestant churches are mostly autonomous. This can be both a strength and a weakness, but Protestants trust in God's Word and the power of God's Spirit to make needed corrections, rather than a "Mother Church" telling everyone what to do and believe.
Men of God ey?! None of the protestant denominations, that were started by "the Paul's of this world" as you call it even teach the same requirements for salvation. So someone is spreading falsehoods and think putting the name of Christ on a billboard outside covers it up.
God's salvation is given as man repents of his sin, and then calls upon the name of the Lord to be saved (Acts 3:38-39, Rom 10:8-13). This truth as revealed in God's Word can be defined in many different ways within Protestantism, some very good and some not so good. But for most of its existence, the RCC considered God's salvation came only through the RCC. Vatican II (1962-65) at least made this concession, "Nevertheless, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside its visible confines."
I'm thankful God's salvation came to me when I was a sinner who repented, not because of where I attended church.
Well I'm glad you acknwoledged the fact that sinful men have stained the faith on both sides and just the RCC. That would be very crude. Do not misunderstand me. I am not saying that the RCC is perfect it just bothers me how protestants try to use things like the Inquisition and other faults of the Church to disprove it as if protestant churches don't have the same blood on their history. My real favorite is to watch protestants try to dispute apostolic succession. I mean how much sense did the Apostles need to say, "Hey I'm a human which means I'm probably going to die one day. Oh darn it Christ told me to lead and teach the flock and if I die I can't do that. There are still so many secrets that God has to reveal and if I don't stay around who's going to reciece them? Oh wait I'll just choose a guy to take my place before I go then everything will be fine." Like no duh every protestant church has some form of succession for its leadership and rightly so. Without leaders the organization falls apart.
In regards to your statement of salvation, what about the requirement of water baptism? Christ did command the disciples to go out and make followers in the world baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost? So He was just playing and we don't really have to do this? After someone is saved is it permanent or can they become unsaved if they choose? Wait according to Mormon Native Americans are the sons of Satan, you don't associate with any of them do you? Don't forget Calvin said that salvation was not for all but only the Elect, so did God lie? That takes me to another question. Is it true that before a man is born God determines whether or not He will be saved or condemned because I heard of this thing called predestination and it says so? Ooooo wait the new millenist say that the Bible isn't God's Word at all but it really was inspired by men so we should take it so seriously. Well what a relief now I can stop worrying.
See where I'm going with this. Christ said and I quote verbatum;
10And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
11He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
When the disciples said "them" he was talking about the other believers, the large crowd that gave up everything from their homes and majority of their belongings to follow Christ and hear Him speak. The same believers who followed Christ into the desert when they had no food. The same believers who the disciples had to beg Christ to send away so they could go eat. The same believers that Christ fed in that desert. It was US brother. The common children of God's kingdom. The ones the disciples were meant to teach and look after when Christ left.
The mysteries of the kingdom were revealed ONLY to the disciples because it was ONLY the disciples that were commissioned to teach and lead. We were meant to trust in those he sent.
: chestertonrules Tue Nov 16, 2010 - 15:14:37
: John 10:10 Tue Nov 16, 2010 - 15:04:43
And this justifies all those who were killed in the name of the RCC because they dared to proclaim God's Word differently than the RCC!!!
Are you sure you want to say this was OK for the RCC to do this to stop what the RCC considered heresy?
I don't claim that this justifies violence, but I wanted to clarify the motivations. The Church has always striven to keep the message of the gospel that was handed down by Jesus to the apostles.
The middle ages were a violent time, and Catholics were just as sinful as anyone else.
Both protestant and Catholics did terrible things to each other, and much of it was motivated by worldly desires rather than religious conviction.
If you knew more about what the Church was up against you wouldn't be so judgmental. Catholics had been brutally attacked by the Roman empire, Muslims, Carthars, and other radical groups for centuries.
All the Apostles, except maybe John, laid down their lives in martyrdom to spread and maintain the Gospel of Christ, rather than kill those who disagreed with them. This "clarification" does not hold water!
It's one thing to defend yourself when someone is coming against you with a deadly weapon with intent to kill.
It's another thing entirely to kill those who believe and teach something differently than you do! Protestants believe it's the Holy Spirit who brings sinners under conviction of sin, righteousness and judgment (John 16:8-11), not the right of any church or "Mother Church" to do so!
: John 10:10 Tue Nov 16, 2010 - 15:35:16
: chestertonrules Tue Nov 16, 2010 - 15:14:37
: John 10:10 Tue Nov 16, 2010 - 15:04:43
And this justifies all those who were killed in the name of the RCC because they dared to proclaim God's Word differently than the RCC!!!
Are you sure you want to say this was OK for the RCC to do this to stop what the RCC considered heresy?
I don't claim that this justifies violence, but I wanted to clarify the motivations. The Church has always striven to keep the message of the gospel that was handed down by Jesus to the apostles.
The middle ages were a violent time, and Catholics were just as sinful as anyone else.
Both protestant and Catholics did terrible things to each other, and much of it was motivated by worldly desires rather than religious conviction.
If you knew more about what the Church was up against you wouldn't be so judgmental. Catholics had been brutally attacked by the Roman empire, Muslims, Carthars, and other radical groups for centuries.
All the Apostles, except maybe John, laid down their lives in martyrdom to spread and maintain the Gospel of Christ, rather than kill those who disagreed with them. This "clarification" does not hold water!
It's one thing to defend yourself when someone is coming against you with a deadly weapon with intent to kill.
It's another thing entirely to kill those who believe and teach something differently than you do! Protestants believe it's the Holy Spirit who brings sinners under conviction of sin, righteousness and judgment (John 16:8-11), not the right of any church or "Mother Church" to do so!
And rightly so. However the Mother Church, I see you have grown fond of my little term, does not act as the judge of the world but the physical protector and stronghold of Truth. What you have in history is the common mixing of good intentions with horrible means. Means so horrible in fact that to most the good intentions are dilluted to the point of not even being there. However that is man's sin not the Church's err of Jesus' error for making the Church.
There have been countless who have surrendered themselves to their violent impulses and thought if they cloaked it with "God's Will" they be justified. That does not discredit the Church. Look at the history of the world and mankind. There has always been and always will be those who kill in the name of some higher purpose or being. Just because that same mentality was applied to sinners in the Church doesn't discredit it. If tomorrow there were no more Catholic Church those same sinners would merely seek another "higher purpose or being" to aplly their sinful means to and that would succeed in the world only being without the Church Christ founded in the leadership of the Apostles. It would only succeed in letting more and more random people bear contradicting messages they label "of the Holy Spirit". There would be utter chaos.
: Debrah Mon Nov 15, 2010 - 20:19:42
what sin this "papacy" is in, the Lord is mad, the Lord is sad. The least of these will be first. Man places himself in authority, above His other children.
The humble will reap their harvest, repent great church of Satan, repent great church of pride, your sins are many, repent of your self righteousness, repent you Pharisees.
all Gods children are equal through Jesus Christ, through my son's blood and body. Salvation does not come through the church, but my Son, His perfect sacrifice, there is no perfect church, perfect ritual, who can save a life from damnation...Only my Son.
message from the Holy Spirit
To ascribe this message to the Holy Spirit is blasphemy.
: John 10:10 Tue Nov 16, 2010 - 12:41:49
: chestertonrules Tue Nov 16, 2010 - 08:50:03
: John 10:10 Mon Nov 15, 2010 - 23:06:14
Again you fail to answer the question: For what crime did John Huss and other reformers deserve to be killed or burned at the stake by the Catholic Church for proclaiming the truths of the completed Bible to the common man?
For hundreds of years after 1388, the Catholic Church continued to persecute, imprison and kill Christians who dared to take the Bible and teach/practice their beliefs apart from the Catholic Church, considering them heretics.
To ignore this truth of history is to live in denial.
Protestants too have had our share of pastors who were/are wolves in sheep clothing.
It was teaching the bible that the Church condemned, it was the teaching of heresy.
Huss was a heretic. He leaned on his own understanding and led people astray. He taught the doctrine of impanation, as did Wycliffe.
I must have missed something. Most Protestants DO NOT believe in the doctrine of impanation (the doctrine that the body and blood of Christ are in the bread and wine after consecration), but the Papacy does!
No, we don't. Impanation was a heretical altering of the dogma of transsubstantiation, similar to the way Lutherans believe, but still false. I don't understand it well enough, but basically this strikes at the source and summit of the faith given to us by Jesus.
: John 10:10 Tue Nov 16, 2010 - 12:41:49
Now I get it. Everyone that taught/teaches the Bible different than the Papacy is a heritic
No, only those who call themselves Catholic and teach false things are heretics. Those outside the Church who teach false things but are honestly seeking truth are not heretics, just deceived persons.
No one is "worthy" of being burned at the stake. However when Huss lived, that was the punishment in his country for convicted heretics. Essentially he refused to reject his heresy, the Church convicted him of heresy, and the government executed him. Certainly it wasn't right, but that was civil law back then. I haven't heard of too many convicted heretics lately, though some are still excommunicated. It was simply a different time that is abrasive to our modern cultural upbringing.
Truth is that important, however, because the only thing worse than dying in a state of mortal sin is leading others into falsehood and ultimately leading them to die in a state of mortal sin through false doctrinal beliefs.
: John 10:10 Tue Nov 16, 2010 - 12:41:49
Since the Papacy only recently mofified its teaching that God's salvation was only thru the Catholic Church via Vatican II from 1962-1965.
This is false. Case in point, one Fr. Feeney who in 1949 rejected the Papal encyclical
extra Ecclesiam nulla salus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_Ecclesiam_nulla_salus) which reiterated a doctrine that was held for all time, most anciently written about in the 3rd century, one held by both Orthodox and Catholics, that even people outside the Church can be saved. Fr. Feeney, in 1949, rejected this encyclical because he felt that only members of the Catholic Church could be saved. Fr. Feeney was excommunicated for his insistence on continuing to teach this heresy (the very heresy that Protestants accuse the Church of espousing). Pure fact is that the doctrine contains subtleties, and those subtleties it seems those outside the Catholic Church never care to learn because its much easier to attack the straw man false "doctrine" that one must be a member of the Catholic Church to be saved to support their own personal rejection of the Catholic faith.
: LightHammer Tue Nov 16, 2010 - 15:32:20
Well I'm glad you acknowledged the fact that sinful men have stained the faith on both sides and just the RCC. That would be very crude. Do not misunderstand me. I am not saying that the RCC is perfect it just bothers me how protestants try to use things like the Inquisition and other faults of the Church to disprove it as if protestant churches don't have the same blood on their history. My real favorite is to watch protestants try to dispute apostolic succession. I mean how much sense did the Apostles need to say, "Hey I'm a human which means I'm probably going to die one day. Oh darn it Christ told me to lead and teach the flock and if I die I can't do that. There are still so many secrets that God has to reveal and if I don't stay around who's going to receive them? Oh wait I'll just choose a guy to take my place before I go then everything will be fine." Like no duh every protestant church has some form of succession for its leadership and rightly so. Without leaders the organization falls apart.
In regards to your statement of salvation, what about the requirement of water baptism? Christ did command the disciples to go out and make followers in the world baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost? So He was just playing and we don't really have to do this? After someone is saved is it permanent or can they become unsaved if they choose? Wait according to Mormon Native Americans are the sons of Satan, you don't associate with any of them do you? Don't forget Calvin said that salvation was not for all but only the Elect, so did God lie? That takes me to another question. Is it true that before a man is born God determines whether or not He will be saved or condemned because I heard of this thing called predestination and it says so? Ooooo wait the new millenist say that the Bible isn't God's Word at all but it really was inspired by men so we should take it so seriously. Well what a relief now I can stop worrying.
See where I'm going with this. Christ said and I quote verbatim;
10And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
11He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
When the disciples said "them" he was talking about the other believers, the large crowd that gave up everything from their homes and majority of their belongings to follow Christ and hear Him speak. The same believers who followed Christ into the desert when they had no food. The same believers who the disciples had to beg Christ to send away so they could go eat. The same believers that Christ fed in that desert. It was US brother. The common children of God's kingdom. The ones the disciples were meant to teach and look after when Christ left.
The mysteries of the kingdom were revealed ONLY to the disciples because it was ONLY the disciples that were commissioned to teach and lead. We were meant to trust in those he sent.
Yes, sinful men have stained the faith on both sides, not just the RCC. The sooner we all acknowledge this, the sooner we can all learn from their mistakes, and learn how to better live by God's law of agape love.
Most Protestants understand that water baptism is for those who "have" already entered into God's salvation and received the gift of God's Spirit (see Acts 10:47-48). There are a few that believe it's necessary for God's salvation, but they are in the great minority.
Protestants will always disagree with those who say that God's Word can only be correctly understood and taught by those who are in the line of Apostolic succession and belonged/belong to the Mother Church. Great truth is in the RCC, and for this I am very gratefull. Great truth also resides within Protestantism, and for this you should be gratefull as well. Only the whole Church has the whole truth of God. But where what I believe as a Protestant or what you believe as a Catholic cannot be clearly shown as truth according to Scripture, much error and evil has entered into both.
The mysteries of the kingdom of heaven are for
all God's children who have received the gift of God's Spirit, those who can hear what the Spirit is saying to the churches (Rev 2:7, 11, 17, 29, 3:6, 13, 22).
Blessings
: John 10:10 Tue Nov 16, 2010 - 17:46:15
Yes, sinful men have stained the faith on both sides, not just the RCC. The sooner we all acknowledge this, the sooner we can all learn from their mistakes, and learn how to better live by God's law of agape love.
Most Protestants understand that water baptism is for those who "have" already entered into God's salvation and received the gift of God's Spirit (see Acts 10:47-48). There are a few that believe it's necessary for God's salvation, but they are in the great minority.
Protestants will always disagree with those who say that God's Word can only be correctly understood and taught by those who are in the line of Apostolic succession and belonged/belong to the Mother Church. Great truth is in the RCC, and for this I am very gratefull. Great truth also resides within Protestantism, and for this you should be gratefull as well. Only the whole Church has the whole truth of God. But where what I believe as a Protestant or what you believe as a Catholic cannot be clearly shown as truth according to Scripture, much error and evil has entered into both.
The mysteries of the kingdom of heaven are for all God's children who have received the gift of God's Spirit, those who can hear what the Spirit is saying to the churches (Rev 2:7, 11, 17, 29, 3:6, 13, 22).
Blessings
Protestants hold multiple contradictory views. That's what happens when individual interpretation is a spiritual guide
The bible is the inspired word of God, but Jesus didn't write a book, he started a Church.
: chestertonrules Tue Nov 16, 2010 - 18:29:14
Protestants hold multiple contradictory views.
And I suppose that the differences between the Jesuits, Dominicans, Franciscans, (just to name a few) are different?
That's what happens when individual interpretation is a spiritual guide
That consistency argument is an old canard, as proved by the divisions within Roman Catholicism. The differences among the fundamental Christians can be correctly attributed to their different interpretations, but that does not mean that one is apostate because they see some things differently (example is rapture) when they collectively hold to the inerrancy of the autographa and agree with the major Ecumenical creeds.
The bible is the inspired word of God, but Jesus didn't write a book, he started a Church.
Not quite true for two reasons:
1) Jesus called Disciples. The Disciples called Apostles. The Apostles were the church planters.
2) Who do you think is behind the inspired Word of God, if not Jesus? (rhetorical) He caused the writers of the OT and NT to write precisely, and inerrantly.
: John T Tue Nov 16, 2010 - 21:33:48
And I suppose that the differences between the Jesuits, Dominicans, Franciscans, (just to name a few) are different?
How are they different when they all follow the same Catholic doctrine?
Not quite true for two reasons:
1) Jesus called Disciples. The Disciples called Apostles. The Apostles were the church planters.
2) Who do you think is behind the inspired Word of God, if not Jesus? (rhetorical) He caused the writers of the OT and NT to write precisely, and inerrantly.
What do you mean "not quite true." The disciples and Apostles make up the first Church. Jesus was already using the word Church when He was telling His disciples that if they have a problem with a brother, they are to take the matter to the Church (Matthew 18:17). It was Christ who built and founded the Church, and Christ is the Head of the Church. The Word of God was first taught to people ORALLY. The oral word came first before the written word. The entire Bible was compiled until the 4th century. Whenever the Apostles spoke about Scripture, it was the Old Testament Torah that they were referring to. They never referred to any of the books in the New Testament.
Interesting site to read about Catholics
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/heresy_of_antipopes_john_paul_ii_and_benedict_xvi.php
Jesus,our Lords peace be with You.
Dear friend,I assume that You are a Catholic like I am,so You know the answer,but for those who not,please use 5 minutes good and pick up Your Bible and read Matt.16:17-19.
All Churches has it's leaders,it can be a archbishop or in our case our Holy Father,and the fact that Jesus gave St.Peter the "keys" to heaven,means that who ever follow St.Peter in the long line of Popes we have had,is the successor of St.Peter,and so the "earthly" leader of the Church. Many don't understand that,and that is the biggest issues between Catholics and other Christians. It don't have to be so,we don't tell You what to do,and neither You tell us to do,am I right? No,side by side as Christians we follow Jesus and do so remembering His words:"Those who are whit us,is not against us". That is the true messages He gave. As Martin Luther King I have a dream to,a dream where all Christians,no matter to which christian church they belong to,follows Jesus and do as He teach ed,and not only Christians,but people from all around the world,do what is the most import en thing to do,love each other without the question "why" but "how",yes,how can we do things right. And that is what the Catholic Church also teaches,or lets say,repeat,as the words from Jesus himself.
: tinker Wed Nov 17, 2010 - 07:52:21
Interesting site to read about Catholics
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/heresy_of_antipopes_john_paul_ii_and_benedict_xvi.php
This site is constructed by a Sedevacantist, ie. a former Catholic who has apostasized.
Take it for what it's worth.
: Selene Wed Nov 17, 2010 - 06:39:27
: John T Tue Nov 16, 2010 - 21:33:48
And I suppose that the differences between the Jesuits, Dominicans, Franciscans, (just to name a few) are different?
How are they different when they all follow the same Catholic doctrine?
The fact is, like it or not is that they ALL follow and accept the Ecumenical Creeds as definitive of their faith. Therefore the GARBC, Southern Baptists, and IFCA churches have many things in common with the Methodists, Wesleans, AOG and the RC church.
Not quite true for two reasons:
1) Jesus called Disciples. The Disciples called Apostles. The Apostles were the church planters.
2) Who do you think is behind the inspired Word of God, if not Jesus? (rhetorical) He caused the writers of the OT and NT to write precisely, and inerrantly.
What do you mean "not quite true." The disciples and Apostles make up the first Church. Jesus was already using the word Church when He was telling His disciples that if they have a problem with a brother, they are to take the matter to the Church (Matthew 18:17). It was Christ who built and founded the Church, and Christ is the Head of the Church. The Word of God was first taught to people ORALLY. The oral word came first before the written word. The entire Bible was compiled until the 4th century. Whenever the Apostles spoke about Scripture, it was the Old Testament Torah that they were referring to. They never referred to any of the books in the New Testament.
An argument from silence.
The first NT Canon book, (James?) was written c. 57, and the last, John was written c. 96. During that time, the Apostles KNEW that thy were writing Canon, as seen in such Peter and 2 Timothy 3:16. Therefore before they wrote Canon, the Apostles had no other reference other than the OT, and that included Torah, Wisdom Literature and the Prophets.
The NT was codified c.220, not later. You are taking the extreme liberal position when you say 4th Century meaning the 300s.
Whenever the Apostles spoke about Scripture, it was the Old Testament Torah that they were referring to FYI Torah is the same as the Pentateuch, the books of Moses. There is more that they referred to.
As far as "not quite true" I meant as I wrote. While the Disciples did have an organization of sorts with Judas as the treasurer, and they did have substantial funds, for 30 pieces of silver was a lot of money, Jesus did NOT create the church. Look at Matthew 29. In the last verses, he calls us to make disciples, not build a church. If Jesus meant "build a church" He would have said that word, exactly.
As to your reference to Matt 18:17, that is not the "exact translation" of the word here because it is anachronistically translated as "church", and the word has come to mean "church. Actually, the literal meaning is "called out ones", as below
ἐκκλησία, ας f
a congregation: 11.32
b church: 11.33
c assembly: 11.78
Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996). Vol. 2: Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament : Based on semantic domains (electronic ed. of the 2nd edition.) (77). New York: United Bible societies.
Likewise there is no formal organization comprising a "church" in all of Acts. Yes, there were spiritual overseers, called Apostles, Disciples and Deacons, and that was the way that it was until 325 when Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire.
Hope that this helps
: chestertonrules Tue Nov 16, 2010 - 18:29:14
: John 10:10 Tue Nov 16, 2010 - 17:46:15
Yes, sinful men have stained the faith on both sides, not just the RCC. The sooner we all acknowledge this, the sooner we can all learn from their mistakes, and learn how to better live by God's law of agape love.
Most Protestants understand that water baptism is for those who "have" already entered into God's salvation and received the gift of God's Spirit (see Acts 10:47-48). There are a few that believe it's necessary for God's salvation, but they are in the great minority.
Protestants will always disagree with those who say that God's Word can only be correctly understood and taught by those who are in the line of Apostolic succession and belonged/belong to the Mother Church. Great truth is in the RCC, and for this I am very gratefull. Great truth also resides within Protestantism, and for this you should be gratefull as well. Only the whole Church has the whole truth of God. But where what I believe as a Protestant or what you believe as a Catholic cannot be clearly shown as truth according to Scripture, much error and evil has entered into both.
The mysteries of the kingdom of heaven are for all God's children who have received the gift of God's Spirit, those who can hear what the Spirit is saying to the churches (Rev 2:7, 11, 17, 29, 3:6, 13, 22).
Blessings
Protestants hold multiple contradictory views. That's what happens when individual interpretation is a spiritual guide
The bible is the inspired word of God, but Jesus didn't write a book, he started a Church.
When sinfull men stain the faith by stealing, killing, and destroying those who were one a part of their faith, this is no different that what Muslims do when Muslims leave the Islamic faith, are then considered apostates, and can be/are then killed under Islamic Law. The RCC did this for many hundreds of years. So also did Anglican churches in England, and to a much lesser extent did some Puritan churches until the American Revolution in the late 1700's.
The central point of truth you miss (maybe you just disagree) is that most Protestants
trust in the gift of God's Spirit to guide us into all Scriptural truth, where as the Papacy believes God speaks only through the Papacy because of Apostolic succession, and then the Papacy to the people.
Do all Protestants get God's truth right? No, we don't! But most Protestants get it right on
matters essential to salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ. For matters not essential to salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ, Protestants believe in the liberty of local churches to fulfill their unique callings in the body of Christ. A "one local church" does not fit all local churches everywhere.
Yes, the Lord Jesus started the body of Christ, also called the Church, so that all believers can drink of one Spirit.
1 Cor 12:12-13 For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.
: John 10:10 Wed Nov 17, 2010 - 11:54:42
When sinfull men stain the faith by stealing, killing, and destroying those who were one a part of their faith, this is no different that what Muslims do when Muslims leave the Islamic faith, are then considered apostates, and can be/are then killed under Islamic Law. The RCC did this for many hundreds of years. So also did Anglican churches in England, and to a much lesser extent did some Puritan churches until the American Revolution in the late 1700's.
All men are sinful. That's why we need Jesus.
You are avoiding the point which is that protestant Churches teach multiple contradictory doctrines and moralities.
It is one thing for an individual to sin, it is quite another for a Church to change what constitutes sin.
For example: abortion, divorce, gay marriage, practicing gay clergy, artificial birth control, etc.
: chestertonrules Wed Nov 17, 2010 - 12:07:03
: John 10:10 Wed Nov 17, 2010 - 11:54:42
When sinfull men stain the faith by stealing, killing, and destroying those who were one a part of their faith, this is no different that what Muslims do when Muslims leave the Islamic faith, are then considered apostates, and can be/are then killed under Islamic Law. The RCC did this for many hundreds of years. So also did Anglican churches in England, and to a much lesser extent did some Puritan churches until the American Revolution in the late 1700's.
All men are sinful. That's why we need Jesus.
You are avoiding the point which is that protestant Churches teach multiple contradictory doctrines and moralities.
It is one thing for an individual to sin, it is quite another for a Church to change what constitutes sin.
For example: abortion, divorce, gay marriage, practicing gay clergy, artificial birth control, etc.
You are avoiding the truth that judgment of one's faith is left to God, not to man, or to the RCC! The RCC did this for hundreds and hundreds of years, killing millions during these years.
Yes, many protestant Churches teach multiple contradictory doctrines and moralities. Unless these teaching result in practices that violate the governmental laws of cities. states, nations, then believers should be allowed to believe whatever they want.
The Church does not, nor cannot change what constitutes sin. Jesus put sin in a nutshell when He said,
"Concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me." All behavioral sins come from this primary sin, not allowing Jesus to truly be Lord of our lives. When Jesus is truly Lord of our lives, we do not try to be the religious police of everyone else's beliefs. We should allow freedom of our faith beliefs to everyone, then trust in just governments "who brings wrath upon the one who practice evil" (Rom 13:4).
: Catholica Tue Nov 16, 2010 - 16:24:50
: John 10:10 Tue Nov 16, 2010 - 12:41:49
: chestertonrules Tue Nov 16, 2010 - 08:50:03
: John 10:10 Mon Nov 15, 2010 - 23:06:14
Again you fail to answer the question: For what crime did John Huss and other reformers deserve to be killed or burned at the stake by the Catholic Church for proclaiming the truths of the completed Bible to the common man?
For hundreds of years after 1388, the Catholic Church continued to persecute, imprison and kill Christians who dared to take the Bible and teach/practice their beliefs apart from the Catholic Church, considering them heretics.
To ignore this truth of history is to live in denial.
Protestants too have had our share of pastors who were/are wolves in sheep clothing.
It was teaching the bible that the Church condemned, it was the teaching of heresy.
Huss was a heretic. He leaned on his own understanding and led people astray. He taught the doctrine of impanation, as did Wycliffe.
I must have missed something. Most Protestants DO NOT believe in the doctrine of impanation (the doctrine that the body and blood of Christ are in the bread and wine after consecration), but the Papacy does!
No, we don't. Impanation was a heretical altering of the dogma of transsubstantiation, similar to the way Lutherans believe, but still false. I don't understand it well enough, but basically this strikes at the source and summit of the faith given to us by Jesus.
: John 10:10 Tue Nov 16, 2010 - 12:41:49
Now I get it. Everyone that taught/teaches the Bible different than the Papacy is a heritic
No, only those who call themselves Catholic and teach false things are heretics. Those outside the Church who teach false things but are honestly seeking truth are not heretics, just deceived persons.
No one is "worthy" of being burned at the stake. However when Huss lived, that was the punishment in his country for convicted heretics. Essentially he refused to reject his heresy, the Church convicted him of heresy, and the government executed him. Certainly it wasn't right, but that was civil law back then. I haven't heard of too many convicted heretics lately, though some are still excommunicated. It was simply a different time that is abrasive to our modern cultural upbringing.
Truth is that important, however, because the only thing worse than dying in a state of mortal sin is leading others into falsehood and ultimately leading them to die in a state of mortal sin through false doctrinal beliefs.
: John 10:10 Tue Nov 16, 2010 - 12:41:49
Since the Papacy only recently mofified its teaching that God's salvation was only thru the Catholic Church via Vatican II from 1962-1965.
This is false. Case in point, one Fr. Feeney who in 1949 rejected the Papal encyclical extra Ecclesiam nulla salus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_Ecclesiam_nulla_salus) which reiterated a doctrine that was held for all time, most anciently written about in the 3rd century, one held by both Orthodox and Catholics, that even people outside the Church can be saved. Fr. Feeney, in 1949, rejected this encyclical because he felt that only members of the Catholic Church could be saved. Fr. Feeney was excommunicated for his insistence on continuing to teach this heresy (the very heresy that Protestants accuse the Church of espousing). Pure fact is that the doctrine contains subtleties, and those subtleties it seems those outside the Catholic Church never care to learn because its much easier to attack the straw man false "doctrine" that one must be a member of the Catholic Church to be saved to support their own personal rejection of the Catholic faith.
Jesus told you to listen to those he sent.
You must determine who they are and whether or not you will obey Jesus.
Catholica,
Maybe you should give us a better understanding of the difference between impanation vs. transubstantiation. Regardless of what one believes concerning this and others matters of faith, it is not the right nor should be the power of any Church to put people to death because of what they believe. Justifying what the RCC did during the Dark Ages by saying that's just the way life was back then is living in denial.
John Huss was promised safe passage to his trial by Sigismund of Hungary; but once in the hands of his accusers, the prelates convinced Sigismund that he could not be bound by promises to a heretic. When sentenced to death for his supposed beliefs by false accusers, Huss declared,
"God is my witness that the things charged against me I never preached. In the same truth of the Gospel which I have written, taught, and preached, drawing upon the sayings and positions of the holy doctors, I am ready to die today."
I'm sure you could find other statements by others within the RCC that opposed the teachings of the RCC before Vatican II. But the truth of the matter is that only after Vatican II did the Papacy put its full weight behind the truth that people of faith also resided outside the RCC.
: chestertonrules Wed Nov 17, 2010 - 13:38:47
Jesus told you to listen to those he sent.
You must determine who they are and whether or not you will obey Jesus.
Jesus told us to listen to the truth of John 16:13-15,
"But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you."As long as you believe this truth was given
"ONLY" given to the Apostles and now resides
"ONLY" in the Papacy, we will have to just agree to disagree.
: John 10:10 Wed Nov 17, 2010 - 14:39:55
: chestertonrules Wed Nov 17, 2010 - 13:38:47
Jesus told you to listen to those he sent.
You must determine who they are and whether or not you will obey Jesus.
Jesus told us to listen to the truth of John 16:13-15,
"But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you."
Jesus wasn't talking to you in John 16, he was talking to the apostles.
We don't get to make up our own message, we are to follow their message.
Jesus prays for his disciples:John 17
16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. 17 Sanctify them by[d] the truth; your word is truth. 18 As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world. 19 For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified.
Jesus Prays for All Believers 20 "My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you.
: John T Wed Nov 17, 2010 - 11:11:19
: Selene Wed Nov 17, 2010 - 06:39:27
: John T Tue Nov 16, 2010 - 21:33:48
And I suppose that the differences between the Jesuits, Dominicans, Franciscans, (just to name a few) are different?
How are they different when they all follow the same Catholic doctrine?
The fact is, like it or not is that they ALL follow and accept the Ecumenical Creeds as definitive of their faith. Therefore the GARBC, Southern Baptists, and IFCA churches have many things in common with the Methodists, Wesleans, AOG and the RC church.
So, again, how are they different? The fact that they ALL follow and accept the Ecumenical Creeds such as the Nicene Creed does not make them divided. We also follow and accept the Nicene Creed. We have one doctrine that we all follow; therefore, we are not divided as our Protestant brothers are. Everyone who declares himself/herself Catholic follow one Catholic doctrine such as the immaculate conception and transubstantiation. And the Catholic Church stands clear on what they teach.
As far as "not quite true" I meant as I wrote. While the Disciples did have an organization of sorts with Judas as the treasurer, and they did have substantial funds, for 30 pieces of silver was a lot of money, Jesus did NOT create the church. Look at Matthew 29. In the last verses, he calls us to make disciples, not build a church. If Jesus meant "build a church" He would have said that word, exactly.
Jesus did built a Church. It says so in the Bible (See Matthew 16:18). The first Church founded by Christ were His disciples and Apostles. From there, the Church grew.
: chestertonrules Wed Nov 17, 2010 - 14:44:41
: John 10:10 Wed Nov 17, 2010 - 14:39:55
: chestertonrules Wed Nov 17, 2010 - 13:38:47
Jesus told you to listen to those he sent.
You must determine who they are and whether or not you will obey Jesus.
Jesus told us to listen to the truth of John 16:13-15,
"But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you."
Jesus wasn't talking to you in John 16, he was talking to the apostles.
We don't get to make up our own message, we are to follow their message.
Jesus prays for his disciples:
John 17
16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. 17 Sanctify them by[d] the truth; your word is truth. 18 As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world. 19 For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified.
Jesus Prays for All Believers
20 "My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you.
I'm sure you will also say these verses Paul wrote were just for himself and the other Apostles, and not for all Christians.
1 Cor 2:11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God,
13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.
14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.
15 But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one.
16 For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, THAT HE WILL INSTRUCT HIM? But we have the mind of Christ. Yes, we don't get to make up our own message, but we do have the privilege of entering into the truth of every word God has given us in His Word, if in faith we choose to partake.
: chestertonrules Wed Nov 17, 2010 - 14:44:41
: John 10:10 Wed Nov 17, 2010 - 14:39:55
: chestertonrules Wed Nov 17, 2010 - 13:38:47
Jesus told you to listen to those he sent.
You must determine who they are and whether or not you will obey Jesus.
Jesus told us to listen to the truth of John 16:13-15,
"But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you."
Jesus wasn't talking to you in John 16, he was talking to the apostles.
We don't get to make up our own message, we are to follow their message.
Jesus prays for his disciples:
John 17
16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. 17 Sanctify them by[d] the truth; your word is truth. 18 As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world. 19 For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified.
Jesus Prays for All Believers
20 "My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you.
Yes he spoke to the disciples, but the promise is for all believers. This promise is for all who will believe in Jesus through their message. Do you not remember that the Holy spirit as clothen tongues of fire sat on all of the 120 in the upper room and they were all filled with the holy ghost and with power to preach the gospel. All through the book of acts converts were were filled with the holy ghost when the apostles laid hands on them. This same Holy spirit will guide us into all truth. Christ is the truth and the fullness thereof. all who are filled with his spirit are guided of Him and shall know the truth.
Sadly you know little about how the Holy Spirit works in all who desire to have him.
There is only one message of truth and that is Jesus Christ crucified for the sins of the world. That Jesus was at work in the creation and is the first and the last. the beginning and the end. He is the Lord and none stand beside Him. This truth is given to us by His Holy Spirit. It is not just for certain apostles but to all the love the truth.
: John 10:10 Wed Nov 17, 2010 - 23:46:35
: chestertonrules Wed Nov 17, 2010 - 14:44:41
: John 10:10 Wed Nov 17, 2010 - 14:39:55
: chestertonrules Wed Nov 17, 2010 - 13:38:47
Jesus told you to listen to those he sent.
You must determine who they are and whether or not you will obey Jesus.
Jesus told us to listen to the truth of John 16:13-15,
"But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you."
Jesus wasn't talking to you in John 16, he was talking to the apostles.
We don't get to make up our own message, we are to follow their message.
Jesus prays for his disciples:
John 17
16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. 17 Sanctify them by[d] the truth; your word is truth. 18 As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world. 19 For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified.
Jesus Prays for All Believers
20 "My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you.
I'm sure you will also say these verses Paul wrote were just for himself and the other Apostles, and not for all Christians.
Yes, we don't get to make up our own message, but we do have the privilege of entering into the truth of every word God has given us in His Word, if in faith we choose to partake.
No, I won't. Scripture must be read in context.
Jesus started a Church. He appointed leaders and he gave the leaders a message and the authority to teach.
I think you agree with these points.
Here's my question for you:
At what point did those appointed by Jesus lose their authority? Was it when they appointed successors, or when the successors appointed successors? Or, is the Church alive and well today with leaders who are successors of the apostles?
You know what I believe! ::smile::
: chestertonrules Thu Nov 18, 2010 - 09:01:33
Here's my question for you:
At what point did those appointed by Jesus lose their authority? Was it when they appointed successors, or when the successors appointed successors? Or, is the Church alive and well today with leaders who are successors of the apostles?
You know what I believe! ::smile::
When they stopped being faithfull to the truth of Scripture and God's calling on their lives. If you think God continued/continues to bless "those appointed by Jesus" when they allow evil into their lives and into their callings, you have a great deal to learn. God did not do this under the old covenant as evil prophets, priests and kings were judged by God and were not allowed to carry on God's work, nor has God been doing this under the new covenant by those who were/are CINO's (Christian In Name Only).
The Body of Christ Church is alive and well today because other leaders have picked up the truth of Scripture and God's calling on their lives, and carried it forward to the present time.
Some still reside within the RCC, and many others do not!
It's as simple and as difficult as that!
[quote author=Selene link=topic=47703.msg843684#msg843684 date=1290030636
Jesus did built a Church. It says so in the Bible (See Matthew 16:18). The first Church founded by Christ were His disciples and Apostles. From there, the Church grew.
[/quote]
One more try:
I posted the Greek word once, so I will not do it a second time. But you must know that the word usually translated "church" is a compound Greek word, much the same as our word "uptown"
The first part of the word is a preposition (ek) and means "out of"
The second part is the verb (calleo) meaning called.
Therefore, the literal translation if that word is "called out", and the word makes better sense than having Jesus establish a church, as your catechism would teaches you.
: chestertonrules Wed Nov 17, 2010 - 14:44:41
: John 10:10 Wed Nov 17, 2010 - 14:39:55
: chestertonrules Wed Nov 17, 2010 - 13:38:47
Jesus told you to listen to those he sent.
You must determine who they are and whether or not you will obey Jesus.
Jesus told us to listen to the truth of John 16:13-15,
"But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you."
Jesus wasn't talking to you in John 16, he was talking to the apostles.
We don't get to make up our own message, we are to follow their message.
Jesus prays for his disciples:
John 17
16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. 17 Sanctify them by[d] the truth; your word is truth. 18 As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world. 19 For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified.
Jesus Prays for All Believers
20 "My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you.
Manna!
That was the kicker right there brothers and sisters. This is about as clear as I have ever seen scripture be. I mean really that speaks volumes in and of itself. What dispute can you possibly bring against it? I mean that scripture is pretty direct and to the point.
John 10:10 said this:
The central point of truth you miss (maybe you just disagree) is that most Protestants trust in the gift of God's Spirit to guide us into all Scriptural truth, where as the Papacy believes God speaks only through the Papacy because of Apostolic succession, and then the Papacy to the people.
Your implication was that is was wrong or somewhat faulty to insist that the message came through the church. Reread our Master's preyer the believers for He cleary states where the message comes from.
: John T Thu Nov 18, 2010 - 11:56:42
[quote author=Selene link=topic=47703.msg843684#msg843684 date=1290030636
Jesus did built a Church. It says so in the Bible (See Matthew 16:18). The first Church founded by Christ were His disciples and Apostles. From there, the Church grew.
One more try:
I posted the Greek word once, so I will not do it a second time. But you must know that the word usually translated "church" is a compound Greek word, much the same as our word "uptown"
The first part of the word is a preposition (ek) and means "out of"
The second part is the verb (calleo) meaning called.
Therefore, the literal translation if that word is "called out", and the word makes better sense than having Jesus establish a church, as your catechism would teaches you.
[/quote]
Here's what the catechism teaches:
I. NAMES AND IMAGES OF THE CHURCH
751 The word "Church" (Latin ecclesia, from the Greek ek-ka-lein, to "call out of") means a convocation or an assembly. It designates the assemblies of the people, usually for a religious purpose.139 Ekklesia is used frequently in the Greek Old Testament for the assembly of the Chosen People before God, above all for their assembly on Mount Sinai where Israel received the Law and was established by God as his holy people.140 By calling itself "Church," the first community of Christian believers recognized itself as heir to that assembly. In the Church, God is "calling together" his people from all the ends of the earth. The equivalent Greek term Kyriake, from which the English word Church and the German Kirche are derived, means "what belongs to the Lord."
752 In Christian usage, the word "church" designates the liturgical assembly,141 but also the local community142 or the whole universal community of believers.143 These three meanings are inseparable. "The Church" is the People that God gathers in the whole world. She exists in local communities and is made real as a liturgical, above all a Eucharistic, assembly. She draws her life from the word and the Body of Christ and so herself becomes Christ's Body.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p123a9p1.htm
: chestertonrules Thu Nov 18, 2010 - 15:57:37
: John T Thu Nov 18, 2010 - 11:56:42
: Selene Wed Nov 17, 2010 - 15:50:36
Jesus did built a Church. It says so in the Bible (See Matthew 16:18). The first Church founded by Christ were His disciples and Apostles. From there, the Church grew.
One more try:
I posted the Greek word once, so I will not do it a second time. But you must know that the word usually translated "church" is a compound Greek word, much the same as our word "uptown"
The first part of the word is a preposition (ek) and means "out of"
The second part is the verb (calleo) meaning called.
Therefore, the literal translation if that word is "called out", and the word makes better sense than having Jesus establish a church, as your catechism would teaches you.
Here's what the catechism teaches:
I. NAMES AND IMAGES OF THE CHURCH
751 The word "Church" (Latin ecclesia, from the Greek ek-ka-lein, to "call out of") means a convocation or an assembly. It designates the assemblies of the people, usually for a religious purpose.139 Ekklesia is used frequently in the Greek Old Testament for the assembly of the Chosen People before God, above all for their assembly on Mount Sinai where Israel received the Law and was established by God as his holy people.140 By calling itself "Church," the first community of Christian believers recognized itself as heir to that assembly. In the Church, God is "calling together" his people from all the ends of the earth. The equivalent Greek term Kyriake, from which the English word Church and the German Kirche are derived, means "what belongs to the Lord."
752 In Christian usage, the word "church" designates the liturgical assembly,141 but also the local community142 or the whole universal community of believers.143 These three meanings are inseparable. "The Church" is the People that God gathers in the whole world. She exists in local communities and is made real as a liturgical, above all a Eucharistic, assembly. She draws her life from the word and the Body of Christ and so herself becomes Christ's Body.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p123a9p1.htm
I'm not a big fan of kyriake, I'm a terrible singer. ::thankyouthankyou::
: mclees8 Thu Nov 18, 2010 - 01:22:07
: chestertonrules Wed Nov 17, 2010 - 14:44:41
: John 10:10 Wed Nov 17, 2010 - 14:39:55
: chestertonrules Wed Nov 17, 2010 - 13:38:47
Jesus told you to listen to those he sent.
You must determine who they are and whether or not you will obey Jesus.
Jesus told us to listen to the truth of John 16:13-15,
"But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you."
Jesus wasn't talking to you in John 16, he was talking to the apostles.
We don't get to make up our own message, we are to follow their message.
Jesus prays for his disciples:
John 17
16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. 17 Sanctify them by[d] the truth; your word is truth. 18 As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world. 19 For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified.
Jesus Prays for All Believers
20 "My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you.
Yes he spoke to the disciples, but the promise is for all believers. This promise is for all who will believe in Jesus through their message. Do you not remember that the Holy spirit as clothen tongues of fire sat on all of the 120 in the upper room and they were all filled with the holy ghost and with power to preach the gospel. All through the book of acts converts were were filled with the holy ghost when the apostles laid hands on them. This same Holy spirit will guide us into all truth. Christ is the truth and the fullness thereof. all who are filled with his spirit are guided of Him and shall know the truth.
Sadly you know little about how the Holy Spirit works in all who desire to have him.
There is only one message of truth and that is Jesus Christ crucified for the sins of the world. That Jesus was at work in the creation and is the first and the last. the beginning and the end. He is the Lord and none stand beside Him. This truth is given to us by His Holy Spirit. It is not just for certain apostles but to all the love the truth.
IS THERE NOT ONE AMEN
ITS funny when the truth is spoken how much it is ignored. Chesterton was in error when he said the promise of the Holy spirit was only for the a select few. Namely the apostles, Why do you argue who the church is only on an ecclesiastical level and the truth goes unnoticed. ::shrug::
: mclees8 Thu Nov 18, 2010 - 18:01:02
Chesterton was in error when he said the promise of the Holy spirit was only for the a select few. Namely the apostles, Why do you argue who the church is only on an ecclesiastical level and the truth goes unnoticed. ::shrug::
Why do you distort what I said?
Please tell me where I said that the promise of the Holy Spirit is only for the Church leaders?
The promise I was referring to is specifically that the Holy Spirit will lead the apostles(Church leaders) into all truth.
I think my point was quite clear that in John 14-16 Jesus is speaking exclusively to the apostles.
If you want to dispute this please do so.
: chestertonrules Thu Nov 18, 2010 - 18:10:28
: mclees8 Thu Nov 18, 2010 - 18:01:02
Chesterton was in error when he said the promise of the Holy spirit was only for the a select few. Namely the apostles, Why do you argue who the church is only on an ecclesiastical level and the truth goes unnoticed. ::shrug::
Why do you distort what I said?
Please tell me where I said that the promise of the Holy Spirit is only for the Church leaders?
The promise I was referring to is specifically that the Holy Spirit will lead the apostles(Church leaders) into all truth.
I think my point was quite clear that in John 14-16 Jesus is speaking exclusively to the apostles.
If you want to dispute this please do so.
Yes I do. he was speaking to the disciples and not just the twelve. What makes you think that the Holy Spirit is selective as to who he gives truth. I have stated what the truth is and that truth is for all who believe.
: mclees8 Thu Nov 18, 2010 - 21:06:02
Yes I do. he was speaking to the disciples and not just the twelve. What makes you think that the Holy Spirit is selective as to who he gives truth. I have stated what the truth is and that truth is for all who believe.
He was speaking the the leaders of the Church, not to Christians in general.
The point is made clearly here:
Jesus prays for his disciples:
John 17
16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. 17 Sanctify them by[d] the truth; your word is truth. 18 As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world. 19 For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified.
Jesus Prays for All Believers:
20 "My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you.
: chestertonrules Thu Nov 18, 2010 - 15:57:37
: John T Thu Nov 18, 2010 - 11:56:42
[quote author=Selene link=topic=47703.msg843684#msg843684 date=1290030636
Jesus did built a Church. It says so in the Bible (See Matthew 16:18). The first Church founded by Christ were His disciples and Apostles. From there, the Church grew.
One more try:
I posted the Greek word once, so I will not do it a second time. But you must know that the word usually translated "church" is a compound Greek word, much the same as our word "uptown"
The first part of the word is a preposition (ek) and means "out of"
The second part is the verb (calleo) meaning called.
Therefore, the literal translation if that word is "called out", and the word makes better sense than having Jesus establish a church, as your catechism would teaches you.
Here's what the catechism teaches:
I. NAMES AND IMAGES OF THE CHURCH
751 The word "Church" (Latin ecclesia, from the Greek ek-ka-lein, to "call out of") means a convocation or an assembly. It designates the assemblies of the people, usually for a religious purpose.139 Ekklesia is used frequently in the Greek Old Testament for the assembly of the Chosen People before God, above all for their assembly on Mount Sinai where Israel received the Law and was established by God as his holy people.140 By calling itself "Church," the first community of Christian believers recognized itself as heir to that assembly. In the Church, God is "calling together" his people from all the ends of the earth. The equivalent Greek term Kyriake, from which the English word Church and the German Kirche are derived, means "what belongs to the Lord."
752 In Christian usage, the word "church" designates the liturgical assembly,141 but also the local community142 or the whole universal community of believers.143 These three meanings are inseparable. "The Church" is the People that God gathers in the whole world. She exists in local communities and is made real as a liturgical, above all a Eucharistic, assembly. She draws her life from the word and the Body of Christ and so herself becomes Christ's Body.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p123a9p1.htm
===============================================================================================================
Since the NT is written in Koine Greek, let's look there first, then to other sources.
- church, the English translation of a Greek word (ekklēsia) meaning 'assembly' or 'gathering.' The word does not normally appear in English translations of the OT. In the Greek translation of the OT (the Septuagint), two main words are used for the People of God: assembly (ekklēsia) and synagogue (synagogē). Since Jews in the first century used the latter term, the first Greek-speaking Christians selected the former in order to show that their roots lay in the OT and that they continued the OT People of God. They affirmed the same by applying other terms from the OT to themselves: 1 Pet. 2:9 uses Exod. 19:5-6; in Gal. 3:29 Christians are called Abraham's offspring; in Rom. 11:17-24 the Gentiles are grafted into Israel, the true olive tree. In the NT, 'church' always denotes a group of people, either all the Christians in a city (Acts 14:23; 1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 1:1) or those gathered for worship in a particular house (Rom. 16:5; 1 Cor. 16:19) or all Christians in all the churches, the whole church (Matt. 16:18; Eph. 1:22). It never signifies a building or a 'denomination.'
Achtemeier, P. J., Harper & Row, P., & Society of Biblical Literature. (1985). Harper's Bible dictionary (1st ed.) (168). San Francisco: Harper & Row.
- CHURCHES Literary evidence (Acts 1:13–14; 2:46) shows that the earliest congregational meetings of the disciples of Jesus, for prayer, the eucharist and the agape (a love-feast held in connection with the Lord's supper) took place in private houses. The first archaeological evidence is the community house at Dura Europos, dated to the first half of the 3rd century AD. Built as a peristyle house (Houses) with a courtyard, several rooms on three sides and a portico on the fourth, it was altered in AD 231 to serve as a meeting-place for the city's Christian community. The reception room with benches on three sides was connected with the adjacent room, providing space for 50–60 people. In another room a baptistery was installed.
Church construction on larger scale began under the Emperor Constantine, when sanctuaries were erected to commemorate holy places. Thus we find a church at Bethlehem built over the Grotto of the Nativity and a church at Jerusalem over and around Mount Calvary and the Holy Sepulcher. At Ramat el-Khalil, near Mamreh, a small church was built near the enclosure of the oak of Abraham, venerated by Jews and Christians. Churches at this time do not follow a standard plan...
Negev, A. (1996). The Archaeological encyclopedia of the Holy Land (3rd ed.). New York: Prentice Hall Press.
The bottom line here is that
nowhere does it say that Jesus began any churches.
: chestertonrules Thu Nov 18, 2010 - 21:25:07
: mclees8 Thu Nov 18, 2010 - 21:06:02
Yes I do. he was speaking to the disciples and not just the twelve. What makes you think that the Holy Spirit is selective as to who he gives truth. I have stated what the truth is and that truth is for all who believe.
He was speaking the the leaders of the Church, not to Christians in general.
The point is made clearly here:
Jesus prays for his disciples:
John 17
16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. 17 Sanctify them by[d] the truth; your word is truth. 18 As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world. 19 For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified.
Jesus Prays for All Believers:
20 "My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you.
[/b][/u]
Please read again verse twenty. You seem to ignore this.
: chestertonrules Thu Nov 18, 2010 - 18:10:28
: mclees8 Thu Nov 18, 2010 - 18:01:02
Chesterton was in error when he said the promise of the Holy spirit was only for the a select few. Namely the apostles, Why do you argue who the church is only on an ecclesiastical level and the truth goes unnoticed. ::shrug::
Why do you distort what I said?
Please tell me where I said that the promise of the Holy Spirit is only for the Church leaders?
The promise I was referring to is specifically that the Holy Spirit will lead the apostles(Church leaders) into all truth.
I think my point was quite clear that in John 14-16 Jesus is speaking exclusively to the apostles.
If you want to dispute this please do so.
There is some dispute in the accuracy of Mark's using the word "Apostle" in Mark 6:30. That is because according to the popular description of an Apostle, he is one who has seen Jesus Christ after His Resurrection. That is why Paul is included as an Apostle.
- Mark's first specification on the choice of the Twelve is for them 'to be with him' (Mk. 3:14). It is no accident that the watershed of Mark's Gospel is the apostolic confession of the Messiahship of Jesus (Mk. 8:29), or that Matthew follows this with the 'Rock' saying about the apostolic confession (Mt. 16:18f.; *PETER). The primary function of the apostles was witness to Christ, and the witness was rooted in years of intimate knowledge, dearly bought experience and intensive training.
This is complementary to their widely recognized function of witness to the resurrection (cf., e.g., Acts 1:22; 2:32; 3:15; 13:31); for the special significance of the resurrection lies, not in the event itself, but in its demonstration, in fulfilment of prophecy, of the identity of the slain Jesus (cf. Acts 2:24ff., 36; 3:26; Rom. 1:4). Their witness of the resurrection of Christ made them effective witnesses to his Person, and he himself commissions them to world-wide witness (Acts 1:8).
Wood, D. R. W., & Marshall, I. H. (1996). New Bible dictionary (3rd ed.) (58). Leicester, England; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press.I am not disputing you; rather, I am giving more information from my studies, and from scholarly sources.
: mclees8 Thu Nov 18, 2010 - 21:40:32
: chestertonrules Thu Nov 18, 2010 - 21:25:07
: mclees8 Thu Nov 18, 2010 - 21:06:02
Yes I do. he was speaking to the disciples and not just the twelve. What makes you think that the Holy Spirit is selective as to who he gives truth. I have stated what the truth is and that truth is for all who believe.
He was speaking the the leaders of the Church, not to Christians in general.
The point is made clearly here:
Jesus prays for his disciples:
John 17
16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. 17 Sanctify them by[d] the truth; your word is truth. 18 As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world. 19 For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified.
Jesus Prays for All Believers:
20 "My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you.
[/b][/u]
Please read again verse twenty. You seem to ignore this.
That's the whole point!
Jesus is distinguishing between those who bring the message, ie. the disciples, and those who receive, ie. all other believers.
We don't get to create our own message, we are to believe through their message.
: John T Thu Nov 18, 2010 - 21:43:21
: chestertonrules Thu Nov 18, 2010 - 18:10:28
: mclees8 Thu Nov 18, 2010 - 18:01:02
Chesterton was in error when he said the promise of the Holy spirit was only for the a select few. Namely the apostles, Why do you argue who the church is only on an ecclesiastical level and the truth goes unnoticed. ::shrug::
Why do you distort what I said?
Please tell me where I said that the promise of the Holy Spirit is only for the Church leaders?
The promise I was referring to is specifically that the Holy Spirit will lead the apostles(Church leaders) into all truth.
I think my point was quite clear that in John 14-16 Jesus is speaking exclusively to the apostles.
If you want to dispute this please do so.
There is some dispute in the accuracy of Mark's using the word "Apostle" in Mark 6:30. That is because according to the popular description of an Apostle, he is one who has seen Jesus Christ after His Resurrection. That is why Paul is included as an Apostle.
- Mark's first specification on the choice of the Twelve is for them 'to be with him' (Mk. 3:14). It is no accident that the watershed of Mark's Gospel is the apostolic confession of the Messiahship of Jesus (Mk. 8:29), or that Matthew follows this with the 'Rock' saying about the apostolic confession (Mt. 16:18f.; *PETER). The primary function of the apostles was witness to Christ, and the witness was rooted in years of intimate knowledge, dearly bought experience and intensive training.
This is complementary to their widely recognized function of witness to the resurrection (cf., e.g., Acts 1:22; 2:32; 3:15; 13:31); for the special significance of the resurrection lies, not in the event itself, but in its demonstration, in fulfilment of prophecy, of the identity of the slain Jesus (cf. Acts 2:24ff., 36; 3:26; Rom. 1:4). Their witness of the resurrection of Christ made them effective witnesses to his Person, and he himself commissions them to world-wide witness (Acts 1:8).
Wood, D. R. W., & Marshall, I. H. (1996). New Bible dictionary (3rd ed.) (58). Leicester, England; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press.
I am not disputing you; rather, I am giving more information from my studies, and from scholarly sources.
I quoted John, not Mark.
: John T Thu Nov 18, 2010 - 21:26:45
: chestertonrules Thu Nov 18, 2010 - 15:57:37
: John T Thu Nov 18, 2010 - 11:56:42
[quote author=Selene link=topic=47703.msg843684#msg843684 date=1290030636
Jesus did built a Church. It says so in the Bible (See Matthew 16:18). The first Church founded by Christ were His disciples and Apostles. From there, the Church grew.
One more try:
I posted the Greek word once, so I will not do it a second time. But you must know that the word usually translated "church" is a compound Greek word, much the same as our word "uptown"
The first part of the word is a preposition (ek) and means "out of"
The second part is the verb (calleo) meaning called.
Therefore, the literal translation if that word is "called out", and the word makes better sense than having Jesus establish a church, as your catechism would teaches you.
Here's what the catechism teaches:
I. NAMES AND IMAGES OF THE CHURCH
751 The word "Church" (Latin ecclesia, from the Greek ek-ka-lein, to "call out of") means a convocation or an assembly. It designates the assemblies of the people, usually for a religious purpose.139 Ekklesia is used frequently in the Greek Old Testament for the assembly of the Chosen People before God, above all for their assembly on Mount Sinai where Israel received the Law and was established by God as his holy people.140 By calling itself "Church," the first community of Christian believers recognized itself as heir to that assembly. In the Church, God is "calling together" his people from all the ends of the earth. The equivalent Greek term Kyriake, from which the English word Church and the German Kirche are derived, means "what belongs to the Lord."
752 In Christian usage, the word "church" designates the liturgical assembly,141 but also the local community142 or the whole universal community of believers.143 These three meanings are inseparable. "The Church" is the People that God gathers in the whole world. She exists in local communities and is made real as a liturgical, above all a Eucharistic, assembly. She draws her life from the word and the Body of Christ and so herself becomes Christ's Body.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p123a9p1.htm
===============================================================================================================
Since the NT is written in Koine Greek, let's look there first, then to other sources.
- church, the English translation of a Greek word (ekklēsia) meaning 'assembly' or 'gathering.' The word does not normally appear in English translations of the OT. In the Greek translation of the OT (the Septuagint), two main words are used for the People of God: assembly (ekklēsia) and synagogue (synagogē). Since Jews in the first century used the latter term, the first Greek-speaking Christians selected the former in order to show that their roots lay in the OT and that they continued the OT People of God. They affirmed the same by applying other terms from the OT to themselves: 1 Pet. 2:9 uses Exod. 19:5-6; in Gal. 3:29 Christians are called Abraham's offspring; in Rom. 11:17-24 the Gentiles are grafted into Israel, the true olive tree. In the NT, 'church' always denotes a group of people, either all the Christians in a city (Acts 14:23; 1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 1:1) or those gathered for worship in a particular house (Rom. 16:5; 1 Cor. 16:19) or all Christians in all the churches, the whole church (Matt. 16:18; Eph. 1:22). It never signifies a building or a 'denomination.'
Achtemeier, P. J., Harper & Row, P., & Society of Biblical Literature. (1985). Harper's Bible dictionary (1st ed.) (168). San Francisco: Harper & Row.
- CHURCHES Literary evidence (Acts 1:13–14; 2:46) shows that the earliest congregational meetings of the disciples of Jesus, for prayer, the eucharist and the agape (a love-feast held in connection with the Lord's supper) took place in private houses. The first archaeological evidence is the community house at Dura Europos, dated to the first half of the 3rd century AD. Built as a peristyle house (Houses) with a courtyard, several rooms on three sides and a portico on the fourth, it was altered in AD 231 to serve as a meeting-place for the city's Christian community. The reception room with benches on three sides was connected with the adjacent room, providing space for 50–60 people. In another room a baptistery was installed.
Church construction on larger scale began under the Emperor Constantine, when sanctuaries were erected to commemorate holy places. Thus we find a church at Bethlehem built over the Grotto of the Nativity and a church at Jerusalem over and around Mount Calvary and the Holy Sepulcher. At Ramat el-Khalil, near Mamreh, a small church was built near the enclosure of the oak of Abraham, venerated by Jews and Christians. Churches at this time do not follow a standard plan...
Negev, A. (1996). The Archaeological encyclopedia of the Holy Land (3rd ed.). New York: Prentice Hall Press.
The bottom line here is that nowhere does it say that Jesus began any churches.
What is it about the description of the Church in the Catholic Catechism, quoted above, that you disagree with?
: mclees8 Thu Nov 18, 2010 - 21:40:32
: chestertonrules Thu Nov 18, 2010 - 21:25:07
: mclees8 Thu Nov 18, 2010 - 21:06:02
Yes I do. he was speaking to the disciples and not just the twelve. What makes you think that the Holy Spirit is selective as to who he gives truth. I have stated what the truth is and that truth is for all who believe.
He was speaking the the leaders of the Church, not to Christians in general.
The point is made clearly here:
Jesus prays for his disciples:
John 17
16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. 17 Sanctify them by[d] the truth; your word is truth. 18 As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world. 19 For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified.
Jesus Prays for All Believers:
20 "My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you.
[/b][/u]
Please read again verse twenty. You seem to ignore this.
This is what happens when people do not look at the context of something. By context, I mean the setting, and in John 17 in particular, the entire chapter.
Essentially, both of you are correct, and both of you are wrong. I say that because it is not an either/or situation here. The chapter is divided int three different prayers.
In the first section, Jesus prays for Himself.
In the second section, He prays for his Disciples.
In the third part, beginning with verse 20, Jesus prays for ALL believers.
If you have not read the entire chapter, I urge you to do that; it is a very theologically rich chapter, and it is a great comfort to the believer to know how Jesus is ever interceding for his children.
What is it about the description of the Church in the Catholic Catechism, quoted above, that you disagree with?
Who said that I was disagreeing?
All I did was cite primary source documents, the Scriptures, and noted the Greek words that were used.
When you think about it, you will see that the Catechism is a secondary source because it takes much from tradition, instead of from the Bible directly, as my sources did.
: John T Thu Nov 18, 2010 - 21:58:34
What is it about the description of the Church in the Catholic Catechism, quoted above, that you disagree with?
Who said that I was disagreeing?
All I did was cite primary source documents, the Scriptures, and noted the Greek words that were used.
When you think about it, you will see that the Catechism is a secondary source because it takes much from tradition, instead of from the Bible directly, as my sources did.
Jesus didn't write a book, he started a Church.
The Church wrote a book.
The Church is the primary source of the gospel.
: John T Thu Nov 18, 2010 - 21:53:18
: mclees8 Thu Nov 18, 2010 - 21:40:32
: chestertonrules Thu Nov 18, 2010 - 21:25:07
: mclees8 Thu Nov 18, 2010 - 21:06:02
Yes I do. he was speaking to the disciples and not just the twelve. What makes you think that the Holy Spirit is selective as to who he gives truth. I have stated what the truth is and that truth is for all who believe.
He was speaking the the leaders of the Church, not to Christians in general.
The point is made clearly here:
Jesus prays for his disciples:
John 17
16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. 17 Sanctify them by[d] the truth; your word is truth. 18 As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world. 19 For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified.
Jesus Prays for All Believers:
20 "My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you.
[/b][/u]
Please read again verse twenty. You seem to ignore this.
This is what happens when people do not look at the context of something. By context, I mean the setting, and in John 17 in particular, the entire chapter.
Essentially, both of you are correct, and both of you are wrong. I say that because it is not an either/or situation here. The chapter is divided int three different prayers.
In the first section, Jesus prays for Himself.
In the second section, He prays for his Disciples.
In the third part, beginning with verse 20, Jesus prays for ALL believers.
If you have not read the entire chapter, I urge you to do that; it is a very theologically rich chapter, and it is a great comfort to the believer to know how Jesus is ever interceding for his children.
dear John I have read this chapter ,any times. I am weel aware of the three prayers
But more than just the context of this chapter we must grasp the whole context of the book John and the entire New Covenant
God bless
Man look at Chester go. Like I'm almost shocked. ::playingguitar::
Hey brother keep it up man this may be the best you have ever presented your defense.
Brother Mclees thanks man. I mean in the theology forum a dialogue like this, over a debate of such a caliber, wouldn't even be possible. So many of our kin in that forum are too thickheaded or think they have it all figured out to keep an openmind to what anyone else has to say but you; I can truly feel that you are genuinely putting Cherster's words into their proper perspectives while trying to find the Truth of the matter and coonecting to his feelings. At the very least you understand him and that is a glorious thing among family. Glorious beyond what words can describe. A proud moment.
Sorry about that people. ::smile::
Continue
: John T Thu Nov 18, 2010 - 21:58:34
What is it about the description of the Church in the Catholic Catechism, quoted above, that you disagree with?
Who said that I was disagreeing?
All I did was cite primary source documents, the Scriptures, and noted the Greek words that were used.
When you think about it, you will see that the Catechism is a secondary source because it takes much from tradition, instead of from the Bible directly, as my sources did.
All Christians read the bible with a traditional perspective on one kind or another.
The bible can be made to say about anything defending on the interpretation.
This is why Jesus didn't leave us a book, he left us a Church that would guide us into all Truth.
Without this guide we find multiple contradictory doctrines regarding central matters of faith and morality.
Protestantism illustrates this problem clearly.
Jesus wants us to be one as he and the Father are one. I'm sure they don't disagree about what is True.
: chestertonrules Fri Nov 19, 2010 - 08:23:13
All Christians read the bible with a traditional perspective on one kind or another.
The bible can be made to say about anything defending on the interpretation.
This is why Jesus didn't leave us a book, he left us a Church that would guide us into all Truth.
Without this guide we find multiple contradictory doctrines regarding central matters of faith and morality.
Protestantism illustrates this problem clearly.
Jesus wants us to be one as he and the Father are one. I'm sure they don't disagree about what is True.
Lets understand each other.
As your screenname indicates you are championing the RC position, and that little jibe at protestants confirms it. That is neither a pro, nor a con, but a matter of fact.
My position comes from the original source documents, which predated by definition any "traditional understanding". Because any traditional understanding is created
AFTER the creation of the primary source by fallible humans, there is a distinct possibility of having a fallible tradition. As a result, I believe that I can study the source documents in their original languages, and come up with a reasonable answer that incorporates both the specific usage in a particular verse, but also looks at the usage of the term through out the rest of Scripture. That is because I believe in the priesthood of all believers, and my understanding of Catholic doctrine is that you guys do not.
So the next question we need to tackle is if the discussion on the word "church" as in Mark and other places and attributed to Jesus a matter of "multiple contradictory doctrines regarding central matters of faith and morality."? I submit that it is not.
It is not central because it does not diminish the deity of Jesus, nor his Atonement, nor His resurrection. Nor is it a matter of faith, or morality. That is because one can hold differing viewpoints in this matter, and not go off to apostatize, nor is it a "faith killer". Instead it is an OPTION whereby good people can disagree, and not be calling the other side nasty names. (No back hand accusations are intended.)
Now to my "problems" with the word "church" used to indicate a church as we know it in the modern sense. While I am not stating that the word choice of Jesus was in any way in error, I believe that the application of the term to indicate any modern day church is an anachronistic (out of time and place) interpretation. I could cite historical precedents, but suffice it until 325 there was no centrally organized church until Constantine. One could argue that the selection of deacons in Acts 2, and the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 indicate lines of authority and responsibility, but not levels of organization.
What have we accomplished? We have discussed an issue civilly. We laid out our positions, and picked out the words logically. Neither expects to convince the other, so none is interested in "winning", therefore it has ben a good time for all.
: LightHammer Thu Nov 18, 2010 - 15:36:50
John 10:10 said this:
The central point of truth you miss (maybe you just disagree) is that most Protestants trust in the gift of God's Spirit to guide us into all Scriptural truth, where as the Papacy believes God speaks only through the Papacy because of Apostolic succession, and then the Papacy to the people.
Your implication was that is was wrong or somewhat faulty to insist that the message came through the church. Reread our Master's preyer the believers for He cleary states where the message comes from.
I will say this again for your benefit:
If you think God continued/continues to bless "those appointed by Jesus" when they allow evil into their lives and into their callings, you have a great deal to learn. God did not do this under the old covenant as evil prophets, priests and kings were judged by God and were not allowed to carry on God's work, nor has God been doing this under the new covenant by those who were/are CINO's (Christian In Name Only).
The Body of Christ Church is alive and well today because other leaders have picked up the truth of Scripture and God's calling on their lives, and carried it forward to the present time.
Some still reside within the RCC, and many others do not!
John 10:10 said this:
The central point of truth you miss (maybe you just disagree) is that most Protestants trust in the gift of God's Spirit to guide us into all Scriptural truth, where as the Papacy believes God speaks only through the Papacy because of Apostolic succession, and then the Papacy to the people.
Chester said
Your implication was that is was wrong or somewhat faulty to insist that the message came through the church. Reread our Master's preyer the believers for He cleary states where the message comes from.
I have no clue as to what you just said. Im not sure we are even on the same page. I agree perfectly with what John 10:10 said. you said read again the Lords prayer for the church. The Lords prayer for the church ( stated as those will will believe on me through their word.) This message (prayer) is coming through Jesus and not through the ecclesiastical authority of the church. This prayer has nothing to do with church authority itself but to all who have come to faith in Christ through their preaching. The heart of His prayer was that all of us who have come to believe in Him be one in Him even as He is also one with the Father.
We are not one with Christ through any clergy or organized authority but we become one with Him in the spirit. Being one with Him is personal first before it is corporate. Our salvation is achieved through personal faith not by the system of authority. not by any affiliation to any certain organized church. It is the RCC authority ( papacy) that wants to channel our salvation and relationship to Christ through the institution.
God bless
: John T Fri Nov 19, 2010 - 09:14:27
My position comes from the original source documents, which predated by definition any "traditional understanding". Because any traditional understanding is created AFTER the creation of the primary source by fallible humans, there is a distinct possibility of having a fallible tradition. As a result, I believe that I can study the source documents in their original languages, and come up with a reasonable answer that incorporates both the specific usage in a particular verse, but also looks at the usage of the term through out the rest of Scripture.
Our faith does not come from a document, but from a person, Jesus, who is God. That is the original source, not a document, at least for us.
That being said, that one "goes to the original documents" rather than to what you referred to as "traditional understanding by fallible humans" is of little consequence, because your own interpretation is fallible, and not only that, but Protestant beliefs are, at their core, simply "modern understanding by fallible humans". I would argue that the understanding of the ancient faiths is more likely to be true simply because at least some of our understanding was received from the apostles themselves, and not only from the books that the apostles and those who knew them wrote. Understanding can be corrected by a person, it cannot be corrected by a book. Sitting at the feet of a teacher, someone who walks with Jesus, almost imposes a humility. Figuring out what you believe to be the gospel for yourself by patching together several verses of scripture is not, by nature, a means that requires humility.
What I mean by this is, you and I, when someone comes and tells us some verse of scripture that doesn't seem to fit into our personal framework of understanding, do we first admit that everything we believe could be wrong and adapt the passage into our understanding of the Word, or do we first assume that the other person is interpreting it wrong and set out to prove it, to prove ourselves right? Likely the second, if we are being honest.
In my opinion, that is no way to go about understanding the objective truth given to us by the Lord. And the fruit of Sola Scriptura has been a panacea of conflicting beliefs which undermine the faith of many, to the end that many believe that objective truth and objective morality do not exist.
But some persist, claiming that Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit to lead them into all truth. We can debate up and down who "them" are, that is, who the recipient of this promise is. But let's look at the reality of our world: believers all over the place come up with novel and conflicting ideas of what scripture is telling us. The fact is undeniable. Unless Jesus was lying, which he wasn't, then the simple fact is that Jesus did not guarantee that everyone who claimed to be sent, or was learned, or who read the Bible, would be able to teach truth or discern truth. Like verse 20 says, Jesus did pray for people, that they would come to believe in Him
through the message of the apostles,
NOT the Bible, though the Bible does contain the words of the apostles and their message, but the Bible is, in effect, dead letter, that is, it cannot speak audibly to correct you if your understanding is wrong as the apostles could. So when they handed on the faith, they mainly went around preaching the word, not distributing documents. They taught through teaching, and in doing so, they could answer questions and give feedback with regard to the faith that they received to correct misunderstanding.
As a body of believers, we have the Holy Spirit guiding us, but there is only one deposit of faith, one truth, one correct understanding, and it is not only the words of the Bible that the Holy Spirit infallibly produced but also the understanding of those scriptures, because the first is nearly useless without the second. So to think that God let correct understanding of the Bible disappear from the earth, for nearly 1500 years as Protestants would assert, is unconscionable. Rather the Church is there to preserve the truth given to us by God for all time. It is the only model that could possibly work, and that reality is played out in real life. It takes an unreasonable leap or an emotional bias to argue otherwise, in my opinion.
: John T Fri Nov 19, 2010 - 09:14:27
That is because I believe in the priesthood of all believers, and my understanding of Catholic doctrine is that you guys do not.
Wrong, we believe in the priesthood of all believers, just as the Israelites were a priesthood of all believers, God also set some apart (the Levites) to have a different, greater role. Just because we are all priests does not mean that some are not called in a greater, more tanglible sense.
http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt2sect2chpt3.shtml
: John T Fri Nov 19, 2010 - 09:14:27
So the next question we need to tackle is if the discussion on the word "church" as in Mark and other places and attributed to Jesus a matter of "multiple contradictory doctrines regarding central matters of faith and morality."? I submit that it is not.
It is not central because it does not diminish the deity of Jesus, nor his Atonement, nor His resurrection. Nor is it a matter of faith, or morality. That is because one can hold differing viewpoints in this matter, and not go off to apostatize, nor is it a "faith killer". Instead it is an OPTION whereby good people can disagree, and not be calling the other side nasty names. (No back hand accusations are intended.)
I strongly disagree, it is a matter of both faith and morality. That is because both truth and morality are objective, not subjective. These are the two areas where there is no room for opinion, because both depend on God. God condescended to deliver to us what we know about him, and also to teach us what is moral or not. Both of these things are absolute, and if a person holds a view that is contrary to God's view of who God is or what his morals are, then both are a detriment to him, his supernatural and natural life, and also to others who live in the world God made. It is precisely the concept of subjective opinion with regard to faith and morals that has led Christianity into a big mess, and consequently, the world into a big mess, and it is not the fault of the Catholic faith, but rather the fault of people and their fallen nature, who think that they can decide for themselves between right and wrong. As echoed throughout the book of Judges, and concisely stated in its last verse: "25 In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what he thought best." Jesus is the king, and he come down to heaven and given us the Catholic Church to teach us what is best, for ourselves and for the world. But we for a large part (speaking in terms of all people who call ourselves Christians) have rejected that king, because precisely we decide for ourselves what is best. That is the effect of rejecting that there was a Church set apart for Jesus to guide us into the truths that God taught. The Holy Spirit works within us to discern the truth when it is taught to us, but we need to be reasonable and at least somewhat humble to know whether what we are hearing is the Holy Spirit or something else.
: John T Fri Nov 19, 2010 - 09:14:27
Now to my "problems" with the word "church" used to indicate a church as we know it in the modern sense. While I am not stating that the word choice of Jesus was in any way in error, I believe that the application of the term to indicate any modern day church is an anachronistic (out of time and place) interpretation. I could cite historical precedents, but suffice it until 325 there was no centrally organized church until Constantine. One could argue that the selection of deacons in Acts 2, and the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 indicate lines of authority and responsibility, but not levels of organization.
Lets discuss your historical precedents, please present them, and we can look over them.
We have seen the authority of the apostles through the Bible, and then through their immediate successors (in particular St. Ignatius of Antioch and others much before Constantine). That means that some were in authority, and some were not. Even Paul's letters from one central authority (Paul) show him correcting people all over the place. And Paul met with Peter and James to confer with them. The first disciples didn't trust Paul because, aside from the fact that he was murdering Christians, they didn't see where his authority came from. They knew that the authority of the apostles came from the Lord. And finally Paul was approved and came into line with the apostles. It was a very limited authority tree, three levels at first: Apostles (and bishops, such as Timothy), Deacons, and then the Lay faithful. Because of practicality and a growing Church, the bishops eventually ordained priests to help them carry out the gospel. And that is the extent of the hierarchy today. Bishops, priests, deacons, lay people. Peter was considered first among equals in the apostles, and that is what the Pope is today, first among equals. He is the visible sign of unity among the Catholic Church hierarchy.
: John T Fri Nov 19, 2010 - 09:14:27
What have we accomplished? We have discussed an issue civilly. We laid out our positions, and picked out the words logically. Neither expects to convince the other, so none is interested in "winning", therefore it has ben a good time for all.
Agreed, discussion/debate is rarely for the debaters, but for the observers. So it is always a good thing when civility prevails, for the advancement of Christianity and our reputation as Christians before the world.
God Bless,
Andre
: Catholica Fri Nov 19, 2010 - 10:58:42
As a body of believers, we have the Holy Spirit guiding us, but there is only one deposit of faith, one truth, one correct understanding, and it is not only the words of the Bible that the Holy Spirit infallibly produced but also the understanding of those scriptures, because the first is nearly useless without the second. So to think that God let correct understanding of the Bible disappear from the earth, for nearly 1500 years as Protestants would assert, is unconscionable. Rather the Church is there to preserve the truth given to us by God for all time. It is the only model that could possibly work, and that reality is played out in real life. It takes an unreasonable leap or an emotional bias to argue otherwise, in my opinion.
Protestants do not believe "correct understanding of the Bible disappeared from the earth for nearly 1500 years." Pockets of true faith in the Lord Jesus Christ have always resided within the RCC. But just look at how the RCC treated the Jeanne Guyon's of the RCC during this time!
Jesus said to let the wheat and the tares grow until the harvest at the end of the age (Matt 13:30). It was never man's place, the RCC's place, nor the Church of England's place to determine those they considered to be tares, and root them out by killing them.
For the last 400 years it has primarily been the Protestant Reformation that has carried the Gospel of Christ and the Scriptures to the ends of the earth thru men and women of God such as Cameron Townsend who founded Wycliffe Bible Translators. It is still God's best for every people to have God's Word in their own language so they can read it for themselves. To say there must be someone from the RCC there to correctly explain God's Word, minister the sacraments, thus rendering God's salvation thru them is why God brought about the Protestant Reformation.
: John 10:10 Fri Nov 19, 2010 - 09:37:22
: LightHammer Thu Nov 18, 2010 - 15:36:50
John 10:10 said this:
The central point of truth you miss (maybe you just disagree) is that most Protestants trust in the gift of God's Spirit to guide us into all Scriptural truth, where as the Papacy believes God speaks only through the Papacy because of Apostolic succession, and then the Papacy to the people.
Your implication was that is was wrong or somewhat faulty to insist that the message came through the church. Reread our Master's preyer the believers for He cleary states where the message comes from.
I will say this again for your benefit:
If you think God continued/continues to bless "those appointed by Jesus" when they allow evil into their lives and into their callings, you have a great deal to learn. God did not do this under the old covenant as evil prophets, priests and kings were judged by God and were not allowed to carry on God's work, nor has God been doing this under the new covenant by those who were/are CINO's (Christian In Name Only).
The Body of Christ Church is alive and well today because other leaders have picked up the truth of Scripture and God's calling on their lives, and carried it forward to the present time.
Some still reside within the RCC, and many others do not!
Obviously you have a lot to learn if you think that a position of authority given to on eby God has anything to do with them. It is the office or position that bears the incorruptible authority of God because it is the office or position that God established.
Let me explain.
Judas Ischariot was a "devil", as Jesus put it but as one who held the position of Apostle, Judas preached in the name of God and performed undocumented works in His name when Christ sent the Twelve out in twos.
The Pharisees were about as corrupt and earthly as any man in their time but when Christ healed a man, He immediately tells Him to hold to the authority of the Law of Moses and present the reuired offering to the temple.
The thing that our catholic brothers realize that most protestants either don't or just won't ever accept is that all men are sinful no matter how disciplined they are. If God established a Church and leadership that was meant to survive solely on the nature of its leaders then it would've fallen as soon as Christ left.
So, yes just as King David was a jealous lustful muderous king who's bloodline was chosen to bear God into the world, sinful corrupt and even evil men have slipped into Church leadership without robbing it of its divine authority.
: LightHammer Fri Nov 19, 2010 - 12:58:14
Obviously you have a lot to learn if you think that a position of authority given to one by God has anything to do with them. It is the office or position that bears the incorruptible authority of God because it is the office or position that God established.
Yes, one of has a lot to learn if one thinks God continues to honor the office or position when they allow evil into their lives and into their callings. God did not do this under the Old Covenant, nor does He do this under the New Covenant!
As long as the Papacy proclaims it
"bears the incorruptible authority of God because it is the office or position that God established," it lives in denial to the corruption it has allowed to enter into the RCC.
David repented and was a man after God's own heart, but his family continued to suffer great turmoil and tragedy because of his sin.
The Body of Christ Church is alive and well today because other faithfull leaders have picked up the truth of Scripture and God's calling on their lives, and carried it forward to the present time.
: LightHammer Fri Nov 19, 2010 - 12:58:14
: John 10:10 Fri Nov 19, 2010 - 09:37:22
: LightHammer Thu Nov 18, 2010 - 15:36:50
John 10:10 said this:
The central point of truth you miss (maybe you just disagree) is that most Protestants trust in the gift of God's Spirit to guide us into all Scriptural truth, where as the Papacy believes God speaks only through the Papacy because of Apostolic succession, and then the Papacy to the people.
Your implication was that is was wrong or somewhat faulty to insist that the message came through the church. Reread our Master's preyer the believers for He cleary states where the message comes from.
I will say this again for your benefit:
If you think God continued/continues to bless "those appointed by Jesus" when they allow evil into their lives and into their callings, you have a great deal to learn. God did not do this under the old covenant as evil prophets, priests and kings were judged by God and were not allowed to carry on God's work, nor has God been doing this under the new covenant by those who were/are CINO's (Christian In Name Only).
The Body of Christ Church is alive and well today because other leaders have picked up the truth of Scripture and God's calling on their lives, and carried it forward to the present time.
Some still reside within the RCC, and many others do not!
Obviously you have a lot to learn if you think that a position of authority given to on eby God has anything to do with them. It is the office or position that bears the incorruptible authority of God because it is the office or position that God established.
Let me explain.
Judas Ischariot was a "devil", as Jesus put it but as one who held the position of Apostle, Judas preached in the name of God and performed undocumented works in His name when Christ sent the Twelve out in twos.
The Pharisees were about as corrupt and earthly as any man in their time but when Christ healed a man, He immediately tells Him to hold to the authority of the Law of Moses and present the reuired offering to the temple.
The thing that our catholic brothers realize that most protestants either don't or just won't ever accept is that all men are sinful no matter how disciplined they are. If God established a Church and leadership that was meant to survive solely on the nature of its leaders then it would've fallen as soon as Christ left.
So, yes just as King David was a jealous lustful muderous king who's bloodline was chosen to bear God into the world, sinful corrupt and even evil men have slipped into Church leadership without robbing it of its divine authority.
I hear what you are saying LH and you are right that we must obey those of authority over us even if that authority is corrupt. That of course does not mean that we are in sin because we see their corruption. and recognize they have misrepresented the church, We must obey the law of the land and live in peace with all men, but we do not have to be as ignorant fools.
You are wrong that protestants do not recognize that all men are sinful. Its just not a catholic Protestant thing. I think though you want to fluff off even as Catholics seem to do about certain sin of the leadership by saying," well no man is perfect" there fore dismissing their corruption. Yet is not as simple as all that. I will attempt to explain
You cited King David. Yes he was guilty of adultery and tried to cover it up. Yes he was guilty of murder, but when Nathan confronted David with his sin he was convicted of God. He knew that he had not sinned against men but God. His repentance then was from Godly conviction. Read the 51st Psalm. This is a very important point. He knew and understood his sin and was convicted. It is quite different to know when one has sin but fails to recognize it or repent of it. The World knows what is right or wrong. But fails to recognize God or feel godly conviction for it. They feel no fear of God or need to repent of sin. For the world t is natural to lie even though they no it is wrong. Likewise they also cheat or steal but only feel bad if they are caught. There is no real repentance.
The bishops of Rome during the fifth century were greedy for power willing to even lie to get it. Using a forged documents they were able to secure the position they wanted. Knowing of course like anyone they would know that they were doing wrong but there was not conviction for this sin. If they were convicted as David was convicted they would not have lusted for their position in the first place. Hence there would have never establish the papacy as the religious political power of the Empire . To this day the papacy does not see the evil it was established in nor do they see any need to repent. If they did see it they may have repented and dissolved the papacy.
Jesus spoke of the woes of the Pharisees but they did not repent but only hated him for renouncing them publicly. Therefore they conceived to kill him. So the Bishops of Rome just as the Pharisees Jesus called them whitewashed tombs clean and white on the outside but on the inside they were full of dead men's bones.
Listen to what Jesus said to the religious authority
John 9:39'40
39 And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind. 40 And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also? 41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.
#
: mclees8 Sat Nov 20, 2010 - 13:04:41
I hear what you are saying LH and you are right that we must obey those of authority over us even if that authority is corrupt. That of course does not mean that we are in sin because we see their corruption. and recognize they have misrepresented the church, We must obey the law of the land and live in peace with all men, but we do not have to be as ignorant fools.
Maybe LH hears what you are saying, but I don't hear what you are saying when you say
"that we must obey those of authority over us even if that authority is corrupt."One does not obey corrupt church authority that violates God's truth, including God moral laws that declares man shall not kill, steal, covet, lie, and bear false witness. Jesus was convicted and sent to the cross on the basis of false witness. The RCC, the Church of England, and the Puritans in the Salem Witch trials did this also.
: John 10:10 Sat Nov 20, 2010 - 15:25:52
: mclees8 Sat Nov 20, 2010 - 13:04:41
I hear what you are saying LH and you are right that we must obey those of authority over us even if that authority is corrupt. That of course does not mean that we are in sin because we see their corruption. and recognize they have misrepresented the church, We must obey the law of the land and live in peace with all men, but we do not have to be as ignorant fools.
Maybe LH hears what you are saying, but I don't hear what you are saying when you say "that we must obey those of authority over us even if that authority is corrupt."
One does not obey corrupt church authority that violates God's truth, including God moral laws that declares man shall not kill, steal, covet, lie, and bear false witness. Jesus was convicted and sent to the cross on the basis of false witness. The RCC, the Church of England, and the Puritans in the Salem Witch trials did this also.
I was referring to what Jesus said of the pharisees when he said do as they say but do as they do.
God bless
: mclees8 Sat Nov 20, 2010 - 16:44:35
: John 10:10 Sat Nov 20, 2010 - 15:25:52
: mclees8 Sat Nov 20, 2010 - 13:04:41
I hear what you are saying LH and you are right that we must obey those of authority over us even if that authority is corrupt. That of course does not mean that we are in sin because we see their corruption. and recognize they have misrepresented the church, We must obey the law of the land and live in peace with all men, but we do not have to be as ignorant fools.
Maybe LH hears what you are saying, but I don't hear what you are saying when you say "that we must obey those of authority over us even if that authority is corrupt."
One does not obey corrupt church authority that violates God's truth, including God moral laws that declares man shall not kill, steal, covet, lie, and bear false witness. Jesus was convicted and sent to the cross on the basis of false witness. The RCC, the Church of England, and the Puritans in the Salem Witch trials did this also.
I was referring to what Jesus said of the pharisees when he said do as they say but do as they do.
God bless
Good evening mclees8...I am sure you made an error here...I believe you meant to say the following:
''do as they say but
don't do as they do.''........ ::nodding::
: John 10:10 Sat Nov 20, 2010 - 09:19:21
: LightHammer Fri Nov 19, 2010 - 12:58:14
Obviously you have a lot to learn if you think that a position of authority given to one by God has anything to do with them. It is the office or position that bears the incorruptible authority of God because it is the office or position that God established.
Yes, one of has a lot to learn if one thinks God continues to honor the office or position when they allow evil into their lives and into their callings. God did not do this under the Old Covenant, nor does He do this under the New Covenant!
As long as the Papacy proclaims it "bears the incorruptible authority of God because it is the office or position that God established," it lives in denial to the corruption it has allowed to enter into the RCC.
David repented and was a man after God's own heart, but his family continued to suffer great turmoil and tragedy because of his sin.
All men are corrupt, but the Church is not corrupt, it is protected by the Holy Spirit.
Outside of the Church is a jumble of contradictory doctrines related to salvation and morality.
Do you deny this?
: chestertonrules Sun Nov 21, 2010 - 07:43:46
: John 10:10 Sat Nov 20, 2010 - 09:19:21
: LightHammer Fri Nov 19, 2010 - 12:58:14
Obviously you have a lot to learn if you think that a position of authority given to one by God has anything to do with them. It is the office or position that bears the incorruptible authority of God because it is the office or position that God established.
Yes, one of has a lot to learn if one thinks God continues to honor the office or position when they allow evil into their lives and into their callings. God did not do this under the Old Covenant, nor does He do this under the New Covenant!
As long as the Papacy proclaims it "bears the incorruptible authority of God because it is the office or position that God established," it lives in denial to the corruption it has allowed to enter into the RCC.
David repented and was a man after God's own heart, but his family continued to suffer great turmoil and tragedy because of his sin.
All men are corrupt, but the Church is not corrupt, it is protected by the Holy Spirit.
Outside of the Church is a jumble of contradictory doctrines related to salvation and morality.
Do you deny this?
All men are born with a sin nature inherited from Adam. All true Christians are spiritually re-born by the Holy Spirit thru faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, thus comprising the true Church.
The question that remains after being spiritually re-born by the Holy Spirit is this:
Are you a sinner that's sometimes a saint, or are you a saint that's sometimes a sinner?Sin greatly affects what we believe and how we behave. The organizations/churches on earth where Christians assemble, Protestant or RCC, can and do become corrupt when we allow sin into our personal lives. We take sin everywhere we go.
Do you deny this?
: John 10:10 Sun Nov 21, 2010 - 08:19:46
All men are born with a sin nature inherited from Adam. All true Christians are spiritually re-born by the Holy Spirit thru faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, thus comprising the true Church.
The question that remains after being spiritually re-born by the Holy Spirit is this: Are you a sinner that's sometimes a saint, or are you a saint that's sometimes a sinner?
Sin greatly affects what we believe and how we behave. The organizations/churches on earth where Christians assemble, Protestant or RCC, can and do become corrupt when we allow sin into our personal lives. We take sin everywhere we go.
Do you deny this?
All men are sinners, including all popes, but the Church has always and will always teach the truth with regard to faith and morals.
Without a steady guide we can't even define sin and false doctrines. This problem is evident in the mass confusion that is called protestantism.
Jesus did not leave us as orphans, he gave us a Church which is infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit.
: chestertonrules Sun Nov 21, 2010 - 09:25:03
: John 10:10 Sun Nov 21, 2010 - 08:19:46
All men are born with a sin nature inherited from Adam. All true Christians are spiritually re-born by the Holy Spirit thru faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, thus comprising the true Church.
The question that remains after being spiritually re-born by the Holy Spirit is this: Are you a sinner that's sometimes a saint, or are you a saint that's sometimes a sinner?
Sin greatly affects what we believe and how we behave. The organizations/churches on earth where Christians assemble, Protestant or RCC, can and do become corrupt when we allow sin into our personal lives. We take sin everywhere we go.
Do you deny this?
All men are sinners, including all popes, but the Church has always and will always teach the truth with regard to faith and morals.
Without a steady guide we can't even define sin and false doctrines. This problem is evident in the mass confusion that is called protestantism.
Jesus did not leave us as orphans, he gave us a Church which is infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit.
Again you hide behind words without meaning. Over and over you say Jesus "gave us a Church which is infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit." Then you say "all men are sinners, including all popes." Then you say the "problem is evident in the mass confusion that is called protestantism."
Unless you can explain yourself so that others can clearly understand what you are saying, you seem to be saying sinning popes can never bring false doctrines to the RCC, and the RCC is the infallible Church guided by the Holy Spirit.
Maybe you are confused by what Protestants believe and teach regarding the Church.
All true Christians are spiritually re-born by the Holy Spirit thru faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, thus comprising the true Church.
: John 10:10 Sun Nov 21, 2010 - 16:27:59
Again you hide behind words without meaning. Over and over you say Jesus "gave us a Church which is infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit." Then you say "all men are sinners, including all popes." Then you say the "problem is evident in the mass confusion that is called protestantism."
Unless you can explain yourself so that others can clearly understand what you are saying, you seem to be saying sinning popes can never bring false doctrines to the RCC, and the RCC is the infallible Church guided by the Holy Spirit.
I'll try to be more clear.
Jesus used fallible people, and still does, to build his infallible Church.
The Church is divinely protected. Individuals within the Church are not infallible unless they are acting on behalf of the Church as proscribed by Jesus.
Jesus started a single Church, gave it authority, and gave it leaders.
Is that better?
: John 10:10 Sat Nov 20, 2010 - 09:19:21
: LightHammer Fri Nov 19, 2010 - 12:58:14
Obviously you have a lot to learn if you think that a position of authority given to one by God has anything to do with them. It is the office or position that bears the incorruptible authority of God because it is the office or position that God established.
Yes, one of has a lot to learn if one thinks God continues to honor the office or position when they allow evil into their lives and into their callings. God did not do this under the Old Covenant, nor does He do this under the New Covenant!
As long as the Papacy proclaims it "bears the incorruptible authority of God because it is the office or position that God established," it lives in denial to the corruption it has allowed to enter into the RCC.
David repented and was a man after God's own heart, but his family continued to suffer great turmoil and tragedy because of his sin.
The Body of Christ Church is alive and well today because other faithfull leaders have picked up the truth of Scripture and God's calling on their lives, and carried it forward to the present time.
[/quote
I bet it really urks you doesn't it? I can remember the mixed emotions of fear and frustration and even hatred.lol I will admit that I have a lot more to learn so much more infact that I am hardly worthy to speak as if I know anything but God does help me out.
Tell me something brother. As a matter of fact don't tell me just think about it. I mean really marinate on it.
Why did Jesus ever teach the people to turn from the authority of the Pharisees? You see what I don't get is that the Pharisees were just as if not more corrupt the worst catholic clergy. Infact they were so corrupt so far from the message of the Law they were preaching that they stood violently against and crucified their promised Messiah their Lord God in the flesh. They killed him! Jesus knew how black their hearts were how corrupt they were but shockingly He never told the people that their positions as priest of Judea were voided? Strange. Infact not only did He not stand against them but He actually sent a man that HE had healed to give offering through their authorative hand. So strange.
: chestertonrules Sun Nov 21, 2010 - 17:59:08
: John 10:10 Sun Nov 21, 2010 - 16:27:59
Again you hide behind words without meaning. Over and over you say Jesus "gave us a Church which is infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit." Then you say "all men are sinners, including all popes." Then you say the "problem is evident in the mass confusion that is called protestantism."
Unless you can explain yourself so that others can clearly understand what you are saying, you seem to be saying sinning popes can never bring false doctrines to the RCC, and the RCC is the infallible Church guided by the Holy Spirit.
I'll try to be more clear.
Jesus used fallible people, and still does, to build his infallible Church.
The Church is divinely protected. Individuals within the Church are not infallible unless they are acting on behalf of the Church as proscribed by Jesus.
Jesus started a single Church, gave it authority, and gave it leaders.
Is that better?
And that single Church, with authority and leaders that led the first three councils is the Church of Christ. Those who denigrate it call it the Coptic Church.
: The Great Baptizmo Sun Nov 21, 2010 - 19:25:21
: chestertonrules Sun Nov 21, 2010 - 17:59:08
: John 10:10 Sun Nov 21, 2010 - 16:27:59
Again you hide behind words without meaning. Over and over you say Jesus "gave us a Church which is infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit." Then you say "all men are sinners, including all popes." Then you say the "problem is evident in the mass confusion that is called protestantism."
Unless you can explain yourself so that others can clearly understand what you are saying, you seem to be saying sinning popes can never bring false doctrines to the RCC, and the RCC is the infallible Church guided by the Holy Spirit.
I'll try to be more clear.
Jesus used fallible people, and still does, to build his infallible Church.
The Church is divinely protected. Individuals within the Church are not infallible unless they are acting on behalf of the Church as proscribed by Jesus.
Jesus started a single Church, gave it authority, and gave it leaders.
Is that better?
And that single Church, with authority and leaders that led the first three councils is the Church of Christ. Those who denigrate it call it the Coptic Church.
Oh this is going to be fun. I have never tangled with a defender of the Coptic Church. This should be good.
The first council was the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. It is recognized by the Roman Catholic Church. The Council of Nicaea repudiated Arianism, declared that Christ is "homoousios with the Father" (of the same substance as the Father), and adopted the original Nicene Creed, fixed Easter date; recognized primacy of the sees of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch and granted the See of Jerusalem a position of honor.
The Second council was the First Council of Constantinople in 381 AD. It is recognized by the Roman Catholic Church. This council repudiated Arianism and Macedonianism, declared that Christ is "born of the Father before all time", revised the Nicene Creed in regard to the Holy Spirit.
The third council is the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD. This council is also recognized by the Roman Catholic Church. The Council of Ephesus proclaimed the Virgin Mary as the Theotokos ("Birth-giver to God", "God-bearer", "Mother of God"), repudiated Pelagianism, and reaffirmed the Nicene Creed.
Yea thats what I got in my research includging the Council of Jersualem of course. Not really sure what the Great Baptizmo is going to present but I have to say I am intirgued.
: The Great Baptizmo Sun Nov 21, 2010 - 19:25:21
And that single Church, with authority and leaders that led the first three councils is the Church of Christ. Those who denigrate it call it the Coptic Church.
The Coptic Church today contains members that are in communion with Rome as well as Orthodox Christians. Not sure what your point is. The Coptic Church was traces their roots back to Mark, who was not an apostle. Regardless, the early Christians in Egypt were in communion with Rome.
Read all about it here:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01300b.htm
: Hehealedme Sun Nov 21, 2010 - 00:54:02
: mclees8 Sat Nov 20, 2010 - 16:44:35
: John 10:10 Sat Nov 20, 2010 - 15:25:52
: mclees8 Sat Nov 20, 2010 - 13:04:41
I hear what you are saying LH and you are right that we must obey those of authority over us even if that authority is corrupt. That of course does not mean that we are in sin because we see their corruption. and recognize they have misrepresented the church, We must obey the law of the land and live in peace with all men, but we do not have to be as ignorant fools.
Maybe LH hears what you are saying, but I don't hear what you are saying when you say "that we must obey those of authority over us even if that authority is corrupt."
One does not obey corrupt church authority that violates God's truth, including God moral laws that declares man shall not kill, steal, covet, lie, and bear false witness. Jesus was convicted and sent to the cross on the basis of false witness. The RCC, the Church of England, and the Puritans in the Salem Witch trials did this also.
I was referring to what Jesus said of the pharisees when he said do as they say but do as they do.
God bless
Good evening mclees8...I am sure you made an error here...I believe you meant to say the following:
''do as they say but don't do as they do.''........ ::nodding::
Thanks for the correction ::tippinghat::
: chestertonrules Sun Nov 21, 2010 - 17:59:08
: John 10:10 Sun Nov 21, 2010 - 16:27:59
Again you hide behind words without meaning. Over and over you say Jesus "gave us a Church which is infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit." Then you say "all men are sinners, including all popes." Then you say the "problem is evident in the mass confusion that is called protestantism."
Unless you can explain yourself so that others can clearly understand what you are saying, you seem to be saying sinning popes can never bring false doctrines to the RCC, and the RCC is the infallible Church guided by the Holy Spirit.
I'll try to be more clear.
Jesus used fallible people, and still does, to build his infallible Church.
The Church is divinely protected. Individuals within the Church are not infallible unless they are acting on behalf of the Church as proscribed by Jesus.
Jesus started a single Church, gave it authority, and gave it leaders.
Is that better?
No, I'm afraid NOT!!!
Only the whole Church, comprised of all true Christians/leaders everywhere who are spiritually re-born by the Holy Spirit thru faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, has God's whole truth. God raises up Christians/leaders within local churches everywhere as His Church, and takes away the lampstand from those who have left their first love (Rev 2:4-5).
But the shell of an earthly organization or local church can still remain when the lampstand is taken away. Since you continue to throw stones at Protestants who live and practice our faith outside of the RCC, your words clearly infer that you believe the single Church proscribed by Jesus's authority was and still is the RCC. Vatican II in 1965 "officially" made room for true Christians/leaders outside the RCC/Papacy, but you are welcome to hold onto that belief if you wish.
Since there are true Christians/leaders outside the RCC/Papacy, Jesus's authority resides there as well. Jesus's authority resides anywhere/everywhere sinners repent of their sins, call upon the name of the LORD Jesus for God's salvation, and are re-born by the gift of the Holy Spirit. When this happens to sinners, it's not because of their RCCism or Protestantism, but it spite of it!
It's as simple and as difficult as that!
: John 10:10 Mon Nov 22, 2010 - 12:18:31
: chestertonrules Sun Nov 21, 2010 - 17:59:08
: John 10:10 Sun Nov 21, 2010 - 16:27:59
Again you hide behind words without meaning. Over and over you say Jesus "gave us a Church which is infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit." Then you say "all men are sinners, including all popes." Then you say the "problem is evident in the mass confusion that is called protestantism."
Unless you can explain yourself so that others can clearly understand what you are saying, you seem to be saying sinning popes can never bring false doctrines to the RCC, and the RCC is the infallible Church guided by the Holy Spirit.
I'll try to be more clear.
Jesus used fallible people, and still does, to build his infallible Church.
The Church is divinely protected. Individuals within the Church are not infallible unless they are acting on behalf of the Church as proscribed by Jesus.
Jesus started a single Church, gave it authority, and gave it leaders.
Is that better?
No, I'm afraid NOT!!! Only the whole Church, comprised of all true Christians/leaders everywhere who are spiritually re-born by the Holy Spirit thru faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, has God's whole truth. God raises up Christians/leaders within local churches everywhere as His Church, and takes away the lampstand from those who have left their first love (Rev 2:4-5).
But the shell of an earthly organization or local church can still remain when the lampstand is taken away. Since you continue to throw stones at Protestants who live and practice our faith outside of the RCC, your words clearly infer that you believe the single Church proscribed by Jesus's authority was and still is the RCC. Vatican II in 1965 "officially" made room for true Christians/leaders outside the RCC/Papacy, but you are welcome to hold onto that belief if you wish.
Since there are true Christians/leaders outside the RCC/Papacy, Jesus's authority resides there as well. Jesus's authority resides anywhere/everywhere sinners repent of their sins, call upon the name of the LORD Jesus for God's salvation, and are re-born by the gift of the Holy Spirit. When this happens to sinners, it's not because of their RCCism or Protestantism, but it spite of it!
It's as simple and as difficult as that!
The leaders of the Church are ordained by their predecessors.
Why would someone want to be a Church leader without authorization?
Whose will are they conforming to? Whose will are they resisting?
: LightHammer Sun Nov 21, 2010 - 19:21:44
: John 10:10 Sat Nov 20, 2010 - 09:19:21
: LightHammer Fri Nov 19, 2010 - 12:58:14
Obviously you have a lot to learn if you think that a position of authority given to one by God has anything to do with them. It is the office or position that bears the incorruptible authority of God because it is the office or position that God established.
Yes, one of has a lot to learn if one thinks God continues to honor the office or position when they allow evil into their lives and into their callings. God did not do this under the Old Covenant, nor does He do this under the New Covenant!
As long as the Papacy proclaims it "bears the incorruptible authority of God because it is the office or position that God established," it lives in denial to the corruption it has allowed to enter into the RCC.
David repented and was a man after God's own heart, but his family continued to suffer great turmoil and tragedy because of his sin.
The Body of Christ Church is alive and well today because other faithfull leaders have picked up the truth of Scripture and God's calling on their lives, and carried it forward to the present time.
I bet it really urks you doesn't it? I can remember the mixed emotions of fear and frustration and even hatred.lol I will admit that I have a lot more to learn so much more infact that I am hardly worthy to speak as if I know anything but God does help me out.
Tell me something brother. As a matter of fact don't tell me just think about it. I mean really marinate on it.
Why did Jesus ever teach the people to turn from the authority of the Pharisees? You see what I don't get is that the Pharisees were just as if not more corrupt the worst catholic clergy. Infact they were so corrupt so far from the message of the Law they were preaching that they stood violently against and crucified their promised Messiah their Lord God in the flesh. They killed him! Jesus knew how black their hearts were how corrupt they were but shockingly He never told the people that their positions as priest of Judea were voided? Strange. Infact not only did He not stand against them but He actually sent a man that HE had healed to give offering through their authorative hand. So strange.
Doesn't irk me at all! In fact, I'm truly thankful and blessed that "other faithful leaders have picked up the truth of Scripture and God's calling on their lives, and carried it forward to the present time."
Jesus told the people to "beware of the leaven of the Pharisees" (Matt 16:6), not the authority of the Pharisees. OT salvation was never in just keeping of the law, but was always the "righteous will live by his faith" (Hab 2:4), looking forward to the coming Redeemer who would take away the sins of the world. This truth the Pharisees perverted, and so did elements of RCCism and Protestantism when church leaders teach anything other than God's salvation thru faith in our Redeemer LORD Jesus Christ. Good works then "follow" those who are first re-created in Christ Jesus (Eph 2:10).
: John 10:10 Mon Nov 22, 2010 - 12:18:31
: chestertonrules Sun Nov 21, 2010 - 17:59:08
: John 10:10 Sun Nov 21, 2010 - 16:27:59
Again you hide behind words without meaning. Over and over you say Jesus "gave us a Church which is infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit." Then you say "all men are sinners, including all popes." Then you say the "problem is evident in the mass confusion that is called protestantism."
Unless you can explain yourself so that others can clearly understand what you are saying, you seem to be saying sinning popes can never bring false doctrines to the RCC, and the RCC is the infallible Church guided by the Holy Spirit.
I'll try to be more clear.
Jesus used fallible people, and still does, to build his infallible Church.
The Church is divinely protected. Individuals within the Church are not infallible unless they are acting on behalf of the Church as proscribed by Jesus.
Jesus started a single Church, gave it authority, and gave it leaders.
Is that better?
No, I'm afraid NOT!!! Only the whole Church, comprised of all true Christians/leaders everywhere who are spiritually re-born by the Holy Spirit thru faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, has God's whole truth. God raises up Christians/leaders within local churches everywhere as His Church, and takes away the lampstand from those who have left their first love (Rev 2:4-5).
But the shell of an earthly organization or local church can still remain when the lampstand is taken away. Since you continue to throw stones at Protestants who live and practice our faith outside of the RCC, your words clearly infer that you believe the single Church proscribed by Jesus's authority was and still is the RCC. Vatican II in 1965 "officially" made room for true Christians/leaders outside the RCC/Papacy, but you are welcome to hold onto that belief if you wish.
Since there are true Christians/leaders outside the RCC/Papacy, Jesus's authority resides there as well. Jesus's authority resides anywhere/everywhere sinners repent of their sins, call upon the name of the LORD Jesus for God's salvation, and are re-born by the gift of the Holy Spirit. When this happens to sinners, it's not because of their RCCism or Protestantism, but it spite of it!
It's as simple and as difficult as that!
I think you are confusing the spirit of God, the prescence, or blessing i.e. the Holy Spirit with divine authority. Christ said that where two or three are gathered faithfully in His name, there He will find His indwelling. This means that the Holy Spirit is universal for all those who genuinely seek Him regardless of denomination or affiliation.
Actually I heard a testimony of my old firend's mom once. She witnessed that during a dialogue between a Christian and Muslim, the muslim beseech God saying, "God Abraham show me the Truth"(paraphrased from memory). She said that in that time the muslim came to know Jesus and felt the prescence of the Holy Spirit.
Although this man recieved a piece of the Truth that doesn't mean he is automatically granted the authority to teach such complex Truths. Every christian can't be a teacher. That would be as chaotic as a tribe compromised all of Chiefs and no general population.
The divine authorization and blessings thereof to teach was infact given to the disciples that is a fact. Random believers can't just decide to recieve the Great Commission 1500 years later that was not extended to them in the first place. Salvation is the gift of all man but not the authority to lead. So it is not something we can just assume because we feel the desire to and want call it a divine calling.
Christ chose His leaders. He hand picked the men who truly come in His name to tecah and lead. Why don't we just accept that?
: John 10:10 Mon Nov 22, 2010 - 12:55:32
: LightHammer Sun Nov 21, 2010 - 19:21:44
: John 10:10 Sat Nov 20, 2010 - 09:19:21
: LightHammer Fri Nov 19, 2010 - 12:58:14
Obviously you have a lot to learn if you think that a position of authority given to one by God has anything to do with them. It is the office or position that bears the incorruptible authority of God because it is the office or position that God established.
Yes, one of has a lot to learn if one thinks God continues to honor the office or position when they allow evil into their lives and into their callings. God did not do this under the Old Covenant, nor does He do this under the New Covenant!
As long as the Papacy proclaims it "bears the incorruptible authority of God because it is the office or position that God established," it lives in denial to the corruption it has allowed to enter into the RCC.
David repented and was a man after God's own heart, but his family continued to suffer great turmoil and tragedy because of his sin.
The Body of Christ Church is alive and well today because other faithfull leaders have picked up the truth of Scripture and God's calling on their lives, and carried it forward to the present time.
I bet it really urks you doesn't it? I can remember the mixed emotions of fear and frustration and even hatred.lol I will admit that I have a lot more to learn so much more infact that I am hardly worthy to speak as if I know anything but God does help me out.
Tell me something brother. As a matter of fact don't tell me just think about it. I mean really marinate on it.
Why did Jesus ever teach the people to turn from the authority of the Pharisees? You see what I don't get is that the Pharisees were just as if not more corrupt the worst catholic clergy. Infact they were so corrupt so far from the message of the Law they were preaching that they stood violently against and crucified their promised Messiah their Lord God in the flesh. They killed him! Jesus knew how black their hearts were how corrupt they were but shockingly He never told the people that their positions as priest of Judea were voided? Strange. Infact not only did He not stand against them but He actually sent a man that HE had healed to give offering through their authorative hand. So strange.
Doesn't irk me at all! In fact, I'm truly thankful and blessed that "other faithful leaders have picked up the truth of Scripture and God's calling on their lives, and carried it forward to the present time."
Jesus told the people to "beware of the leaven of the Pharisees" (Matt 16:6), not the authority of the Pharisees. OT salvation was never in just keeping of the law, but was always the "righteous will live by his faith" (Hab 2:4), looking forward to the coming Redeemer who would take away the sins of the world. This truth the Pharisees perverted, and so did elements of RCCism and Protestantism when church leaders teach anything other than God's salvation thru faith in our Redeemer LORD Jesus Christ. Good works then "follow" those who are first re-created in Christ Jesus (Eph 2:10).
I love how men like to pick and choose with their finite minds who "faithful leaders" are as if they have God's ability to read their hearts. The truth of the matter is people choose their affiliations by what appeals to them most even if that thing is the farthest strecth of God's Will.
Your belief is a stretch of what you think God and His Church are and what is reality.
: chestertonrules Mon Nov 22, 2010 - 12:39:46
The leaders of the Church are ordained by their predecessors.
Why would someone want to be a Church leader without authorization?
Whose will are they conforming to? Whose will are they resisting?
No leader should want to be a RCC leader, denomination leader, local church leader, or home group leader without authorization.
The leaders within the Church comprised of all true Christians everywhere who are spiritually re-born by the Holy Spirit thru faith in the Lord Jesus Christ first are called by God to carry forth His truth.
Then they find men who have carried forth God's faithful truth, and learn from them (2 Tim 2:2). For others this means going to seminary, then submit their learning credentials to those they want to serve with.
2 Tim 2:2 The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.
: John 10:10 Mon Nov 22, 2010 - 13:22:21
: chestertonrules Mon Nov 22, 2010 - 12:39:46
The leaders of the Church are ordained by their predecessors.
Why would someone want to be a Church leader without authorization?
Whose will are they conforming to? Whose will are they resisting?
No leader should want to be a RCC leader, denomination leader, local church leader, or home group leader without authorization.
The leaders within the Church comprised of all comprised of all true Christians everywhere who are spiritually re-born by the Holy Spirit thru faith in the Lord Jesus Christ first are called by God to carry forth His truth.
Then they find men who have carried forth God's faithful truth, and learn from them (2 Tim 2:2). For others this means going to seminary, then submit their learning credentials to those they want to serve with.
2 Tim 2:2 The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.
What are you talking about? That is not how Christ set things up at all. Christ gave the Gospel to the disciples and the first members of the Church. It was the charge of the Disciples, and those they chartered, to go out and spread the world. It was the task of the world to recieve that message.
Chester explained it perfectly with the prayers of Christ. You really need to stop trying to rearrange Christ's words and applying them to all believers when He was referring only to the Apostles.
: LightHammer Mon Nov 22, 2010 - 13:03:56
I love how men like to pick and choose with their finite minds who "faithful leaders" are as if they have God's ability to read their hearts. The truth of the matter is people choose their affiliations by what appeals to them most even if that thing is the farthest strecth of God's Will.
Your belief is a stretch of what you think God and His Church are and what is reality.
The tragedy of deception is that those who are blind/deceived do not know they are deceived.
Luke 6:39-40 And He also spoke a parable to them: "A blind man cannot guide a blind man, can he? Will they not both fall into a pit? A pupil is not above his teacher; but everyone, after he has been fully trained, will be like his teacher."
Yes, there are "faithful leaders" that have carried forth God's truth, being faithful to God's truth and heart; and there are unfaithful leaders. I do not recommend learning from, or following them.
The truth of the matter is that those who have "honest and good hearts" can hear the Spirit of God speak to them.
Luke 8:15 "But the seed in the good soil, these are the ones who have heard the word
in an honest and good heart, and hold it fast, and bear fruit with perseverance."
: John 10:10 Mon Nov 22, 2010 - 13:39:32
: LightHammer Mon Nov 22, 2010 - 13:03:56
I love how men like to pick and choose with their finite minds who "faithful leaders" are as if they have God's ability to read their hearts. The truth of the matter is people choose their affiliations by what appeals to them most even if that thing is the farthest strecth of God's Will.
Your belief is a stretch of what you think God and His Church are and what is reality.
The tragedy of deception is that those who are blind/deceived do not know they are deceived.
Luke 6:39-40 And He also spoke a parable to them: "A blind man cannot guide a blind man, can he? Will they not both fall into a pit? A pupil is not above his teacher; but everyone, after he has been fully trained, will be like his teacher."
Yes, there are "faithful leaders" that have carried forth God's truth, being faithful to God's truth and heart; and there are unfaithful leaders. I do not recommend learning from, or following them.
The truth of the matter is that those who have "honest and good hearts" can hear the Spirit of God speak to them.
Luke 8:15 "But the seed in the good soil, these are the ones who have heard the word in an honest and good heart, and hold it fast, and bear fruit with perseverance."
Well I follow no man.
Like I said you mat want to reread scripture and look how Christ actually set up things and not how think He meant to set them up.
: LightHammer Mon Nov 22, 2010 - 13:33:52
What are you talking about? That is not how Christ set things up at all. Christ gave the Gospel to the disciples and the first members of the Church. It was the charge of the Disciples, and those they chartered, to go out and spread the world. It was the task of the world to recieve that message.
Chester explained it perfectly with the prayers of Christ. You really need to stop trying to rearrange Christ's words and applying them to all believers when He was referring only to the Apostles.
Apparently I'm talking about things you can't understand or receive. The Reformers understood it, and carried forth God's truth to the present day. So did the Madame Guyon's of the RCC down thru the ages, but when this happened, they locked her up in prison, rather than let her influence affect the RCC hierarchy. Try reading her authbiograpry somethime. It will transform your life.
: LightHammer Mon Nov 22, 2010 - 13:44:41
Well I follow no man.
Like I said you mat want to reread scripture and look how Christ actually set up things and not how think He meant to set them up.
I started with 2 Tim 2:2. If you want to start and end with the RCC, that is your choice.
: John 10:10 Mon Nov 22, 2010 - 13:48:28
: LightHammer Mon Nov 22, 2010 - 13:33:52
What are you talking about? That is not how Christ set things up at all. Christ gave the Gospel to the disciples and the first members of the Church. It was the charge of the Disciples, and those they chartered, to go out and spread the world. It was the task of the world to recieve that message.
Chester explained it perfectly with the prayers of Christ. You really need to stop trying to rearrange Christ's words and applying them to all believers when He was referring only to the Apostles.
Apparently I'm talking about things you can't understand or receive. The Reformers understood it, and carried forth God's truth to the present day. So did the Madame Guyon's of the RCC down thru the ages, but when this happened, they locked her up in prison, rather than let her influence affect the RCC hierarchy. Try reading her authbiograpry somethime. It will transform your life.
Who cares about the man made beliefs of the Reformers?
Christ Himself set up the system of His Church, its leaders and hierchy. These "Paul's of this world" formed their own way of doing things because they could not trust in God to preserve His Church when evil try to destroy it.
You really need to stop relying on the Reformers so much and rely on Christ and the Disciples He handpicked. You guys act like you hav ethe key to all the doors when in reality the only fruits that the Reformation has brought forth is chaotic divisions on the very essential truths of the faith and violence. Protestant denomination exist in the thousands. So many of them teach different things in regards to the divinity of Jesus, the afterlife and even the requisits of salvation. That is all protestantism has to show for itself doctrinally after nearly 400 years of living by the teachings of the so called "Pauls of this world."
: John 10:10 Mon Nov 22, 2010 - 13:52:02
: LightHammer Mon Nov 22, 2010 - 13:44:41
Well I follow no man.
Like I said you mat want to reread scripture and look how Christ actually set up things and not how think He meant to set them up.
I started with 2 Tim 2:2. If you want to start and end with the RCC, that is your choice.
Notice how Christ is instructing the Disciples to choose their own successors. The lays with Christ, He delegates to the Disciples and the Disciples delegate to their successors. That is the system that has existed sense Christ spoke it into existence. The system you and those like you reject and label satanic.
: LightHammer Mon Nov 22, 2010 - 14:32:25
: John 10:10 Mon Nov 22, 2010 - 13:52:02
: LightHammer Mon Nov 22, 2010 - 13:44:41
Well I follow no man.
Like I said you mat want to reread scripture and look how Christ actually set up things and not how think He meant to set them up.
I started with 2 Tim 2:2. If you want to start and end with the RCC, that is your choice.
Notice how Christ is instructing the Disciples to choose their own successors. The lays with Christ, He delegates to the Disciples and the Disciples delegate to their successors. That is the system that has existed sense Christ spoke it into existence. The system you and those like you reject and label satanic.
Yes we know how Christ taught the disciples. The shame of it is how leaders fall into apostasy with the passing of time. And that they did after Constantine Excepted the Christian religion. So you can say all you want to that they have history but history does not record apostasy, only a succession of bishops.
I will say until my dying breath Jesus did not found his church upon political ambitions As long as the papacy is involved with the politics of this world it is of antichrist. They are bed mates and is why she is called the great harlot. I m sorry if that offends you. For he Life of me LH I cannot understand why you would not join the RCC as much you defend it.
: mclees8 Mon Nov 22, 2010 - 16:51:37
Yes we know how Christ taught the disciples. The shame of it is how leaders fall into apostasy with the passing of time. And that they did after Constantine Excepted the Christian religion. So you can say all you want to that they have history but history does not record apostasy, only a succession of bishops.
I will say until my dying breath Jesus did not found his church upon political ambitions As long as the papacy is involved with the politics of this world it is of antichrist. They are bed mates and is why she is called the great harlot. I m sorry if that offends you. For he Life of me LH I cannot understand why you would not join the RCC as much you defend it.
Mike, you seem to know a lot about this time in history, as seemingly do many Protestants. Exactly how did the Church fall into apostasy under Constantine? What constituted falling into apostasy, in your mind? Did the Church abandon their teachings on faith or morals? Can you demonstrate examples of before/after?
Granted, the Catholic Church was nearly overcome by Arianism during Constantine's life, as Constantine (as I understand it) became an Arian and protected the Arian Church, but to the best of my knowledge the Church did not succumb to Arianism but rather miraculously triumphed over it. So I just would like, for once, someone to demonstrate to me, with examples, how exactly they "know" that the Church fell into apostasy under Constantine.
To me, I'm under the impression that since we weren't being murdered openly in the Colosseum any more and could practice our religion publicly instead of the catacombs, then that is what is called "apostasy".
Also, people act as if the secular world could somehow overcome the Church Christ founded...
: LightHammer Mon Nov 22, 2010 - 14:19:13
: John 10:10 Mon Nov 22, 2010 - 13:48:28
: LightHammer Mon Nov 22, 2010 - 13:33:52
What are you talking about? That is not how Christ set things up at all. Christ gave the Gospel to the disciples and the first members of the Church. It was the charge of the Disciples, and those they chartered, to go out and spread the world. It was the task of the world to recieve that message.
Chester explained it perfectly with the prayers of Christ. You really need to stop trying to rearrange Christ's words and applying them to all believers when He was referring only to the Apostles.
Apparently I'm talking about things you can't understand or receive. The Reformers understood it, and carried forth God's truth to the present day. So did the Madame Guyon's of the RCC down thru the ages, but when this happened, they locked her up in prison, rather than let her influence affect the RCC hierarchy. Try reading her authbiograpry somethime. It will transform your life.
Who cares about the man made beliefs of the Reformers?
Christ Himself set up the system of His Church, its leaders and hierchy. These "Paul's of this world" formed their own way of doing things because they could not trust in God to preserve His Church when evil try to destroy it.
You really need to stop relying on the Reformers so much and rely on Christ and the Disciples He handpicked. You guys act like you hav ethe key to all the doors when in reality the only fruits that the Reformation has brought forth is chaotic divisions on the very essential truths of the faith and violence. Protestant denomination exist in the thousands. So many of them teach different things in regards to the divinity of Jesus, the afterlife and even the requisits of salvation. That is all protestantism has to show for itself doctrinally after nearly 400 years of living by the teachings of the so called "Pauls of this world."
Please show us anything that Peter, Paul or John said in these verses in God's Word that requires someone within the RCC or any other organization/group on earth to correctly explain and minister God's salvation that's in the Lord Jesus Christ to someone else?
Acts 2:38 Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins ; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
39 "For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself."
Rom 10:8 But what does it say? "THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, in your mouth and in your heart "-that is, the word of faith which we are preaching,
9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved ;
10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.
1 John 5:10 The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself ; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son.
11 And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.
12 He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life.
13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.
14 This is the confidence which we have before Him, that, if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us.
15 And if we know that He hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have the requests which we have asked from Him.This is God's truth in God's Word that the Reformers proclaimed, and the RCC suppressed from the common man for 1500 years!
: LightHammer Mon Nov 22, 2010 - 14:32:25
: John 10:10 Mon Nov 22, 2010 - 13:52:02
: LightHammer Mon Nov 22, 2010 - 13:44:41
Well I follow no man.
Like I said you mat want to reread scripture and look how Christ actually set up things and not how think He meant to set them up.
I started with 2 Tim 2:2. If you want to start and end with the RCC, that is your choice.
Notice how Christ is instructing the Disciples to choose their own successors. The lays with Christ, He delegates to the Disciples and the Disciples delegate to their successors. That is the system that has existed sense Christ spoke it into existence. The system you and those like you reject and label satanic.
If you want to trust in a "system" to save you, that too is your choice.
As for me, I trust in Jesus as did this jailer in Acts 16,
30 and after he brought them out, he said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved ?"
31 They said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."
: Catholica Mon Nov 22, 2010 - 17:16:20
: mclees8 Mon Nov 22, 2010 - 16:51:37
Yes we know how Christ taught the disciples. The shame of it is how leaders fall into apostasy with the passing of time. And that they did after Constantine Excepted the Christian religion. So you can say all you want to that they have history but history does not record apostasy, only a succession of bishops.
I will say until my dying breath Jesus did not found his church upon political ambitions As long as the papacy is involved with the politics of this world it is of antichrist. They are bed mates and is why she is called the great harlot. I m sorry if that offends you. For he Life of me LH I cannot understand why you would not join the RCC as much you defend it.
Mike, you seem to know a lot about this time in history, as seemingly do many Protestants. Exactly how did the Church fall into apostasy under Constantine? What constituted falling into apostasy, in your mind? Did the Church abandon their teachings on faith or morals? Can you demonstrate examples of before/after?
Granted, the Catholic Church was nearly overcome by Arianism during Constantine's life, as Constantine (as I understand it) became an Arian and protected the Arian Church, but to the best of my knowledge the Church did not succumb to Arianism but rather miraculously triumphed over it. So I just would like, for once, someone to demonstrate to me, with examples, how exactly they "know" that the Church fell into apostasy under Constantine.
To me, I'm under the impression that since we weren't being murdered openly in the Colosseum any more and could practice our religion publicly instead of the catacombs, then that is what is called "apostasy".
Also, people act as if the secular world could somehow overcome the Church Christ founded...
I have stated the apostasy many times and you still do not see. I doubt you will see even if i attempted to show to you now. It s like Jesus said " they see but they do not see, they hear and do not hear. They understand yet do not comprehend.
Do you not understand the antichrist will be the worlds political messiah and how Gods word shows the apostate church deeply involved with the world and its political system. Remember how satan tempted Jesus that he would give him the world if he would worship Him. Jesus could have been the worlds political messiah, but he knew that was not the will of the Father. His purpose was that the world would be saved through Him. It is the world that wants God upon the earth. This is religious and political Babylon. The antichrist will use the apostate church as steppingstone to power, but after he will seek to destroy everything that represents Christ and to kill all Christians that will not take his mark.
The papacy has been in Babylon form its very beginning. Just as i have been saying here every day and she will help usher in the man of sin. I see the papacy as a false prophet that beguiles the church because while she professes to be of Christ to the church and the world at large her ambitions really are of the world and its politics. Thus she is the great Harlot
Do not the leaders of the world pay homage to the pope, and does not the pope visit the UN to advise the leaders of the world of their moral obligations.
But Jesus was not about political solutions to worlds moral problems. The world is heading toward antichrist and the final judgment. The hope of the church is his second coming
: LightHammer Mon Nov 22, 2010 - 14:19:13
: John 10:10 Mon Nov 22, 2010 - 13:48:28
: LightHammer Mon Nov 22, 2010 - 13:33:52
What are you talking about? That is not how Christ set things up at all. Christ gave the Gospel to the disciples and the first members of the Church. It was the charge of the Disciples, and those they chartered, to go out and spread the world. It was the task of the world to recieve that message.
Chester explained it perfectly with the prayers of Christ. You really need to stop trying to rearrange Christ's words and applying them to all believers when He was referring only to the Apostles.
Apparently I'm talking about things you can't understand or receive. The Reformers understood it, and carried forth God's truth to the present day. So did the Madame Guyon's of the RCC down thru the ages, but when this happened, they locked her up in prison, rather than let her influence affect the RCC hierarchy. Try reading her authbiograpry somethime. It will transform your life.
Who cares about the man made beliefs of the Reformers?
Christ Himself set up the system of His Church, its leaders and hierchy. These "Paul's of this world" formed their own way of doing things because they could not trust in God to preserve His Church when evil try to destroy it.
You really need to stop relying on the Reformers so much and rely on Christ and the Disciples He handpicked. You guys act like you hav ethe key to all the doors when in reality the only fruits that the Reformation has brought forth is chaotic divisions on the very essential truths of the faith and violence. Protestant denomination exist in the thousands. So many of them teach different things in regards to the divinity of Jesus, the afterlife and even the requisits of salvation. That is all protestantism has to show for itself doctrinally after nearly 400 years of living by the teachings of the so called "Pauls of this world."
The man made beliefs and division started when the Catholics (RCC and EOC before 1054 schism) left the Lord's Church. That division led to multiple counts of division as time progressed.
As Selene posted, I was addressing the first three ecumenical gatherings. A "Coptic" patriarch led all three.
: LightHammer Mon Nov 22, 2010 - 14:19:13
]What are you talking about? That is not how Christ set things up at all. Christ gave the Gospel to the disciples and the first members of the Church. It was the charge of the Disciples, and those they chartered, to go out and spread the world. It was the task of the world to recieve (sic) that message.
Chester explained it perfectly with the prayers of Christ. You really need to stop trying to rearrange Christ's words and applying them to all believers when He was referring only to the Apostles. [/size]
Obviously, you have not read John 17, or else you would not have made such an egregious error. There are three parts to the High Priestly prayer of Jesus, John 17. In the first part which goes to verse 8, Jesus prays for Himself, as seen in these verses:
1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come;
glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:
3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was
There are others, but this suffices to make the point. Beginning in verse 9 is the second part, where he prays for the Disciples:
9
I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.
11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled
The final section begins in verse 18, and goes to the end of the chapter, whereby Jesus prays for ALL believers of ALL the ages
19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.
20
Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; 21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, Apostles were limited to those who saw the resurrected Christ:
- Of the men, therefore, who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John unto the day He was received up from us, of these must one become a witness with us of His Resurrection" (Acts 1:21-22). This narrative, which seems to come from an Aramaic Palestinian source like many other details given in the earlier chapter of Acts, was ancient and cannot be set aside. It is further strengthened by an objection made to St.Paul: because he was called in an extraordinary way to the Apostolate, he was obliged often to vindicate his Apostolic authority and proclaim that he had seen the Lord (1 Corinthians 9:1). Instruction and appointment by Jesus were, therefore, the regular conditions for the Apostolate. By way of exception. an extraordinary vocation, as in the case of Paul, or a choice by the Apostolic College, as in the case of Matthias, could suffice. Such an extraordinarily called or elected Apostle could preach Christ's doctrine and the Resurrection of the Lord as an authoritative witness.
Coppieters, H. (1907). Apostles. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved November 22, 2010 from New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm
Nihil Obstat. March 1, 1907. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
From this definition, one must assume that the Apostles were not considered as an exclusive group, but were included as part of the larger group, those mentioned in the third part.
Apparently I'm talking about things you can't understand or receive. The Reformers understood it, and carried forth God's truth to the present day. So did the Madame Guyon's of the RCC down thru the ages, but when this happened, they locked her up in prison, rather than let her influence affect the RCC hierarchy. Try reading her authbiograpry somethime. It will transform your life.
It will transform people ONLY if they try to
apply the mystical teachings she said. That is why she was imprisoned, she took seriously Galatians 2:20: Christ in you, the hope of glory. The official Catholic doctrine on this mystical union is that it becomes infused, like a tea bag in a cup of hot water, ONLY through the Eucharist, and departs when the person sins. While what she taught is true, the ramifications of her teachings can lead many astray.
Who cares about the man made beliefs of the Reformers?
Nice drive by!
The Reformers took what the Bible said I
N ITS ORIGINAL LANGUAGES and exegeted the words to see what things were true, and what things were tradition. Again, this is an egregious error because it does not comply with the accounts of the men who actually took the words seriously, and trusted those words more than they trusted tradition. In that sense, they were rather heroic, for they surely knew the fates of John Hus, and Mme Guyon.
Christ Himself set up the system of His Church, its leaders and hierchy[sic]. These "Paul's of this world" formed their own way of doing things because they could not trust in God to preserve His Church when evil try to destroy it.
Another egregious error, borne from non understanding of facts, but a parrot-like recitation of a faulty catechism, or a faulty high school CCD class.
You really need to stop relying on the Reformers so much and rely on Christ and the Disciples He handpicked. You guys act like you hav ethe key to all the doors when in reality the only fruits that the Reformation has brought forth is chaotic divisions on the very essential truths of the faith and violence. Protestant denomination exist in the thousands. So many of them teach different things in regards to the divinity of Jesus, the afterlife and even the requisits of salvation. That is all protestantism has to show for itself doctrinally after nearly 400 years of living by the teachings of the so called "Pauls of this world."
It is not a reliance on Reformers, it is a reliance upon the record (to continue the alliteration). When God had the writers of the Bible write canon, He did is in such a way that the autographa would be exact representations of what God wanted to convey. God did not stutter, nor did the prophets, historians, kings and others who wrote Scripture. That was because He wanted us to have a source book to which we could refer to determine the intentions and meanings that He wanted to convey to humanity for all eternity.
If God wanted to have an inerrant papacy, or inerrant church, then that would make the written accounts superfluous, by definition of the word "inerrant". That is the gist of the entire Reformation; it militates against a hierarchical, omniscient clergy who alone know the intents and purpose of God. In particular, the Reformation was very much against justification by works, insisting that just like Abraham, believers are justified apart from works, and that justification comes only from faith, and apart from any works of merit.
Therefore when we see such verses as
Titus 3:5-7 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life...
and
Ephesians 2:8-108 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them
and
Romans 4:4-5, 9-12 4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness...
9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.
11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised:
that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: 12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.
we must believe that God did not stutter, and meant what said, saying what he meant.
So then which/who is correct? Is it those who, through tradition and succession determine that works are required, or those who read the records of God's works, who say "This is what God meant when He had Paul say..."?.
Yes we know how Christ taught the disciples. The shame of it is how leaders fall into apostasy with the passing of time. And that they did after Constantine Excepted the Christian religion. So you can say all you want to that they have history but history does not record apostasy, only a succession of bishops.
So how do you figure that the Church fell into apostacy? I mean so many protestants make the claim but never expand on it.
I will say until my dying breath Jesus did not found his church upon political ambitions As long as the papacy is involved with the politics of this world it is of antichrist. They are bed mates and is why she is called the great harlot. I m sorry if that offends you. For he Life of me LH I cannot understand why you would not join the RCC as much you defend it.
Its funny how you can question my motives for defending the Mother Church whil at the same time stating one of the reasons why I don't submit to it. Come on now Mclees you are just like me. Look at the situation. Just look at it. Most protestants passionatley hate Catholics and the Church without knowing next to squat about any truth of it. Although you're not a Jehovah Witness would you allow people you care about to oppose them based on closed mindness and lies? How about a calvinist or lutheran or angilican? I would approach my brothers and sisters with the same level of disgust and objection if I witnessed the same opposition to any one or any belief without informed backing or an openmind.
: The Great Baptizmo Mon Nov 22, 2010 - 19:57:42
: LightHammer Mon Nov 22, 2010 - 14:19:13
: John 10:10 Mon Nov 22, 2010 - 13:48:28
: LightHammer Mon Nov 22, 2010 - 13:33:52
What are you talking about? That is not how Christ set things up at all. Christ gave the Gospel to the disciples and the first members of the Church. It was the charge of the Disciples, and those they chartered, to go out and spread the world. It was the task of the world to recieve that message.
Chester explained it perfectly with the prayers of Christ. You really need to stop trying to rearrange Christ's words and applying them to all believers when He was referring only to the Apostles.
Apparently I'm talking about things you can't understand or receive. The Reformers understood it, and carried forth God's truth to the present day. So did the Madame Guyon's of the RCC down thru the ages, but when this happened, they locked her up in prison, rather than let her influence affect the RCC hierarchy. Try reading her authbiograpry somethime. It will transform your life.
Who cares about the man made beliefs of the Reformers?
Christ Himself set up the system of His Church, its leaders and hierchy. These "Paul's of this world" formed their own way of doing things because they could not trust in God to preserve His Church when evil try to destroy it.
You really need to stop relying on the Reformers so much and rely on Christ and the Disciples He handpicked. You guys act like you hav ethe key to all the doors when in reality the only fruits that the Reformation has brought forth is chaotic divisions on the very essential truths of the faith and violence. Protestant denomination exist in the thousands. So many of them teach different things in regards to the divinity of Jesus, the afterlife and even the requisits of salvation. That is all protestantism has to show for itself doctrinally after nearly 400 years of living by the teachings of the so called "Pauls of this world."
The man made beliefs and division started when the Catholics (RCC and EOC before 1054 schism) left the Lord's Church. That division led to multiple counts of division as time progressed.
As Selene posted, I was addressing the first three ecumenical gatherings. A "Coptic" patriarch led all three.
The Council of Jerusalem was headed by Peter.
The Council of Nicaea was presided over by Constantine.
You don't know the nature of ecumenical councils do you? Councils can be called by any bs=ishop and held in any parish. It wasn't until the primacy of the Roman Pontiff was establishe that one presided all of the ecumenical councils. Just because a Coptic headed one of the three conucils you mentioned doesn't mean anything.
: John 10:10 Mon Nov 22, 2010 - 17:17:05
: LightHammer Mon Nov 22, 2010 - 14:19:13
: John 10:10 Mon Nov 22, 2010 - 13:48:28
: LightHammer Mon Nov 22, 2010 - 13:33:52
What are you talking about? That is not how Christ set things up at all. Christ gave the Gospel to the disciples and the first members of the Church. It was the charge of the Disciples, and those they chartered, to go out and spread the world. It was the task of the world to recieve that message.
Chester explained it perfectly with the prayers of Christ. You really need to stop trying to rearrange Christ's words and applying them to all believers when He was referring only to the Apostles.
Apparently I'm talking about things you can't understand or receive. The Reformers understood it, and carried forth God's truth to the present day. So did the Madame Guyon's of the RCC down thru the ages, but when this happened, they locked her up in prison, rather than let her influence affect the RCC hierarchy. Try reading her authbiograpry somethime. It will transform your life.
Who cares about the man made beliefs of the Reformers?
Christ Himself set up the system of His Church, its leaders and hierchy. These "Paul's of this world" formed their own way of doing things because they could not trust in God to preserve His Church when evil try to destroy it.
You really need to stop relying on the Reformers so much and rely on Christ and the Disciples He handpicked. You guys act like you hav ethe key to all the doors when in reality the only fruits that the Reformation has brought forth is chaotic divisions on the very essential truths of the faith and violence. Protestant denomination exist in the thousands. So many of them teach different things in regards to the divinity of Jesus, the afterlife and even the requisits of salvation. That is all protestantism has to show for itself doctrinally after nearly 400 years of living by the teachings of the so called "Pauls of this world."
Please show us anything that Peter, Paul or John said in these verses in God's Word that requires someone within the RCC or any other organization/group on earth to correctly explain and minister God's salvation that's in the Lord Jesus Christ to someone else?
Acts 2:38 Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins ; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
39 "For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself."
Rom 10:8 But what does it say? "THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, in your mouth and in your heart "-that is, the word of faith which we are preaching,
9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved ;
10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.
1 John 5:10 The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself ; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son.
11 And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.
12 He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life.
13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.
14 This is the confidence which we have before Him, that, if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us.
15 And if we know that He hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have the requests which we have asked from Him.
This is God's truth in God's Word that the Reformers proclaimed, and the RCC suppressed from the common man for 1500 years!
Ok among the "common man" was there not a huge epidemic of illiteracy? Is it also true that when the printing press was invented that the Church ebgan to print copies of Scared Scripture? Do you know how the Word was given to the common man before and a little after Scared Scripture was established, through word of mouth or tradition. Scared Tradition. You know I find it funny. You guys talk so much about the Church being so obsolete and evil when Christ spread His gospel soley by word of mouth. I find it funny that Christ never wrote any documents Himself. I find it funny that He trusted man enough to record His gospel of the hearts of the disciples but you prefer paper.lol I'm sorry its just funny. Christ Himself ordained the disciples and they organized the Church. Christ spoke and spoke and spoke again to the congregation of believers, the ekkelsia in parables concealing the secret of His Truth, but the one moment He speaks to the Disciples solely every protestant swears by heaven that Christ meant what He said in private for every believer. A disciples asks, "Lord why is it that you always speak to the people in parables" Christ replies, " For one alone are meant to be revealed the mysteries of the kingdom."
Hundreds of years later the greatest fruit of the Church is Scared Scripture. Now you hate the Church and but love her seed.lol The funniest part is that you label reformers like Luther as heroic when he petitioned to "edit" out certain words from scripture that seemed to contradict his views. Or wait forget Calvin who taught that salvation was only for the elect which were preordained beofre the establishing of the cosmos. The Catholic Church is so apostate and antichrist but the religio politico English Angilican Church is responsible for the Salem Witchtrails and giving pagans the Hortus Decorum. Mormons teach that the Native Americans are offsrping of Satan literally. Jehovah Witnesses teach that Jesus was merely man.
Protestants look at catholic history and see only the Inquisition, crusades and the sins of a few corrupt men. They always conveniently forget the fact that the Ctaholic Church is present in every hostile environment in the world providing free helathcare, charity and spreading God's Word.
Protesants look at their own history and always overlook the fact that there Bibles are incomplete collections of the ordained library of Scared Scripture. I just find it funny. Protestants always look at what God says and does and say,"No He must have it this way so this is how I'm going to o it."lol
So much chaos. It is so comical.
: LightHammer Tue Nov 23, 2010 - 04:42:17
: John 10:10 Mon Nov 22, 2010 - 17:17:05
: LightHammer Mon Nov 22, 2010 - 14:19:13
: John 10:10 Mon Nov 22, 2010 - 13:48:28
: LightHammer Mon Nov 22, 2010 - 13:33:52
What are you talking about? That is not how Christ set things up at all. Christ gave the Gospel to the disciples and the first members of the Church. It was the charge of the Disciples, and those they chartered, to go out and spread the world. It was the task of the world to recieve that message.
Chester explained it perfectly with the prayers of Christ. You really need to stop trying to rearrange Christ's words and applying them to all believers when He was referring only to the Apostles.
Apparently I'm talking about things you can't understand or receive. The Reformers understood it, and carried forth God's truth to the present day. So did the Madame Guyon's of the RCC down thru the ages, but when this happened, they locked her up in prison, rather than let her influence affect the RCC hierarchy. Try reading her authbiograpry somethime. It will transform your life.
Who cares about the man made beliefs of the Reformers?
Christ Himself set up the system of His Church, its leaders and hierchy. These "Paul's of this world" formed their own way of doing things because they could not trust in God to preserve His Church when evil try to destroy it.
You really need to stop relying on the Reformers so much and rely on Christ and the Disciples He handpicked. You guys act like you hav ethe key to all the doors when in reality the only fruits that the Reformation has brought forth is chaotic divisions on the very essential truths of the faith and violence. Protestant denomination exist in the thousands. So many of them teach different things in regards to the divinity of Jesus, the afterlife and even the requisits of salvation. That is all protestantism has to show for itself doctrinally after nearly 400 years of living by the teachings of the so called "Pauls of this world."
Please show us anything that Peter, Paul or John said in these verses in God's Word that requires someone within the RCC or any other organization/group on earth to correctly explain and minister God's salvation that's in the Lord Jesus Christ to someone else?
Acts 2:38 Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins ; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
39 "For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself."
Rom 10:8 But what does it say? "THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, in your mouth and in your heart "-that is, the word of faith which we are preaching,
9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved ;
10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.
1 John 5:10 The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself ; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son.
11 And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.
12 He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life.
13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.
14 This is the confidence which we have before Him, that, if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us.
15 And if we know that He hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have the requests which we have asked from Him.
This is God's truth in God's Word that the Reformers proclaimed, and the RCC suppressed from the common man for 1500 years!
Ok among the "common man" was there not a huge epidemic of illiteracy? Is it also true that when the printing press was invented that the Church ebgan to print copies of Scared Scripture? Do you know how the Word was given to the common man before and a little after Scared Scripture was established, through word of mouth or tradition. Scared Tradition. You know I find it funny. You guys talk so much about the Church being so obsolete and evil when Christ spread His gospel soley by word of mouth. I find it funny that Christ never wrote any documents Himself. I find it funny that He trusted man enough to record His gospel of the hearts of the disciples but you prefer paper.lol I'm sorry its just funny. Christ Himself ordained the disciples and they organized the Church. Christ spoke and spoke and spoke again to the congregation of believers, the ekkelsia in parables concealing the secret of His Truth, but the one moment He speaks to the Disciples solely every protestant swears by heaven that Christ meant what He said in private for every believer. A disciples asks, "Lord why is it that you always speak to the people in parables" Christ replies, " For one alone are meant to be revealed the mysteries of the kingdom."
Hundreds of years later the greatest fruit of the Church is Scared Scripture. Now you hate the Church and but love her seed.lol The funniest part is that you label reformers like Luther as heroic when he petitioned to "edit" out certain words from scripture that seemed to contradict his views. Or wait forget Calvin who taught that salvation was only for the elect which were preordained beofre the establishing of the cosmos. The Catholic Church is so apostate and antichrist but the religio politico English Angilican Church is responsible for the Salem Witchtrails and giving pagans the Hortus Decorum. Mormons teach that the Native Americans are offsrping of Satan literally. Jehovah Witnesses teach that Jesus was merely man.
Protestants look at catholic history and see only the Inquisition, crusades and the sins of a few corrupt men. They always conveniently forget the fact that the Ctaholic Church is present in every hostile environment in the world providing free helathcare, charity and spreading God's Word.
Protesants look at their own history and always overlook the fact that there Bibles are incomplete collections of the ordained library of Scared Scripture. I just find it funny. Protestants always look at what God says and does and say,"No He must have it this way so this is how I'm going to o it."lol
So much chaos. It is so comical.
I would like to ask you a question. Between the Catholics and the Protestants does God see as the worst sinners. You know I don't think God sees this as funny. The water is muddy on both sides of the river.
I see you still want to minimize the sins of the RCC while you point fingers back at the protestants. Do you not think there are good charitable Protestants. This is a childish game. I well guarantee that in that day God will not see Catholic Protestant but as scripture teaches every one will be accountable for his or her own walk.
The inquisition and the crusaders was no small thing and not just at the hands of few bad men but a very corrupt and wicked church system that was not ordained of Christ.
: John 10:10 Mon Nov 22, 2010 - 13:22:21
No leader should want to be a RCC leader, denomination leader, local church leader, or home group leader without authorization.
The leaders within the Church comprised of all true Christians everywhere who are spiritually re-born by the Holy Spirit thru faith in the Lord Jesus Christ first are called by God to carry forth His truth.
Then they find men who have carried forth God's faithful truth, and learn from them (2 Tim 2:2). For others this means going to seminary, then submit their learning credentials to those they want to serve with.
2 Tim 2:2 The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.
Not all Christians are the leaders of the Church. Jesus appointed some as apostles.
These apostles approved others to carry on the message. Other followers of Christ were not authorized to teach.
You can't just get a group of Christians together and start teaching a different gospel than the authorized teachers have taught.
: mclees8 Tue Nov 23, 2010 - 08:20:44
I would like to ask you a question. Between the Catholics and the Protestants does God see as the worst sinners. You know I don't think God sees this as funny. The water is muddy on both sides of the river.
I see you still want to minimize the sins of the RCC while you point fingers back at the protestants. Do you not think there are good charitable Protestants. This is a childish game. I well guarantee that in that day God will not see Catholic Protestant but as scripture teaches every one will be accountable for his or her own walk.
The inquisition and the crusaders was no small thing and not just at the hands of few bad men but a very corrupt and wicked church system that was not ordained of Christ.
All men are sinners. That is irrelevant to the authority of the Church.
Jesus started a Church. He promised to be with the Church until the end of the age and he promised that the Holy Spirit would lead the Church into all Truth.
Jesus keeps his promises.
Jesus did not promise that his followers would be sinless.
: chestertonrules Tue Nov 23, 2010 - 08:24:48
: mclees8 Tue Nov 23, 2010 - 08:20:44
I would like to ask you a question. Between the Catholics and the Protestants does God see as the worst sinners. You know I don't think God sees this as funny. The water is muddy on both sides of the river.
I see you still want to minimize the sins of the RCC while you point fingers back at the protestants. Do you not think there are good charitable Protestants. This is a childish game. I well guarantee that in that day God will not see Catholic Protestant but as scripture teaches every one will be accountable for his or her own walk.
The inquisition and the crusaders was no small thing and not just at the hands of few bad men but a very corrupt and wicked church system that was not ordained of Christ.
All men are sinners. That is irrelevant to the authority of the Church.
Jesus started a Church. He promised to be with the Church until the end of the age and he promised that the Holy Spirit would lead the Church into all Truth.
Jesus keeps his promises.
Jesus did not promise that his followers would be sinless.
Isn't that the point.
And yes Jesus did promise to be with his church to the end of the age. so then who is his church but those who believe and love him and yes by his holy Spirit he will guide his church into all truth
And yes Jesus keeps his promises. yet even the world that knows not Christ knows whats good and evil. How much more so those who say they do know Him. There shall be none more accountable then those who are of the leadership.
Do you think the Lord will just turn a blinded eye at the evil of leadership that says they represent Christ and should know better. A leadership that never truly repents of evil deeds it has done. Yet rather whitewash themselves and points to the evil at others.
: LightHammer Tue Nov 23, 2010 - 04:42:17
: John 10:10 Mon Nov 22, 2010 - 17:17:05
: LightHammer Mon Nov 22, 2010 - 14:19:13
: John 10:10 Mon Nov 22, 2010 - 13:48:28
: LightHammer Mon Nov 22, 2010 - 13:33:52
What are you talking about? That is not how Christ set things up at all. Christ gave the Gospel to the disciples and the first members of the Church. It was the charge of the Disciples, and those they chartered, to go out and spread the world. It was the task of the world to recieve that message.
Chester explained it perfectly with the prayers of Christ. You really need to stop trying to rearrange Christ's words and applying them to all believers when He was referring only to the Apostles.
Apparently I'm talking about things you can't understand or receive. The Reformers understood it, and carried forth God's truth to the present day. So did the Madame Guyon's of the RCC down thru the ages, but when this happened, they locked her up in prison, rather than let her influence affect the RCC hierarchy. Try reading her authbiograpry somethime. It will transform your life.
Who cares about the man made beliefs of the Reformers?
Christ Himself set up the system of His Church, its leaders and hierchy. These "Paul's of this world" formed their own way of doing things because they could not trust in God to preserve His Church when evil try to destroy it.
You really need to stop relying on the Reformers so much and rely on Christ and the Disciples He handpicked. You guys act like you hav ethe key to all the doors when in reality the only fruits that the Reformation has brought forth is chaotic divisions on the very essential truths of the faith and violence. Protestant denomination exist in the thousands. So many of them teach different things in regards to the divinity of Jesus, the afterlife and even the requisits of salvation. That is all protestantism has to show for itself doctrinally after nearly 400 years of living by the teachings of the so called "Pauls of this world."
Please show us anything that Peter, Paul or John said in these verses in God's Word that requires someone within the RCC or any other organization/group on earth to correctly explain and minister God's salvation that's in the Lord Jesus Christ to someone else?
Acts 2:38 Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins ; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
39 "For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself."
Rom 10:8 But what does it say? "THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, in your mouth and in your heart "-that is, the word of faith which we are preaching,
9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved ;
10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.
1 John 5:10 The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself ; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son.
11 And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.
12 He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life.
13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.
14 This is the confidence which we have before Him, that, if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us.
15 And if we know that He hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have the requests which we have asked from Him.
This is God's truth in God's Word that the Reformers proclaimed, and the RCC suppressed from the common man for 1500 years!
Ok among the "common man" was there not a huge epidemic of illiteracy? Is it also true that when the printing press was invented that the Church ebgan to print copies of Scared Scripture? Do you know how the Word was given to the common man before and a little after Scared Scripture was established, through word of mouth or tradition. Scared Tradition. You know I find it funny. You guys talk so much about the Church being so obsolete and evil when Christ spread His gospel soley by word of mouth. I find it funny that Christ never wrote any documents Himself. I find it funny that He trusted man enough to record His gospel of the hearts of the disciples but you prefer paper.lol I'm sorry its just funny. Christ Himself ordained the disciples and they organized the Church. Christ spoke and spoke and spoke again to the congregation of believers, the ekkelsia in parables concealing the secret of His Truth, but the one moment He speaks to the Disciples solely every protestant swears by heaven that Christ meant what He said in private for every believer. A disciples asks, "Lord why is it that you always speak to the people in parables" Christ replies, " For one alone are meant to be revealed the mysteries of the kingdom."
Hundreds of years later the greatest fruit of the Church is Scared Scripture. Now you hate the Church and but love her seed.lol The funniest part is that you label reformers like Luther as heroic when he petitioned to "edit" out certain words from scripture that seemed to contradict his views. Or wait forget Calvin who taught that salvation was only for the elect which were preordained beofre the establishing of the cosmos. The Catholic Church is so apostate and antichrist but the religio politico English Angilican Church is responsible for the Salem Witchtrails and giving pagans the Hortus Decorum. Mormons teach that the Native Americans are offsrping of Satan literally. Jehovah Witnesses teach that Jesus was merely man.
Protestants look at catholic history and see only the Inquisition, crusades and the sins of a few corrupt men. They always conveniently forget the fact that the Ctaholic Church is present in every hostile environment in the world providing free helathcare, charity and spreading God's Word.
Protesants look at their own history and always overlook the fact that there Bibles are incomplete collections of the ordained library of Scared Scripture. I just find it funny. Protestants always look at what God says and does and say,"No He must have it this way so this is how I'm going to o it."lol
So much chaos. It is so comical.
As usual, you did not answer the question Scripturally! Look at the Scriptures proclaimed by Peter, Paul and John, and
show us anything that Peter, Paul or John said in these verses in God's Word that requires someone within the RCC or any other organization/group on earth to correctly explain and minister God's salvation that's in the Lord Jesus Christ to someone else?
: chestertonrules Tue Nov 23, 2010 - 08:23:07
: John 10:10 Mon Nov 22, 2010 - 13:22:21
No leader should want to be a RCC leader, denomination leader, local church leader, or home group leader without authorization.
The leaders within the Church comprised of all true Christians everywhere who are spiritually re-born by the Holy Spirit thru faith in the Lord Jesus Christ first are called by God to carry forth His truth.
Then they find men who have carried forth God's faithful truth, and learn from them (2 Tim 2:2). For others this means going to seminary, then submit their learning credentials to those they want to serve with.
2 Tim 2:2 The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.
Not all Christians are the leaders of the Church. Jesus appointed some as apostles.
These apostles approved others to carry on the message. Other followers of Christ were not authorized to teach.
You can't just get a group of Christians together and start teaching a different gospel than the authorized teachers have taught.
Never said all Christians are leaders of the Church, just those "
who are spiritually re-born by the Holy Spirit thru faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and are then called by God to carry forth His truth." Maybe you would like to answer the question I posed to LH that he would not answer Scripturally?
Please show us anything that Peter, Paul or John said in these verses in God's Word that requires someone within the RCC or any other organization/group on earth to correctly explain and minister God's salvation that's in the Lord Jesus Christ to someone else?
Acts 2:38 Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins ; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
39 "For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself."
Rom 10:8 But what does it say? "THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, in your mouth and in your heart "-that is, the word of faith which we are preaching,
9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved ;
10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.
1 John 5:10 The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself ; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son.
11 And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.
12 He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life.
13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.
14 This is the confidence which we have before Him, that, if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us.
15 And if we know that He hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have the requests which we have asked from Him.
This is God's truth in God's Word that the Reformers proclaimed, and the RCC suppressed from the common man for 1500 years!
: John 10:10 Tue Nov 23, 2010 - 10:11:58
Never said all Christians are leaders of the Church, just those "who are spiritually re-born by the Holy Spirit thru faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and are then called by God to carry forth His truth."
Maybe you would like to answer the question I posed to LH that he would not answer Scripturally?
Christians that are not appointed by the successors of the apostles are self appointed leaders, and therefore, they have no teaching authority.
Acts 15
23 With them they sent the following letter:
The apostles and elders, your brothers,
To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:
Greetings.
24 We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said.
John 17
18 As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world. 19 For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified.
20 "My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you.
2 Tim 2:2
And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.
1 John 4
6We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.
Matthew 18
17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
Luke 10
16"He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."
John 20
21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."
1 Timothy 3
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.
2 Thes 2
15So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.
For much of its life, the RCC placed itself as mediator between God and man, proclaiming that because of its apostolic succession, it was the only means whereby God saved sinners and imparted God's life to the people.
In so doing, because it considered itself infallible, never allowing un-Scriptural beliefs/practices into the RCC, the RCC became a law unto itself, proclaiming that its power and control were given directly by God, thus end of story.
When the truth light began to shine upon the Reformers starting about 600 years ago, they saw this truth of Scripture,
1 Tim 2:5-6 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time.
And this Scriptural truth has transformed the life of the Body of Christ (the Church) ever since.
Does God then need leaders in the Body of Christ? Yes, He does, for Paul went on to say this,
1 Tim 2:7 For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying ) as a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.
Eph 4:11-12 And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ.
Does God do this ONLY thru "apostolic succession
: John 10:10 Tue Nov 23, 2010 - 14:16:54
For much of its life, the RCC placed itself as mediator between God and man, proclaiming that because of its apostolic succession, it was the only means whereby God saved sinners and imparted God's life to the people.
Jesus started the Church. The Church didn't start itself.
John 20
21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven;
if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."Matthew 16
17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock
I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven;
whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
: John 10:10 Tue Nov 23, 2010 - 10:01:26
: LightHammer Tue Nov 23, 2010 - 04:42:17
: John 10:10 Mon Nov 22, 2010 - 17:17:05
: LightHammer Mon Nov 22, 2010 - 14:19:13
: John 10:10 Mon Nov 22, 2010 - 13:48:28
: LightHammer Mon Nov 22, 2010 - 13:33:52
What are you talking about? That is not how Christ set things up at all. Christ gave the Gospel to the disciples and the first members of the Church. It was the charge of the Disciples, and those they chartered, to go out and spread the world. It was the task of the world to recieve that message.
Chester explained it perfectly with the prayers of Christ. You really need to stop trying to rearrange Christ's words and applying them to all believers when He was referring only to the Apostles.
Apparently I'm talking about things you can't understand or receive. The Reformers understood it, and carried forth God's truth to the present day. So did the Madame Guyon's of the RCC down thru the ages, but when this happened, they locked her up in prison, rather than let her influence affect the RCC hierarchy. Try reading her authbiograpry somethime. It will transform your life.
Who cares about the man made beliefs of the Reformers?
Christ Himself set up the system of His Church, its leaders and hierchy. These "Paul's of this world" formed their own way of doing things because they could not trust in God to preserve His Church when evil try to destroy it.
You really need to stop relying on the Reformers so much and rely on Christ and the Disciples He handpicked. You guys act like you hav ethe key to all the doors when in reality the only fruits that the Reformation has brought forth is chaotic divisions on the very essential truths of the faith and violence. Protestant denomination exist in the thousands. So many of them teach different things in regards to the divinity of Jesus, the afterlife and even the requisits of salvation. That is all protestantism has to show for itself doctrinally after nearly 400 years of living by the teachings of the so called "Pauls of this world."
Please show us anything that Peter, Paul or John said in these verses in God's Word that requires someone within the RCC or any other organization/group on earth to correctly explain and minister God's salvation that's in the Lord Jesus Christ to someone else?
Acts 2:38 Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins ; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
39 "For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself."
Rom 10:8 But what does it say? "THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, in your mouth and in your heart "-that is, the word of faith which we are preaching,
9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved ;
10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.
1 John 5:10 The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself ; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son.
11 And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.
12 He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life.
13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.
14 This is the confidence which we have before Him, that, if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us.
15 And if we know that He hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have the requests which we have asked from Him.
This is God's truth in God's Word that the Reformers proclaimed, and the RCC suppressed from the common man for 1500 years!
Ok among the "common man" was there not a huge epidemic of illiteracy? Is it also true that when the printing press was invented that the Church ebgan to print copies of Scared Scripture? Do you know how the Word was given to the common man before and a little after Scared Scripture was established, through word of mouth or tradition. Scared Tradition. You know I find it funny. You guys talk so much about the Church being so obsolete and evil when Christ spread His gospel soley by word of mouth. I find it funny that Christ never wrote any documents Himself. I find it funny that He trusted man enough to record His gospel of the hearts of the disciples but you prefer paper.lol I'm sorry its just funny. Christ Himself ordained the disciples and they organized the Church. Christ spoke and spoke and spoke again to the congregation of believers, the ekkelsia in parables concealing the secret of His Truth, but the one moment He speaks to the Disciples solely every protestant swears by heaven that Christ meant what He said in private for every believer. A disciples asks, "Lord why is it that you always speak to the people in parables" Christ replies, " For one alone are meant to be revealed the mysteries of the kingdom."
Hundreds of years later the greatest fruit of the Church is Scared Scripture. Now you hate the Church and but love her seed.lol The funniest part is that you label reformers like Luther as heroic when he petitioned to "edit" out certain words from scripture that seemed to contradict his views. Or wait forget Calvin who taught that salvation was only for the elect which were preordained beofre the establishing of the cosmos. The Catholic Church is so apostate and antichrist but the religio politico English Angilican Church is responsible for the Salem Witchtrails and giving pagans the Hortus Decorum. Mormons teach that the Native Americans are offsrping of Satan literally. Jehovah Witnesses teach that Jesus was merely man.
Protestants look at catholic history and see only the Inquisition, crusades and the sins of a few corrupt men. They always conveniently forget the fact that the Ctaholic Church is present in every hostile environment in the world providing free helathcare, charity and spreading God's Word.
Protesants look at their own history and always overlook the fact that there Bibles are incomplete collections of the ordained library of Scared Scripture. I just find it funny. Protestants always look at what God says and does and say,"No He must have it this way so this is how I'm going to o it."lol
So much chaos. It is so comical.
As usual, you did not answer the question Scripturally! Look at the Scriptures proclaimed by Peter, Paul and John, and show us anything that Peter, Paul or John said in these verses in God's Word that requires someone within the RCC or any other organization/group on earth to correctly explain and minister God's salvation that's in the Lord Jesus Christ to someone else?
Whoa whoa I will not take the bait.
You dispute the commission to spread the gospel? Really? Are you seriously asking me to provide scriptural backing for it?
The RCC does not claim that it only holds the key to salvation. It claims that it alone holds the fullness of Truth and that it alone holds the authority to teach. So there's no scriptural support to back up your false claims.
Do you dispute the fact that the Apostles or those commissioned by them are the only ones who taught and led in the early church?
: chestertonrules Tue Nov 23, 2010 - 14:38:37
: John 10:10 Tue Nov 23, 2010 - 14:16:54
For much of its life, the RCC placed itself as mediator between God and man, proclaiming that because of its apostolic succession, it was the only means whereby God saved sinners and imparted God's life to the people.
Jesus started the Church. The Church didn't start itself.
John 20
21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."
Matthew 16
17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
When Jesus spoke the words to His disciples in John 20:23, He was reminding them and us of the truth He spoke in Matt 6:14-15,
"For if you forgive others for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions."Jesus was not giving the power to forgive man's sins to His disciples, or to any apostolic succession of men. Only our heavenly Father can forgive our sins when sinners repent and trust in the blood of Jesus to cover their sins. When any person, disciple, Believer or not, deliberately chooses to
NOT FORGIVE others their trespasses, our heavenly Father will not forgive us our sins.
Protestants will forever disagree with the RCC that the Church is built on the back of Peter and his supposed successors. Protestants will forever proclaim that the Church comprised of all true Christians everywhere who are spiritually re-born by the Holy Spirit thru faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, and that everyone can draw near to God because
"the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom" (Mark 15:38).
Hebrews 4:16
Therefore let us draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.The RCC believes and lives as though only its priests can enter the temple and the the holy of holies for the people.
: John 10:10 Tue Nov 23, 2010 - 16:02:13
: chestertonrules Tue Nov 23, 2010 - 14:38:37
: John 10:10 Tue Nov 23, 2010 - 14:16:54
For much of its life, the RCC placed itself as mediator between God and man, proclaiming that because of its apostolic succession, it was the only means whereby God saved sinners and imparted God's life to the people.
Jesus started the Church. The Church didn't start itself.
John 20
21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."
Matthew 16
17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
When Jesus spoke the words to His disciples in John 20:23, He was reminding them and us of the truth He spoke in Matt 6:14-15,
"For if you forgive others for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions."
Jesus was not giving the power to forgive man's sins to His disciples, or to any apostolic succession of men. Only our heavenly Father can forgive our sins when sinners repent and trust in the blood of Jesus to cover their sins. When any person, disciple, Believer or not, deliberately chooses to NOT FORGIVE others their trespasses, our heavenly Father will not forgive us our sins.
Protestants will forever disagree with the RCC that the Church is built on the back of Peter and his supposed successors. Protestants will forever proclaim that the Church comprised of all true Christians everywhere who are spiritually re-born by the Holy Spirit thru faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, and that everyone can draw near to God because "the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom" (Mark 15:38).
Hebrews 4:16 Therefore let us draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.
The RCC believes and lives as though only its priests can enter the temple and the the holy of holies for the people.
Again another lie.
Catholics believe that as a catholic they are meant to uphold the standards of Christ which the Church also holds to be its own. So as a catholic when one sins they sin against not just heaven but against the Church. To seek forgiveness of the Father catholics believe as we all do that we can go before Him in a quoet place privately. However to recieve forgiveness of the Church that they have porrly represented by sinning they seek out the priest who is the frontline of Church authority.
Protestants have the same concept. If I get drunk and go out driving and kill a four our of a family of five, I seek forgiveness not just of God but of those who I have offended as well. I go to the surviving memeber of the family and beg their forgiveness for my offenses. The Catholic Church teaches that because they are one family on one accord that when they sin the world will view them not as individuals but as a part of a whole and therefore each part is accountable to the other parts as a whole.
Its actually pretty scriptural. When one brother sins confront the brother and if he will not listen gather two or three more. If he will still not listen take it to the Church. If he will still not listen consider him a pagan.
This is saying that we are accountable to each other because we together make up one Body and therefore our actions affect how others view the collective.
Like I said do some more legitimate research and quit looking a the shallow end of a vast sea of beliefs. You might begin to understand why I feel my fellows protestants are so thickheaded and basically out of line.
: LightHammer Tue Nov 23, 2010 - 15:19:29
Do you dispute the fact that the Apostles or those commissioned by them are the only ones who taught and led in the early church?
No, I don't dispute that. But when the Apostles basically packed it in in Jerusalem, not carrying out the great commission (Matt 28:18-20) commanded by Jesus, God allowed great persecution to fall upon on them at Jerusalem, and they had to leave or perish. In the process God raised up Paul, Barnabus, Mark, Timothy, Apolos, and many many others for the last 2000 years to carry out the great commission, and leading the Body of Christ in paths of righteousness for His name's sake.
: John 10:10 Tue Nov 23, 2010 - 16:14:05
: LightHammer Tue Nov 23, 2010 - 15:19:29
Do you dispute the fact that the Apostles or those commissioned by them are the only ones who taught and led in the early church?
No, I don't dispute that. But when the Apostles basically packed it in in Jerusalem, not carrying out the great commission (Matt 28:18-20) commanded by Jesus, God allowed great persecution to fall upon on them at Jerusalem, and they had to leave or perish. In the process God raised up Paul, Barnabus, Mark, Timothy, Apolos, and many many others for the last 2000 years to carry out the great commission, and leading the Body of Christ in paths of righteousness for His name's sake.
But you see they did carry on the Great Commission. Peter started church in Antioch and Rome. The disciples spread the gospel far. They established all over the place. There are seven great patriarchates that have its roots in a disciple. Look them up and see for yourself brother. The disciples didn't stop in Jerusalem and they didn't stop after they died. They choose others to carry on in their place before they died. Seriously though look up the seven great patriarchates and you will see how far the apostles went beyond Jerusalem.
: LightHammer Tue Nov 23, 2010 - 16:12:37
Again another lie.
Catholics believe that as a catholic they are meant to uphold the standards of Christ which the Church also holds to be its own. So as a catholic when one sins they sin against not just heaven but against the Church. To seek forgiveness of the Father catholics believe as we all do that we can go before Him in a quoet place privately. However to recieve forgiveness of the Church that they have porrly represented by sinning they seek out the priest who is the frontline of Church authority.
Protestants have the same concept. If I get drunk and go out driving and kill a four our of a family of five, I seek forgiveness not just of God but of those who I have offended as well. I go to the surviving memeber of the family and beg their forgiveness for my offenses. The Catholic Church teaches that because they are one family on one accord that when they sin the world will view them not as individuals but as a part of a whole and therefore each part is accountable to the other parts as a whole.
Its actually pretty scriptural. When one brother sins confront the brother and if he will not listen gather two or three more. If he will still not listen take it to the Church. If he will still not listen consider him a pagan.
This is saying that we are accountable to each other because we together make up one Body and therefore our actions affect how others view the collective.
Like I said do some more legitimate research and quit looking a the shallow end of a vast sea of beliefs. You might begin to understand why I feel my fellows protestants are so thickheaded and basically out of line.
All sin is basically sin against God. When we sin against our fellow man, we go to them directly and ask for forgiveness, and then make restitution as needed,
not to a priest.By committing the same sins over and over again, and then going to a priest over and over every week makes confession of sin a mockery before God.
David declares this in Psa 19:13,
Also keep back Your servant from presumptuous sins; Let them not rule over me; Then I will be blameless, And I shall be acquitted of great transgression.Presumptuous sins are sins that we deliberately commit, thinking we can always go to God or a priest and receive forgiveness. What happens when our hearts are hardened, and we no longer seek God's forgiveness? What happens when Catholics no longer go to a priest and confess their sins?
: LightHammer Tue Nov 23, 2010 - 16:21:47
: John 10:10 Tue Nov 23, 2010 - 16:14:05
: LightHammer Tue Nov 23, 2010 - 15:19:29
Do you dispute the fact that the Apostles or those commissioned by them are the only ones who taught and led in the early church?
No, I don't dispute that. But when the Apostles basically packed it in in Jerusalem, not carrying out the great commission (Matt 28:18-20) commanded by Jesus, God allowed great persecution to fall upon on them at Jerusalem, and they had to leave or perish. In the process God raised up Paul, Barnabus, Mark, Timothy, Apolos, and many many others for the last 2000 years to carry out the great commission, and leading the Body of Christ in paths of righteousness for His name's sake.
But you see they did carry on the Great Commission. Peter started church in Antioch and Rome. The disciples spread the gospel far. They established all over the place. There are seven great patriarchates that have its roots in a disciple. Look them up and see for yourself brother. The disciples didn't stop in Jerusalem and they didn't stop after they died. They choose others to carry on in their place before they died. Seriously though look up the seven great patriarchates and you will see how far the apostles went beyond Jerusalem.
My Bible says that Stephen started the church at Antioch (Acts 11:19), and Paul the church at Rome (Acts 23:11).
If you want to read how God kept the Gospel of Christ alive and well in the lives of those He called to Himself apart from the RCC, read "The Torch of the testimony" by John W Kennedy.
If you want to read how God kept the Gospel of Christ alive and well in the lives of those He called to Himself within the RCC, read "Jeanne Guyon: An Autobiography."
L H states
You dispute the commission to spread the gospel? Really? Are you seriously asking me to provide scriptural backing for it?
The RCC does not claim that it only holds the key to salvation. It claims that it alone holds the fullness of Truth and that it alone holds the authority to teach. So there's no scriptural support to back up your false claims.
Do you dispute the fact that the Apostles or those commissioned by them are the only ones who taught and led in the early church?
Mike
I know you were not speaking to me but if i may say, i have no dispute on who was commissioned spread the Gospel and that they were the only ones who taught. My problem in your comments is the RCC only having the fullness of truth. I have asked this before but no one answers. Please explain why you say that only those of the RCC has the fullness truth and what is this fullness of truth you say only RC's can have.
This is an RC slicky. Its called changing their stand when it fits better. It is well known that the RCC once held to the claim they were the only way of salvation. As i have said before this stand was only changed recently and now you say the RCC never claimed to be the way of salvation but only RC's have the fullness. We don't even know how you interpret this and Im not so sure you do but you can make a statement that know one can interpret where it comes from or what it really is and why only the RCC has it. Where is this stated in the New testament ?
John 1: 15,17 states That the fullness of grace came by the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus is the fullness of Gods grace and all who have received him have received of that fullness
15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me. 16 And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace. 17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
So now what is this fullness and what does this make the protestants that have recieved Christ by that same measure of grace
Your turn
: John 10:10 Tue Nov 23, 2010 - 16:02:13
John 20
21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."[/b][/u]
When Jesus spoke the words to His disciples in John 20:23, He was reminding them and us of the truth He spoke in Matt 6:14-15,
"For if you forgive others for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions."Jesus was not giving the power to forgive man's sins to His disciples, or to any apostolic succession of men.
[/quote]
You deny the crystal clear words of scripture.
Your interpretation has nothing to do with what Jesus said.
: chestertonrules Tue Nov 23, 2010 - 21:49:20
: John 10:10 Tue Nov 23, 2010 - 16:02:13
John 20
21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."[/b][/u]
When Jesus spoke the words to His disciples in John 20:23, He was reminding them and us of the truth He spoke in Matt 6:14-15,
"For if you forgive others for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions."
Jesus was not giving the power to forgive man's sins to His disciples, or to any apostolic succession of men.
You deny the crystal clear words of scripture.
Your interpretation has nothing to do with what Jesus said.
[/quote]
I have question Chesterton. If then a man is not repentant. yet the clergy forgives him, is he forgiven?
: chestertonrules Tue Nov 23, 2010 - 21:49:20
: John 10:10 Tue Nov 23, 2010 - 16:02:13
John 20
21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."[/b][/u]
When Jesus spoke the words to His disciples in John 20:23, He was reminding them and us of the truth He spoke in Matt 6:14-15,
"For if you forgive others for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions."
Jesus was not giving the power to forgive man's sins to His disciples, or to any apostolic succession of men.
You deny the crystal clear words of scripture.
Your interpretation has nothing to do with what Jesus said.
You know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God. Only God has the power to forgive sins.
John 1:29 The next day he saw Jesus coming to him and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world !
1 John 1:7 but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.Even the ungodly scribes and Pharisees knew that God alone forgives sin.
Luke 5:21 The scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, "Who is this man who speaks blasphemies ? Who can forgive sins, but God alone ?"
22 But Jesus, aware of their reasonings, answered and said to them, "Why are you reasoning in your hearts ?
23 "Which is easier, to say, 'Your sins have been forgiven you,' or to say, 'Get up and walk '?
24 "But, so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins,"-He said to the paralytic -"I say to you, get up, and pick up your stretcher and go home."
25 Immediately he got up before them, and picked up what he had been lying on, and went home glorifying God.
26 They were all struck with astonishment and began glorifying God ; and they were filled with fear, saying, "We have seen remarkable things today."When man forgives others their sins and we pray for sinners, it does two things:
(1) God forgives us our sins
(2) It allows the Holy Spirit to bring the sinner under conviction of their sins
Then sinners must come to the foot of the cross and receive for themselves God's salvation that's in Christ Jesus.
If some want to believe that forgiveness of their sins comes from man or the RCC, that is their choice, but the Lord will say differently when they stand before Him on judgment day.
: mclees8 Wed Nov 24, 2010 - 08:31:15
: chestertonrules Tue Nov 23, 2010 - 21:49:20
: John 10:10 Tue Nov 23, 2010 - 16:02:13
John 20
21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."[/b][/u]
When Jesus spoke the words to His disciples in John 20:23, He was reminding them and us of the truth He spoke in Matt 6:14-15,
"For if you forgive others for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions."
Jesus was not giving the power to forgive man's sins to His disciples, or to any apostolic succession of men.
You deny the crystal clear words of scripture.
Your interpretation has nothing to do with what Jesus said.
I have question Chesterton. If then a man is not repentant. yet the clergy forgives him, is he forgiven?
[/quote]
Contrition is necessary for forgiveness.
Here's a good summary:
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c2a4.htm
: John 10:10 Wed Nov 24, 2010 - 09:14:58
: chestertonrules Tue Nov 23, 2010 - 21:49:20
: John 10:10 Tue Nov 23, 2010 - 16:02:13
John 20
21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."[/b][/u]
When Jesus spoke the words to His disciples in John 20:23, He was reminding them and us of the truth He spoke in Matt 6:14-15,
"For if you forgive others for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions."
Jesus was not giving the power to forgive man's sins to His disciples, or to any apostolic succession of men.
You deny the crystal clear words of scripture.
Your interpretation has nothing to do with what Jesus said.
You know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God. Only God has the power to forgive sins.
[
TRue enough. God also has the power to appoint subordinates to act in his name.
Only God forgives sin
1441 Only God forgives sins.39 Since he is the Son of God, Jesus says of himself, "The Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins" and exercises this divine power: "Your sins are forgiven."40 Further, by virtue of his divine authority he gives this power to men to exercise in his name.41
1442 Christ has willed that in her prayer and life and action his whole Church should be the sign and instrument of the forgiveness and reconciliation that he acquired for us at the price of his blood. But he entrusted the exercise of the power of absolution to the apostolic ministry which he charged with the "ministry of reconciliation."42 The apostle is sent out "on behalf of Christ" with "God making his appeal" through him and pleading: "Be reconciled to God."43
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c2a4.htm
: chestertonrules Wed Nov 24, 2010 - 09:16:59
: John 10:10 Wed Nov 24, 2010 - 09:14:58
: chestertonrules Tue Nov 23, 2010 - 21:49:20
: John 10:10 Tue Nov 23, 2010 - 16:02:13
John 20
21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."
When Jesus spoke the words to His disciples in John 20:23, He was reminding them and us of the truth He spoke in Matt 6:14-15,
"For if you forgive others for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions."
Jesus was not giving the power to forgive man's sins to His disciples, or to any apostolic succession of men.
You deny the crystal clear words of scripture.
Your interpretation has nothing to do with what Jesus said.
You know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God. Only God has the power to forgive sins.
John 1:29 The next day he saw Jesus coming to him and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world !
1 John 1:7 but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.
Even the ungodly scribes and Pharisees knew that God alone forgives sin.
Luke 5:21 The scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, "Who is this man who speaks blasphemies ? Who can forgive sins, but God alone ?"
22 But Jesus, aware of their reasonings, answered and said to them, "Why are you reasoning in your hearts ?
23 "Which is easier, to say, 'Your sins have been forgiven you,' or to say, 'Get up and walk '?
24 "But, so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins,"-He said to the paralytic -"I say to you, get up, and pick up your stretcher and go home."
25 Immediately he got up before them, and picked up what he had been lying on, and went home glorifying God.
26 They were all struck with astonishment and began glorifying God ; and they were filled with fear, saying, "We have seen remarkable things today."
When man forgives others their sins and we pray for sinners, it does two things:
(1) God forgives us our sins
(2) It allows the Holy Spirit to bring the sinner under conviction of their sins
Then sinners must come to the foot of the cross and receive for themselves God's salvation that's in Christ Jesus.
If some want to believe that forgiveness of their sins comes from man or the RCC, that is their choice, but the Lord will say differently when they stand before Him on judgment day.
True enough. God also has the power to appoint subordinates to act in his name.
Only God forgives sin
1441 Only God forgives sins.39 Since he is the Son of God, Jesus says of himself, "The Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins" and exercises this divine power: "Your sins are forgiven."40 Further, by virtue of his divine authority he gives this power to men to exercise in his name.41
1442 Christ has willed that in her prayer and life and action his whole Church should be the sign and instrument of the forgiveness and reconciliation that he acquired for us at the price of his blood. But he entrusted the exercise of the power of absolution to the apostolic ministry which he charged with the "ministry of reconciliation."42 The apostle is sent out "on behalf of Christ" with "God making his appeal" through him and pleading: "Be reconciled to God."43
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c2a4.htm
We will see how well this works for you and others that believe this on Judgment Day.
As for me and my house, we trust
ONLY in the blood of Jesus to cover our sins, assurance that our names have not been erased from the Lamb's book of Life, and the Lord will confess our name before our heavenly Father and before His angels (Rev 3:5).
: John 10:10 Wed Nov 24, 2010 - 09:59:20
: chestertonrules Wed Nov 24, 2010 - 09:16:59
: John 10:10 Wed Nov 24, 2010 - 09:14:58
: chestertonrules Tue Nov 23, 2010 - 21:49:20
: John 10:10 Tue Nov 23, 2010 - 16:02:13
John 20
21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."
When Jesus spoke the words to His disciples in John 20:23, He was reminding them and us of the truth He spoke in Matt 6:14-15,
"For if you forgive others for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions."
Jesus was not giving the power to forgive man's sins to His disciples, or to any apostolic succession of men.
You deny the crystal clear words of scripture.
Your interpretation has nothing to do with what Jesus said.
You know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God. Only God has the power to forgive sins.
John 1:29 The next day he saw Jesus coming to him and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world !
1 John 1:7 but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.
Even the ungodly scribes and Pharisees knew that God alone forgives sin.
Luke 5:21 The scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, "Who is this man who speaks blasphemies ? Who can forgive sins, but God alone ?"
22 But Jesus, aware of their reasonings, answered and said to them, "Why are you reasoning in your hearts ?
23 "Which is easier, to say, 'Your sins have been forgiven you,' or to say, 'Get up and walk '?
24 "But, so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins,"-He said to the paralytic -"I say to you, get up, and pick up your stretcher and go home."
25 Immediately he got up before them, and picked up what he had been lying on, and went home glorifying God.
26 They were all struck with astonishment and began glorifying God ; and they were filled with fear, saying, "We have seen remarkable things today."
When man forgives others their sins and we pray for sinners, it does two things:
(1) God forgives us our sins
(2) It allows the Holy Spirit to bring the sinner under conviction of their sins
Then sinners must come to the foot of the cross and receive for themselves God's salvation that's in Christ Jesus.
If some want to believe that forgiveness of their sins comes from man or the RCC, that is their choice, but the Lord will say differently when they stand before Him on judgment day.
True enough. God also has the power to appoint subordinates to act in his name.
Only God forgives sin
1441 Only God forgives sins.39 Since he is the Son of God, Jesus says of himself, "The Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins" and exercises this divine power: "Your sins are forgiven."40 Further, by virtue of his divine authority he gives this power to men to exercise in his name.41
1442 Christ has willed that in her prayer and life and action his whole Church should be the sign and instrument of the forgiveness and reconciliation that he acquired for us at the price of his blood. But he entrusted the exercise of the power of absolution to the apostolic ministry which he charged with the "ministry of reconciliation."42 The apostle is sent out "on behalf of Christ" with "God making his appeal" through him and pleading: "Be reconciled to God."43
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c2a4.htm
We will see how well this works for you and others that believe this on Judgment Day.
As for me and my house, we trust ONLY in the blood of Jesus to cover our sins, assurance that our names have not been erased from the Lamb's book of Life, and the Lord will confess our name before our heavenly Father and before His angels (Rev 3:5).
I have one more question for Chesterton. Lets say a man is far away from any Bishop or priest but he is hurt and knows he is dying. In his final moments he has no one but Christ to absolve him for his sins. So he calls upon the name of Jesus and not just lightly but with a true broken Spirit. Will he find forgiveness even if there was no priest there for him. How many die without absolution yet you will still find them in heaven?
When the Reformers saw the light of God's truth that "there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus
: mclees8 Wed Nov 24, 2010 - 10:15:05
I have one more question for Chesterton. Lets say a man is far away from any Bishop or priest but he is hurt and knows he is dying. In his final moments he has no one but Christ to absolve him for his sins. So he calls upon the name of Jesus and not just lightly but with a true broken Spirit. Will he find forgiveness even if there was no priest there for him. How many die without absolution yet you will still find them in heaven?
One must determine to obey all God's commandments, and one of those commandments is that one must confess all mortal sins committed after baptism to a duly authorized priest. If there is no priest to be had, then God accepts the will for the deed. He will not accept the will for the deed if there is a duly authorized priest available. Remember the act of perfect contrition always takes away all sins immediately.
: chestertonrules Wed Nov 24, 2010 - 12:04:23
: mclees8 Wed Nov 24, 2010 - 10:15:05
I have one more question for Chesterton. Lets say a man is far away from any Bishop or priest but he is hurt and knows he is dying. In his final moments he has no one but Christ to absolve him for his sins. So he calls upon the name of Jesus and not just lightly but with a true broken Spirit. Will he find forgiveness even if there was no priest there for him. How many die without absolution yet you will still find them in heaven?
One must determine to obey all God's commandments, and one of those commandments is that one must confess all mortal sins committed after baptism to a duly authorized priest. If there is no priest to be had, then God accepts the will for the deed. He will not accept the will for the deed if there is a duly authorized priest available. Remember the act of perfect contrition always takes away all sins immediately.
This may be RCC dogma, but not Scriptural truth.
Since
"the act of perfect contrition (to God) always takes away all sins immediately," what more can any Bishop or priest do for you than God can do for you?
: chestertonrules Wed Nov 24, 2010 - 09:16:59
: John 10:10 Wed Nov 24, 2010 - 09:14:58
: chestertonrules Tue Nov 23, 2010 - 21:49:20
: John 10:10 Tue Nov 23, 2010 - 16:02:13
John 20
21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."[/b][/u]
When Jesus spoke the words to His disciples in John 20:23, He was reminding them and us of the truth He spoke in Matt 6:14-15,
"For if you forgive others for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions."
Jesus was not giving the power to forgive man's sins to His disciples, or to any apostolic succession of men.
You deny the crystal clear words of scripture.
Your interpretation has nothing to do with what Jesus said.
You know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God. Only God has the power to forgive sins.
[
TRue enough. God also has the power to appoint subordinates to act in his name.
I suppose, although what is undeniable is that He never appointed the RCC to do anything for anything in the name of anyone; He never so much as ever MENTIONED it.
Nor did He ever so delegate or authorize or appoint the clergy correctly ordained by the Catholic denomination (and perhaps also the EO); He never so much as even MENTIONED them or it.
What Jesus DID do is tell all the disciples to pray, ".... forgive us our sins AS WE OURSELVES FORGIVE THOSE who sin against us." If He is not telling us to forgive sins, then by praying this petition, we are asking God to NOT forgive us because we cannot forgive others.
So, what IS clear is that all disciples not only may forgive but our forgiveness hinges on such. And that He never limited forgivensess to priests ordained into the RCC denomination.
Now, I have no idea what this has to do with the heads of any specific denomination: mine, the RCC, the LDS or any other.
.
: chestertonrules Wed Nov 24, 2010 - 12:04:23
: mclees8 Wed Nov 24, 2010 - 10:15:05
I have one more question for Chesterton. Lets say a man is far away from any Bishop or priest but he is hurt and knows he is dying. In his final moments he has no one but Christ to absolve him for his sins. So he calls upon the name of Jesus and not just lightly but with a true broken Spirit. Will he find forgiveness even if there was no priest there for him. How many die without absolution yet you will still find them in heaven?
One must determine to obey all God's commandments, and one of those commandments is that one must confess all mortal sins committed after baptism to a duly authorized priest. If there is no priest to be had, then God accepts the will for the deed. He will not accept the will for the deed if there is a duly authorized priest available. Remember the act of perfect contrition always takes away all sins immediately.
I have one other question then.
Heb 4:16
3 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do. 14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. 1
5 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. 16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need. Listen if one feels he needs to to to confessio or have absolution because he was taught this. thenlet Him do so. but this formula is not perfect in every case. It is Godly sorrow that works repentance. in the verse above it states that our sins are naked before the Lord who know all things about us personally. We are then instructed that we are now able to come to the Lord Jesus and his throne of grace without fear so we can obtain mercy and forgiveness in our time of need.
It says nothing about that one must go to the Priest to confess his sin. I find i have to almost pray daily over my weaknesses. Many time the lord lets me know that he hears me when I read my devotional and it states just what I needed as if the Lord was sitting next to me. I am always awed when he does this.
so it you want to make everything fit some perfect set of rules you will find that grace goes far beyond you confessional booth. And having to do acts of contrition.
Read Davids prayer in Psalms 51.
1 Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lovingkindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions. 2 Wash me throughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin. 3 For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me. 4 Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest. 5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceivea me. 6 Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts: and in the hidden part thou shalt make me to know wisdom.
7 Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow. 8 Make me to hear joy and gladness; that the bones which thou hast broken may rejoice. 9 Hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all mine iniquities. 10 Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a rightb spirit within me. 11 Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me. 12 Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit. 13 Then will I teach transgressors thy ways; and sinners shall be converted unto thee.
14 Deliver me from bloodguiltinessc, O God, thou God of my salvation: and my tongue shall sing aloud of thy righteousness. 15 O Lord, open thou my lips; and my mouth shall shew forth thy praise. 16
For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering. 17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise. 18 Do good in thy good pleasure unto Zion: build thou the walls of Jerusalem. 19 Then shalt thou be pleased with the sacrifices of righteousness, with burnt offering and whole burnt offering: then shall they offer bullocks upon thine altar.
1 Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lovingkindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions. 2 Wash me throughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin. 3 For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me. 4 Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest. 5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceivea me. 6 Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts: and in the hidden part thou shalt make me to know wisdom.
7 Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow. 8 Make me to hear joy and gladness; that the bones which thou hast broken may rejoice. 9 Hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all mine iniquities. 10 Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a rightb spirit within me. 11 Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me. 12 Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit. 13 Then will I teach transgressors thy ways; and sinners shall be converted unto thee.
14 Deliver me from bloodguiltinessc, O God, thou God of my salvation: and my tongue shall sing aloud of thy righteousness. 15 O Lord, open thou my lips; and my mouth shall shew forth thy praise. 16 For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering. 17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise. 18 Do good in thy good pleasure unto Zion: build thou the walls of Jerusalem. 19 Then shalt thou be pleased with the sacrifices of righteousness, with burnt offering and whole burnt offering: then shall they offer bullocks upon thine altar.
The Holy Bible : King James Version. electronic ed. of the 1769 edition of the 1611 Authorized Version. Bellingham WA : Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1995, S. Ps 51:1-19
: John 10:10 Wed Nov 24, 2010 - 14:07:33
: chestertonrules Wed Nov 24, 2010 - 12:04:23
: mclees8 Wed Nov 24, 2010 - 10:15:05
I have one more question for Chesterton. Lets say a man is far away from any Bishop or priest but he is hurt and knows he is dying. In his final moments he has no one but Christ to absolve him for his sins. So he calls upon the name of Jesus and not just lightly but with a true broken Spirit. Will he find forgiveness even if there was no priest there for him. How many die without absolution yet you will still find them in heaven?
One must determine to obey all God's commandments, and one of those commandments is that one must confess all mortal sins committed after baptism to a duly authorized priest. If there is no priest to be had, then God accepts the will for the deed. He will not accept the will for the deed if there is a duly authorized priest available. Remember the act of perfect contrition always takes away all sins immediately.
This may be RCC dogma, but not Scriptural truth.
Since "the act of perfect contrition (to God) always takes away all sins immediately," what more can any Bishop or priest do for you than God can do for you?
A priest can forgive sins that are confessed with imperfect contrition.
: mclees8 Wed Nov 24, 2010 - 17:26:37
: chestertonrules Wed Nov 24, 2010 - 12:04:23
: mclees8 Wed Nov 24, 2010 - 10:15:05
I have one more question for Chesterton. Lets say a man is far away from any Bishop or priest but he is hurt and knows he is dying. In his final moments he has no one but Christ to absolve him for his sins. So he calls upon the name of Jesus and not just lightly but with a true broken Spirit. Will he find forgiveness even if there was no priest there for him. How many die without absolution yet you will still find them in heaven?
One must determine to obey all God's commandments, and one of those commandments is that one must confess all mortal sins committed after baptism to a duly authorized priest. If there is no priest to be had, then God accepts the will for the deed. He will not accept the will for the deed if there is a duly authorized priest available. Remember the act of perfect contrition always takes away all sins immediately.
I have one other question then.
Heb 4:16
3 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do. 14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. 15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. 16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.
Listen if one feels he needs to to to confessio or have absolution because he was taught this. thenlet Him do so. but this formula is not perfect in every case. It is Godly sorrow that works repentance. in the verse above it states that our sins are naked before the Lord who know all things about us personally. We are then instructed that we are now able to come to the Lord Jesus and his throne of grace without fear so we can obtain mercy and forgiveness in our time of need.
It says nothing about that one must go to the Priest to confess his sin. I find i have to almost pray daily over my weaknesses. Many time the lord lets me know that he hears me when I read my devotional and it states just what I needed as if the Lord was sitting next to me. I am always awed when he does this.
so it you want to make everything fit some perfect set of rules you will find that grace goes far beyond you confessional booth. And having to do acts of contrition.
Read Davids prayer in Psalms 51.
1 Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lovingkindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions. 2 Wash me throughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin. 3 For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me. 4 Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest. 5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceivea me. 6 Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts: and in the hidden part thou shalt make me to know wisdom.
7 Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow. 8 Make me to hear joy and gladness; that the bones which thou hast broken may rejoice. 9 Hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all mine iniquities. 10 Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a rightb spirit within me. 11 Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me. 12 Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit. 13 Then will I teach transgressors thy ways; and sinners shall be converted unto thee.
14 Deliver me from bloodguiltinessc, O God, thou God of my salvation: and my tongue shall sing aloud of thy righteousness. 15 O Lord, open thou my lips; and my mouth shall shew forth thy praise. 16 For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering. 17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise. 18 Do good in thy good pleasure unto Zion: build thou the walls of Jerusalem. 19 Then shalt thou be pleased with the sacrifices of righteousness, with burnt offering and whole burnt offering: then shall they offer bullocks upon thine altar.
I didn't see a question in there.
Also, you are ignoring this:
John 20
21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."
: chestertonrules Wed Nov 24, 2010 - 20:44:24
: mclees8 Wed Nov 24, 2010 - 17:26:37
: chestertonrules Wed Nov 24, 2010 - 12:04:23
: mclees8 Wed Nov 24, 2010 - 10:15:05
I have one more question for Chesterton. Lets say a man is far away from any Bishop or priest but he is hurt and knows he is dying. In his final moments he has no one but Christ to absolve him for his sins. So he calls upon the name of Jesus and not just lightly but with a true broken Spirit. Will he find forgiveness even if there was no priest there for him. How many die without absolution yet you will still find them in heaven?
One must determine to obey all God's commandments, and one of those commandments is that one must confess all mortal sins committed after baptism to a duly authorized priest. If there is no priest to be had, then God accepts the will for the deed. He will not accept the will for the deed if there is a duly authorized priest available. Remember the act of perfect contrition always takes away all sins immediately.
I have one other question then.
Heb 4:16
3 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do. 14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. 15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. 16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.
Listen if one feels he needs to to to confessio or have absolution because he was taught this. thenlet Him do so. but this formula is not perfect in every case. It is Godly sorrow that works repentance. in the verse above it states that our sins are naked before the Lord who know all things about us personally. We are then instructed that we are now able to come to the Lord Jesus and his throne of grace without fear so we can obtain mercy and forgiveness in our time of need.
It says nothing about that one must go to the Priest to confess his sin. I find i have to almost pray daily over my weaknesses. Many time the lord lets me know that he hears me when I read my devotional and it states just what I needed as if the Lord was sitting next to me. I am always awed when he does this.
so it you want to make everything fit some perfect set of rules you will find that grace goes far beyond you confessional booth. And having to do acts of contrition.
Read Davids prayer in Psalms 51.
1 Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lovingkindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions. 2 Wash me throughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin. 3 For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me. 4 Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest. 5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceivea me. 6 Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts: and in the hidden part thou shalt make me to know wisdom.
7 Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow. 8 Make me to hear joy and gladness; that the bones which thou hast broken may rejoice. 9 Hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all mine iniquities. 10 Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a rightb spirit within me. 11 Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me. 12 Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit. 13 Then will I teach transgressors thy ways; and sinners shall be converted unto thee.
14 Deliver me from bloodguiltinessc, O God, thou God of my salvation: and my tongue shall sing aloud of thy righteousness. 15 O Lord, open thou my lips; and my mouth shall shew forth thy praise. 16 For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering. 17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise. 18 Do good in thy good pleasure unto Zion: build thou the walls of Jerusalem. 19 Then shalt thou be pleased with the sacrifices of righteousness, with burnt offering and whole burnt offering: then shall they offer bullocks upon thine altar.
I didn't see a question in there.
Also, you are ignoring this:
John 20
21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."
No not at all. are you ignoring the scripture i posted? the issue is that that you cannot trap Gods grace in a certain box of rules. I said it is Godly sorrow that works repentance. The one who truly repents God honors. Even if he did no act of contrition. Listen to what David said
: John 10:10 Tue Nov 23, 2010 - 16:31:33
: LightHammer Tue Nov 23, 2010 - 16:12:37
Again another lie.
Catholics believe that as a catholic they are meant to uphold the standards of Christ which the Church also holds to be its own. So as a catholic when one sins they sin against not just heaven but against the Church. To seek forgiveness of the Father catholics believe as we all do that we can go before Him in a quoet place privately. However to recieve forgiveness of the Church that they have porrly represented by sinning they seek out the priest who is the frontline of Church authority.
Protestants have the same concept. If I get drunk and go out driving and kill a four our of a family of five, I seek forgiveness not just of God but of those who I have offended as well. I go to the surviving memeber of the family and beg their forgiveness for my offenses. The Catholic Church teaches that because they are one family on one accord that when they sin the world will view them not as individuals but as a part of a whole and therefore each part is accountable to the other parts as a whole.
Its actually pretty scriptural. When one brother sins confront the brother and if he will not listen gather two or three more. If he will still not listen take it to the Church. If he will still not listen consider him a pagan.
This is saying that we are accountable to each other because we together make up one Body and therefore our actions affect how others view the collective.
Like I said do some more legitimate research and quit looking a the shallow end of a vast sea of beliefs. You might begin to understand why I feel my fellows protestants are so thickheaded and basically out of line.
All sin is basically sin against God. When we sin against our fellow man, we go to them directly and ask for forgiveness, and then make restitution as needed, not to a priest.
By committing the same sins over and over again, and then going to a priest over and over every week makes confession of sin a mockery before God.
David declares this in Psa 19:13,
Also keep back Your servant from presumptuous sins; Let them not rule over me; Then I will be blameless, And I shall be acquitted of great transgression.
Presumptuous sins are sins that we deliberately commit, thinking we can always go to God or a priest and receive forgiveness. What happens when our hearts are hardened, and we no longer seek God's forgiveness? What happens when Catholics no longer go to a priest and confess their sins?
You're totalling missing the point and it really doesn't require your're approval or validation. Catholics believe that they are extensions of the Church which is an extension of the Kingdom of God. When they sin they dishonor both the Kingdom and by extension the Church so therefore they have to make amedns and both ends. God is the sole authority in the kingdom but when it comes to the Church which is physical on earth, He has delegated that authority to men who exist physically on earth. Yes a Catholic can go in private and be forgiven by God but to be forgiven by the Church God has set it up that they go to a priest who is merely one of our brothers who has the authority to extend pardons on behalf of the entire assembly.
I practiced the same format as a protestant child. When I got in trouble in school, I apologize to the teacher for causing her problems and I went home and apologized to my mother for poorly representing the family and all that she had taught me.
I'm not seeing what the issue is here? I think you're trying to imply that the Catholic practice of confession is more than what it clearly cliams to be.
: chestertonrules Wed Nov 24, 2010 - 20:41:45
: John 10:10 Wed Nov 24, 2010 - 14:07:33
: chestertonrules Wed Nov 24, 2010 - 12:04:23
: mclees8 Wed Nov 24, 2010 - 10:15:05
I have one more question for Chesterton. Lets say a man is far away from any Bishop or priest but he is hurt and knows he is dying. In his final moments he has no one but Christ to absolve him for his sins. So he calls upon the name of Jesus and not just lightly but with a true broken Spirit. Will he find forgiveness even if there was no priest there for him. How many die without absolution yet you will still find them in heaven?
One must determine to obey all God's commandments, and one of those commandments is that one must confess all mortal sins committed after baptism to a duly authorized priest. If there is no priest to be had, then God accepts the will for the deed. He will not accept the will for the deed if there is a duly authorized priest available. Remember the act of perfect contrition always takes away all sins immediately.
This may be RCC dogma, but not Scriptural truth.
Since "the act of perfect contrition (to God) always takes away all sins immediately," what more can any Bishop or priest do for you than God can do for you?
A priest can forgive sins that are confessed with imperfect contrition.
Wait. Did you just say a priest can forgive sins that are confessed with imperfect contrition?
So you mean a guy who is not truly sorry for his sin but just doesn't want to pay the price can ask forgiveness without any remorse and be forgiven? I'm not accusing you of anything, well of course you know me well enough by now, I'm just trying to clarify if you mean "imperfect contrition" as in one who doesn't really feel remorse but knows he wrong and is trying to make amends or a guy who is planning on sinning again and thinks he can get a free pass by seeing a priest and going through the motions.
I just need you to clarify is all brother.
Happy Thanksgiving to all. Proud to be an American.
Roman Catholicism ever changing doctrines? Why huh?? Something wrong somewhere.
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/rcc7-dogma.htm
: LightHammer Thu Nov 25, 2010 - 05:13:38
: chestertonrules Wed Nov 24, 2010 - 20:41:45
: John 10:10 Wed Nov 24, 2010 - 14:07:33
: chestertonrules Wed Nov 24, 2010 - 12:04:23
: mclees8 Wed Nov 24, 2010 - 10:15:05
I have one more question for Chesterton. Lets say a man is far away from any Bishop or priest but he is hurt and knows he is dying. In his final moments he has no one but Christ to absolve him for his sins. So he calls upon the name of Jesus and not just lightly but with a true broken Spirit. Will he find forgiveness even if there was no priest there for him. How many die without absolution yet you will still find them in heaven?
One must determine to obey all God's commandments, and one of those commandments is that one must confess all mortal sins committed after baptism to a duly authorized priest. If there is no priest to be had, then God accepts the will for the deed. He will not accept the will for the deed if there is a duly authorized priest available. Remember the act of perfect contrition always takes away all sins immediately.
This may be RCC dogma, but not Scriptural truth.
Since "the act of perfect contrition (to God) always takes away all sins immediately," what more can any Bishop or priest do for you than God can do for you?
A priest can forgive sins that are confessed with imperfect contrition.
Wait. Did you just say a priest can forgive sins that are confessed with imperfect contrition?
So you mean a guy who is not truly sorry for his sin but just doesn't want to pay the price can ask forgiveness without any remorse and be forgiven? I'm not accusing you of anything, well of course you know me well enough by now, I'm just trying to clarify if you mean "imperfect contrition" as in one who doesn't really feel remorse but knows he wrong and is trying to make amends or a guy who is planning on sinning again and thinks he can get a free pass by seeing a priest and going through the motions.
I just need you to clarify is all brother.
Happy Thanksgiving to all. Proud to be an American.
Imperfect contrition is still contrition, still sorrow for sins. Imperfect contrition is sorrow for sins stemming from the fact that his or her sins would cause the loss of heaven and the pains of hell, and not simply because one has a pure and unadulterated love for the Lord (which is perfect contrition), and it must include a resolve to not sin again.
: chestertonrules Wed Nov 24, 2010 - 20:41:45
: John 10:10 Wed Nov 24, 2010 - 14:07:33
: chestertonrules Wed Nov 24, 2010 - 12:04:23
: mclees8 Wed Nov 24, 2010 - 10:15:05
I have one more question for Chesterton. Lets say a man is far away from any Bishop or priest but he is hurt and knows he is dying. In his final moments he has no one but Christ to absolve him for his sins. So he calls upon the name of Jesus and not just lightly but with a true broken Spirit. Will he find forgiveness even if there was no priest there for him. How many die without absolution yet you will still find them in heaven?
One must determine to obey all God's commandments, and one of those commandments is that one must confess all mortal sins committed after baptism to a duly authorized priest. If there is no priest to be had, then God accepts the will for the deed. He will not accept the will for the deed if there is a duly authorized priest available. Remember the act of perfect contrition always takes away all sins immediately.
This may be RCC dogma, but not Scriptural truth.
Since "the act of perfect contrition (to God) always takes away all sins immediately," what more can any Bishop or priest do for you than God can do for you?
A priest can forgive sins that are confessed with imperfect contrition.
The RCC is still fighting the same war it fought with the Reformers, that imperfect man with imperfect contrition can use a mediator other than the Lord Jesus Christ. WOW!!!
How can one reason with this?
As for me and my house, we will use the
ONLY mediator that can and does forgive our sin - the Lord Jesus Christ.
: John 10:10 Thu Nov 25, 2010 - 08:42:15
: chestertonrules Wed Nov 24, 2010 - 20:41:45
: John 10:10 Wed Nov 24, 2010 - 14:07:33
: chestertonrules Wed Nov 24, 2010 - 12:04:23
: mclees8 Wed Nov 24, 2010 - 10:15:05
I have one more question for Chesterton. Lets say a man is far away from any Bishop or priest but he is hurt and knows he is dying. In his final moments he has no one but Christ to absolve him for his sins. So he calls upon the name of Jesus and not just lightly but with a true broken Spirit. Will he find forgiveness even if there was no priest there for him. How many die without absolution yet you will still find them in heaven?
One must determine to obey all God's commandments, and one of those commandments is that one must confess all mortal sins committed after baptism to a duly authorized priest. If there is no priest to be had, then God accepts the will for the deed. He will not accept the will for the deed if there is a duly authorized priest available. Remember the act of perfect contrition always takes away all sins immediately.
This may be RCC dogma, but not Scriptural truth.
Since "the act of perfect contrition (to God) always takes away all sins immediately," what more can any Bishop or priest do for you than God can do for you?
A priest can forgive sins that are confessed with imperfect contrition.
The RCC is still fighting the same war it fought with the Reformers, that imperfect man with imperfect contrition can use a mediator other than the Lord Jesus Christ. WOW!!!
How can one reason with this?
As for me and my house, we will use the ONLY mediator that can and does forgive our sin - the Lord Jesus Christ.
You are not listening at all. I think I have explained it well enough just go back and look brother. Nothing sinful nothing wrong nothing false.
: John 10:10 Thu Nov 25, 2010 - 08:42:15
The RCC is still fighting the same war it fought with the Reformers, that imperfect man with imperfect contrition can use a mediator other than the Lord Jesus Christ. WOW!!!
How can one reason with this?
As for me and my house, we will use the ONLY mediator that can and does forgive our sin - the Lord Jesus Christ.
The priests acts as Christ.
Only God can forgive sins. Thankfully, he has given us a process for receiving this forgiveness.
Reject it if you think your idea is better than that of Jesus.
: chestertonrules Thu Nov 25, 2010 - 17:29:06
: John 10:10 Thu Nov 25, 2010 - 08:42:15
The RCC is still fighting the same war it fought with the Reformers, that imperfect man with imperfect contrition can use a mediator other than the Lord Jesus Christ. WOW!!!
How can one reason with this?
As for me and my house, we will use the ONLY mediator that can and does forgive our sin - the Lord Jesus Christ.
The priests acts as Christ.
Only God can forgive sins. Thankfully, he has given us a process for receiving this forgiveness.
Reject it if you think your idea is better than that of Jesus.
My idea is the same one the Scripture has been proclaiming for almost 2000 years.
The process as you call it is simply this:
If we confess our sins, God (not a priest acting as or for Christ) is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. (1 John 1:9)
: chestertonrules Wed Nov 24, 2010 - 20:44:24
Also, you are ignoring this:
John 20
21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."
Chesteronrules, I think you are ignoring much. Among the many things....
1. Jesius never appointed the RCC to do anything for anything in the name of anyone; He never so much as ever MENTIONED it.
2. Nor did He ever so delegate or authorize or appoint the clergy correctly ordained by the Catholic denomination (and perhaps also the EO); He never so much as even MENTIONED them or it. For anything, in any regard.
3. What Jesus DID do is tell all the disciples to pray, ".... forgive us our sins
AS WE OURSELVES FORGIVE THOSE who sin against us." If He is not telling us to forgive sins, then by praying this petition, we are asking God to NOT forgive us because we cannot forgive others.
So, what IS clear is that all disciples not only may forgive but our forgiveness hinges on such. And that He never limited forgivensess to priests ordained into the RCC denomination.
Now, I have no idea what this has to do with the heads of any specific denomination: mine, the RCC, the LDS or any other.
.
: Josiah Thu Nov 25, 2010 - 20:55:49
: chestertonrules Wed Nov 24, 2010 - 20:44:24
Also, you are ignoring this:
John 20
21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."
Chesteronrules, I think you are ignoring much. Among the many things....
1. Jesius never appointed the RCC to do anything for anything in the name of anyone; He never so much as ever MENTIONED it.
2. Nor did He ever so delegate or authorize or appoint the clergy correctly ordained by the Catholic denomination (and perhaps also the EO); He never so much as even MENTIONED them or it. For anything, in any regard.
3. What Jesus DID do is tell all the disciples to pray, ".... forgive us our sins AS WE OURSELVES FORGIVE THOSE who sin against us." If He is not telling us to forgive sins, then by praying this petition, we are asking God to NOT forgive us because we cannot forgive others.
So, what IS clear is that all disciples not only may forgive but our forgiveness hinges on such. And that He never limited forgivensess to priests ordained into the RCC denomination.
Now, I have no idea what this has to do with the heads of any specific denomination: mine, the RCC, the LDS or any other.
.
I feel like I want to cry every time I read this.
Where do you think the RCC, Eastern Orthodox and Cotpic heads got their origins?
: John 10:10 Thu Nov 25, 2010 - 19:08:55
My idea is the same one the Scripture has been proclaiming for almost 2000 years.
The process as you call it is simply this:
If we confess our sins, God (not a priest acting as or for Christ) is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. (1 John 1:9)
Nothing there that is contradictory to the Gospel as taught by Jesus. God is not limited by your understanding or dogmas.
John 20
21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit.
23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."
: chestertonrules Fri Nov 26, 2010 - 10:34:21
: John 10:10 Thu Nov 25, 2010 - 19:08:55
My idea is the same one the Scripture has been proclaiming for almost 2000 years.
The process as you call it is simply this:
If we confess our sins, God (not a priest acting as or for Christ) is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. (1 John 1:9)
Nothing there that is contradictory to the Gospel as taught by Jesus. God is not limited by your understanding or dogmas.
John 20
21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."
John Gill's Exposition of the Bible
John 20:23
Whose soever sins ye remit
God only can forgive sins, and Christ being God, has a power to do so likewise; but he never communicated any such power to his apostles; nor did they ever assume any such power to themselves, or pretend to exercise it; it is the mark of antichrist, to attempt anything of the kind; who, in so doing, usurps the divine prerogative, places himself in his seat, and shows himself as if he was God: but this is to be understood only in a doctrinal, or ministerial way, by preaching the full and free remission of sins, through the blood of Christ, according to the riches of God's grace, to such as repent of their sins, and believe in Christ; declaring, that all such persons as do so repent and believe, all their sins are forgiven for Christ's sake: and accordingly,
they are remitted unto them;
in agreement with Christ's own words, in his declaration and commission to his disciples; see ( Mark 16:16 ) ( Luke 24:47 ) . On the other hand he signifies, that
whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained:
that is, that whatsoever sins ye declare are not forgiven, they are not forgiven; which is the case of all final unbelievers, and impenitent sinners; who dying without repentance towards God, and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, according to the Gospel declaration, shall be damned, and are damned; for God stands by, and will stand by and confirm the Gospel of his Son, faithfully preached by his ministering servants; and all the world will sooner or later be convinced of the validity, truth, and certainty, of the declarations on each of these heads, made by them.
No where in the Gospels, the Book of Acts, or in Paul's Epistles do we see any instance where any of Jesus Disciples exercised this "supposed" power to forgive others their personal sins. This "supposed" power came much later thru the RCC as the RCC used this "supposed" power to establish its own power, manipulation and control over its people.
Forgiving others their sins against us is primarily for our benefit (see Matt 6:12, 14-15) so that our heavenly Father will forgive our sins.
: John 10:10 Fri Nov 26, 2010 - 11:07:01
: chestertonrules Fri Nov 26, 2010 - 10:34:21
: John 10:10 Thu Nov 25, 2010 - 19:08:55
My idea is the same one the Scripture has been proclaiming for almost 2000 years.
The process as you call it is simply this:
If we confess our sins, God (not a priest acting as or for Christ) is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. (1 John 1:9)
Nothing there that is contradictory to the Gospel as taught by Jesus. God is not limited by your understanding or dogmas.
John 20
21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."
John Gill's Exposition of the Bible
John 20:23
Whose soever sins ye remit
God only can forgive sins, and Christ being God, has a power to do so likewise; but he never communicated any such power to his apostles; nor did they ever assume any such power to themselves, or pretend to exercise it; it is the mark of antichrist, to attempt anything of the kind; who, in so doing, usurps the divine prerogative, places himself in his seat, and shows himself as if he was God: but this is to be understood only in a doctrinal, or ministerial way, by preaching the full and free remission of sins, through the blood of Christ, according to the riches of God's grace, to such as repent of their sins, and believe in Christ; declaring, that all such persons as do so repent and believe, all their sins are forgiven for Christ's sake: and accordingly,
they are remitted unto them;
in agreement with Christ's own words, in his declaration and commission to his disciples; see ( Mark 16:16 ) ( Luke 24:47 ) . On the other hand he signifies, that
whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained:
that is, that whatsoever sins ye declare are not forgiven, they are not forgiven; which is the case of all final unbelievers, and impenitent sinners; who dying without repentance towards God, and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, according to the Gospel declaration, shall be damned, and are damned; for God stands by, and will stand by and confirm the Gospel of his Son, faithfully preached by his ministering servants; and all the world will sooner or later be convinced of the validity, truth, and certainty, of the declarations on each of these heads, made by them.
No where in the Gospels, the Book of Acts, or in Paul's Epistles do we see any instance where any of Jesus Disciples exercised this "supposed" power to forgive others their personal sins. This "supposed" power came much later thru the RCC as the RCC used this "supposed" power to establish its own power, manipulation and control over its people.
Forgiving others their sins against us is primarily for our benefit (see Matt 6:12, 14-15) so that our heavenly Father will forgive our sins.
2 Cor 5:18
All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation.
John 20
21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit.
23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven." [/quote]
James 5:16
Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.
Acts 19:18 Many of those who believed now came and openly confessed their evil deeds.
: chestertonrules Fri Nov 26, 2010 - 11:51:09
: John 10:10 Fri Nov 26, 2010 - 11:07:01
: chestertonrules Fri Nov 26, 2010 - 10:34:21
: John 10:10 Thu Nov 25, 2010 - 19:08:55
My idea is the same one the Scripture has been proclaiming for almost 2000 years.
The process as you call it is simply this:
If we confess our sins, God (not a priest acting as or for Christ) is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. (1 John 1:9)
Nothing there that is contradictory to the Gospel as taught by Jesus. God is not limited by your understanding or dogmas.
John 20
21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."
John Gill's Exposition of the Bible
John 20:23
Whose soever sins ye remit
God only can forgive sins, and Christ being God, has a power to do so likewise; but he never communicated any such power to his apostles; nor did they ever assume any such power to themselves, or pretend to exercise it; it is the mark of antichrist, to attempt anything of the kind; who, in so doing, usurps the divine prerogative, places himself in his seat, and shows himself as if he was God: but this is to be understood only in a doctrinal, or ministerial way, by preaching the full and free remission of sins, through the blood of Christ, according to the riches of God's grace, to such as repent of their sins, and believe in Christ; declaring, that all such persons as do so repent and believe, all their sins are forgiven for Christ's sake: and accordingly,
they are remitted unto them;
in agreement with Christ's own words, in his declaration and commission to his disciples; see ( Mark 16:16 ) ( Luke 24:47 ) . On the other hand he signifies, that
whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained:
that is, that whatsoever sins ye declare are not forgiven, they are not forgiven; which is the case of all final unbelievers, and impenitent sinners; who dying without repentance towards God, and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, according to the Gospel declaration, shall be damned, and are damned; for God stands by, and will stand by and confirm the Gospel of his Son, faithfully preached by his ministering servants; and all the world will sooner or later be convinced of the validity, truth, and certainty, of the declarations on each of these heads, made by them.
No where in the Gospels, the Book of Acts, or in Paul's Epistles do we see any instance where any of Jesus Disciples exercised this "supposed" power to forgive others their personal sins. This "supposed" power came much later thru the RCC as the RCC used this "supposed" power to establish its own power, manipulation and control over its people.
Forgiving others their sins against us is primarily for our benefit (see Matt 6:12, 14-15) so that our heavenly Father will forgive our sins.
2 Cor 5:18
All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation.
The ministry of reconciliation that Paul speaks of as ambassadors for Christ is taking the Gospel of Christ to sinners, and making an appeal to them to be reconciled to God (verse 20). No where does Paul forgive them of their personal sins. This all sinners must do for themselves to receive God's salvation.
John 20
21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."
God only can forgive sins, and Christ being God, has a power to do so likewise; but he never communicated any such power to his apostles; nor did they ever assume any such power to themselves, or pretend to exercise it.
God's truth is not only given in words in Scripture, but also in how the words are exercised in practice in Scripture. Sometime after the first century church, those connected with the RCC established this doctrine that because of the words of John 20:23, Jesus gave them the power to remit the sins of others so that they could be saved. Show us anywhere in the New testament where the apostles exercised God's salvation power for sinners?
James 5:16
Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.
Yes, when we have sinned against other Christians, sickness can result from these sins. Verse 15 says "the prayer offered in faith will restore the one who is sick." When there is a "therefore," look at what directly preceded the therefore. Verse 16 is telling the sinner to confess his sins so that God will forgive his sins.
Acts 19:18 Many of those who believed now came and openly confessed their evil deeds.
Confessing one's evil deeds shows true repentance for their sins. Nothing before verse 18 says Paul extended to these sinners God's forgiveness so that they could be saved.
: John 10:10 Fri Nov 26, 2010 - 18:56:13
: chestertonrules Fri Nov 26, 2010 - 11:51:09
: John 10:10 Fri Nov 26, 2010 - 11:07:01
: chestertonrules Fri Nov 26, 2010 - 10:34:21
: John 10:10 Thu Nov 25, 2010 - 19:08:55
My idea is the same one the Scripture has been proclaiming for almost 2000 years.
The process as you call it is simply this:
If we confess our sins, God (not a priest acting as or for Christ) is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. (1 John 1:9)
Nothing there that is contradictory to the Gospel as taught by Jesus. God is not limited by your understanding or dogmas.
John 20
21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."
John Gill's Exposition of the Bible
John 20:23
Whose soever sins ye remit
God only can forgive sins, and Christ being God, has a power to do so likewise; but he never communicated any such power to his apostles; nor did they ever assume any such power to themselves, or pretend to exercise it; it is the mark of antichrist, to attempt anything of the kind; who, in so doing, usurps the divine prerogative, places himself in his seat, and shows himself as if he was God: but this is to be understood only in a doctrinal, or ministerial way, by preaching the full and free remission of sins, through the blood of Christ, according to the riches of God's grace, to such as repent of their sins, and believe in Christ; declaring, that all such persons as do so repent and believe, all their sins are forgiven for Christ's sake: and accordingly,
they are remitted unto them;
in agreement with Christ's own words, in his declaration and commission to his disciples; see ( Mark 16:16 ) ( Luke 24:47 ) . On the other hand he signifies, that
whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained:
that is, that whatsoever sins ye declare are not forgiven, they are not forgiven; which is the case of all final unbelievers, and impenitent sinners; who dying without repentance towards God, and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, according to the Gospel declaration, shall be damned, and are damned; for God stands by, and will stand by and confirm the Gospel of his Son, faithfully preached by his ministering servants; and all the world will sooner or later be convinced of the validity, truth, and certainty, of the declarations on each of these heads, made by them.
No where in the Gospels, the Book of Acts, or in Paul's Epistles do we see any instance where any of Jesus Disciples exercised this "supposed" power to forgive others their personal sins. This "supposed" power came much later thru the RCC as the RCC used this "supposed" power to establish its own power, manipulation and control over its people.
Forgiving others their sins against us is primarily for our benefit (see Matt 6:12, 14-15) so that our heavenly Father will forgive our sins.
2 Cor 5:18
All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation.
The ministry of reconciliation that Paul speaks of as ambassadors for Christ is taking the Gospel of Christ to sinners, and making an appeal to them to be reconciled to God (verse 20). No where does Paul forgive them of their personal sins. This all sinners must do for themselves to receive God's salvation.
John 20
21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."
God only can forgive sins, and Christ being God, has a power to do so likewise; but he never communicated any such power to his apostles; nor did they ever assume any such power to themselves, or pretend to exercise it.
God's truth is not only given in words in Scripture, but also in how the words are exercised in practice in Scripture. Sometime after the first century church, those connected with the RCC established this doctrine that because of the words of John 20:23, Jesus gave them the power to remit the sins of others so that they could be saved. Show us anywhere in the New testament where the apostles exercised God's salvation power for sinners?
James 5:16
Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.
Yes, when we have sinned against other Christians, sickness can result from these sins. Verse 15 says "the prayer offered in faith will restore the one who is sick." When there is a "therefore," look at what directly preceded the therefore. Verse 16 is telling the sinner to confess his sins so that God will forgive his sins.
Acts 19:18 Many of those who believed now came and openly confessed their evil deeds.
Confessing one's evil deeds shows true repentance for their sins. Nothing before verse 18 says Paul extended to these sinners God's forgiveness so that they could be saved.
You don't accept the clear words of scripture.
You prefer a non authoritative human tradition that was not established by Christ.
: chestertonrules Fri Nov 26, 2010 - 19:16:35
You don't accept the clear words of scripture.
You prefer a non authoritative human tradition that was not established by Christ.
If you can show us anywhere in Scripture where the apostles exercised God's salvation power that saved a single sinner, then you would have something in Scripture to back up what the RCC proclaims John 20:23 means.
Until then, it is the RCC that
"prefers a non authoritative human tradition that was not established by Christ."
They say a picture said a thousand woeds,see pictures..
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/catholic_idols.htm
Another picture of idol worship..
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/a_picture_says%20it_all.htm
: tinker Fri Nov 26, 2010 - 19:43:36
They say a picture said a thousand woeds,see pictures..
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/catholic_idols.htm
Another picture of idol worship..
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/a_picture_says%20it_all.htm
So I guess the Lincoln Memorial and the statue of Dr. MLK Jr. are also meant to for idol worship as well. Monuments made to honor those who people believed to do great works to better mankind are nothing but mere establishments of idol worship.
Don't be so blinded by the anticatholic sites you visit regularly. Look at the situation from a catholic's eyes. They believe that their leaders give up everything and assume the same holy office of the Apostles and sacrifice everything for the cause of God's kingdom. There is a great difference between worship and honoring.
In regards to the relics of Christ and Mary, you guys seem to forget that a few thousand years ago people as whole were very illiterate. The common man could not read or write. So aside from word of mouth, art was a means of communication. People used great artworks to tell stories or deliver a message. The same is said of the early Church. To make the message of Christ and all that they believed about more available to the public, they crafted great artworks and put them everywhere. Statues of angels guarding the great cities and institutions as a reminder of the angel's role as soldiers for God. Icons of Mary, that usually seemed to be a bit less grand only then he ones of Christ, to remind the people of the sacrifice of a lone woman from the Levi which bore Christ into the world. Icons of Christ to show that He is always there. They had artwork built in architecture and local infrastructure.
You need only to understand the situation at the time to know the real meaning behind so many physicals symbols for Christianity.
: John 10:10 Fri Nov 26, 2010 - 19:27:42
: chestertonrules Fri Nov 26, 2010 - 19:16:35
You don't accept the clear words of scripture.
You prefer a non authoritative human tradition that was not established by Christ.
If you can show us anywhere in Scripture where the apostles exercised God's salvation power that saved a single sinner, then you would have something in Scripture to back up what the RCC proclaims John 20:23 means.
Until then, it is the RCC that "prefers a non authoritative human tradition that was not established by Christ."
Do you deny that the apostles spread the gospel of reconciliation?
Do you deny the confession of sins?
I'm not sure what your point is.
Jesus gave the Church HIS authority. The Church is HIS body.
What does that leave out?
: John 10:10 Fri Nov 26, 2010 - 19:27:42
: chestertonrules Fri Nov 26, 2010 - 19:16:35
You don't accept the clear words of scripture.
You prefer a non authoritative human tradition that was not established by Christ.
If you can show us anywhere in Scripture where the apostles exercised God's salvation power that saved a single sinner, then you would have something in Scripture to back up what the RCC proclaims John 20:23 means.
Until then, it is the RCC that "prefers a non authoritative human tradition that was not established by Christ."
Thats not fair though. You have to understand that Scripture doesn't contain every single detail of early Church history or every divine truth in existence. Yes it contains all that is necessary to uncover the truth of salvation but it is not a history book. It is for guidance.
Do you see what I am getting at? If I tell you St. Ignatius existed, studied at the feet of John and was eaten by lions for his service to the cross will you call me a liar because all his great acts and sacrifices aren't mentioned in Scripture? What if I tell you that Peter was crucified upside down? Will you spit in my face an say, "Show me in scripture where it says that!"
Of course not brother because you know that Scripture ends with Revelations, with John on the island of Patmos. God is Truth, which therefore makes Truth infinite. When you accept this you realize scripture is only a piece of what the Truth and can not possibly contain all the truths of God or His Church in its physical parameters.
I agree. God's truth is not just found in the Bible. If it is truthful that the earth rotates on its axis and revolves around the sun, then that is still truth even if it's not found in Scripture. If it is truthful that that the earth is a planet, then that is truth even if it does not say that in the Bible. If it is truthful that George Washington once walked on this planet, then that is still truth even if the name George Washington is not found in scripture.
Until then, it is the RCC that "prefers a non authoritative human tradition that was not established by Christ."
L H says
Thats not fair though. You have to understand that Scripture doesn't contain every single detail of early Church history or every divine truth in existence. Yes it contains all that is necessary to uncover the truth of salvation but it is not a history book. It is for guidance.
Do you see what I am getting at? If I tell you St. Ignatius existed, studied at the feet of John and was eaten by lions for his service to the cross will you call me a liar because all his great acts and sacrifices aren't mentioned in Scripture? What if I tell you that Peter was crucified upside down? Will you spit in my face an say, "Show me in scripture where it says that!"
Of course not brother because you know that Scripture ends with Revelations, with John on the island of Patmos. God is Truth, which therefore makes Truth infinite. When you accept this you realize scripture is only a piece of what the Truth and can not possibly contain all the truths of God or His Church in its physical parameters.
: Selene Sun Nov 28, 2010 - 08:16:16
I agree. God's truth is not just found in the Bible. If it is truthful that the earth rotates on its axis and revolves around the sun, then that is still truth even if it's not found in Scripture. If it is truthful that that the earth is a planet, then that is truth even if it does not say that in the Bible. If it is truthful that George Washington once walked on this planet, then that is still truth even if the name George Washington is not found in scripture.
I hear what guys are saying. Still something is missing. There is all kinds of things that are true in this world. It is true my name is Mike and i have a birth certificate that backs that up. we Know that jesus founded a church becuase we have historical records. We say it is true the counterfiet bill was a fake, The forgery was a lie.
The poster said non authoritative human tradition. I can say it is true human tradition is not law unless it is made by those of authority. but hat does not mean God made it law. You understand what I am saying.
We can say that much evil has been done in the name of the church. We know its true because we have historical records.
We have reasonable evidence that Jesus walked on this earth. But we have no evidence that he sits on a heavenly throne at the right hand of the Father, yet as believers we believe it is true by faith. The Bible says with out faith it is impossible to please God, yet we have no real tangible proof that God exists other than we can understand that all we see in creations says God exists. An atheist would say we have no evidence yet by all that is seen we see God and know it is true
What we have here is carnal positional tangible truth, and spiritual truth. It impossible for the carnal mind to except spiritual truth unless he chooses to believe it by faith. All that is of God and of Christ is faith and spirit. We believe by faith the Christ and the holy spirit were at work in the creation even though most scientists want to disprove this. Yet in all they do to take God out of the equation we see God even more .
I pray this helps
: mclees8 Sun Nov 28, 2010 - 15:53:34
What we have here is carnal positional tangible truth, and spiritual truth. It impossible for the carnal mind to except spiritual truth unless he chooses to believe it by faith. All that is of God and of Christ is faith and spirit. We believe by faith the Christ and the holy spirit were at work in the creation even though most scientists want to disprove this. Yet in all they do to take God out of the equation we see God even more .
I pray this helps
Jesus built a physical Church comprised of flesh and blood. It is both spiritual and physical, just like the Eucharist.
: mclees8 Sun Nov 28, 2010 - 15:53:34
I hear what guys are saying. Still something is missing. There is all kinds of things that are true in this world. It is true my name is Mike and i have a birth certificate that backs that up. we Know that jesus founded a church becuase we have historical records. We say it is true the counterfiet bill was a fake, The forgery was a lie.
There is only one truth. A truth is a truth, and a lie is a lie. There are not 2 different lies because a lie is a lie. There are not 2 different truth because a truth is a truth. If your name is Mike, then it is based on truth. If not, then it's not based on truth. Jesus built a Church, and it is not just a spiritual church, but also a physical one. That is the truth.
: Selene Sun Nov 28, 2010 - 18:44:38
: mclees8 Sun Nov 28, 2010 - 15:53:34
I hear what guys are saying. Still something is missing. There is all kinds of things that are true in this world. It is true my name is Mike and i have a birth certificate that backs that up. we Know that jesus founded a church becuase we have historical records. We say it is true the counterfiet bill was a fake, The forgery was a lie.
There is only one truth. A truth is a truth, and a lie is a lie. There are not 2 different lies because a lie is a lie. There are not 2 different truth because a truth is a truth. If your name is Mike, then it is based on truth. If not, then it's not based on truth. Jesus built a Church, and it is not just a spiritual church, but also a physical one. That is the truth.
Butthere is two different truths. And I have stated them
Jesus said , that which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto you, you must be born again of the spirit .
This is not a simple commandment but an absolute truth. How is it that you can believe in the kingdom of God which is a place you cannot see feel or touch? How is that you can believe by faith that Jesus sits at the right hand of the father on a heavenly throne,yet it is a heavenly place that one must believe in it by faith. With out this faith the physical church is absolutely nothing but just a carnal thing. And that is the absolute spiritual truth
have a blessed day Selene
I think I follow you Mclees8. You are saying that there are physical and spiritual truths.
Like the color of the sky verses the divinity of Jesus. Is that about right?
I agree but my point still remains that not every spiritual truth is contained in scripture. There are spiritual truths that weren't addressed at the time scripture record and therefore they are not present in its contents. Like abortion, artifical birth, the role of Mary, the communion of the saints belonging to the Church Triumphant. You have to understand that scripture ways recorded when the Church was still a baby. Christ entrusted His authorative followers to recieve the truth of the Holy Spirit and deliver it when the time came for the Church to grow and mature.
: chestertonrules Sat Nov 27, 2010 - 21:39:21
: John 10:10 Fri Nov 26, 2010 - 19:27:42
: chestertonrules Fri Nov 26, 2010 - 19:16:35
You don't accept the clear words of scripture.
You prefer a non authoritative human tradition that was not established by Christ.
If you can show us anywhere in Scripture where the apostles exercised God's salvation power that saved a single sinner, then you would have something in Scripture to back up what the RCC proclaims John 20:23 means.
Until then, it is the RCC that "prefers a non authoritative human tradition that was not established by Christ."
Do you deny that the apostles spread the gospel of reconciliation?
Do you deny the confession of sins?
I'm not sure what your point is.
Jesus gave the Church HIS authority. The Church is HIS body.
What does that leave out?
The ground is level at the foot of the cross, and all sinners must come to Christ for themselves to receive God's saving grace. No earthly mediator can do this for anyone else!
Are we to confess ours sins to one another and pray for others so that they may be healed (James 5:16)? Yes, by all means!
Are we to forgive others who sin against us (Matt 6:14-15)? Yes, by all means!
Are we to pray for the Lord of the harvest to send laborers into the fields which are white unto harvest (Matt 9:38)? Yes, by all means!
Are we to pray without ceasing (1 Thess 5:17)? Yes, by all means!
Is this plain enough for you?
I say that no where recorded in Scripture after John 20:23 do any of Jesus' apostles/servants tell sinners they have God's power and authority to extend God's salvation grace to them, and that God saves them because they are acting as God's authorized mediator. It is the RCC that prefers a non authoritative human tradition that was not established by Christ as recorded by practice in His Word.
: LightHammer Sat Nov 27, 2010 - 23:26:41
: John 10:10 Fri Nov 26, 2010 - 19:27:42
: chestertonrules Fri Nov 26, 2010 - 19:16:35
You don't accept the clear words of scripture.
You prefer a non authoritative human tradition that was not established by Christ.
If you can show us anywhere in Scripture where the apostles exercised God's salvation power that saved a single sinner, then you would have something in Scripture to back up what the RCC proclaims John 20:23 means.
Until then, it is the RCC that "prefers a non authoritative human tradition that was not established by Christ."
Thats not fair though. You have to understand that Scripture doesn't contain every single detail of early Church history or every divine truth in existence. Yes it contains all that is necessary to uncover the truth of salvation but it is not a history book. It is for guidance.
Do you see what I am getting at? If I tell you St. Ignatius existed, studied at the feet of John and was eaten by lions for his service to the cross will you call me a liar because all his great acts and sacrifices aren't mentioned in Scripture? What if I tell you that Peter was crucified upside down? Will you spit in my face an say, "Show me in scripture where it says that!"
Of course not brother because you know that Scripture ends with Revelations, with John on the island of Patmos. God is Truth, which therefore makes Truth infinite. When you accept this you realize scripture is only a piece of what the Truth and can not possibly contain all the truths of God or His Church in its physical parameters.
2 Tim 3:1-17
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. When one ignores both God's Word and how God's Word was put into practice as recorded in His Word, as does the RCC, then you can come up with all manner of non authoritative human traditions and beliefs that were not established by Christ.
: Selene Sun Nov 28, 2010 - 08:16:16
I agree. God's truth is not just found in the Bible. If it is truthful that the earth rotates on its axis and revolves around the sun, then that is still truth even if it's not found in Scripture. If it is truthful that that the earth is a planet, then that is truth even if it does not say that in the Bible. If it is truthful that George Washington once walked on this planet, then that is still truth even if the name George Washington is not found in scripture.
The Bible is God's truth for all who desire to enter into God's saving grace which is in Christ Jesus. As such the Bible gives us everything sinners need to enter into God's saving grace, and for saints to walk in paths of righteousness for His Name's sake.
It is not meant to be a science or history book giving man everything he needs to know about science and history, or for man to add all manner of non authoritative human traditions, beliefs and practices that were not established by Christ.
Papacy--right or wrong? Definitely "Wrong" in pretty everything.
: rarejewel Mon Nov 29, 2010 - 10:47:42
Papacy--right or wrong? Definitely "Wrong" in pretty everything.
Good luck explaining that to Jesus.
: John 10:10 Mon Nov 29, 2010 - 09:27:42
: chestertonrules Sat Nov 27, 2010 - 21:39:21
: John 10:10 Fri Nov 26, 2010 - 19:27:42
: chestertonrules Fri Nov 26, 2010 - 19:16:35
You don't accept the clear words of scripture.
You prefer a non authoritative human tradition that was not established by Christ.
If you can show us anywhere in Scripture where the apostles exercised God's salvation power that saved a single sinner, then you would have something in Scripture to back up what the RCC proclaims John 20:23 means.
Until then, it is the RCC that "prefers a non authoritative human tradition that was not established by Christ."
Do you deny that the apostles spread the gospel of reconciliation?
Do you deny the confession of sins?
I'm not sure what your point is.
Jesus gave the Church HIS authority. The Church is HIS body.
What does that leave out?
The ground is level at the foot of the cross, and all sinners must come to Christ for themselves to receive God's saving grace. No earthly mediator can do this for anyone else!
Are we to confess ours sins to one another and pray for others so that they may be healed (James 5:16)? Yes, by all means!
Are we to forgive others who sin against us (Matt 6:14-15)? Yes, by all means!
Are we to pray for the Lord of the harvest to send laborers into the fields which are white unto harvest (Matt 9:38)? Yes, by all means!
Are we to pray without ceasing (1 Thess 5:17)? Yes, by all means!
Is this plain enough for you?
I say that no where recorded in Scripture after John 20:23 do any of Jesus' apostles/servants tell sinners they have God's power and authority to extend God's salvation grace to them, and that God saves them because they are acting as God's authorized mediator. It is the RCC that prefers a non authoritative human tradition that was not established by Christ as recorded by practice in His Word.
It is plain enough. Your are leaning on your own understanding and rejecting those sent by Jesus.
: chestertonrules Mon Nov 29, 2010 - 11:43:53
: John 10:10 Mon Nov 29, 2010 - 09:27:42
: chestertonrules Sat Nov 27, 2010 - 21:39:21
: John 10:10 Fri Nov 26, 2010 - 19:27:42
: chestertonrules Fri Nov 26, 2010 - 19:16:35
You don't accept the clear words of scripture.
You prefer a non authoritative human tradition that was not established by Christ.
If you can show us anywhere in Scripture where the apostles exercised God's salvation power that saved a single sinner, then you would have something in Scripture to back up what the RCC proclaims John 20:23 means.
Until then, it is the RCC that "prefers a non authoritative human tradition that was not established by Christ."
Do you deny that the apostles spread the gospel of reconciliation?
Do you deny the confession of sins?
I'm not sure what your point is.
Jesus gave the Church HIS authority. The Church is HIS body.
What does that leave out?
The ground is level at the foot of the cross, and all sinners must come to Christ for themselves to receive God's saving grace. No earthly mediator can do this for anyone else!
Are we to confess ours sins to one another and pray for others so that they may be healed (James 5:16)? Yes, by all means!
Are we to forgive others who sin against us (Matt 6:14-15)? Yes, by all means!
Are we to pray for the Lord of the harvest to send laborers into the fields which are white unto harvest (Matt 9:38)? Yes, by all means!
Are we to pray without ceasing (1 Thess 5:17)? Yes, by all means!
Is this plain enough for you?
I say that no where recorded in Scripture after John 20:23 do any of Jesus' apostles/servants tell sinners they have God's power and authority to extend God's salvation grace to them, and that God saves them because they are acting as God's authorized mediator. It is the RCC that prefers a non authoritative human tradition that was not established by Christ as recorded by practice in His Word.
It is plain enough. Your are leaning on your own understanding and rejecting those sent by Jesus.
Yes, it's plain enough that one of us is unable to read and understand the plain truth of God's Word, preferring instead a non authoritative human tradition that was not established by Christ.
I wish you all the best as you trust in "those sent by Jesus" for your salvation.
: John 10:10 Mon Nov 29, 2010 - 12:09:49
Yes, it's plain enough that one of us is unable to read and understand the plain truth of God's Word, preferring instead a non authoritative human tradition that was not established by Christ.
I wish you all the best as you trust in "those sent by Jesus" for your salvation.
I've made the decision that this is best.
You've made the decision to lean on your own understanding and reject these words:
John 6
53 Jesus said to them, "Very truly I tell you,
unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.
John 20
22 And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone's sins, their sins are forgiven;
if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.
: mclees8 Sun Nov 28, 2010 - 23:21:53
: Selene Sun Nov 28, 2010 - 18:44:38
: mclees8 Sun Nov 28, 2010 - 15:53:34
I hear what guys are saying. Still something is missing. There is all kinds of things that are true in this world. It is true my name is Mike and i have a birth certificate that backs that up. we Know that jesus founded a church becuase we have historical records. We say it is true the counterfiet bill was a fake, The forgery was a lie.
There is only one truth. A truth is a truth, and a lie is a lie. There are not 2 different lies because a lie is a lie. There are not 2 different truth because a truth is a truth. If your name is Mike, then it is based on truth. If not, then it's not based on truth. Jesus built a Church, and it is not just a spiritual church, but also a physical one. That is the truth.
Butthere is two different truths. And I have stated them
Jesus said , that which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto you, you must be born again of the spirit .
This is not a simple commandment but an absolute truth. How is it that you can believe in the kingdom of God which is a place you cannot see feel or touch? How is that you can believe by faith that Jesus sits at the right hand of the father on a heavenly throne,yet it is a heavenly place that one must believe in it by faith. With out this faith the physical church is absolutely nothing but just a carnal thing. And that is the absolute spiritual truth
have a blessed day Selene
That which is born of flesh is not interpreted to mean a lie. Jesus came down in the flesh and that is not a lie. And Jesus said, you must be born again of water and spirit. Water is a physical substance.
: chestertonrules Mon Nov 29, 2010 - 12:45:22
: John 10:10 Mon Nov 29, 2010 - 12:09:49
Yes, it's plain enough that one of us is unable to read and understand the plain truth of God's Word, preferring instead a non authoritative human tradition that was not established by Christ.
I wish you all the best as you trust in "those sent by Jesus" for your salvation.
I've made the decision that this is best.
You've made the decision to lean on your own understanding and reject these words:
John 6
53 Jesus said to them, "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.
John 20
22 And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone's sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.
: John 10:10 Mon Nov 29, 2010 - 14:54:44
[
At least the RCC after Vatican II recognizes that separated brethren live outside the RCC. I'm sorry that you and others do not. Maybe you should listen more to the RCC after 1965 than before.
I've made the decision to trust ONLY in my Lord Jesus Christ for God's salvation. So have all who have truly received God's salvation, both inside and outside the RCC, since the Body of Christ began in Acts 2.
I will let God judge me on His salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ, where I park my Christian car, and how I live my life in praise, worship, and service for Him.
You are making assumptions that have nothing to do with what I posted.
When the words of scripture don't fit your dogma, you rely on your own understanding and disregard uncomfortable passages as they appear in scripture. However, this has nothing to do with the legitimacy of your faith, it has to do with your grasp and acceptance of the fullness of Truth.
: chestertonrules Mon Nov 29, 2010 - 15:28:31
: John 10:10 Mon Nov 29, 2010 - 14:54:44
At least the RCC after Vatican II recognizes that separated brethren live outside the RCC. I'm sorry that you and others do not. Maybe you should listen more to the RCC after 1965 than before.
I've made the decision to trust ONLY in my Lord Jesus Christ for God's salvation. So have all who have truly received God's salvation, both inside and outside the RCC, since the Body of Christ began in Acts 2.
I will let God judge me on His salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ, where I park my Christian car, and how I live my life in praise, worship, and service for Him.
You are making assumptions that have nothing to do with what I posted.
When the words of scripture don't fit your dogma, you rely on your own understanding and disregard uncomfortable passages as they appear in scripture. However, this has nothing to do with the legitimacy of your faith, it has to do with your grasp and acceptance of the fullness of Truth.
Now we are getting somewhere. Since you are not questioning the legitimacy of my faith in God's salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ only, only questioning my grasp and acceptance of the fullness of truth as the RCC sees it, then let's just agree to disagree and let God judge what is the fullness of His Truth. You are satisfied that you have the fullness of God's truth within the RCC, and I am satisfied that I have the fullness of God's Truth outside the RCC. It's only taken hundreds of posts to get us to this stalemate.
: John 10:10 Mon Nov 29, 2010 - 15:47:39
: chestertonrules Mon Nov 29, 2010 - 15:28:31
: John 10:10 Mon Nov 29, 2010 - 14:54:44
At least the RCC after Vatican II recognizes that separated brethren live outside the RCC. I'm sorry that you and others do not. Maybe you should listen more to the RCC after 1965 than before.
I've made the decision to trust ONLY in my Lord Jesus Christ for God's salvation. So have all who have truly received God's salvation, both inside and outside the RCC, since the Body of Christ began in Acts 2.
I will let God judge me on His salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ, where I park my Christian car, and how I live my life in praise, worship, and service for Him.
You are making assumptions that have nothing to do with what I posted.
When the words of scripture don't fit your dogma, you rely on your own understanding and disregard uncomfortable passages as they appear in scripture. However, this has nothing to do with the legitimacy of your faith, it has to do with your grasp and acceptance of the fullness of Truth.
Now we are getting somewhere. Since you are not questioning the legitimacy of my faith in God's salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ only, only questioning my grasp and acceptance of the fullness of truth as the RCC sees it, then let's just agree to disagree and let God judge what is the fullness of His Truth. You are satisfied that you have the fullness of God's truth within the RCC, and I am satisfied that I have the fullness of God's Truth outside the RCC. It's only taken hundreds of posts to get us to this stalemate.
Well you truly are a dense one if you didn't know that they accepted this view from before you were even apart of this thread. Like I said you obviously have no interest in understanding our catholic brethren. It comes as no surprise. Most protestants are like this.
So passes yet another one of the continuous waves of bias spreading falsehoods and arrogance.
Before you go I would like to ask why you think Scripture and the Church are not in perfect harmony. How exactly does the Church contradict Scripture?
: LightHammer Mon Nov 29, 2010 - 18:05:10
: John 10:10 Mon Nov 29, 2010 - 15:47:39
: chestertonrules Mon Nov 29, 2010 - 15:28:31
: John 10:10 Mon Nov 29, 2010 - 14:54:44
At least the RCC after Vatican II recognizes that separated brethren live outside the RCC. I'm sorry that you and others do not. Maybe you should listen more to the RCC after 1965 than before.
I've made the decision to trust ONLY in my Lord Jesus Christ for God's salvation. So have all who have truly received God's salvation, both inside and outside the RCC, since the Body of Christ began in Acts 2.
I will let God judge me on His salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ, where I park my Christian car, and how I live my life in praise, worship, and service for Him.
You are making assumptions that have nothing to do with what I posted.
When the words of scripture don't fit your dogma, you rely on your own understanding and disregard uncomfortable passages as they appear in scripture. However, this has nothing to do with the legitimacy of your faith, it has to do with your grasp and acceptance of the fullness of Truth.
Now we are getting somewhere. Since you are not questioning the legitimacy of my faith in God's salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ only, only questioning my grasp and acceptance of the fullness of truth as the RCC sees it, then let's just agree to disagree and let God judge what is the fullness of His Truth. You are satisfied that you have the fullness of God's truth within the RCC, and I am satisfied that I have the fullness of God's Truth outside the RCC. It's only taken hundreds of posts to get us to this stalemate.
Well you truly are a dense one if you didn't know that they accepted this view from before you were even apart of this thread. Like I said you obviously have no interest in understanding our catholic brethren. It comes as no surprise. Most protestants are like this.
So passes yet another one of the continuous waves of bias spreading falsehoods and arrogance.
Before you go I would like to ask why you think Scripture and the Church are not in perfect harmony. How exactly does the Church contradict Scripture?
In all my discussions with chestertonrules, he did question the legitimacy of my faith in God's salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ only, continually saying that God's salvation is in the Church - the RCC as God's appointed instrument on earth. The RCC certainly did so before 1965.
To answer your question, I will give you the same statement I gave him which he did/could not answer:
No where recorded in Scripture after John 20:23 do any of Jesus' apostles/servants tell sinners they have God's power and authority to extend God's salvation grace to them, and that God saves them because they are acting as God's authorized mediator. It is the RCC that prefers a non authoritative human tradition that was not established by Christ as recorded by practice in His Word.
The Catholic Church does not follow nor have a non-authoritative human tradition. Christ is the Head of our Church and has always been in authority. Because He is the Head of our Church, we carry out His gospels. After all, Jesus said, "He who hears you, hears me and he who rejects you rejects me." It was the Head of the Church who instructs the priests and bishops what to preach. Our authority came from Christ who is the Head of our Church.
: LightHammer Mon Nov 29, 2010 - 02:55:56
I think I follow you Mclees8. You are saying that there are physical and spiritual truths.
Like the color of the sky verses the divinity of Jesus. Is that about right?
I agree but my point still remains that not every spiritual truth is contained in scripture. There are spiritual truths that weren't addressed at the time scripture record and therefore they are not present in its contents. Like abortion, artifical birth, the role of Mary, the communion of the saints belonging to the Church Triumphant. You have to understand that scripture ways recorded when the Church was still a baby. Christ entrusted His authorative followers to recieve the truth of the Holy Spirit and deliver it when the time came for the Church to grow and mature.
Are you saying then you believe that Gods word is incomplete. That it does not contain enough for one to find truth and salvation and receive the Holy Spirit and Gods fullness of grace. You will never convince me of that. You are saying that he gave the apostles incomplete revelation. Yet throughout the the New testament and Christ gospel we are warned not to follow after every wind of doctrine. How can we put all our faith in men. Men who conceive every vain imagination. Men who appear as angels of light able to fool the very elect. We know that Satan knows the word of God and how to twist it and use use it to his own advantage. You want to say the the bible is not supernatural spiritual truth. i say it contains everything we need to have Gods fullness of truth and that truth is available to all who hear Christ and walk in the power of His holy Spirit and grace.
So why does the RCC not want you to believe this?. Because it challenges the very authority they despeartly need to keep its followers in captivity to itself. That without them they can never be complete or receive the fullness of truth.
God bless
: Selene Mon Nov 29, 2010 - 21:39:32
The Catholic Church does not follow nor have a non-authoritative human tradition. Christ is the Head of our Church and has always been in authority. Because He is the Head of our Church, we carry out His gospels. After all, Jesus said, "He who hears you, hears me and he who rejects you rejects me." It was the Head of the Church who instructs the priests and bishops what to preach. Our authority came from Christ who is the Head of our Church.
What gospel are you preaching,please tell me,I'm curious to know your gospel.
2Th 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;
2Th 2:4 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.
2Th 2:5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
2Th 2:6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
2Th 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
2Th 2:8 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:
2Th 2:9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
2Th 2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
2Th 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
2Th 2:12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
2000 yrs ago when the above was written,satan is already at work,read verse 2.11,be very careful what you believe is not a strong delusion.
: John 10:10 Mon Nov 29, 2010 - 15:47:39
Now we are getting somewhere. Since you are not questioning the legitimacy of my faith in God's salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ only, only questioning my grasp and acceptance of the fullness of truth as the RCC sees it, then let's just agree to disagree and let God judge what is the fullness of His Truth. You are satisfied that you have the fullness of God's truth within the RCC, and I am satisfied that I have the fullness of God's Truth outside the RCC. It's only taken hundreds of posts to get us to this stalemate.
I like to debate theology and I believe it is important that we be able to defend our beliefs. I hope you are enjoying the exchanges here as much as I am.
Jesus wants us to be one as he and the Father are one. That won't happen outside of the Catholic Church.
If we want what Jesus wants, then we must seek Christian unity in the fullness of Truth.
I think I have clearly demonstrated that there are major doctrinal contradictions among Christians outside of Catholicism.
This is not consistent with the Church Jesus built and describes in scripture.
The Catholic Church is consistent with the biblical description of the Church.
: chestertonrules Tue Nov 30, 2010 - 07:30:09
: John 10:10 Mon Nov 29, 2010 - 15:47:39
Now we are getting somewhere. Since you are not questioning the legitimacy of my faith in God's salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ only, only questioning my grasp and acceptance of the fullness of truth as the RCC sees it, then let's just agree to disagree and let God judge what is the fullness of His Truth. You are satisfied that you have the fullness of God's truth within the RCC, and I am satisfied that I have the fullness of God's Truth outside the RCC. It's only taken hundreds of posts to get us to this stalemate.
I like to debate theology and I believe it is important that we be able to defend our beliefs. I hope you are enjoying the exchanges here as much as I am.
Jesus wants us to be one as he and the Father are one. That won't happen outside of the Catholic Church.
If we want what Jesus wants, then we must seek Christian unity in the fullness of Truth.
I think I have clearly demonstrated that there are major doctrinal contradictions among Christians outside of Catholicism.
This is not consistent with the Church Jesus built and describes in scripture.
The Catholic Church is consistent with the biblical description of the Church.
I presumed you are a priest.
: chestertonrules Tue Nov 30, 2010 - 07:30:09
: John 10:10 Mon Nov 29, 2010 - 15:47:39
Now we are getting somewhere. Since you are not questioning the legitimacy of my faith in God's salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ only, only questioning my grasp and acceptance of the fullness of truth as the RCC sees it, then let's just agree to disagree and let God judge what is the fullness of His Truth. You are satisfied that you have the fullness of God's truth within the RCC, and I am satisfied that I have the fullness of God's Truth outside the RCC. It's only taken hundreds of posts to get us to this stalemate.
I like to debate theology and I believe it is important that we be able to defend our beliefs. I hope you are enjoying the exchanges here as much as I am.
Jesus wants us to be one as he and the Father are one. That won't happen outside of the Catholic Church.
If we want what Jesus wants, then we must seek Christian unity in the fullness of Truth.
I think I have clearly demonstrated that there are major doctrinal contradictions among Christians outside of Catholicism.
This is not consistent with the Church Jesus built and describes in scripture.
The Catholic Church is consistent with the biblical description of the Church.
Yes, Jesus prayed that His Body of Believers would be ONE (John 17) just as He and the Father are ONE. This unity is found first in the Spirit (Eph 4:3) until we come into the unity of the faith (Eph 4:13). Even if every Spirit-born Christian suddenly jumped on the RCC bandwagon, this would not produce the unity Jesus prayed for. Forcing Christians from the top down to have unity of the faith will never produce unity. Only by every Christian who honors/receives Jesus as Lord maintaining the unity of the Spirit they already have produces UNITY.
The biblical Church that I know and love is composed of all blood bought, Spirit-born Christians down thru the ages. We will have to disagree on your definition of the Church, and where the fullness of Truth lies.
: John 10:10 Tue Nov 30, 2010 - 08:47:57
The biblical Church that I know and love is composed of all blood bought, Spirit-born Christians down thru the ages. We will have to disagree on your definition of the Church, and where the fullness of Truth lies.
Why do so many bible alone Christians like you disagree on central matters of the faith?
For example, there is disagreement about:
1) Is a person once saved always saved?
2) Is salvation by faith alone?
3) Is baptism necessary for salvation?
4) Is infant baptism valid?
5) Are gifts of the spirit necessary signs of salvation?
You have an answer for each of these questions. However, there are bible believing Christians who disagree with you for each of these questions.
These are important aspects of our faith. Do you really think the Holy Spirit is leading Christians in opposition directions regarding these questions?
: tinker Tue Nov 30, 2010 - 08:39:45
: chestertonrules Tue Nov 30, 2010 - 07:30:09
: John 10:10 Mon Nov 29, 2010 - 15:47:39
Now we are getting somewhere. Since you are not questioning the legitimacy of my faith in God's salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ only, only questioning my grasp and acceptance of the fullness of truth as the RCC sees it, then let's just agree to disagree and let God judge what is the fullness of His Truth. You are satisfied that you have the fullness of God's truth within the RCC, and I am satisfied that I have the fullness of God's Truth outside the RCC. It's only taken hundreds of posts to get us to this stalemate.
I like to debate theology and I believe it is important that we be able to defend our beliefs. I hope you are enjoying the exchanges here as much as I am.
Jesus wants us to be one as he and the Father are one. That won't happen outside of the Catholic Church.
If we want what Jesus wants, then we must seek Christian unity in the fullness of Truth.
I think I have clearly demonstrated that there are major doctrinal contradictions among Christians outside of Catholicism.
This is not consistent with the Church Jesus built and describes in scripture.
The Catholic Church is consistent with the biblical description of the Church.
I presumed you are a priest.
Ha!
No, I'm the father of six kids.
I am also a convert. I was born again in a Baptist Church and was raised in a strong bible believing home. It is only by the grace of God that have been able to come into the fullness of Truth that is the Church Jesus gave us.
I thank God for my strong biblical upbringing and for the opportunity to find that there is even more available for us in the Catholic Church!
: chestertonrules Tue Nov 30, 2010 - 09:05:04
: tinker Tue Nov 30, 2010 - 08:39:45
: chestertonrules Tue Nov 30, 2010 - 07:30:09
: John 10:10 Mon Nov 29, 2010 - 15:47:39
Now we are getting somewhere. Since you are not questioning the legitimacy of my faith in God's salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ only, only questioning my grasp and acceptance of the fullness of truth as the RCC sees it, then let's just agree to disagree and let God judge what is the fullness of His Truth. You are satisfied that you have the fullness of God's truth within the RCC, and I am satisfied that I have the fullness of God's Truth outside the RCC. It's only taken hundreds of posts to get us to this stalemate.
I like to debate theology and I believe it is important that we be able to defend our beliefs. I hope you are enjoying the exchanges here as much as I am.
Jesus wants us to be one as he and the Father are one. That won't happen outside of the Catholic Church.
If we want what Jesus wants, then we must seek Christian unity in the fullness of Truth.
I think I have clearly demonstrated that there are major doctrinal contradictions among Christians outside of Catholicism.
This is not consistent with the Church Jesus built and describes in scripture.
The Catholic Church is consistent with the biblical description of the Church.
I presumed you are a priest.
Ha!
No, I'm the father of six kids.
I am also a convert. I was born again in a Baptist Church and was raised in a strong bible believing home. It is only by the grace of God that have been able to come into the fullness of Truth that is the Church Jesus gave us.
I thank God for my strong biblical upbringing and for the opportunity to find that there is even more available for us in the Catholic Church!
Since you enjoy debate so much,perhaps you would like to debate with James White,this is his website below..
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/
Links to some interesting articles below..
About Roman Catholicism.......http://vintage.aomin.org/Morrow.html
Go thru the list of subjects in which some of them are debates with well known RC apologist.
: chestertonrules Tue Nov 30, 2010 - 08:56:58
: John 10:10 Tue Nov 30, 2010 - 08:47:57
The biblical Church that I know and love is composed of all blood bought, Spirit-born Christians down thru the ages. We will have to disagree on your definition of the Church, and where the fullness of Truth lies.
Why do so many bible alone Christians like you disagree on central matters of the faith?
For example, there is disagreement about:
1) Is a person once saved always saved?
2) Is salvation by faith alone?
3) Is baptism necessary for salvation?
4) Is infant baptism valid?
5) Are gifts of the spirit necessary signs of salvation?
You have an answer for each of these questions. However, there are bible believing Christians who disagree with you for each of these questions.
These are important aspects of our faith. Do you really think the Holy Spirit is leading Christians in opposition directions regarding these questions.
You are drifting far from this topic subject -
Papacy - right or wrong? There are many other forum topics that cover these subjects with most Christians at this forum.
There is only one matter essential to God's grace salvation in Christ Jesus,
Acts 2:38-39
"Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself." Every sinner whom the Lord is drawing to Himself can hear this message (John 6:44), and enter in God's salvation directly.
I've seen James White soundly defeated in debates by more than one Catholic, including Patrick Madrid.
Are you saying then you believe that Gods word is incomplete. That it does not contain enough for one to find truth and salvation and receive the Holy Spirit and Gods fullness of grace. You will never convince me of that.
No I am not saying God's Word is incomplete. I completely believe that a christian armed with faith in scripture and the Holy Spirit has
ALL they need for not just their own salvation but lead good and helathy Christian lives. What I am saying is simple; I do not believe that they can never experience the fullness of truth without the Church. The will never be able to fully grasp the entirety of what God meant us to have for nurishment of spirits.
You are saying that he gave the apostles incomplete revelation. Yet throughout the the New testament and Christ gospel we are warned not to follow after every wind of doctrine. How can we put all our faith in men. Men who conceive every vain imagination. Men who appear as angels of light able to fool the very elect. We know that Satan knows the word of God and how to twist it and use use it to his own advantage.
No. I am saying the Apostles were given all they needed for that time and as the Church was meant to grow the Holy Spirit was meant to come and deliver all they would need for the times to come.
John 16:12I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
13Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
14He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. Scripture records the Truth of all they knew needed for at that time which is all we need for our own salvation (of course if people had all they need in that time for their salvation it is only true that it applies to us as well). Jesus clearly says that there is more to the Truths of what He already revealed and would reveal in His lifetime and the Holy Spirit would come and reveal it to the leaders of the Church in the time they needed it most.
You want to say the the bible is not supernatural spiritual truth. i say it contains everything we need to have Gods fullness of truth and that truth is available to all who hear Christ and walk in the power of His holy Spirit and grace.
Also a misunderstanding. I said scripture is not all as is containing every spiritual truth there is in existence. Every truth dealing with God or dealing with what God wanted us to know about life, NOT WHAT IS NEEDED FOR SALVATION simply truths He wanted us to know in life, is not documented in scipture's 66 booked protestant bible.
So why does the RCC not want you to believe this?. Because it challenges the very authority they despeartly need to keep its followers in captivity to itself. That without them they can never be complete or receive the fullness of truth.
I think I've proven my point but I'll just wait and see what you have to say.
Are Roman Catholics saved? Good site for RC to learn the truth...
http://so4j.com/catholics-are-they-saved.php
: tinker Tue Nov 30, 2010 - 21:04:59
Are Roman Catholics saved? Good site for RC to learn the truth...
http://so4j.com/catholics-are-they-saved.php
You are a pretty sick person if you think you have the capacity to imply whether or not anyone is saved. There is one Divine Judge and One who has any right to vengence and the judgement of others whether outwardly or inwardly and that is God Almighty.
I was raised up to have respect for my elders and show reverence to them but I was not raised to hold my tongue in the face of corruption and mere men acting as if they have the capacities for things God has reserved for Himself.
Even the Mother Church, with all her alleged sin and falsehood, has never made any claim that saves you are without salvation so how dare you think to make the claim of anyone else?
: tinker Tue Nov 30, 2010 - 21:04:59
Are Roman Catholics saved? Good site for RC to learn the truth...
http://so4j.com/catholics-are-they-saved.php
Would it make you feel better if we weren't?
: tinker Tue Nov 30, 2010 - 21:04:59
Are Roman Catholics saved? Good site for RC to learn the truth...
http://so4j.com/catholics-are-they-saved.php
You don't care about the Truth.
You keep repeating lies about Catholics.
You reject scripture as well. For example:
Romans 2
6 God "will repay each person according to what they have done.
: LightHammer Tue Nov 30, 2010 - 18:41:12
Are you saying then you believe that Gods word is incomplete. That it does not contain enough for one to find truth and salvation and receive the Holy Spirit and Gods fullness of grace. You will never convince me of that.
No I am not saying God's Word is incomplete. I completely believe that a christian armed with faith in scripture and the Holy Spirit has ALL they need for not just their own salvation but lead good and helathy Christian lives. What I am saying is simple; I do not believe that they can never experience the fullness of truth without the Church. The will never be able to fully grasp the entirety of what God meant us to have for nurishment of spirits.
You are saying that he gave the apostles incomplete revelation. Yet throughout the the New testament and Christ gospel we are warned not to follow after every wind of doctrine. How can we put all our faith in men. Men who conceive every vain imagination. Men who appear as angels of light able to fool the very elect. We know that Satan knows the word of God and how to twist it and use use it to his own advantage.
No. I am saying the Apostles were given all they needed for that time and as the Church was meant to grow the Holy Spirit was meant to come and deliver all they would need for the times to come.
John 16:12I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
13Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
14He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
Scripture records the Truth of all they knew needed for at that time which is all we need for our own salvation (of course if people had all they need in that time for their salvation it is only true that it applies to us as well). Jesus clearly says that there is more to the Truths of what He already revealed and would reveal in His lifetime and the Holy Spirit would come and reveal it to the leaders of the Church in the time they needed it most.
You want to say the the bible is not supernatural spiritual truth. i say it contains everything we need to have Gods fullness of truth and that truth is available to all who hear Christ and walk in the power of His holy Spirit and grace.
Also a misunderstanding. I said scripture is not all as is containing every spiritual truth there is in existence. Every truth dealing with God or dealing with what God wanted us to know about life, NOT WHAT IS NEEDED FOR SALVATION simply truths He wanted us to know in life, is not documented in scipture's 66 booked protestant bible.
So why does the RCC not want you to believe this?. Because it challenges the very authority they despeartly need to keep its followers in captivity to itself. That without them they can never be complete or receive the fullness of truth.
I think I've proven my point but I'll just wait and see what you have to say.
LH I have been in and of the church for at least thirty years now. I have sat under many teachers and pastors. Yes they were truly a vital role in my spiritual growth and maturity. But they were not all I needed alone, and as you have pointed out with scripture The Holy spirit will reveal more truth as we are able. I have seen many things in this thing we call Christianity that has disturbed me, and much more than i could speak about right now. In my walk the Lord has shown me much that i would not have been able to understand while i was still a babe, but he has revealed much to me as i was able to receive it. I have had revelations visions and dreams. I do not say the Lord as shown me everything yet, but I know a multitude i did not know, or was able to know, when i was just a young believer.
You are not complete or have all the fullness because of your organized church relationship. You have the fullness through faith in Christ . You are also given more spiritual truth and understanding as you allow the Holy Spirit to mature you in Christ . When i go through trials I am comforted by the Lord. He speaks to me in many ways to let me know that i am not some insignificant speck in an ocean of sand. I respect Giver when he was saying that Jesus sits in you very house with you and hears every prayer and he spiritually wraps his arms around me and tells me not to fear and to trust him for my future. He has plans for me i do not know yet so I am comforted in that My Lord is never far from. I do not call any denomination my church, but i am the church and the church walking. I am just as much alive in Christ today as when I sat under pastors and teachers and maybe more so because I know I just don't see Jesus in Church on Sunday but he walks with me every day. He is ith when i go to sleep and he is with me when i awake.
God bless
: mclees8 Wed Dec 01, 2010 - 11:23:59
: LightHammer Tue Nov 30, 2010 - 18:41:12
Are you saying then you believe that Gods word is incomplete. That it does not contain enough for one to find truth and salvation and receive the Holy Spirit and Gods fullness of grace. You will never convince me of that.
No I am not saying God's Word is incomplete. I completely believe that a christian armed with faith in scripture and the Holy Spirit has ALL they need for not just their own salvation but lead good and helathy Christian lives. What I am saying is simple; I do not believe that they can never experience the fullness of truth without the Church. The will never be able to fully grasp the entirety of what God meant us to have for nurishment of spirits.
You are saying that he gave the apostles incomplete revelation. Yet throughout the the New testament and Christ gospel we are warned not to follow after every wind of doctrine. How can we put all our faith in men. Men who conceive every vain imagination. Men who appear as angels of light able to fool the very elect. We know that Satan knows the word of God and how to twist it and use use it to his own advantage.
No. I am saying the Apostles were given all they needed for that time and as the Church was meant to grow the Holy Spirit was meant to come and deliver all they would need for the times to come.
John 16:12I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
13Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
14He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
Scripture records the Truth of all they knew needed for at that time which is all we need for our own salvation (of course if people had all they need in that time for their salvation it is only true that it applies to us as well). Jesus clearly says that there is more to the Truths of what He already revealed and would reveal in His lifetime and the Holy Spirit would come and reveal it to the leaders of the Church in the time they needed it most.
You want to say the the bible is not supernatural spiritual truth. i say it contains everything we need to have Gods fullness of truth and that truth is available to all who hear Christ and walk in the power of His holy Spirit and grace.
Also a misunderstanding. I said scripture is not all as is containing every spiritual truth there is in existence. Every truth dealing with God or dealing with what God wanted us to know about life, NOT WHAT IS NEEDED FOR SALVATION simply truths He wanted us to know in life, is not documented in scipture's 66 booked protestant bible.
So why does the RCC not want you to believe this?. Because it challenges the very authority they despeartly need to keep its followers in captivity to itself. That without them they can never be complete or receive the fullness of truth.
I think I've proven my point but I'll just wait and see what you have to say.
LH I have been in and of the church for at least thirty years now. I have sat under many teachers and pastors. Yes they were truly a vital role in my spiritual growth and maturity. But they were not all I needed alone, and as you have pointed out with scripture The Holy spirit will reveal more truth as we are able. I have seen many things in this thing we call Christianity that has disturbed me, and much more than i could speak about right now. In my walk the Lord has shown me much that i would not have been able to understand while i was still a babe, but he has revealed much to me as i was able to receive it. I have had revelations visions and dreams. I do not say the Lord as shown me everything yet, but I know a multitude i did not know, or was able to know, when i was just a young believer.
You are not complete or have all the fullness because of your organized church relationship. You have the fullness through faith in Christ . You are also given more spiritual truth and understanding as you allow the Holy Spirit to mature you in Christ . When i go through trials I am comforted by the Lord. He speaks to me in many ways to let me know that i am not some insignificant speck in an ocean of sand. I respect Giver when he was saying that Jesus sits in you very house with you and hears every prayer and he spiritually wraps his arms around me and tells me not to fear and to trust him for my future. He has plans for me i do not know yet so I am comforted in that My Lord is never far from. I do not call any denomination my church, but i am the church and the church walking. I am just as much alive in Christ today as when I sat under pastors and teachers and maybe more so because I know I just don't see Jesus in Church on Sunday but he walks with me every day. He is ith when i go to sleep and he is with me when i awake.
God bless
So basically you think you can truly grasp the fullness of Truth if you spent a lifetime in study? You think that you a mere man who will live no more than a mere 98 years max, can actually realize all that God the Almighty Infinite Father, has begotten from Himself and prepared for us? You really think that just because you love God and walk with Him that you even have the spiritual capacity to engulf the fullness, the sheer dominant radiant brilliant light that is God in His entirety?
: mclees8 Wed Dec 01, 2010 - 11:23:59
: LightHammer Tue Nov 30, 2010 - 18:41:12
Are you saying then you believe that Gods word is incomplete. That it does not contain enough for one to find truth and salvation and receive the Holy Spirit and Gods fullness of grace. You will never convince me of that.
No I am not saying God's Word is incomplete. I completely believe that a christian armed with faith in scripture and the Holy Spirit has ALL they need for not just their own salvation but lead good and helathy Christian lives. What I am saying is simple; I do not believe that they can never experience the fullness of truth without the Church. The will never be able to fully grasp the entirety of what God meant us to have for nurishment of spirits.
You are saying that he gave the apostles incomplete revelation. Yet throughout the the New testament and Christ gospel we are warned not to follow after every wind of doctrine. How can we put all our faith in men. Men who conceive every vain imagination. Men who appear as angels of light able to fool the very elect. We know that Satan knows the word of God and how to twist it and use use it to his own advantage.
No. I am saying the Apostles were given all they needed for that time and as the Church was meant to grow the Holy Spirit was meant to come and deliver all they would need for the times to come.
John 16:12I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
13Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
14He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
Scripture records the Truth of all they knew needed for at that time which is all we need for our own salvation (of course if people had all they need in that time for their salvation it is only true that it applies to us as well). Jesus clearly says that there is more to the Truths of what He already revealed and would reveal in His lifetime and the Holy Spirit would come and reveal it to the leaders of the Church in the time they needed it most.
You want to say the the bible is not supernatural spiritual truth. i say it contains everything we need to have Gods fullness of truth and that truth is available to all who hear Christ and walk in the power of His holy Spirit and grace.
Also a misunderstanding. I said scripture is not all as is containing every spiritual truth there is in existence. Every truth dealing with God or dealing with what God wanted us to know about life, NOT WHAT IS NEEDED FOR SALVATION simply truths He wanted us to know in life, is not documented in scipture's 66 booked protestant bible.
So why does the RCC not want you to believe this?. Because it challenges the very authority they despeartly need to keep its followers in captivity to itself. That without them they can never be complete or receive the fullness of truth.
I think I've proven my point but I'll just wait and see what you have to say.
LH I have been in and of the church for at least thirty years now. I have sat under many teachers and pastors. Yes they were truly a vital role in my spiritual growth and maturity. But they were not all I needed alone, and as you have pointed out with scripture The Holy spirit will reveal more truth as we are able. I have seen many things in this thing we call Christianity that has disturbed me, and much more than i could speak about right now. In my walk the Lord has shown me much that i would not have been able to understand while i was still a babe, but he has revealed much to me as i was able to receive it. I have had revelations visions and dreams. I do not say the Lord as shown me everything yet, but I know a multitude i did not know, or was able to know, when i was just a young believer.
You are not complete or have all the fullness because of your organized church relationship. You have the fullness through faith in Christ . You are also given more spiritual truth and understanding as you allow the Holy Spirit to mature you in Christ . When i go through trials I am comforted by the Lord. He speaks to me in many ways to let me know that i am not some insignificant speck in an ocean of sand. I respect Giver when he was saying that Jesus sits in you very house with you and hears every prayer and he spiritually wraps his arms around me and tells me not to fear and to trust him for my future. He has plans for me i do not know yet so I am comforted in that My Lord is never far from. I do not call any denomination my church, but i am the church and the church walking. I am just as much alive in Christ today as when I sat under pastors and teachers and maybe more so because I know I just don't see Jesus in Church on Sunday but he walks with me every day. He is ith when i go to sleep and he is with me when i awake.
God bless
You believe you can take Scripture which is merely a piece of God and come to the fullness of God which infinitely surpasses what Scripture records?
: chestertonrules Wed Dec 01, 2010 - 08:56:08
: tinker Tue Nov 30, 2010 - 21:04:59
Are Roman Catholics saved? Good site for RC to learn the truth...
http://so4j.com/catholics-are-they-saved.php
You don't care about the Truth.
You keep repeating lies about Catholics.
You reject scripture as well. For example:
Romans 2
6 God "will repay each person according to what they have done.
: tinker Wed Dec 01, 2010 - 21:18:14
: chestertonrules Wed Dec 01, 2010 - 08:56:08
: tinker Tue Nov 30, 2010 - 21:04:59
Are Roman Catholics saved? Good site for RC to learn the truth...
http://so4j.com/catholics-are-they-saved.php
You don't care about the Truth.
You keep repeating lies about Catholics.
You reject scripture as well. For example:
Romans 2
6 God "will repay each person according to what they have done.
: tinker Wed Dec 01, 2010 - 21:18:14
: chestertonrules Wed Dec 01, 2010 - 08:56:08
: tinker Tue Nov 30, 2010 - 21:04:59
Are Roman Catholics saved? Good site for RC to learn the truth...
http://so4j.com/catholics-are-they-saved.php
You don't care about the Truth.
You keep repeating lies about Catholics.
You reject scripture as well. For example:
Romans 2
6 God "will repay each person according to what they have done.
: LightHammer Wed Dec 01, 2010 - 17:38:00
: mclees8 Wed Dec 01, 2010 - 11:23:59
: LightHammer Tue Nov 30, 2010 - 18:41:12
Are you saying then you believe that Gods word is incomplete. That it does not contain enough for one to find truth and salvation and receive the Holy Spirit and Gods fullness of grace. You will never convince me of that.
No I am not saying God's Word is incomplete. I completely believe that a christian armed with faith in scripture and the Holy Spirit has ALL they need for not just their own salvation but lead good and helathy Christian lives. What I am saying is simple; I do not believe that they can never experience the fullness of truth without the Church. The will never be able to fully grasp the entirety of what God meant us to have for nurishment of spirits.
You are saying that he gave the apostles incomplete revelation. Yet throughout the the New testament and Christ gospel we are warned not to follow after every wind of doctrine. How can we put all our faith in men. Men who conceive every vain imagination. Men who appear as angels of light able to fool the very elect. We know that Satan knows the word of God and how to twist it and use use it to his own advantage.
No. I am saying the Apostles were given all they needed for that time and as the Church was meant to grow the Holy Spirit was meant to come and deliver all they would need for the times to come.
John 16:12I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
13Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
14He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
Scripture records the Truth of all they knew needed for at that time which is all we need for our own salvation (of course if people had all they need in that time for their salvation it is only true that it applies to us as well). Jesus clearly says that there is more to the Truths of what He already revealed and would reveal in His lifetime and the Holy Spirit would come and reveal it to the leaders of the Church in the time they needed it most.
You want to say the the bible is not supernatural spiritual truth. i say it contains everything we need to have Gods fullness of truth and that truth is available to all who hear Christ and walk in the power of His holy Spirit and grace.
Also a misunderstanding. I said scripture is not all as is containing every spiritual truth there is in existence. Every truth dealing with God or dealing with what God wanted us to know about life, NOT WHAT IS NEEDED FOR SALVATION simply truths He wanted us to know in life, is not documented in scipture's 66 booked protestant bible.
So why does the RCC not want you to believe this?. Because it challenges the very authority they despeartly need to keep its followers in captivity to itself. That without them they can never be complete or receive the fullness of truth.
I think I've proven my point but I'll just wait and see what you have to say.
LH I have been in and of the church for at least thirty years now. I have sat under many teachers and pastors. Yes they were truly a vital role in my spiritual growth and maturity. But they were not all I needed alone, and as you have pointed out with scripture The Holy spirit will reveal more truth as we are able. I have seen many things in this thing we call Christianity that has disturbed me, and much more than i could speak about right now. In my walk the Lord has shown me much that i would not have been able to understand while i was still a babe, but he has revealed much to me as i was able to receive it. I have had revelations visions and dreams. I do not say the Lord as shown me everything yet, but I know a multitude i did not know, or was able to know, when i was just a young believer.
You are not complete or have all the fullness because of your organized church relationship. You have the fullness through faith in Christ . You are also given more spiritual truth and understanding as you allow the Holy Spirit to mature you in Christ . When i go through trials I am comforted by the Lord. He speaks to me in many ways to let me know that i am not some insignificant speck in an ocean of sand. I respect Giver when he was saying that Jesus sits in you very house with you and hears every prayer and he spiritually wraps his arms around me and tells me not to fear and to trust him for my future. He has plans for me i do not know yet so I am comforted in that My Lord is never far from. I do not call any denomination my church, but i am the church and the church walking. I am just as much alive in Christ today as when I sat under pastors and teachers and maybe more so because I know I just don't see Jesus in Church on Sunday but he walks with me every day. He is ith when i go to sleep and he is with me when i awake.
God bless
So basically you think you can truly grasp the fullness of Truth if you spent a lifetime in study? You think that you a mere man who will live no more than a mere 98 years max, can actually realize all that God the Almighty Infinite Father, has begotten from Himself and prepared for us? You really think that just because you love God and walk with Him that you even have the spiritual capacity to engulf the fullness, the sheer dominant radiant brilliant light that is God in His entirety?
LH you can study an eternity and never have the fullness. I don't really think you understood a word I said. Jesus is the fullness of Gods grace given for us. He who receives Him has received his fullness. It is true this mortal must put on immortality. It is also true that eye has not nor ear heard those thing which God has prepared for those who love Him .
God bless
: LightHammer Mon Nov 29, 2010 - 18:05:10
: John 10:10 Mon Nov 29, 2010 - 15:47:39
: chestertonrules Mon Nov 29, 2010 - 15:28:31
: John 10:10 Mon Nov 29, 2010 - 14:54:44
At least the RCC after Vatican II recognizes that separated brethren live outside the RCC. I'm sorry that you and others do not. Maybe you should listen more to the RCC after 1965 than before.
I've made the decision to trust ONLY in my Lord Jesus Christ for God's salvation. So have all who have truly received God's salvation, both inside and outside the RCC, since the Body of Christ began in Acts 2.
I will let God judge me on His salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ, where I park my Christian car, and how I live my life in praise, worship, and service for Him.
You are making assumptions that have nothing to do with what I posted.
When the words of scripture don't fit your dogma, you rely on your own understanding and disregard uncomfortable passages as they appear in scripture. However, this has nothing to do with the legitimacy of your faith, it has to do with your grasp and acceptance of the fullness of Truth.
Now we are getting somewhere. Since you are not questioning the legitimacy of my faith in God's salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ only, only questioning my grasp and acceptance of the fullness of truth as the RCC sees it, then let's just agree to disagree and let God judge what is the fullness of His Truth. You are satisfied that you have the fullness of God's truth within the RCC, and I am satisfied that I have the fullness of God's Truth outside the RCC. It's only taken hundreds of posts to get us to this stalemate.
Well you truly are a dense one if you didn't know that they accepted this view from before you were even apart of this thread. Like I said you obviously have no interest in understanding our catholic brethren. It comes as no surprise. Most protestants are like this.
So passes yet another one of the continuous waves of bias spreading falsehoods and arrogance.
Before you go I would like to ask why you think Scripture and the Church are not in perfect harmony. How exactly does the Church contradict Scripture?
Pope John XXIII sums up the official position of the RCC before 1965:
Pope John XXIII:
"The Saviour Himself is the door of the sheepfold: 'I am the door of the sheep.' Into this fold of Jesus Christ, no man may enter unless he be led by the Sovereign Pontiff; and only if they be united to him can men be saved, for the Roman Pontiff is the Vicar of Christ and His personal representative on earth." (Pope John XXIII, homily to the Bishops assisting at his coronation on November 4, 1958Papal Teachings: The Church, Benedictine Monks of Solesmes, Boston, St. Paul Editions, 1962, par. 1556.)
"And you, venerable brothers, will not fail, in your teaching, to recall to the flocks entrusted to you these grand and salutary truths; we cannot render to God the devotion that is due Him and that is pleasing to Him nor is it possible to be united to Him except through Jesus Christ; and it is not possible to be united to Jesus Christ except in the Church and through the Church, His Mystical Body, and, finally, it is not possible to belong to the Church except through the bishops, successors of the Apostles, united to the Supreme Pastor, the successor of Peter." (Pope John XXIII, Address on the creation of three new dioceses on Taiwan, L'Osseratore Romano, June 29, 1961.)
It seems I was wrong that the official position of the RCC has changed since 1965:
Pope John Paul I:
"According to the words of St. Augustine, who takes up an image dear to the ancient Fathers, the ship of the Church must not fear, because it is guided by Christ and by His Vicar. 'Although the ship is tossed about, it is still a ship. It alone carries the disciples and receives Christ. Yes, it is tossed on the sea, but, without it, one would immediately perish." (Sermon, 75,3; PL 28, 475) Only in the Church is salvation. 'Without it one perishes.' (Pope John Paul I, First Allocution, August 27, 1978, L'Osservatore Romano, August 28, 29, 1978.)
"It is difficult to accept some truths, because the truths of faith are of two kinds: some pleasant, others unpalatable to our spirit. For example, it is pleasant to hear that God has so much tenderness for us, even more tenderness than a mother for her children. Other truths, on the contrary, are hard to accept. God must punish if I resist. That is not agreeable, but it is clear that Jesus and the Church are the same thing: indissoluble, inseparable. Christ and the Church are only one thing. It is not possible to say: 'I believe in Jesus, I accept Jesus, but I do not accept the Church.' When the poor Pope, when the bishops, the priests, propose the doctrine, they are merely helping Christ. It is not our doctrine; it is Christ's: we must merely guard it and present it." (General Audience, September 13, 1978; Quoted in The Message of John Paul I, Daughters of St. Paul, Boston, 1978, pp. 106,107.)
Pope John Paul II:
"The mystery of salvation is revealed to us and is continued and accomplished in the Church...and from this genuine and single source, like 'humble, useful, precious and chaste' water, it reaches the whole world. Dear young people and members of the faithful, like Brother Francis we have to be conscious and absorb this fundamental and revealed truth, consecrated by tradition: 'There is no salvation outside the Church.' From her alone there flows surely and fully the life-giving force destined in Christ and in His Spirit, to renew the whole of humanity, and therefore directing every human being to become a part of the Mystical Body of Christ." (Pope John Paul II, Radio Message for Franciscan Vigil in St. Peter's and Assisi, October 3, 1981, L'Osservatore Romano, October 12, 1981.)
So I guess I'm still a heritic in the eyes of the RCC, and so are you. This is a badge of honor I'm willing to wear.
Blessings
I would think that it would be simple to understand that anyone who rejects the Chruch that Christ built would also be rejecting Jesus Christ because Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church that He built. One cannot separate Christ and the Church because He made Himself one with His Church.
: Selene Thu Dec 02, 2010 - 15:15:59
I would think that it would be simple to understand that anyone who rejects the Church that Christ built would also be rejecting Jesus Christ because Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church that He built. One cannot separate Christ and the Church because He made Himself one with His Church.
Vatican II made these statements regarding separated churches/brethren:
1. All who have been "justified by faith in baptism" are members of the Body of Christ; they all have the right to be called Christian; the children of the Catholic Church accept them as brothers.
2. The Catholic Church believes that the separated Churches and communities "are efficient in some respects." But the Holy Ghost makes use of these Churches; they are means of salvation to their members.
What is simple to understand is this: Vatican II had no real meaning, and it's business as usual with what the RCC had in place before 1965.
But, the Holy Spirit draws sinners everywhere to God's salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ, such as are being saved.
: John 10:10 Thu Dec 02, 2010 - 15:51:39
: Selene Thu Dec 02, 2010 - 15:15:59
I would think that it would be simple to understand that anyone who rejects the Church that Christ built would also be rejecting Jesus Christ because Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church that He built. One cannot separate Christ and the Church because He made Himself one with His Church.
Vatican II made these statements regarding separated churches/brethren:
1. All who have been "justified by faith in baptism" are members of the Body of Christ; they all have the right to be called Christian; the children of the Catholic Church accept them as brothers.
2. The Catholic Church believes that the separated Churches and communities "are efficient in some respects." But the Holy Ghost makes use of these Churches; they are means of salvation to their members.
What is simple to understand is this: Vatican II had no real meaning, and it's business as usual with what the RCC had in place before 1965.
But, the Holy Spirit draws sinners everywhere to God's salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ, such as are being saved.
Yes, they are "efficient in some respects" but they do not have the fullness of Christ. "Efficient in some respects" because some of our Protestant brethens cannot even be called "Christians" in that
some don't believe in baptism or the Holy Trinity. They are "efficient in some respects" in that they are referred to as"communities" rather than as "churches." Even after Vatican II, it still stands that one will find the fullness of Christ in the Catholic Church because He is the Head of the Church. The Catholic Church is NOT "efficient in some respects."
: Selene Thu Dec 02, 2010 - 18:57:19
: John 10:10 Thu Dec 02, 2010 - 15:51:39
: Selene Thu Dec 02, 2010 - 15:15:59
I would think that it would be simple to understand that anyone who rejects the Church that Christ built would also be rejecting Jesus Christ because Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church that He built. One cannot separate Christ and the Church because He made Himself one with His Church.
Vatican II made these statements regarding separated churches/brethren:
1. All who have been "justified by faith in baptism" are members of the Body of Christ; they all have the right to be called Christian; the children of the Catholic Church accept them as brothers.
2. The Catholic Church believes that the separated Churches and communities "are efficient in some respects." But the Holy Ghost makes use of these Churches; they are means of salvation to their members.
What is simple to understand is this: Vatican II had no real meaning, and it's business as usual with what the RCC had in place before 1965.
But, the Holy Spirit draws sinners everywhere to God's salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ, such as are being saved.
Yes, they are "efficient in some respects" but they do not have the fullness of Christ. "Efficient in some respects" because some of our Protestant brethen cannot even be called "Christians" in that some don't believe in baptism or the Holy Trinity. They are "efficient in some respects" in that they are referred to as"communities" rather than as "churches." Even after Vatican II, it still stands that one will find the fullness of Christ in the Catholic Church because He is the Head of the Church. The Catholic Church is NOT "efficient in some respects."
Pope John Paul II said this:
"The mystery of salvation is revealed to us and is continued and accomplished in the Church...and from this genuine and single source, like 'humble, useful, precious and chaste' water, it reaches the whole world. Dear young people and members of the faithful, like Brother Francis we have to be conscious and absorb this fundamental and revealed truth, consecrated by tradition: 'There is no salvation outside the Church.'
According to Pope John Paul II, since there is no salvation outside the RCC Church, there can not be any Christians either, let alone Christians finding the fullness of Christ. What's clear is that the RCC has no intentions of honoring Christians outside the RCC, no matter what Vatican II is supposed to have said. Vatican II for "separated brethren" has no meaning whatsoever.
: chestertonrules Thu Dec 02, 2010 - 07:11:46
: tinker Wed Dec 01, 2010 - 21:18:14
: chestertonrules Wed Dec 01, 2010 - 08:56:08
: tinker Tue Nov 30, 2010 - 21:04:59
Are Roman Catholics saved? Good site for RC to learn the truth...
http://so4j.com/catholics-are-they-saved.php
You don't care about the Truth.
You keep repeating lies about Catholics.
You reject scripture as well. For example:
Romans 2
6 God "will repay each person according to what they have done.
: tinker Thu Dec 02, 2010 - 21:14:56
: chestertonrules Thu Dec 02, 2010 - 07:11:46
: tinker Wed Dec 01, 2010 - 21:18:14
: chestertonrules Wed Dec 01, 2010 - 08:56:08
: tinker Tue Nov 30, 2010 - 21:04:59
Are Roman Catholics saved? Good site for RC to learn the truth...
http://so4j.com/catholics-are-they-saved.php
You don't care about the Truth.
You keep repeating lies about Catholics.
You reject scripture as well. For example:
Romans 2
6 God "will repay each person according to what they have done.
: John 10:10 Thu Dec 02, 2010 - 20:30:22
: Selene Thu Dec 02, 2010 - 18:57:19
: John 10:10 Thu Dec 02, 2010 - 15:51:39
: Selene Thu Dec 02, 2010 - 15:15:59
I would think that it would be simple to understand that anyone who rejects the Church that Christ built would also be rejecting Jesus Christ because Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church that He built. One cannot separate Christ and the Church because He made Himself one with His Church.
Vatican II made these statements regarding separated churches/brethren:
1. All who have been "justified by faith in baptism" are members of the Body of Christ; they all have the right to be called Christian; the children of the Catholic Church accept them as brothers.
2. The Catholic Church believes that the separated Churches and communities "are efficient in some respects." But the Holy Ghost makes use of these Churches; they are means of salvation to their members.
What is simple to understand is this: Vatican II had no real meaning, and it's business as usual with what the RCC had in place before 1965.
But, the Holy Spirit draws sinners everywhere to God's salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ, such as are being saved.
Yes, they are "efficient in some respects" but they do not have the fullness of Christ. "Efficient in some respects" because some of our Protestant brethen cannot even be called "Christians" in that some don't believe in baptism or the Holy Trinity. They are "efficient in some respects" in that they are referred to as"communities" rather than as "churches." Even after Vatican II, it still stands that one will find the fullness of Christ in the Catholic Church because He is the Head of the Church. The Catholic Church is NOT "efficient in some respects."
Pope John Paul II said this:
"The mystery of salvation is revealed to us and is continued and accomplished in the Church...and from this genuine and single source, like 'humble, useful, precious and chaste' water, it reaches the whole world. Dear young people and members of the faithful, like Brother Francis we have to be conscious and absorb this fundamental and revealed truth, consecrated by tradition: 'There is no salvation outside the Church.'
According to Pope John Paul II, if there is no salvation outside the RCC Church, there can not be any Christians either, let alone Christians finding the fullness of Christ. What's clear is that the RCC has no intentions of honoring Christians outside the RCC, no matter what Vatican II is supposed to have said.
"No salvation outside the Church" does not mean that you are condemned to hell. It also does not mean that there are no Christians outside the Church. "No salvation outside the Church" is an misinterpretation of the Latin "Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus." The weblink belows explains it better from the Catholic viewpoint:
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0043.html
: Selene Thu Dec 02, 2010 - 21:20:12
There is a difference between infallible and impeccible. The Pope is not impeccible. He can sin. But the Pope is infallible ONLY in the teachings of faith and morals. He is fallible in politics and can have his own opinion on it. But in matters of faith and morals, he is infallible. In other words, the Pope cannot say that adultery is okay. He cannot say that abortion is good. He cannot say lying is an okay thing to do.
So were the Popes "infallible or impeccible" when they said,
'There is no salvation outside the Church,' meaning the RCC ?
: Selene Thu Dec 02, 2010 - 21:32:50
: John 10:10 Thu Dec 02, 2010 - 20:30:22
: Selene Thu Dec 02, 2010 - 18:57:19
: John 10:10 Thu Dec 02, 2010 - 15:51:39
: Selene Thu Dec 02, 2010 - 15:15:59
I would think that it would be simple to understand that anyone who rejects the Church that Christ built would also be rejecting Jesus Christ because Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church that He built. One cannot separate Christ and the Church because He made Himself one with His Church.
Vatican II made these statements regarding separated churches/brethren:
1. All who have been "justified by faith in baptism" are members of the Body of Christ; they all have the right to be called Christian; the children of the Catholic Church accept them as brothers.
2. The Catholic Church believes that the separated Churches and communities "are efficient in some respects." But the Holy Ghost makes use of these Churches; they are means of salvation to their members.
What is simple to understand is this: Vatican II had no real meaning, and it's business as usual with what the RCC had in place before 1965.
But, the Holy Spirit draws sinners everywhere to God's salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ, such as are being saved.
Yes, they are "efficient in some respects" but they do not have the fullness of Christ. "Efficient in some respects" because some of our Protestant brethen cannot even be called "Christians" in that some don't believe in baptism or the Holy Trinity. They are "efficient in some respects" in that they are referred to as"communities" rather than as "churches." Even after Vatican II, it still stands that one will find the fullness of Christ in the Catholic Church because He is the Head of the Church. The Catholic Church is NOT "efficient in some respects."
Pope John Paul II said this:
"The mystery of salvation is revealed to us and is continued and accomplished in the Church...and from this genuine and single source, like 'humble, useful, precious and chaste' water, it reaches the whole world. Dear young people and members of the faithful, like Brother Francis we have to be conscious and absorb this fundamental and revealed truth, consecrated by tradition: 'There is no salvation outside the Church.'
According to Pope John Paul II, if there is no salvation outside the RCC Church, there can not be any Christians either, let alone Christians finding the fullness of Christ. What's clear is that the RCC has no intentions of honoring Christians outside the RCC, no matter what Vatican II is supposed to have said.
"No salvation outside the Church" does not mean that you are condemned to hell. It also does not mean that there are no Christians outside the Church. "No salvation outside the Church" is an misinterpretation of the Latin "Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus." The weblink belows explains it better from the Catholic viewpoint:
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0043.html
I guess it all depends on what is is, as Bill Clinton would say!
Did you even bother to read the weblink I provided for you?
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0043.html
The above weblinks explains what "No salvation outside the Church" actually means.
: Selene Thu Dec 02, 2010 - 21:39:33
Did you even bother to read the weblink I provided for you?
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0043.html
The above weblinks explains what "No salvation outside the Church" actually means.
Being Pope for only 33 days, I guess Pope John Paul I misspoke.
Only in the Church is salvation. 'Without it one perishes.' (Pope John Paul I, First Allocution, August 27, 1978, L'Osservatore Romano, August 28, 29, 1978.)
: John 10:10 Thu Dec 02, 2010 - 21:50:37
: Selene Thu Dec 02, 2010 - 21:39:33
Did you even bother to read the weblink I provided for you?
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0043.html
The above weblinks explains what "No salvation outside the Church" actually means.
Being Pope for only 33 days, I guess Pope John Paul I misspoke.
Only in the Church is salvation. 'Without it one perishes.' (Pope John Paul I, First Allocution, August 27, 1978, L'Osservatore Romano, August 28, 29, 1978.)
I would never take out of context what the Pope says by only focusing on one sentence. As you can see from the article that I showed you, "outside the Church there is no salvation" NEVER meant that only Catholics are saved. But a lot of anti-Catholics twist it around to make it say that. If a person really wanted to know the truth about the phrase, they should have gone to a Catholic website.
838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter." Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church." With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."
Quite simply put the Truth that has been officially taught, meaning ordained by an ecumenical counsel, as I have said time and time again,
The Mother Church teaches that no matter what denomination those who have professed Christ and been baptised according to the Trinitarian Formula(In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit) are as far a man can gauge, saved and a member of the Church just not one in full communion with Her.
Stop spreading falsehoods and just accept that the Catholic Church believes what it actually says it believes.
: Selene Thu Dec 02, 2010 - 21:59:08
: John 10:10 Thu Dec 02, 2010 - 21:50:37
: Selene Thu Dec 02, 2010 - 21:39:33
Did you even bother to read the weblink I provided for you?
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0043.html
The above weblinks explains what "No salvation outside the Church" actually means.
Being Pope for only 33 days, I guess Pope John Paul I misspoke.
Only in the Church is salvation. 'Without it one perishes.' (Pope John Paul I, First Allocution, August 27, 1978, L'Osservatore Romano, August 28, 29, 1978.)
I would never take out of context what the Pope says by only focusing on one sentence. As you can see from the article that I showed you, "outside the Church there is no salvation" NEVER meant that only Catholics are saved. But a lot of anti-Catholics twist it around to make it say that. If a person really wanted to know the truth about the phrase, they should have gone to a Catholic website.
According to the logic of Lighthammer,if anyone says someone is not saved,he or she is playing God,quick, better inform Lighthammer that the Pope is playing God.
: LightHammer Thu Dec 02, 2010 - 22:35:47
838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter." Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church." With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."
Quite simply put the Truth that has been officially taught, meaning ordained by an ecumenical counsel, as I have said time and time again, The Mother Church teaches that no matter what denomination those who have professed Christ and been baptised according to the Trinitarian Formula(In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit) are as far a man can gauge, saved and a member of the Church just not one in full communion with Her.
Stop spreading falsehoods and just accept that the Catholic Church believes what it actually says it believes.
Im quite sure that the Catholic church believes what it says it believes.
could you please explain what you men by this comment
saved and a
member of the Church just not one in full communion with Her[/b].
Is this another one of the those tricky slicky stamtents. Who is the her in this. The RCC?
: mclees8 Fri Dec 03, 2010 - 03:50:08
Im quite sure that the Catholic church believes what it says it believes.
could you please explain what you men by this comment
saved and a member of the Church just not one in full communion with Her[/b].
Is this another one of the those tricky slicky stamtents. Who is the her in this. The RCC?
Oh lookee here.....another one of those one-sentence or half-phrases taken out of context. Makes you wonder why they stick to things like that and are afraid to publicize the entire article.
: tinker Fri Dec 03, 2010 - 02:56:58
: Selene Thu Dec 02, 2010 - 21:59:08
: John 10:10 Thu Dec 02, 2010 - 21:50:37
: Selene Thu Dec 02, 2010 - 21:39:33
Did you even bother to read the weblink I provided for you?
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0043.html
The above weblinks explains what "No salvation outside the Church" actually means.
Being Pope for only 33 days, I guess Pope John Paul I misspoke.
Only in the Church is salvation. 'Without it one perishes.' (Pope John Paul I, First Allocution, August 27, 1978, L'Osservatore Romano, August 28, 29, 1978.)
I would never take out of context what the Pope says by only focusing on one sentence. As you can see from the article that I showed you, "outside the Church there is no salvation" NEVER meant that only Catholics are saved. But a lot of anti-Catholics twist it around to make it say that. If a person really wanted to know the truth about the phrase, they should have gone to a Catholic website.
According to the logic of Lighthammer,if anyone says someone is not saved,he or she is playing God,quick, better inform Lighthammer that the Pope is playing God.
The pope is simply quoting Jesus and scripture:
John 14:6
6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
Luke 10
16"He who listens to you listens to me;
he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."
Matthew 16
17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock
I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven;
whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
1 Timothy 3
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in
God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.
Matthew 18
17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to
the church; and if he refuses to listen even to
the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
: mclees8 Fri Dec 03, 2010 - 03:50:08
Im quite sure that the Catholic church believes what it says it believes.
could you please explain what you men by this comment
saved and a member of the Church just not one in full communion with Her[/b].
Is this another one of the those tricky slicky stamtents. Who is the her in this. The RCC?
If I may jump in, I think this passage is quite clear. A baptized Christian is a member of the Church, but may not be in full communion with the Church. This applies to Catholics as well as protestants.
: Selene Thu Dec 02, 2010 - 21:20:12
: tinker Thu Dec 02, 2010 - 21:14:56
: chestertonrules Thu Dec 02, 2010 - 07:11:46
: tinker Wed Dec 01, 2010 - 21:18:14
: chestertonrules Wed Dec 01, 2010 - 08:56:08
: tinker Tue Nov 30, 2010 - 21:04:59
Are Roman Catholics saved? Good site for RC to learn the truth...
http://so4j.com/catholics-are-they-saved.php
You don't care about the Truth.
You keep repeating lies about Catholics.
You reject scripture as well. For example:
Romans 2
6 God "will repay each person according to what they have done.
: chestertonrules Fri Dec 03, 2010 - 08:39:38
: mclees8 Fri Dec 03, 2010 - 03:50:08
Im quite sure that the Catholic church believes what it says it believes.
could you please explain what you men by this comment
saved and a member of the Church just not one in full communion with Her[/b].
Is this another one of the those tricky slicky stamtents. Who is the her in this. The RCC?
If I may jump in, I think this passage is quite clear. A baptized Christian is a member of the Church, but may not be in full communion with the Church. This applies to Catholics as well as protestants.
Could explain then what you believe constitutes full communion with the church.
One who is complete agreement with the pope and Catholic dogma?
: Selene Thu Dec 02, 2010 - 21:59:08
: John 10:10 Thu Dec 02, 2010 - 21:50:37
: Selene Thu Dec 02, 2010 - 21:39:33
Did you even bother to read the weblink I provided for you?
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0043.html
The above weblinks explains what "No salvation outside the Church" actually means.
Being Pope for only 33 days, I guess Pope John Paul I misspoke.
Only in the Church is salvation. 'Without it one perishes.' (Pope John Paul I, First Allocution, August 27, 1978, L'Osservatore Romano, August 28, 29, 1978.)
I would never take out of context what the Pope says by only focusing on one sentence. As you can see from the article that I showed you, "outside the Church there is no salvation" NEVER meant that only Catholics are saved. But a lot of anti-Catholics twist it around to make it say that. If a person really wanted to know the truth about the phrase, they should have gone to a Catholic website.
Words have precise meanings, and the words of all the Popes before 1965 and at least two Popes afterword clearly said "No salvation outside the Church." The web site/article you referred me to is an exercise in how words mean something other than what they say, and in my opinion is nothing more than damage control by those who came after all the Popes who said otherwise.
: John 10:10 Fri Dec 03, 2010 - 10:19:22
Words have precise meanings, and the words of all the Popes before 1965 and at least two Popes afterword clearly said "No salvation outside the Church." The web site/article you referred me to is an exercise in how words mean something other than what they say, and in my opinion is nothing more than damage control by those who came after all the Popes who said otherwise.
The website I referred you to is a Catholic website explaining what it ACTUALLY means. It was Catholics who use this phrase and only Catholics can interpret what it truely means when translated from the Latin to the English language. Now, let's take a closer look at that statement that you posted of the Pope.
Only in the Church is salvation. 'Without it one perishes.' (Pope John Paul I, First Allocution, August 27, 1978, L'Osservatore Romano, August 28, 29, 1978.)
Below is a weblink of the ENTIRE SPEECH from Pope John Paul I, from which this one sentence was taken out. As you can see, the Pope was quoting from St. Augustine and interpreted what St. Augustine was saying. I provided the weblink below so you can read the entire speech yourself.
According to the words of St Augustine, an image dear to the ancient Fathers of the
Church, the ship of the Church must not fear, because it is guided by Christ and by
his Vicar: "Although the ship is tossed about, it is still a ship. It carries the disciples
and it receives Christ. Yes, it is tossed on the sea but without it, one would
immediately perish" (Sermon 75,3; PL 38,475). Only in the Church is salvation:
without it one perishes!
http://www.lumenchristischool.org/files/PROGRAMMEOFPOPEJOHNPAULI.pdf
OKAY....so now, why do you think they left out the part in the speech where the Pope was quoting St. Augustine who said "Yes, it is tossed on the sea but without it, one would immediately perish?" The ship that St. Augustine was referring to that carried the disciples was the Church. NOW, why do you think they left out that part? Simple. They left it out on purpose because they did not want YOU to find out that the Pope was referring to a quote of St. Augustine. If you had just read his entire speech instead of taking one sentence out from it, then you would have understood the whole message.
: tinker Fri Dec 03, 2010 - 09:34:15
: Selene Thu Dec 02, 2010 - 21:20:12
: tinker Thu Dec 02, 2010 - 21:14:56
: chestertonrules Thu Dec 02, 2010 - 07:11:46
: tinker Wed Dec 01, 2010 - 21:18:14
: chestertonrules Wed Dec 01, 2010 - 08:56:08
: tinker Tue Nov 30, 2010 - 21:04:59
Are Roman Catholics saved? Good site for RC to learn the truth...
http://so4j.com/catholics-are-they-saved.php
You don't care about the Truth.
You keep repeating lies about Catholics.
You reject scripture as well. For example:
Romans 2
6 God "will repay each person according to what they have done.
: tinker Thu Dec 02, 2010 - 21:14:56
You mean to tell me that the Pope is always correct?
You mean to tell everyone that the Pope never lied?
You mean that if a person carry out the 7 sacraments he will be saved even by disregarding the 10 commandments?
You mean that if only one sacrament is broken,one will not be saved?
You mean everyone should thrown their Bibles away and listen to every word from the vatican?
Popes are not always correct and that is not what the Church teaches. Your distortions continue unabated!
Popes are sinners like everyone else.
A person who confesses their sins will be forgiven. Everyone sins.
The Church does not teach that breaking a single sacrament leads to hell.
You post silly evasions in order to avoid the Truth.
: mclees8 Fri Dec 03, 2010 - 10:07:33
: chestertonrules Fri Dec 03, 2010 - 08:39:38
: mclees8 Fri Dec 03, 2010 - 03:50:08
Im quite sure that the Catholic church believes what it says it believes.
could you please explain what you men by this comment
saved and a member of the Church just not one in full communion with Her[/b].
Is this another one of the those tricky slicky stamtents. Who is the her in this. The RCC?
If I may jump in, I think this passage is quite clear. A baptized Christian is a member of the Church, but may not be in full communion with the Church. This applies to Catholics as well as protestants.
Could explain then what you believe constitutes full communion with the church.
One who is complete agreement with the pope and Catholic dogma?
One who obeys Church teaching as communicated by Jesus through the apostles and their successors.
: chestertonrules Fri Dec 03, 2010 - 22:39:06
: mclees8 Fri Dec 03, 2010 - 10:07:33
: chestertonrules Fri Dec 03, 2010 - 08:39:38
: mclees8 Fri Dec 03, 2010 - 03:50:08
Im quite sure that the Catholic church believes what it says it believes.
could you please explain what you men by this comment
saved and a member of the Church just not one in full communion with Her[/b].
Is this another one of the those tricky slicky stamtents. Who is the her in this. The RCC?
If I may jump in, I think this passage is quite clear. A baptized Christian is a member of the Church, but may not be in full communion with the Church. This applies to Catholics as well as protestants.
Could explain then what you believe constitutes full communion with the church.
One who is complete agreement with the pope and Catholic dogma?
One who obeys Church teaching as communicated by Jesus through the apostles and their successors.
Then as long as their teaching is consistent with what Christ and the apostles taught then you are in communion with Christ Not his successors. Do you think an authority can profess what Christ taught yet not be in true communion with Him.
Can they be a pseudo authority. One that professes to be of Christ yet is really in communion with the world?
: Selene Fri Dec 03, 2010 - 16:45:50
: John 10:10 Fri Dec 03, 2010 - 10:19:22
Words have precise meanings, and the words of all the Popes before 1965 and at least two Popes afterword clearly said "No salvation outside the Church." The web site/article you referred me to is an exercise in how words mean something other than what they say, and in my opinion is nothing more than damage control by those who came after all the Popes who said otherwise.
The website I referred you to is a Catholic website explaining what it ACTUALLY means. It was Catholics who use this phrase and only Catholics can interpret what it truely means when translated from the Latin to the English language. Now, let's take a closer look at that statement that you posted of the Pope.
Only in the Church is salvation. 'Without it one perishes.' (Pope John Paul I, First Allocution, August 27, 1978, L'Osservatore Romano, August 28, 29, 1978.)
Below is a weblink of the ENTIRE SPEECH from Pope John Paul I, from which this one sentence was taken out. As you can see, the Pope was quoting from St. Augustine and interpreted what St. Augustine was saying. I provided the weblink below so you can read the entire speech yourself.
According to the words of St Augustine, an image dear to the ancient Fathers of the
Church, the ship of the Church must not fear, because it is guided by Christ and by
his Vicar: "Although the ship is tossed about, it is still a ship. It carries the disciples
and it receives Christ. Yes, it is tossed on the sea but without it, one would
immediately perish" (Sermon 75,3; PL 38,475). Only in the Church is salvation:
without it one perishes!
http://www.lumenchristischool.org/files/PROGRAMMEOFPOPEJOHNPAULI.pdf
OKAY....so now, why do you think they left out the part in the speech where the Pope was quoting St. Augustine who said "Yes, it is tossed on the sea but without it, one would immediately perish?" The ship that St. Augustine was referring to that carried the disciples was the Church. NOW, why do you think they left out that part? Simple. They left it out on purpose because they did not want YOU to find out that the Pope was referring to a quote of St. Augustine. If you had just read his entire speech instead of taking one sentence out from it, then you would have understood the whole message.
Then what happens when the boat is shanghaied and is no longer truly guided of Christ but his vicar takes a wrong course?
: mclees8 Sat Dec 04, 2010 - 01:55:10
: Selene Fri Dec 03, 2010 - 16:45:50
: John 10:10 Fri Dec 03, 2010 - 10:19:22
Words have precise meanings, and the words of all the Popes before 1965 and at least two Popes afterword clearly said "No salvation outside the Church." The web site/article you referred me to is an exercise in how words mean something other than what they say, and in my opinion is nothing more than damage control by those who came after all the Popes who said otherwise.
The website I referred you to is a Catholic website explaining what it ACTUALLY means. It was Catholics who use this phrase and only Catholics can interpret what it truely means when translated from the Latin to the English language. Now, let's take a closer look at that statement that you posted of the Pope.
Only in the Church is salvation. 'Without it one perishes.' (Pope John Paul I, First Allocution, August 27, 1978, L'Osservatore Romano, August 28, 29, 1978.)
Below is a weblink of the ENTIRE SPEECH from Pope John Paul I, from which this one sentence was taken out. As you can see, the Pope was quoting from St. Augustine and interpreted what St. Augustine was saying. I provided the weblink below so you can read the entire speech yourself.
According to the words of St Augustine, an image dear to the ancient Fathers of the
Church, the ship of the Church must not fear, because it is guided by Christ and by
his Vicar: "Although the ship is tossed about, it is still a ship. It carries the disciples
and it receives Christ. Yes, it is tossed on the sea but without it, one would
immediately perish" (Sermon 75,3; PL 38,475). Only in the Church is salvation:
without it one perishes!
http://www.lumenchristischool.org/files/PROGRAMMEOFPOPEJOHNPAULI.pdf
OKAY....so now, why do you think they left out the part in the speech where the Pope was quoting St. Augustine who said "Yes, it is tossed on the sea but without it, one would immediately perish?" The ship that St. Augustine was referring to that carried the disciples was the Church. NOW, why do you think they left out that part? Simple. They left it out on purpose because they did not want YOU to find out that the Pope was referring to a quote of St. Augustine. If you had just read his entire speech instead of taking one sentence out from it, then you would have understood the whole message.
Then what happens when the boat is shanghaied and is no longer truly guided of Christ but his vicar takes a wrong course?
What was the point I was making?
: Selene Sat Dec 04, 2010 - 07:25:29
: mclees8 Sat Dec 04, 2010 - 01:55:10
: Selene Fri Dec 03, 2010 - 16:45:50
: John 10:10 Fri Dec 03, 2010 - 10:19:22
Words have precise meanings, and the words of all the Popes before 1965 and at least two Popes afterword clearly said "No salvation outside the Church." The web site/article you referred me to is an exercise in how words mean something other than what they say, and in my opinion is nothing more than damage control by those who came after all the Popes who said otherwise.
The website I referred you to is a Catholic website explaining what it ACTUALLY means. It was Catholics who use this phrase and only Catholics can interpret what it truely means when translated from the Latin to the English language. Now, let's take a closer look at that statement that you posted of the Pope.
Only in the Church is salvation. 'Without it one perishes.' (Pope John Paul I, First Allocution, August 27, 1978, L'Osservatore Romano, August 28, 29, 1978.)
Below is a weblink of the ENTIRE SPEECH from Pope John Paul I, from which this one sentence was taken out. As you can see, the Pope was quoting from St. Augustine and interpreted what St. Augustine was saying. I provided the weblink below so you can read the entire speech yourself.
According to the words of St Augustine, an image dear to the ancient Fathers of the
Church, the ship of the Church must not fear, because it is guided by Christ and by
his Vicar: "Although the ship is tossed about, it is still a ship. It carries the disciples
and it receives Christ. Yes, it is tossed on the sea but without it, one would
immediately perish" (Sermon 75,3; PL 38,475). Only in the Church is salvation:
without it one perishes!
http://www.lumenchristischool.org/files/PROGRAMMEOFPOPEJOHNPAULI.pdf
OKAY....so now, why do you think they left out the part in the speech where the Pope was quoting St. Augustine who said "Yes, it is tossed on the sea but without it, one would immediately perish?" The ship that St. Augustine was referring to that carried the disciples was the Church. NOW, why do you think they left out that part? Simple. They left it out on purpose because they did not want YOU to find out that the Pope was referring to a quote of St. Augustine. If you had just read his entire speech instead of taking one sentence out from it, then you would have understood the whole message.
Then what happens when the boat is shanghaied and is no longer truly guided of Christ but his vicar takes a wrong course?
What was the point I was making?
Yes i know we are discussing salvation outside the church and you believe we lose true context because of leaving out certain things when the pope speaks. Like quoting St Augustine which was stated in 475 AD. What i question is, is that who is really guiding the church (ship) in 475 AD. He said Christ and his vicar. He may have believed that when he made the statement and that maybe what the popes want you to believe or they might believe they are still being at the helm with Christ but when they became a religious political entity ruling the empire Christ was no longer at the helm of the church but the popes who only think Jesus is with them. However Gods word still is a light for his people and if we put more trust in it then men and popes we will stay on course with Jesus.Salvation is in Him and he is truly at the helm of his ship. But if you want to say salvation is only in the church that is true but maybe being twisted some.
I just looking at what you posted about what Augustine said. If i am correct the statement by St Augustine was made in 4
: mclees8 Sat Dec 04, 2010 - 14:01:38
Yes i know we are discussing salvation outside the church and you believe we lose true context because of leaving out certain things when the pope speaks. Like quoting St Augustine which was stated in 475 AD. What i question is, is that who is really guiding the church (ship) in 475 AD. He said Christ and his vicar. He may have believed that when he made the statement and that maybe what the popes want you to believe or they might believe they are still being at the helm with Christ but when they became a religious political entity ruling the empire Christ was no longer at the helm of the church but the popes who only think Jesus is with them. However Gods word still is a light for his people and if we put more trust in it then men and popes we will stay on course with Jesus.Salvation is in Him and he is truly at the helm of his ship. But if you want to say salvation is only in the church that is true but maybe being twisted some.
I just looking at what you posted about what Augustine said. If i am correct the statement by St Augustine was made in 4
Mike, the whole point of my post was to show what the Anti-Catholics did when they took the Pope's words out of context. That's the point. And then you ask "what happens when the boat is shangaied?????? Christ told His Church that He would be with them until the end of world (See Matthew 28:20). Do you think He lied?
: Selene Sat Dec 04, 2010 - 15:50:23
: mclees8 Sat Dec 04, 2010 - 14:01:38
Yes i know we are discussing salvation outside the church and you believe we lose true context because of leaving out certain things when the pope speaks. Like quoting St Augustine which was stated in 475 AD. What i question is, is that who is really guiding the church (ship) in 475 AD. He said Christ and his vicar. He may have believed that when he made the statement and that maybe what the popes want you to believe or they might believe they are still being at the helm with Christ but when they became a religious political entity ruling the empire Christ was no longer at the helm of the church but the popes who only think Jesus is with them. However Gods word still is a light for his people and if we put more trust in it then men and popes we will stay on course with Jesus.Salvation is in Him and he is truly at the helm of his ship. But if you want to say salvation is only in the church that is true but maybe being twisted some.
I just looking at what you posted about what Augustine said. If i am correct the statement by St Augustine was made in 4
Mike, the whole point of my post was to show what the Anti-Catholics did when they took the Pope's words out of context. That's the point. And then you ask "what happens when the boat is shangaied?????? Christ told His Church that He would be with them until the end of world (See Matthew 28:20). Do you think He lied?
Sorry Selene guess i just have a one track mind. You see I don't believe the papacy was the ship that Jesus was at the helm but it was at the helm of there own ship. A ship full of self ambition and lust for power religiously and politically.
Jesus did not lie when he said he would be with his church always but the church was not always with Him
A funny thing always comes to my mind That Catholics never consider. In scripture there is not one mention or prophesy from Christ that his church was to be the religious political church of the Roman Empire after five centuries One would think anything of that magnitude would certainly bore mention by the Lord.
But there was one prophesy that foretold of a religious political church that was called the great harlot ::pondering:: makes one kinda wonder don't it ?
: mclees8 Sat Dec 04, 2010 - 17:17:44
A funny thing always comes to my mind That Catholics never consider. In scripture there is not one mention or prophesy from Christ that his church was to be the religious political church of the Roman Empire after five centuries One would think anything of that magnitude would certainly bore mention by the Lord.
But there was one prophesy that foretold of a religious political church that was called the great harlot ::pondering:: makes one kinda wonder don't it ?
Not it was clearly Rome.
: mclees8 Sat Dec 04, 2010 - 17:17:44
A funny thing always comes to my mind That Catholics never consider. In scripture there is not one mention or prophesy from Christ that his church was to be the religious political church of the Roman Empire after five centuries One would think anything of that magnitude would certainly bore mention by the Lord.
But there was one prophesy that foretold of a religious political church that was called the great harlot ::pondering:: makes one kinda wonder don't it ?
Vatican City did not exist as a political entity then; therefore, the Harlot was not the Catholic Church. In fact, the harlot wasn't even a church.
: Selene Sat Dec 04, 2010 - 21:28:44
: mclees8 Sat Dec 04, 2010 - 17:17:44
A funny thing always comes to my mind That Catholics never consider. In scripture there is not one mention or prophesy from Christ that his church was to be the religious political church of the Roman Empire after five centuries One would think anything of that magnitude would certainly bore mention by the Lord.
But there was one prophesy that foretold of a religious political church that was called the great harlot ::pondering:: makes one kinda wonder don't it ?
Vatican City did not exist as a political entity then; therefore, the Harlot was not the Catholic Church. In fact, the harlot wasn't even a church.
Well Selene I see we have much to talk about. However Ive been in these kinds of denial debates before. The Vatican is up to its neck with the political landscape even today and has been since its beginning, and I am not talking about the beginning of Christ church but the papacy after the fifth century. I find it hard to believe you don't see this. Even you fellow Catholics know this.
Why don't we begin with why you think the Vatican is not politically involved with the world. You are quote wrong that the harlot was not a church, and not just any church, but one that was Christian. If you have a large concordance you might look up the word Harlot and see how many times it is used in reference of the children of Israel and their unfaithfulness. When I come back we will talk about it.
God bless
: mclees8 Sat Dec 04, 2010 - 01:46:44
: chestertonrules Fri Dec 03, 2010 - 22:39:06
: mclees8 Fri Dec 03, 2010 - 10:07:33
Then as long as their teaching is consistent with what Christ and the apostles taught then you are in communion with Christ Not his successors. Do you think an authority can profess what Christ taught yet not be in true communion with Him.
Can they be a pseudo authority. One that professes to be of Christ yet is really in communion with the world?
I believe that many who claim authority are not in full communion with Christ. This is inevitable when a person rejects the authority established by Christ.
: mclees8 Sat Dec 04, 2010 - 17:17:44
But there was one prophesy that foretold of a religious political church that was called the great harlot ::pondering:: makes one kinda wonder don't it ?
The Church was always a separate entity from the Roman Empire. That's why the Church continued to grow and thrive when the empire was destroyed.
: Selene Fri Dec 03, 2010 - 16:45:50
: John 10:10 Fri Dec 03, 2010 - 10:19:22
Words have precise meanings, and the words of all the Popes before 1965 and at least two Popes afterword clearly said "No salvation outside the Church." The web site/article you referred me to is an exercise in how words mean something other than what they say, and in my opinion is nothing more than damage control by those who came after all the Popes who said otherwise.
The website I referred you to is a Catholic website explaining what it ACTUALLY means. It was Catholics who use this phrase and only Catholics can interpret what it truely means when translated from the Latin to the English language. Now, let's take a closer look at that statement that you posted of the Pope.
Only in the Church is salvation. 'Without it one perishes.' (Pope John Paul I, First Allocution, August 27, 1978, L'Osservatore Romano, August 28, 29, 1978.)
Below is a weblink of the ENTIRE SPEECH from Pope John Paul I, from which this one sentence was taken out. As you can see, the Pope was quoting from St. Augustine and interpreted what St. Augustine was saying. I provided the weblink below so you can read the entire speech yourself.
According to the words of St Augustine, an image dear to the ancient Fathers of the
Church, the ship of the Church must not fear, because it is guided by Christ and by
his Vicar: "Although the ship is tossed about, it is still a ship. It carries the disciples
and it receives Christ. Yes, it is tossed on the sea but without it, one would
immediately perish" (Sermon 75,3; PL 38,475). Only in the Church is salvation:
without it one perishes!
http://www.lumenchristischool.org/files/PROGRAMMEOFPOPEJOHNPAULI.pdf
OKAY....so now, why do you think they left out the part in the speech where the Pope was quoting St. Augustine who said "Yes, it is tossed on the sea but without it, one would immediately perish?" The ship that St. Augustine was referring to that carried the disciples was the Church. NOW, why do you think they left out that part? Simple. They left it out on purpose because they did not want YOU to find out that the Pope was referring to a quote of St. Augustine. If you had just read his entire speech instead of taking one sentence out from it, then you would have understood the whole message.
Now that we understand what Pope John Paul I & II really meant, maybe you can explain what all the other Popes meant who said the same thing in more clearer words before 1965?
: mclees8 Sat Dec 04, 2010 - 01:46:44
Then as long as their teaching is consistent with what Christ and the apostles taught then you are in communion with Christ Not his successors. Do you think an authority can profess what Christ taught yet not be in true communion with Him.
Can they be a pseudo authority. One that professes to be of Christ yet is really in communion with the world?
I agree. Most Christians in the world are Catholic. Some are not Catholic. Those who are not Catholic don't follow the teachings of the apostles in all matters of faith and morals.
: John 10:10 Sun Dec 05, 2010 - 17:38:56
: Selene Fri Dec 03, 2010 - 16:45:50
: John 10:10 Fri Dec 03, 2010 - 10:19:22
Words have precise meanings, and the words of all the Popes before 1965 and at least two Popes afterword clearly said "No salvation outside the Church." The web site/article you referred me to is an exercise in how words mean something other than what they say, and in my opinion is nothing more than damage control by those who came after all the Popes who said otherwise.
The website I referred you to is a Catholic website explaining what it ACTUALLY means. It was Catholics who use this phrase and only Catholics can interpret what it truely means when translated from the Latin to the English language. Now, let's take a closer look at that statement that you posted of the Pope.
Only in the Church is salvation. 'Without it one perishes.' (Pope John Paul I, First Allocution, August 27, 1978, L'Osservatore Romano, August 28, 29, 1978.)
Below is a weblink of the ENTIRE SPEECH from Pope John Paul I, from which this one sentence was taken out. As you can see, the Pope was quoting from St. Augustine and interpreted what St. Augustine was saying. I provided the weblink below so you can read the entire speech yourself.
According to the words of St Augustine, an image dear to the ancient Fathers of the
Church, the ship of the Church must not fear, because it is guided by Christ and by
his Vicar: "Although the ship is tossed about, it is still a ship. It carries the disciples
and it receives Christ. Yes, it is tossed on the sea but without it, one would
immediately perish" (Sermon 75,3; PL 38,475). Only in the Church is salvation:
without it one perishes!
http://www.lumenchristischool.org/files/PROGRAMMEOFPOPEJOHNPAULI.pdf
OKAY....so now, why do you think they left out the part in the speech where the Pope was quoting St. Augustine who said "Yes, it is tossed on the sea but without it, one would immediately perish?" The ship that St. Augustine was referring to that carried the disciples was the Church. NOW, why do you think they left out that part? Simple. They left it out on purpose because they did not want YOU to find out that the Pope was referring to a quote of St. Augustine. If you had just read his entire speech instead of taking one sentence out from it, then you would have understood the whole message.
Now that we understand what Pope John Paul I & II really meant, maybe you can explain what all the other Popes meant who said the same thing in more clearer words before 1965?
Quote them in their proper contexts and I'm sure Chester would be more than happy to address them.
: John 10:10 Sun Dec 05, 2010 - 17:38:56
: Selene Fri Dec 03, 2010 - 16:45:50
: John 10:10 Fri Dec 03, 2010 - 10:19:22
Words have precise meanings, and the words of all the Popes before 1965 and at least two Popes afterword clearly said "No salvation outside the Church." The web site/article you referred me to is an exercise in how words mean something other than what they say, and in my opinion is nothing more than damage control by those who came after all the Popes who said otherwise.
The website I referred you to is a Catholic website explaining what it ACTUALLY means. It was Catholics who use this phrase and only Catholics can interpret what it truely means when translated from the Latin to the English language. Now, let's take a closer look at that statement that you posted of the Pope.
Only in the Church is salvation. 'Without it one perishes.' (Pope John Paul I, First Allocution, August 27, 1978, L'Osservatore Romano, August 28, 29, 1978.)
Below is a weblink of the ENTIRE SPEECH from Pope John Paul I, from which this one sentence was taken out. As you can see, the Pope was quoting from St. Augustine and interpreted what St. Augustine was saying. I provided the weblink below so you can read the entire speech yourself.
According to the words of St Augustine, an image dear to the ancient Fathers of the
Church, the ship of the Church must not fear, because it is guided by Christ and by
his Vicar: "Although the ship is tossed about, it is still a ship. It carries the disciples
and it receives Christ. Yes, it is tossed on the sea but without it, one would
immediately perish" (Sermon 75,3; PL 38,475). Only in the Church is salvation:
without it one perishes!
http://www.lumenchristischool.org/files/PROGRAMMEOFPOPEJOHNPAULI.pdf
OKAY....so now, why do you think they left out the part in the speech where the Pope was quoting St. Augustine who said "Yes, it is tossed on the sea but without it, one would immediately perish?" The ship that St. Augustine was referring to that carried the disciples was the Church. NOW, why do you think they left out that part? Simple. They left it out on purpose because they did not want YOU to find out that the Pope was referring to a quote of St. Augustine. If you had just read his entire speech instead of taking one sentence out from it, then you would have understood the whole message.
Now that we understand what Pope John Paul I & II really meant, maybe you can explain what all the other Popes meant who said the same thing in more clearer words before 1965?
For example?
How about we start with this Chesterton
Pope blesses U.N. flag, calls for "binding international rules
: mclees8 Sun Dec 05, 2010 - 18:15:40
How about we start with this Chesterton
Pope blesses U.N. flag, calls for "binding international rules
: chestertonrules Sun Dec 05, 2010 - 18:18:57
: mclees8 Sun Dec 05, 2010 - 18:15:40
How about we start with this Chesterton
Pope blesses U.N. flag, calls for "binding international rules
: mclees8 Sun Dec 05, 2010 - 18:15:40
How about we start with this Chesterton
Pope blesses U.N. flag, calls for "binding international rules
Mclees8,
What do you make of this following verse:
Acts 9:15 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,
Acts 9:16 and I will show him what he will have to suffer for my name.
: mclees8 Sun Dec 05, 2010 - 18:47:01
Excuse me. weren't you and Selene trying to disconnect the vatican from the political scene. And i am not at all surprised you see nothing wrong here.
I not sure I want to debate for I doubt it will change what you don't understand about this but i may post some things concerning these things and why Christ is not in it.
If Jesus wanted to end world hunger or other world problems he could have done it himself. Now you will say he wanted his church do it except he did not say one word about that. He called foe his people to love his brother and care for the poor but not using world politics. The more the church looks to political solutions for the worlds problems the more it looks to antichrist. The popes position is more of God upon the earth, but Jesus never ordained that. if you think he did then show where he did.
The pope was not establishing doctrine in the comments above. Jesus was clear that we will be judged by, among other things, how we treat the poor. Engagement in political and economic discussions is means of addressing the plight of the poor.
Your mischaracterization of the pope's comments is typical, but not informative.
: Catholica Sun Dec 05, 2010 - 20:38:26
Mclees8,
What do you make of this following verse:
Acts 9:15 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,
Acts 9:16 and I will show him what he will have to suffer for my name.
: chestertonrules Sun Dec 05, 2010 - 17:59:46
: John 10:10 Sun Dec 05, 2010 - 17:38:56
: Selene Fri Dec 03, 2010 - 16:45:50
: John 10:10 Fri Dec 03, 2010 - 10:19:22
Words have precise meanings, and the words of all the Popes before 1965 and at least two Popes afterword clearly said "No salvation outside the Church." The web site/article you referred me to is an exercise in how words mean something other than what they say, and in my opinion is nothing more than damage control by those who came after all the Popes who said otherwise.
The website I referred you to is a Catholic website explaining what it ACTUALLY means. It was Catholics who use this phrase and only Catholics can interpret what it truely means when translated from the Latin to the English language. Now, let's take a closer look at that statement that you posted of the Pope.
Only in the Church is salvation. 'Without it one perishes.' (Pope John Paul I, First Allocution, August 27, 1978, L'Osservatore Romano, August 28, 29, 1978.)
Below is a weblink of the ENTIRE SPEECH from Pope John Paul I, from which this one sentence was taken out. As you can see, the Pope was quoting from St. Augustine and interpreted what St. Augustine was saying. I provided the weblink below so you can read the entire speech yourself.
According to the words of St Augustine, an image dear to the ancient Fathers of the
Church, the ship of the Church must not fear, because it is guided by Christ and by
his Vicar: "Although the ship is tossed about, it is still a ship. It carries the disciples
and it receives Christ. Yes, it is tossed on the sea but without it, one would
immediately perish" (Sermon 75,3; PL 38,475). Only in the Church is salvation:
without it one perishes!
http://www.lumenchristischool.org/files/PROGRAMMEOFPOPEJOHNPAULI.pdf
OKAY....so now, why do you think they left out the part in the speech where the Pope was quoting St. Augustine who said "Yes, it is tossed on the sea but without it, one would immediately perish?" The ship that St. Augustine was referring to that carried the disciples was the Church. NOW, why do you think they left out that part? Simple. They left it out on purpose because they did not want YOU to find out that the Pope was referring to a quote of St. Augustine. If you had just read his entire speech instead of taking one sentence out from it, then you would have understood the whole message.
Now that we understand what Pope John Paul I & II really meant, maybe you can explain what all the other Popes meant who said the same thing in more clearer words before 1965?
For example?
Pope Pelagius II (A.D. 578 - 590)
"Consider the fact that whoever has not been in the peace and unity of the Church cannot have the Lord. ...Although given over to flames and fires, they burn, or, thrown to wild beasts, they lay down their lives, there will not be (for them) that crown of faith but the punishment of faithlessness. ...Such a one can be slain, he cannot be crowned. ...[If] slain outside the Church, he cannot attain the rewards of the Church." (Denzinger 246-247)
Pope Saint Gregory the Great (A.D. 590 - 604)
"Now the holy Church universal proclaims that God cannot be truly worshipped saving within herself, asserting that all they that are without her shall never be saved." (Moralia)
Pope Innocent III (A.D. 1198 - 1216)
"Indeed, there is but one universal Church of the faithful outside of which no one at all is saved." (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215; Denz. 151)
"With our hearts we believe and with our lips we confess but one Church, not that of the heretics, but the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside which we believe that no one is saved." (Denzinger 423)
Pope Boniface VIII in his Bull Unam Sanctam issued in 1302:
"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." (Denz. 469) [note: This definition (de fide definita) seems unanswerable, but the liberals boldly claim that this is not a definition intended for the universal Church, but only a pronouncement meant to deal with the local problem of Philip the Fair. But when Philip demanded of Pope Clement V, the first Avignon Pope, that he withdraw Unam Sanctam, Pope Clement did not do so, but issued the Brief Meruit February 1, 1306, which despite its extremely conciliatory tone, clearly states that Unam Sanctam contains a "definition":] "That is why we do not wish or intend that any prejudice be engendered for that king and kingdom by the definition and declaration of our predecessor Pope Boniface VIII of happy memory, which began by the words Unam Sanctam." (51 Corpus Juris Canonici, (Extravag. commun., lib. V, tit. VII, cap. 2) ed. Freiburg, Vol. II, p. 1300.)
Pope Leo X reaffirmed the teaching of Boniface VIII: (1512-1517)
"Where the necessity of salvation is concerned all the faithful of Christ must be subject to the Roman Pontiff, as we are taught by Holy Scripture, the testimony of the holy fathers, and by that constitution of our predecessor of happy memory, Boniface VIII, which begins Unam Sanctam." (Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council (1512-1517) Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Decreta, Edidit Centro di Documentazione, Instituto per Science Religiose, Herder, Bologna, 1962, no. 40, pp. 619, 620.)
Pope Leo XII (A.D. 1823 - 1829)
"We profess that there is no salvation outside the Church. ...For the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. With reference to those words Augustine says: `If any man be outside the Church he will be excluded from the number of sons, and will not have God for Father since he has not the Church for mother.'" (Encyclical, Ubi Primum)
Pope Pius IX (A.D. 1846 - 1878)
"It must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood." (Denzinger 1647)
Pope Leo XIII: (A.D. 1878 - 1903)
"By the ministry of this Church so gloriously founded by Him, He willed to perpetuate the mission which He had Himself received from the Father; and on the one hand, having put within her all the means necessary for man's salvation, on the other hand, He formally enjoined upon men the duty of obeying His Church as Himself, and religiously taking her as a guide of their whole lives. "He that heareth you, heareth Me; he that despiseth you, despiseth me." (Luke 10:16) Therefore, it is from the Church alone that the law of Christ must be asked: and, consequently, if for man Christ is the way, the Church, too, is the way, the former of Himself and by His nature, the latter by delegation and communication of power. Consequently, all who wish to reach salvation outside the Church, are mistaken as to the way and are engaged in a vain effort." (Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical, Tametsi, November 1, 1900;
Papal Teachings: The Church, Benedictine Monks of Solesmes, St. Paul Editions, Boston, 1962, par. 647.)
"This is our last lesson to you: receive it, engrave it in your minds, all of you: by God's commandment salvation is to be found nowhere but in the Church; the strong and effective instrument of salvation is none other than the Roman Pontificate." (Pope Leo XIII, Allocution for the 25th anniversary of his election, February 20, 1903; Papal Teachings: The Church, Benedictine Monks of Solesmes, St. Paul Editions, Boston, 1962, par. 653.Encyclical, Annum Ingressi Sumus)
"He scatters and gathers not who gathers not with the Church and with Jesus Christ, and all who fight not jointly with Him and with the Church are in very truth contending against God." (Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical, Sapientiae Christianae)
Pope St. Pius X: A.D. 1903 - 1914)
"Strong in this faith, unshakably established on this Peter, We turn the eyes of Our soul both to the heavy obligations of this holy primacy and at the same time to the strength divinely imparted to Our heart. In peace We wait for those to be silent who are loudly proclaiming that the Catholic Church has had her day, that her teaching is hopelessly reactionary, that she will soon be reduced either to conformity with the data of science and a civilization without God, or to withdrawal from the society of men. And while We wait, it is Our duty to recall to everyone, great and small, as the Holy Pontiff Gregory did in ages past, the absolute necessity which is ours to have recourse to this Church to effect our eternal salvation, to obtain peace, and even prosperity in our life here below. "That is why, to use the words of the Holy Pontiff, we say: "Make firm the progress of your souls, as you have begun to do, with the firmness of this rock: on it, as you know, Our Redeemer founded the Church throughout the world, so that sincere hearts, guiding their steps by her, would not stray on to the wrong road." (Pope St. Pius X, Encyclical, Jucunda sane, March 12, 1904, Papal Teachings: The Church, Benedictine Monks of Solesmes, St. Paul Editions, Boston, 1962, par. 668.)
Pope Pius XI:
"Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors. Did not the ancestors of those who are now entangled in the errors of Photius and the reformers, obey the Bishop of Rome, the chief shepherd of souls? Alas their children left the home of their fathers, but it did not fall to the ground and perish for ever, for it was supported by God. Let them therefore return to their common Father, who, forgetting the insults previously heaped on the Apostolic See, will receive them in the most loving fashion. For if, as they continually state, they long to be united with Us and ours, why do they not hasten to enter the Church, 'the Mother and mistress of all Christ's faithful?' Let them hear Lactantius crying out: 'The Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship. This is the fount of truth, this is the house of Faith, this is the temple of God: if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. Let none delude himself with obstinate wrangling. For life and salvation are here concerned, which will be lost and entirely destroyed, unless their interests are carefully and assiduously kept in mind.'" (Pope Pius XI, Encyclical, Mortalium animos, January 6, 1928, The Papal Encyclicals, Claudia Carlen, I.H.M., McGrath Publishing Co., 1981, pp. 317, 318.)
Pope Pius XII: (A.D. 1939 - 1958)
"Nor against this may one argue that the primacy of jurisdiction established in the Church gives such a Mystical Body two heads. For Peter in virtue of his primacy is only Christ's Vicar; so that there is only one chief Head of this Body, namely Christ, Who never ceases Himself to guide the Church invisible, though at the same time He rules it visibly, through him who is His representative on earth, after His glorious Ascension into heaven this Church rested not on Him alone, but on Peter too, its visible foundation stone. That Christ and His Vicar constitute one only Head is the solemn teaching of Our predecessor of immortal memory Boniface VIII in the Apostolic Letter Unam Sanctam; and his successors have never ceased to repeat the same. "They, therefore, walk in the path of dangerous errors who believe that they can accept Christ as the head of the Church, while not adhering loyally to His Vicar on earth. They have taken away the visible bonds of unity and left the Mystical Body of the Redeemer so obscured and so maimed, that those who are seeking the haven of eternal salvation can neither see it nor find it." (Pope Pius XII, encyclical Mystici Corporis which appeared in 1943; The Papal Encyclicals 1939-1958, Claudia Carlen, I.H.M., McGrath Publishing Co., 1981, p. 45.)
"By divine mandate the interpreter and guardian of the Scriptures, and the depository of Sacred Tradition living within her, the Church alone is the entrance to salvation: She alone, by herself, and under the protection and guidance of the Holy Spirit, is the source of truth." (Pope Pius XII, Allocution to the Gregorian, October 17, 1953)
"O Mary Mother of Mercy and Refuge of Sinners! We beseech thee to look with pitying eyes on poor heretics and schismatics. Do thou, who art the Seat of Wisdom, enlighten the minds wretchedly enfolded in the darkness of ignorance and sin, that they may clearly recognize the Holy, Catholic, Roman Church to be the only true Church of Jesus Christ, outside of which neither sanctity nor salvation can be found. Call them to the unity of the one fold, granting them the grace to believe every truth of our holy faith and to submit themselves to the Supreme Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth, that, thus being united with us by the sweet chains of charity, there may soon be but one fold under one and the same Shepherd; and may we all thus, O Glorious Virgin, exultantly sing forever: 'Rejoice, O Virgin Mary! Thou alone hast destroyed all heresies in the whole world!' Amen." (Pope Pius XII, The Raccolta, Benzinger Brothers, Boston, 1957, No. 626.)
Pope Gregory XVI (A.D. 1831 - 1846):
"It is not possible to worship God truly except in Her; all who are outside Her will not be saved." (Encyclical, Summo Jugiter)
Pope Benedict XV (A.D. 1914 - 1922):
"Such is the nature of the Catholic faith that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole, or as a whole rejected: This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved." (Encyclical, Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum)
Pope John XXIII:
"The Saviour Himself is the door of the sheepfold: 'I am the door of the sheep.' Into this fold of Jesus Christ, no man may enter unless he be led by the Sovereign Pontiff; and only if they be united to him can men be saved, for the Roman Pontiff is the Vicar of Christ and His personal representative on earth." (Pope John XXIII, homily to the Bishops assisting at his coronation on November 4, 1958Papal Teachings: The Church, Benedictine Monks of Solesmes, Boston, St. Paul Editions, 1962, par. 1556.)
"And you, venerable brothers, will not fail, in your teaching, to recall to the flocks entrusted to you these grand and salutary truths; we cannot render to God the devotion that is due Him and that is pleasing to Him nor is it possible to be united to Him except through Jesus Christ; and it is not possible to be united to Jesus Christ except in the Church and through the Church, His Mystical Body, and, finally, it is not possible to belong to the Church except through the bishops, successors of the Apostles, united to the Supreme Pastor, the successor of Peter." (Pope John XXIII, Address on the creation of three new dioceses on Taiwan, L'Osseratore Romano, June 29, 1961.)
: mclees8 Mon Dec 06, 2010 - 07:55:58
: Catholica Sun Dec 05, 2010 - 20:38:26
Mclees8,
What do you make of this following verse:
Acts 9:15 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,
Acts 9:16 and I will show him what he will have to suffer for my name.
Pope Pelagius II (A.D. 578 - 590)
"Consider the fact that whoever has not been in the peace and unity of the Church cannot have the Lord. ...Although given over to flames and fires, they burn, or, thrown to wild beasts, they lay down their lives, there will not be (for them) that crown of faith but the punishment of faithlessness. ...Such a one can be slain, he cannot be crowned. ...[If] slain outside the Church, he cannot attain the rewards of the Church." (Denzinger 246-247)
The Church as taught in catholicism is the universal community of believers. Yes only those who are Catholic are taught to be in
full communion with the Church, however according to the official proclamation of the Catholic Church(Catechism #838)
"those who have professed the name of Jesus Christ and who have also been properly baptised are placed in a certain communion with the Church if only imperfect." With that in mind you can discern that the Church teaches that without being apart of the universal community as a true believer you are not safe and can never fully experience God unless He wishes through His divine authority.
Do you disagree with this teaching?
Pope Saint Gregory the Great (A.D. 590 - 604)
"Now the holy Church universal proclaims that God cannot be truly worshipped saving within herself, asserting that all they that are without her shall never be saved." (Moralia)
I have already explained who makes up the Church. So I ask again do you still disagree?
Pope Innocent III (A.D. 1198 - 1216)
"Indeed, there is but one universal Church of the faithful outside of which no one at all is saved." (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215; Denz. 151)
Again whats the problem? Are you not a member of the Church according to official Catholic teaching?
"With our hearts we believe and with our lips we confess but one Church, not that of the heretics, but the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside which we believe that no one is saved." (Denzinger 423)
In 423 AD there was no Christianity outside of the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church so of course it was taught that there was no salvation outside of it. Before the Protestant Revolt, the RC, EO, and Coptics still shared a legitimate communion with eachother alothough they disagreed with one another on certain truths. In 423 AD Christianity was taught in only one place point blank.
What do you disagree with? It was the time period. Now if this was said verbatum in 1865 or so then we would have problems.lol
Pope Boniface VIII in his Bull Unam Sanctam issued in 1302:
"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." (Denz. 469) [note: This definition (de fide definita) seems unanswerable, but the liberals boldly claim that this is not a definition intended for the universal Church, but only a pronouncement meant to deal with the local problem of Philip the Fair. But when Philip demanded of Pope Clement V, the first Avignon Pope, that he withdraw Unam Sanctam, Pope Clement did not do so, but issued the Brief Meruit February 1, 1306, which despite its extremely conciliatory tone, clearly states that Unam Sanctam contains a "definition":] "That is why we do not wish or intend that any prejudice be engendered for that king and kingdom by the definition and declaration of our predecessor Pope Boniface VIII of happy memory, which began by the words Unam Sanctam." (51 Corpus Juris Canonici, (Extravag. commun., lib. V, tit. VII, cap. 2) ed. Freiburg, Vol. II, p. 1300.)
Pope Leo X reaffirmed the teaching of Boniface VIII: (1512-1517)
"Where the necessity of salvation is concerned all the faithful of Christ must be subject to the Roman Pontiff, as we are taught by Holy Scripture, the testimony of the holy fathers, and by that constitution of our predecessor of happy memory, Boniface VIII, which begins Unam Sanctam." (Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council (1512-1517) Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Decreta, Edidit Centro di Documentazione, Instituto per Science Religiose, Herder, Bologna, 1962, no. 40, pp. 619, 620.)
Pope Leo XII (A.D. 1823 - 1829)
"We profess that there is no salvation outside the Church. ...For the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. With reference to those words Augustine says: `If any man be outside the Church he will be excluded from the number of sons, and will not have God for Father since he has not the Church for mother.'" (Encyclical, Ubi Primum)
Look again at the quotes listed and the time periods and choice of wording. The Protestant Revolt took place I believe sometime in the 18th century. Notice that before there were protestants, meaning no official separation from the Church, the Catholic insisted on its submission to not the Church but to the Bishop of Rome which they believe act as the defacto head of the Church while Christ is physically in Heaven. Then look again at the quote that takes place
after the Revolt. You see how the wording changes? Instead of submission to the Bishop of Rome, when the Church was unified under the leaders via Apostolic Succession, they teach now due that one merely has to be a member of the Church. According to the Catechism #838 the only requisits for being a vlaid member of the ekkelesia is "to profess the name of Jesus Christ and have been properly baptized." Nothing at all whatsoever to do with submission to the Roman Pontiff.
Come on brother I think it is clear now.
: mclees8 Sat Dec 04, 2010 - 17:17:44
A funny thing always comes to my mind That Catholics never consider. In scripture there is not one mention or prophesy from Christ that his church was to be the religious political church of the Roman Empire after five centuries One would think anything of that magnitude would certainly bore mention by the Lord.
But there was one prophesy that foretold of a religious political church that was called the great harlot ::pondering:: makes one kinda wonder don't it ?
Here is the original comment I made that started this dialog about the political thing . Selene first commented that the Vatican does not have a political connection. then Chesterton tried to deny it also.
I proved them wrong and now you jump in wanting to justify the political connection. You guys really need to get together here.
We all know that the Vatican papacy has been in the religious political scene from its very beginning. Reread what i said now. You say the pope has a UN seat and has a right to be there. but that is not the point. Just read again carefully what i originally stated.
The pope is not winning world leaders to Christ. The reason the apostate church is called the great harlot is because The RCC and the world political system is in bed together. Jesus and the worlds politics cannot be in the same bed together. She is courting antichrist
: mclees8 Mon Dec 06, 2010 - 20:48:49
: mclees8 Sat Dec 04, 2010 - 17:17:44
A funny thing always comes to my mind That Catholics never consider. In scripture there is not one mention or prophesy from Christ that his church was to be the religious political church of the Roman Empire after five centuries One would think anything of that magnitude would certainly bore mention by the Lord.
But there was one prophesy that foretold of a religious political church that was called the great harlot ::pondering:: makes one kinda wonder don't it ?
Here is the original comment I made that started this dialog about the political thing . Selene first commented that the Vatican does not have a political connection. then Chesterton tried to deny it also.
I proved them wrong and now you jump in wanting to justify the political connection. You guys really need to get together here.
We all know that the Vatican papacy has been in the religious political scene from its very beginning. Reread what i said now. You say the pope has a UN seat and has a right to be there. but that is not the point. Just read again carefully what i originally stated.
The pope is not winning world leaders to Christ. The reason the apostate church is called the great harlot is because The RCC and the world political system is in bed together. Jesus and the worlds politics cannot be in the same bed together. She is courting antichrist
Was that directed at me or Catholica because I dont to step on anyone's toes? Well cyber toes.
: LightHammer Mon Dec 06, 2010 - 20:57:04
: mclees8 Mon Dec 06, 2010 - 20:48:49
: mclees8 Sat Dec 04, 2010 - 17:17:44
A funny thing always comes to my mind That Catholics never consider. In scripture there is not one mention or prophesy from Christ that his church was to be the religious political church of the Roman Empire after five centuries One would think anything of that magnitude would certainly bore mention by the Lord.
But there was one prophesy that foretold of a religious political church that was called the great harlot ::pondering:: makes one kinda wonder don't it ?
Here is the original comment I made that started this dialog about the political thing . Selene first commented that the Vatican does not have a political connection. then Chesterton tried to deny it also.
I proved them wrong and now you jump in wanting to justify the political connection. You guys really need to get together here.
We all know that the Vatican papacy has been in the religious political scene from its very beginning. Reread what i said now. You say the pope has a UN seat and has a right to be there. but that is not the point. Just read again carefully what i originally stated.
The pope is not winning world leaders to Christ. The reason the apostate church is called the great harlot is because The RCC and the world political system is in bed together. Jesus and the worlds politics cannot be in the same bed together. She is courting antichrist
Was that directed at me or Catholica because I dont to step on anyone's toes? Well cyber toes.
Sorry, I was talking to Catholica
: John 10:10 Mon Dec 06, 2010 - 15:57:42
: chestertonrules Sun Dec 05, 2010 - 17:59:46
: John 10:10 Sun Dec 05, 2010 - 17:38:56
: Selene Fri Dec 03, 2010 - 16:45:50
: John 10:10 Fri Dec 03, 2010 - 10:19:22
Words have precise meanings, and the words of all the Popes before 1965 and at least two Popes afterword clearly said "No salvation outside the Church." The web site/article you referred me to is an exercise in how words mean something other than what they say, and in my opinion is nothing more than damage control by those who came after all the Popes who said otherwise.
The website I referred you to is a Catholic website explaining what it ACTUALLY means. It was Catholics who use this phrase and only Catholics can interpret what it truely means when translated from the Latin to the English language. Now, let's take a closer look at that statement that you posted of the Pope.
Only in the Church is salvation. 'Without it one perishes.' (Pope John Paul I, First Allocution, August 27, 1978, L'Osservatore Romano, August 28, 29, 1978.)
Below is a weblink of the ENTIRE SPEECH from Pope John Paul I, from which this one sentence was taken out. As you can see, the Pope was quoting from St. Augustine and interpreted what St. Augustine was saying. I provided the weblink below so you can read the entire speech yourself.
According to the words of St Augustine, an image dear to the ancient Fathers of the
Church, the ship of the Church must not fear, because it is guided by Christ and by
his Vicar: "Although the ship is tossed about, it is still a ship. It carries the disciples
and it receives Christ. Yes, it is tossed on the sea but without it, one would
immediately perish" (Sermon 75,3; PL 38,475). Only in the Church is salvation:
without it one perishes!
http://www.lumenchristischool.org/files/PROGRAMMEOFPOPEJOHNPAULI.pdf
OKAY....so now, why do you think they left out the part in the speech where the Pope was quoting St. Augustine who said "Yes, it is tossed on the sea but without it, one would immediately perish?" The ship that St. Augustine was referring to that carried the disciples was the Church. NOW, why do you think they left out that part? Simple. They left it out on purpose because they did not want YOU to find out that the Pope was referring to a quote of St. Augustine. If you had just read his entire speech instead of taking one sentence out from it, then you would have understood the whole message.
Now that we understand what Pope John Paul I & II really meant, maybe you can explain what all the other Popes meant who said the same thing in more clearer words before 1965?
For example?
Pope Pelagius II (A.D. 578 - 590)
"Consider the fact that whoever has not been in the peace and unity of the Church cannot have the Lord. ...Although given over to flames and fires, they burn, or, thrown to wild beasts, they lay down their lives, there will not be (for them) that crown of faith but the punishment of faithlessness. ...Such a one can be slain, he cannot be crowned. ...[If] slain outside the Church, he cannot attain the rewards of the Church." (Denzinger 246-247)
Pope Saint Gregory the Great (A.D. 590 - 604)
"Now the holy Church universal proclaims that God cannot be truly worshipped saving within herself, asserting that all they that are without her shall never be saved." (Moralia)
Pope Innocent III (A.D. 1198 - 1216)
"Indeed, there is but one universal Church of the faithful outside of which no one at all is saved." (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215; Denz. 151)
"With our hearts we believe and with our lips we confess but one Church, not that of the heretics, but the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside which we believe that no one is saved." (Denzinger 423)
Pope Boniface VIII in his Bull Unam Sanctam issued in 1302:
"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." (Denz. 469) [note: This definition (de fide definita) seems unanswerable, but the liberals boldly claim that this is not a definition intended for the universal Church, but only a pronouncement meant to deal with the local problem of Philip the Fair. But when Philip demanded of Pope Clement V, the first Avignon Pope, that he withdraw Unam Sanctam, Pope Clement did not do so, but issued the Brief Meruit February 1, 1306, which despite its extremely conciliatory tone, clearly states that Unam Sanctam contains a "definition":] "That is why we do not wish or intend that any prejudice be engendered for that king and kingdom by the definition and declaration of our predecessor Pope Boniface VIII of happy memory, which began by the words Unam Sanctam." (51 Corpus Juris Canonici, (Extravag. commun., lib. V, tit. VII, cap. 2) ed. Freiburg, Vol. II, p. 1300.)
Pope Leo X reaffirmed the teaching of Boniface VIII: (1512-1517)
"Where the necessity of salvation is concerned all the faithful of Christ must be subject to the Roman Pontiff, as we are taught by Holy Scripture, the testimony of the holy fathers, and by that constitution of our predecessor of happy memory, Boniface VIII, which begins Unam Sanctam." (Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council (1512-1517) Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Decreta, Edidit Centro di Documentazione, Instituto per Science Religiose, Herder, Bologna, 1962, no. 40, pp. 619, 620.)
Pope Leo XII (A.D. 1823 - 1829)
"We profess that there is no salvation outside the Church. ...For the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. With reference to those words Augustine says: `If any man be outside the Church he will be excluded from the number of sons, and will not have God for Father since he has not the Church for mother.'" (Encyclical, Ubi Primum)
Pope Pius IX (A.D. 1846 - 1878)
"It must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood." (Denzinger 1647)
Pope Leo XIII: (A.D. 1878 - 1903)
"By the ministry of this Church so gloriously founded by Him, He willed to perpetuate the mission which He had Himself received from the Father; and on the one hand, having put within her all the means necessary for man's salvation, on the other hand, He formally enjoined upon men the duty of obeying His Church as Himself, and religiously taking her as a guide of their whole lives. "He that heareth you, heareth Me; he that despiseth you, despiseth me." (Luke 10:16) Therefore, it is from the Church alone that the law of Christ must be asked: and, consequently, if for man Christ is the way, the Church, too, is the way, the former of Himself and by His nature, the latter by delegation and communication of power. Consequently, all who wish to reach salvation outside the Church, are mistaken as to the way and are engaged in a vain effort." (Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical, Tametsi, November 1, 1900;
Papal Teachings: The Church, Benedictine Monks of Solesmes, St. Paul Editions, Boston, 1962, par. 647.)
"This is our last lesson to you: receive it, engrave it in your minds, all of you: by God's commandment salvation is to be found nowhere but in the Church; the strong and effective instrument of salvation is none other than the Roman Pontificate." (Pope Leo XIII, Allocution for the 25th anniversary of his election, February 20, 1903; Papal Teachings: The Church, Benedictine Monks of Solesmes, St. Paul Editions, Boston, 1962, par. 653.Encyclical, Annum Ingressi Sumus)
"He scatters and gathers not who gathers not with the Church and with Jesus Christ, and all who fight not jointly with Him and with the Church are in very truth contending against God." (Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical, Sapientiae Christianae)
Pope St. Pius X: A.D. 1903 - 1914)
"Strong in this faith, unshakably established on this Peter, We turn the eyes of Our soul both to the heavy obligations of this holy primacy and at the same time to the strength divinely imparted to Our heart. In peace We wait for those to be silent who are loudly proclaiming that the Catholic Church has had her day, that her teaching is hopelessly reactionary, that she will soon be reduced either to conformity with the data of science and a civilization without God, or to withdrawal from the society of men. And while We wait, it is Our duty to recall to everyone, great and small, as the Holy Pontiff Gregory did in ages past, the absolute necessity which is ours to have recourse to this Church to effect our eternal salvation, to obtain peace, and even prosperity in our life here below. "That is why, to use the words of the Holy Pontiff, we say: "Make firm the progress of your souls, as you have begun to do, with the firmness of this rock: on it, as you know, Our Redeemer founded the Church throughout the world, so that sincere hearts, guiding their steps by her, would not stray on to the wrong road." (Pope St. Pius X, Encyclical, Jucunda sane, March 12, 1904, Papal Teachings: The Church, Benedictine Monks of Solesmes, St. Paul Editions, Boston, 1962, par. 668.)
Pope Pius XI:
"Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors. Did not the ancestors of those who are now entangled in the errors of Photius and the reformers, obey the Bishop of Rome, the chief shepherd of souls? Alas their children left the home of their fathers, but it did not fall to the ground and perish for ever, for it was supported by God. Let them therefore return to their common Father, who, forgetting the insults previously heaped on the Apostolic See, will receive them in the most loving fashion. For if, as they continually state, they long to be united with Us and ours, why do they not hasten to enter the Church, 'the Mother and mistress of all Christ's faithful?' Let them hear Lactantius crying out: 'The Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship. This is the fount of truth, this is the house of Faith, this is the temple of God: if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. Let none delude himself with obstinate wrangling. For life and salvation are here concerned, which will be lost and entirely destroyed, unless their interests are carefully and assiduously kept in mind.'" (Pope Pius XI, Encyclical, Mortalium animos, January 6, 1928, The Papal Encyclicals, Claudia Carlen, I.H.M., McGrath Publishing Co., 1981, pp. 317, 318.)
Pope Pius XII: (A.D. 1939 - 1958)
"Nor against this may one argue that the primacy of jurisdiction established in the Church gives such a Mystical Body two heads. For Peter in virtue of his primacy is only Christ's Vicar; so that there is only one chief Head of this Body, namely Christ, Who never ceases Himself to guide the Church invisible, though at the same time He rules it visibly, through him who is His representative on earth, after His glorious Ascension into heaven this Church rested not on Him alone, but on Peter too, its visible foundation stone. That Christ and His Vicar constitute one only Head is the solemn teaching of Our predecessor of immortal memory Boniface VIII in the Apostolic Letter Unam Sanctam; and his successors have never ceased to repeat the same. "They, therefore, walk in the path of dangerous errors who believe that they can accept Christ as the head of the Church, while not adhering loyally to His Vicar on earth. They have taken away the visible bonds of unity and left the Mystical Body of the Redeemer so obscured and so maimed, that those who are seeking the haven of eternal salvation can neither see it nor find it." (Pope Pius XII, encyclical Mystici Corporis which appeared in 1943; The Papal Encyclicals 1939-1958, Claudia Carlen, I.H.M., McGrath Publishing Co., 1981, p. 45.)
"By divine mandate the interpreter and guardian of the Scriptures, and the depository of Sacred Tradition living within her, the Church alone is the entrance to salvation: She alone, by herself, and under the protection and guidance of the Holy Spirit, is the source of truth." (Pope Pius XII, Allocution to the Gregorian, October 17, 1953)
"O Mary Mother of Mercy and Refuge of Sinners! We beseech thee to look with pitying eyes on poor heretics and schismatics. Do thou, who art the Seat of Wisdom, enlighten the minds wretchedly enfolded in the darkness of ignorance and sin, that they may clearly recognize the Holy, Catholic, Roman Church to be the only true Church of Jesus Christ, outside of which neither sanctity nor salvation can be found. Call them to the unity of the one fold, granting them the grace to believe every truth of our holy faith and to submit themselves to the Supreme Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth, that, thus being united with us by the sweet chains of charity, there may soon be but one fold under one and the same Shepherd; and may we all thus, O Glorious Virgin, exultantly sing forever: 'Rejoice, O Virgin Mary! Thou alone hast destroyed all heresies in the whole world!' Amen." (Pope Pius XII, The Raccolta, Benzinger Brothers, Boston, 1957, No. 626.)
Pope Gregory XVI (A.D. 1831 - 1846):
"It is not possible to worship God truly except in Her; all who are outside Her will not be saved." (Encyclical, Summo Jugiter)
Pope Benedict XV (A.D. 1914 - 1922):
"Such is the nature of the Catholic faith that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole, or as a whole rejected: This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved." (Encyclical, Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum)
Pope John XXIII:
"The Saviour Himself is the door of the sheepfold: 'I am the door of the sheep.' Into this fold of Jesus Christ, no man may enter unless he be led by the Sovereign Pontiff; and only if they be united to him can men be saved, for the Roman Pontiff is the Vicar of Christ and His personal representative on earth." (Pope John XXIII, homily to the Bishops assisting at his coronation on November 4, 1958Papal Teachings: The Church, Benedictine Monks of Solesmes, Boston, St. Paul Editions, 1962, par. 1556.)
"And you, venerable brothers, will not fail, in your teaching, to recall to the flocks entrusted to you these grand and salutary truths; we cannot render to God the devotion that is due Him and that is pleasing to Him nor is it possible to be united to Him except through Jesus Christ; and it is not possible to be united to Jesus Christ except in the Church and through the Church, His Mystical Body, and, finally, it is not possible to belong to the Church except through the bishops, successors of the Apostles, united to the Supreme Pastor, the successor of Peter." (Pope John XXIII, Address on the creation of three new dioceses on Taiwan, L'Osseratore Romano, June 29, 1961.)
According to Catholic doctrine, who is a member of the Church?
: chestertonrules Tue Dec 07, 2010 - 19:30:38
According to Catholic doctrine, who is a member of the Church?
To read the history of the RCC and not understand or recognise that for most of her existence the RCC shut the doors of God's salvation that's in the Lord Jesus Christ to all who did not adhere to the teachings of the RCC, proclaiming herself as the Church, the only instrument of God's salvation on earth, is to live in denial.
Only in recent years has the RCC stated that
"separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from the defects already mentioned, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church
Brother John,
I really think you need to take back and examine yourself. The Church has NEVER taught that submission to itself was necessary for salvation after the Reformation. It is as simple as that. There is no evidence or any official proclamation to back up what you say.
You have no credible facts or validation.
: John 10:10 Wed Dec 08, 2010 - 11:44:09
: chestertonrules Tue Dec 07, 2010 - 19:30:38
According to Catholic doctrine, who is a member of the Church?
To read the history of the RCC and not understand or recognise that for most of her existence the RCC shut the doors of God's salvation that's in the Lord Jesus Christ to all who did not adhere to the teachings of the RCC, proclaiming herself as the Church, the only instrument of God's salvation on earth, is to live in denial.
Only in recent years has the RCC stated that "separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from the defects already mentioned, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church
: chestertonrules Wed Dec 08, 2010 - 14:14:07
: John 10:10 Wed Dec 08, 2010 - 11:44:09
: chestertonrules Tue Dec 07, 2010 - 19:30:38
According to Catholic doctrine, who is a member of the Church?
To read the history of the RCC and not understand or recognise that for most of her existence the RCC shut the doors of God's salvation that's in the Lord Jesus Christ to all who did not adhere to the teachings of the RCC, proclaiming herself as the Church, the only instrument of God's salvation on earth, is to live in denial.
Only in recent years has the RCC stated that "separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from the defects already mentioned, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church
What do you mean?
: LightHammer Wed Dec 08, 2010 - 18:19:00
What do you mean?
It means the word catholic when it was first used was just a word Ignatius chose to use that meant univeral church. He was speaking to all believers of his day and the Church at Rome was just the church at Rome. There was no papacy that ruled over all the churches that were established under other bishops. The word Catholic actually pertains to all believers. which includes all who are not of the RCC. How ever the word catholic has been made synonymous only to the RCC. This means today when the word catholic is used it only refers to those of the RCC. Thus a separation has been instilled in the minds of believers saying only those of the RCC are Catholic thus are of a better fullness of grace.
All believers Catholic or protestant have the same fullness of Grace given by God.
I'm not sure how to respond to that. You are right nothing was officiated during the time of St. Ignatius. And if he was here I bet he would he hold some disappointment.
In that regard I am positive that Moses and Abraham would have been highly disappointed in the Pharisees of Jesus time. However did that make the system of Judaism null and void because of the corruption men let slip in? I don't think so. Only the sacrifice of Christ put a rest to the Old Covenant and the authorative system of the old Jews.
The same could possibly be said of the Church, Orthodox, RCC and Coptic.
: LightHammer Wed Dec 08, 2010 - 14:08:11
Brother John,
I really think you need to take back and examine yourself. The Church has NEVER taught that submission to itself was necessary for salvation after the Reformation. It is as simple as that. There is no evidence or any official proclamation to back up what you say.
You have no credible facts or validation.
My exact words were,
To read the history of the RCC and not understand or recognise that for most of her existence the RCC shut the doors of God's salvation that's in the Lord Jesus Christ to all who did not adhere to the teachings of the RCC, proclaiming herself as the Church, the only instrument of God's salvation on earth, is to live in denial.
Only in recent years has the RCC stated that "separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from the defects already mentioned, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church
: chestertonrules Wed Dec 08, 2010 - 14:14:07
: John 10:10 Wed Dec 08, 2010 - 11:44:09
: chestertonrules Tue Dec 07, 2010 - 19:30:38
According to Catholic doctrine, who is a member of the Church?
To read the history of the RCC and not understand or recognise that for most of her existence the RCC shut the doors of God's salvation that's in the Lord Jesus Christ to all who did not adhere to the teachings of the RCC, proclaiming herself as the Church, the only instrument of God's salvation on earth, is to live in denial.
Only in recent years has the RCC stated that "separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from the defects already mentioned, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church
: John 10:10 Wed Dec 08, 2010 - 21:44:43
For Christians throughout history, to be Christian in God's eyes was and still is entering into God's salvation that's in the Lord Jesus Christ.
For the Scripture says, "WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED." (Rom 10:11)
If you believe in Jesus, you should obey all his commandments.
Jesus told you to listen to the Church.
Do you?
: chestertonrules Wed Dec 08, 2010 - 22:45:10
: John 10:10 Wed Dec 08, 2010 - 21:44:43
For Christians throughout history, to be Christian in God's eyes was and still is entering into God's salvation that's in the Lord Jesus Christ.
For the Scripture says, "WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED." (Rom 10:11)
If you believe in Jesus, you should obey all his commandments.
Jesus told you to listen to the Church.
Do you?
I can't really speak for John 10 10 but i agree with him that all who call upon the Lord Jesus Christ shall be saved. Yes we should obey his commandments and hear who he has sent. He sent us the apostles and their teaching we have and obey. If we obey them then you are listening to the church.
Jesus said be as lambs but wise as serpents. This means not all who claim to be sent are sent. Obey all the Lord taught and believe only those whom you know he sent. Those who just put blind faith in men may be very foolish. Obey the pope when he teaches about faith and morals and godly living. But after that I would be very careful
: mclees8 Thu Dec 09, 2010 - 00:01:53
Those who just put blind faith in men may be very foolish. Obey the pope when he teaches about faith and morals and godly living. But after that I would be very careful
My acceptance of the Catholic Church as the fullness of Truth granted by Jesus and the Holy Spirit has NOTHING to do with blind faith.
It takes years of study and prayer to overcome biases against the Catholic Church.
It is a long, difficult road to accept the Truth.
To quote John Henry Newman: "To go deep into history is to cease being protestant."
Mclees has come far. I feel like we are exactly the same now.
: LightHammer Thu Dec 09, 2010 - 09:08:27
Mclees has come far. I feel like we are exactly the same now.
Im not sure what you mean, but thanks
God bless
: chestertonrules Thu Dec 09, 2010 - 08:40:29
: mclees8 Thu Dec 09, 2010 - 00:01:53
Those who just put blind faith in men may be very foolish. Obey the pope when he teaches about faith and morals and godly living. But after that I would be very careful
My acceptance of the Catholic Church as the fullness of Truth granted by Jesus and the Holy Spirit has NOTHING to do with blind faith.
It takes years of study and prayer to overcome biases against the Catholic Church.
It is a long, difficult road to accept the Truth.
To quote John Henry Newman: "To go deep into history is to cease being protestant."
This is not about bias. This is about being wise in Christ. You put a lot of stock in historical facts and evidences. But those things will never make the church nor will it paint a true picture. While history does have its merits. but truth savation, and power in the holy Ghost come the Jesus Christ
What make the church the church is a faith founded in Christ, and the Holy Spirit.
The apostles may have been a leadership but that was not there focus. The gospel of salvation through Christ in the Spirit was their focus . This should be the focus of the church. Not being blinded by carnal things like rank and authority. I am sure that meant little to the apostles.
Flesh puts faith in the flesh but those who are of the spirit put more faith in the Spirit. It is the Spirit that guides us into all truth.
God bless
: chestertonrules Wed Dec 08, 2010 - 22:45:10
: John 10:10 Wed Dec 08, 2010 - 21:44:43
For Christians throughout history, to be Christian in God's eyes was and still is entering into God's salvation that's in the Lord Jesus Christ.
For the Scripture says, "WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED." (Rom 10:11)
If you believe in Jesus, you should obey all his commandments.
Jesus told you to listen to the Church.
Do you?
My Jesus told me to listen to Him,
John 10:27-28
"My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish ; and no one will snatch them out of My hand."
Yes but what is that Voice telling you? What is the new found Instinct of Christ leading you towards?
In the time of the Apostles we believed that the Voice of God exclusively gave the Truth to the Apostles and their chosen and to us the Voice of God via the Holy Ghost gave us the ability to recognize the Truth when we heard it.
I know most protestants don't agree with the what the Apostles taught and did unless they recorded it in Sacred Scripture, so why don't you tell me what you believe the Voice of God gives to you.
: LightHammer Thu Dec 09, 2010 - 15:26:10
Yes but what is that Voice telling you? What is the new found Instinct of Christ leading you towards?
In the time of the Apostles we believed that the Voice of God exclusively gave the Truth to the Apostles and their chosen and to us the Voice of God via the Holy Ghost gave us the ability to recognize the Truth when we heard it.
I know most protestants don't agree with the what the Apostles taught and did unless they recorded it in Sacred Scripture, so why don't you tell me what you believe the Voice of God gives to you.
I asked you to read Jeanne Guyon's writings, which the RCC imprisoned her for, and you will find out what Christ led her to and is leading me towards.
Yes, Christ gave Himself to His Apostles for 3-1/2 years, imparting His life and message to them to carry on His word and work after He left. After He was exalted to the right hand of God the Father as Lord within the Godhead, Jesus poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost on
ALL flesh that receive Him as Lord.
Thankfully, God gave us
HIS WORD AS THE TRUTH to live by, which the RCC has perverted to say many things that are not in agreement with His Word. These are the truths I live by, and are the truths that the Holy Spirit takes and discloses to
ALL His children that have an ear to hear what the Spirit is saying to the churches (Rev 2:7).
I have explained many times what I believe Jesus is telling me through His Word. How does re-hashing these things over and over again get us anywhere?
: John 10:10 Thu Dec 09, 2010 - 16:14:39
: LightHammer Thu Dec 09, 2010 - 15:26:10
Yes but what is that Voice telling you? What is the new found Instinct of Christ leading you towards?
In the time of the Apostles we believed that the Voice of God exclusively gave the Truth to the Apostles and their chosen and to us the Voice of God via the Holy Ghost gave us the ability to recognize the Truth when we heard it.
I know most protestants don't agree with the what the Apostles taught and did unless they recorded it in Sacred Scripture, so why don't you tell me what you believe the Voice of God gives to you.
I asked you to read Jeanne Guyon's writings, which the RCC imprisoned her for, and you will find out what Christ led her to and is leading me towards.
Yes, Christ gave Himself to His Apostles for 3-1/2 years, imparting His life and message to them to carry on His word and work after He left. After He was exalted to the right hand of God the Father as Lord within the Godhead, Jesus poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost on ALL flesh that receive Him as Lord.
Thankfully, God gave us HIS WORD AS THE TRUTH to live by, which the RCC has perverted to say many things that are not in agreement with His Word. These are the truths I live by, and are the truths that the Holy Spirit takes and discloses to ALL His children that have an ear to hear what the Spirit is saying to the churches (Rev 2:7).
I have explained many times what I believe Jesus is telling me through His Word. How does re-hashing these things over and over again get us anywhere?
John 10:10, do you believe that people have to "accept Jesus" to be saved?
I'm sorry I wasn't aware that I had to read that book before we could have any further dialogue. I thought it was just concerning that specific private debate we were having but I guess I should make a run to the library.
: John 10:10 Thu Dec 09, 2010 - 13:24:58
John 10:27-28
"My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish ; and no one will snatch them out of My hand."
How do we hear the voice of Jesus?
Matthew 16
17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock
I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. Matthew 18
17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and
if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
Luke 10
16"He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."
John 20
21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you!
As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."
1 Timothy 3
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God,
the pillar and foundation of the truth.2 Thes 2
15So then, brothers, stand firm and
hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.
: chestertonrules Thu Dec 09, 2010 - 17:20:07
: John 10:10 Thu Dec 09, 2010 - 13:24:58
John 10:27-28
"My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish ; and no one will snatch them out of My hand."
How do we hear the voice of Jesus?
Matthew 16
17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
Matthew 18
17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
Luke 10
16"He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."
John 20
21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."
1 Timothy 3
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.
2 Thes 2
15So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.
It is as Jesus said do as they say but do not do as they do. Catholics are quick to use these to justify the RCC. What disturbs me the most is I bet you have these verses stored in you computer ready to bring up every time you want to express that hierarchical authority of the RCC as if that was all there was to hearing Christ. It is a highly hammered and over emphasized dogmatic thing. It's the only thrust Catholic's have. You think this is all the church consists of and the only way one can hear Jesus. If this is all you can see then I feel sorry for.
There is no higher authority then Christ and the Holy Spirit. I can not count he ways i have heard Jesus speak to me, and i Know he walks with me everyday, and all who seek him with a true heart and undying love will not be disappointed.
Your relationship is carnal and mine is in the spirit. and not just me but all who are of the spirit.
God bless
God bless
.....
: mclees8 Thu Dec 09, 2010 - 18:04:13
: chestertonrules Thu Dec 09, 2010 - 17:20:07
: John 10:10 Thu Dec 09, 2010 - 13:24:58
John 10:27-28
"My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish ; and no one will snatch them out of My hand."
How do we hear the voice of Jesus?
Matthew 16
17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
Matthew 18
17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
Luke 10
16"He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."
John 20
21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."
1 Timothy 3
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.
2 Thes 2
15So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.
It is as Jesus said do as they say but do not do as they do. Catholics are quick to use these to justify the RCC. What disturbs me the most is I bet you have these verses stored in you computer ready to bring up every time you want to express that hierarchical authority of the RCC as if that was all there was to hearing Christ. It is a highly hammered and over emphasized dogmatic thing. It's the only thrust Catholic's have. You think this is all the church consists of and the only way one can hear Jesus. If this is all you can see then I feel sorry for.
There is no higher authority then Christ and the Holy Spirit. I can not count he ways i have heard Jesus speak to me, and i Know he walks with me everyday, and all who seek him with a true heart and undying love will not be disappointed.
Your relationship is carnal and mine is in the spirit. and not just me but all who are of the spirit.
God bless
God bless
Catholics believe all of the bible is the inspired Word of God.
Why do you think it is OK to ignore some passages?
: chestertonrules Thu Dec 09, 2010 - 21:23:40
: mclees8 Thu Dec 09, 2010 - 18:04:13
: chestertonrules Thu Dec 09, 2010 - 17:20:07
: John 10:10 Thu Dec 09, 2010 - 13:24:58
John 10:27-28
"My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish ; and no one will snatch them out of My hand."
How do we hear the voice of Jesus?
Matthew 16
17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
Matthew 18
17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
Luke 10
16"He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."
John 20
21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."
1 Timothy 3
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.
2 Thes 2
15So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.
It is as Jesus said do as they say but do not do as they do. Catholics are quick to use these to justify the RCC. What disturbs me the most is I bet you have these verses stored in you computer ready to bring up every time you want to express that hierarchical authority of the RCC as if that was all there was to hearing Christ. It is a highly hammered and over emphasized dogmatic thing. It's the only thrust Catholic's have. You think this is all the church consists of and the only way one can hear Jesus. If this is all you can see then I feel sorry for.
There is no higher authority then Christ and the Holy Spirit. I can not count he ways i have heard Jesus speak to me, and i Know he walks with me everyday, and all who seek him with a true heart and undying love will not be disappointed.
Your relationship is carnal and mine is in the spirit. and not just me but all who are of the spirit.
God bless
God bless
Catholics believe all of the bible is the inspired Word of God.
Why do you think it is OK to ignore some passages?
Im not saying ignore passages, but these authority passages is all you seem to see.
Your relationship is not through the authority system but it is in Christ through Holy Spirit. Like i said before the apostles were authority but they only saw Christ and his gospel message faith hope and salvation. I doubt they were so impressed with being authority. Or the need to make such an emphasis of it.
I doubt they went around quoting these authority scriptures to convince everyone they were authority
: Catholica Thu Dec 09, 2010 - 16:27:19
: John 10:10 Thu Dec 09, 2010 - 16:14:39
: LightHammer Thu Dec 09, 2010 - 15:26:10
Yes but what is that Voice telling you? What is the new found Instinct of Christ leading you towards?
In the time of the Apostles we believed that the Voice of God exclusively gave the Truth to the Apostles and their chosen and to us the Voice of God via the Holy Ghost gave us the ability to recognize the Truth when we heard it.
I know most protestants don't agree with the what the Apostles taught and did unless they recorded it in Sacred Scripture, so why don't you tell me what you believe the Voice of God gives to you.
I asked you to read Jeanne Guyon's writings, which the RCC imprisoned her for, and you will find out what Christ led her to and is leading me towards.
Yes, Christ gave Himself to His Apostles for 3-1/2 years, imparting His life and message to them to carry on His word and work after He left. After He was exalted to the right hand of God the Father as Lord within the Godhead, Jesus poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost on ALL flesh that receive Him as Lord.
Thankfully, God gave us HIS WORD AS THE TRUTH to live by, which the RCC has perverted to say many things that are not in agreement with His Word. These are the truths I live by, and are the truths that the Holy Spirit takes and discloses to ALL His children that have an ear to hear what the Spirit is saying to the churches (Rev 2:7).
I have explained many times what I believe Jesus is telling me through His Word. How does re-hashing these things over and over again get us anywhere?
John 10:10, do you believe that people have to "accept Jesus" to be saved?
I posted this in another forum section:
Here is what I believe the Bible reveals is God's salvation that in the Lord Jesus Christ:
Acts 10:38 "You know of Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit and with power, and how He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him.
39 "We are witnesses of all the things He did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They also put Him to death by hanging Him on a cross.
40 "God raised Him up on the third day and granted that He become visible,
41 not to all the people, but to witnesses who were chosen beforehand by God, that is, to us who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead.
42 "And He ordered us to preach to the people, and solemnly to testify that this is the One who has been appointed by God as Judge of the living and the dead.
43 "Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins."
44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message.
45 All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also.
46 For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered,
47 "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?"
48 And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days.
God's salvation that's in the Lord Jesus Christ is given to all sinners who hear this message, repent, believe in the Lord for the forgiveness of their sins, and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Water baptism then follows those who have received God's salvation that's in the Lord Jesus Christ as a testimony that they now have now died to the flesh, are now raised in newness of life in the Spirit, and now honor Jesus as Lord of their lives.
It's as simple and as difficult as that!
Much can be done in addition to these basics to enable Christians to grow in grace in knowledge of our Lord, and in service to and for our Lord. But any person, group, church, or RCC that sets itself up as requiring anything different from these BASICS of God's salvation that's in the Lord Jesus Christ is not of God.
: chestertonrules Thu Dec 09, 2010 - 17:20:07
: John 10:10 Thu Dec 09, 2010 - 13:24:58
John 10:27-28
"My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish ; and no one will snatch them out of My hand."
How do we hear the voice of Jesus?
Matthew 16
17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
Matthew 18
17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
Luke 10
16"He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."
John 20
21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."
1 Timothy 3
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.
2 Thes 2
15So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.
Jesus builds His Church upon Who He is, not upon who Peter was.
Matt 16:16 Simon Peter answered,
"You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Those that honor Jesus as Lord can hear His voice, receive the gift of His Spirit, follow Him, and become a part of the Body of Christ - the Church.
: John 10:10 Thu Dec 09, 2010 - 23:06:24
: chestertonrules Thu Dec 09, 2010 - 17:20:07
: John 10:10 Thu Dec 09, 2010 - 13:24:58
John 10:27-28
"My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish ; and no one will snatch them out of My hand."
How do we hear the voice of Jesus?
Matthew 16
17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
Matthew 18
17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
Luke 10
16"He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."
John 20
21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."
1 Timothy 3
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.
2 Thes 2
15So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.
Jesus builds His Church upon Who He is, not upon who Peter was.
Matt 16:16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
Those that honor Jesus as Lord can hear His voice, receive the gift of His Spirit, follow Him, and become a part of the Body of Christ - the Church.
You should honor Jesus by listening to his Church.
Jesus said that if you reject those he sent you are rejecting him.
: chestertonrules Thu Dec 09, 2010 - 23:26:39
: John 10:10 Thu Dec 09, 2010 - 23:06:24
: chestertonrules Thu Dec 09, 2010 - 17:20:07
: John 10:10 Thu Dec 09, 2010 - 13:24:58
John 10:27-28
"My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish ; and no one will snatch them out of My hand."
How do we hear the voice of Jesus?
Matthew 16
17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
Matthew 18
17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
Luke 10
16"He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."
John 20
21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."
1 Timothy 3
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.
2 Thes 2
15So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.
Jesus builds His Church upon Who He is, not upon who Peter was.
Matt 16:16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
Those that honor Jesus as Lord can hear His voice, receive the gift of His Spirit, follow Him, and become a part of the Body of Christ - the Church.
You should honor Jesus by listening to his Church.
Jesus said that if you reject those he sent you are rejecting him.
I have no problem with that. You listen to whom you think he sent and I will listen to the ones I know he sent.
God bless
This is new.
So are you disputing that just because you ordained by the Church that it does not make your calling legitimate?
: chestertonrules Thu Dec 09, 2010 - 23:26:39
: John 10:10 Thu Dec 09, 2010 - 23:06:24
: chestertonrules Thu Dec 09, 2010 - 17:20:07
: John 10:10 Thu Dec 09, 2010 - 13:24:58
John 10:27-28
"My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish ; and no one will snatch them out of My hand."
How do we hear the voice of Jesus?
Matthew 16
17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
Matthew 18
17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
Luke 10
16"He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."
John 20
21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."
1 Timothy 3
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.
2 Thes 2
15So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.
Jesus builds His Church upon Who He is, not upon who Peter was.
Matt 16:16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
Those that honor Jesus as Lord can hear His voice, receive the gift of His Spirit, follow Him, and become a part of the Body of Christ - the Church.
You should honor Jesus by listening to his Church.
Jesus said that if you reject those he sent you are rejecting him.
When you equate the RCC as The Church instead of the Church being the Body of Believers in the Lord Jesus Christ, and we are rejecting Jesus by rejecting the RCC, then we will forever go round and round on this point of disagreement.
When sinners receive God's salvation that's in the Lord Jesus Christ, God then places us into His Body (1 Cor 12:12) - the Church. When this happens to those who are of the Catholic faith, it happens in spite of, not because of the RCC. When this happens to those who are of the Protestant faith, it happens in spite of, not because we are Protestant.
It's as simple and as difficult as that!
: John 10:10 Fri Dec 10, 2010 - 12:54:40
: chestertonrules Thu Dec 09, 2010 - 23:26:39
: John 10:10 Thu Dec 09, 2010 - 23:06:24
: chestertonrules Thu Dec 09, 2010 - 17:20:07
: John 10:10 Thu Dec 09, 2010 - 13:24:58
John 10:27-28
"My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish ; and no one will snatch them out of My hand."
How do we hear the voice of Jesus?
Matthew 16
17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
Matthew 18
17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
Luke 10
16"He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."
John 20
21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."
1 Timothy 3
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.
2 Thes 2
15So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.
Jesus builds His Church upon Who He is, not upon who Peter was.
Matt 16:16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
Those that honor Jesus as Lord can hear His voice, receive the gift of His Spirit, follow Him, and become a part of the Body of Christ - the Church.
You should honor Jesus by listening to his Church.
Jesus said that if you reject those he sent you are rejecting him.
When you equate the RCC as The Church instead of the Church being the Body of Believers in the Lord Jesus Christ, and we are rejecting Jesus by rejecting the RCC, then we will forever go round and round on this point of disagreement.
When sinners receive God's salvation that's in the Lord Jesus Christ, God then places us into His Body (1 Cor 12:12) - the Church. When this happens to those who are of the Catholic faith, it happens in spite of, not because of the RCC. When this happens to those who are of the Protestant faith, it happens in spite of, not because we are Protestant.
It's as simple and as difficult as that!
The Church leaders are those with the authority of the apostles. If you don't listen to the Church then you are mixing false doctrine in with the Truth.
In the history of the Church, some men have leaned on their own understanding and rejected the authority of the apostles.
: chestertonrules Fri Dec 10, 2010 - 14:24:31
The Church leaders are those with the authority of the apostles. If you don't listen to the Church then you are mixing false doctrine in with the Truth.
In the history of the Church, some men have leaned on their own understanding and rejected the authority of the apostles.
God's Word that He gave to the body of Christ declares this:
Eph 11-12 And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ.The apostles are long gone, and all that remains is their teaching as recorded in God's Word. Acts 2:42 says the early church Believers devoted themselves to the
apostle's teaching, fellowship, breaking bread, and prayer. In addition to the apostles God gave to the early church, God has raised up prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers throughout the ages to use and carry forth God's Word to the ends of the earth, building up of the body of Christ on earth.
During the 4th century, this building up of the body of Christ on earth got hijacked by a priesthood that declared that God's authority on earth could only be administered through them. The result of this was the RCC that continues to declare that God's authority on earth can only be rightly administered through them.
600 years ago the Reformers began to break down the doors of this un-Biblical teaching that says only the RCC as the Mother Church has God's authority on earth. God has been sending revivals to every age since then through prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers that He has raised up, anointed, and sent forth.
I'm sorry I haven't read your book yet but I can't hold my tongue.....fingers.
How can say that the "revivals" of the Protestant Reformation are of God when they fail to agree completely on anything concerning the necessities of the Faith?
God is not the author of confusion so do explain.
: chestertonrules Fri Dec 10, 2010 - 14:24:31
The Church leaders are those with the authority of the apostles. If you don't listen to the Church then you are mixing false doctrine in with the Truth.
In the history of the Church, some men have leaned on their own understanding and rejected the authority of the apostles.
Many RC don't know what the Bible teaches,please learn from the Bible,the Word of God,here is a good link to start..
http://dokimos.org/catholic/page36.html
http://so4j.com/catholics-are-they-saved.php#false_religion
Elder you have quoted nothing Biblical in any of your responses. A lot of anti-catholic rants but nothing biblical. Nothing whatsoever that is meant to spread God's loving Gospel and everything that spreads fear, paranoia and disunity.
Actually quote anything that you have said that is Biblical and not anti-catholic.
You make me sad. Sad to think that men of your age and experience can still not have a clue.
: John 10:10 Fri Dec 10, 2010 - 16:37:57
: chestertonrules Fri Dec 10, 2010 - 14:24:31
The Church leaders are those with the authority of the apostles. If you don't listen to the Church then you are mixing false doctrine in with the Truth.
In the history of the Church, some men have leaned on their own understanding and rejected the authority of the apostles.
God's Word that He gave to the body of Christ declares this:
Eph 11-12 And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ.
The apostles are long gone, and all that remains is their teaching as recorded in God's Word.
The successors of the apostles are alive and well and they are teaching the gospel today.
"And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture a certain place, 'I will appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.'...
Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry...For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties." Pope Clement, Epistle to Corinthians, 42, 44 (A.D. 98).
: LightHammer Fri Dec 10, 2010 - 10:14:14
This is new.
So are you disputing that just because you ordained by the Church that it does not make your calling legitimate?
A true calling does not consist of going through seminary or having a plaque hanging in your office. A true calling is born from above. Those are led of the spirit will minister in the spirit. One who has a true calling can have a call with out any official degree, God knows his own and those who walk in the spirit. They will minister from the heart in spirit and in truth
God bless
: tinker Fri Dec 10, 2010 - 18:56:06
Many RC don't know what the Bible teaches,please learn from the Bible,the Word of God,here is a good link to start..
Many protestants ignore scripture because it supports Catholic teaching.
You are one of these.
Matthew 18
17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
Luke 10
16"He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."
John 20
21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."
1 Timothy 3
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.
2 Thes 2
15So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.
Matthew 16
17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
: chestertonrules Sun Dec 12, 2010 - 11:40:07
: tinker Fri Dec 10, 2010 - 18:56:06
Many RC don't know what the Bible teaches,please learn from the Bible,the Word of God,here is a good link to start..
Many protestants ignore scripture because it supports Catholic teaching.
You are one of these.
Matthew 18
17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
Luke 10
16"He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."
John 20
21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."
1 Timothy 3
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.
2 Thes 2
15So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.
Matthew 16
17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
But don't forget these brother.
John17:20Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
Jesus prays exclusively for His disciples and yet every protestant wants to claim that this exclusive prayer is inclusively for ALL believers. I don't get why they say that. Christ was clearly in the private company of the twelve and praying aloud therefore for that company.
1 Timothy 3:15
15But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
The Church is the universal community of believers but there is an authorative chain of command and it resides with the original twelve and their successors. This is made perfectly clear with the election Mathias to replace Judas Ischariot in Acts. Protestants that the Church is the universal community of believers but they refuse to accept Sacred Scripture's precedent of the apostle led chain of command.
I could go on but I'm sure this will be enough to spark and uprising.
: LightHammer Sun Dec 12, 2010 - 12:23:20
: chestertonrules Sun Dec 12, 2010 - 11:40:07
: tinker Fri Dec 10, 2010 - 18:56:06
Many RC don't know what the Bible teaches,please learn from the Bible,the Word of God,here is a good link to start..
Many protestants ignore scripture because it supports Catholic teaching.
You are one of these.
Matthew 18
17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
Luke 10
16"He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."
John 20
21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."
1 Timothy 3
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.
2 Thes 2
15So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.
Matthew 16
17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
But don't forget these brother.
John17:20Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
Jesus prays exclusively for His disciples and yet every protestant wants to claim that this exclusive prayer is inclusively for ALL believers. I don't get why they say that. Christ was clearly in the private company of the twelve and praying aloud therefore for that company.
1 Timothy 3:15
15But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
The Church is the universal community of believers but there is an authorative chain of command and it resides with the original twelve and their successors. This is made perfectly clear with the election Mathias to replace Judas Ischariot in Acts. Protestants that the Church is the universal community of believers but they refuse to accept Sacred Scripture's precedent of the apostle led chain of command.
I could go on but I'm sure this will be enough to spark and uprising.
How quickly they learn...
http://www.facebook.com/notes/alpha-and-omega-ministries/how-quickly-they-learn-the-tactics/182709395079437
Like I said the exaggerations of a few catholics does not change that officially the Church does not condone anything you have ever said it does.
The Sacraments are not taught as mandatory for salvation aside from baptism.
They don't pray to Mary or our brothers on the other side as they do God.
The pope has never been declared God.
Mary is not worshiped or referred to as a goddess.
ALL your claims about the Church are nothing but a lie.
I'm not even Catholic and I can see this. If any protestant believes what you say than they are blinded by bias and quite frankly confused.
You might as well I'm a freaking clans men and in my spare time I hang with Neo-Nazis and lynch my own kind. Why don't post something truthful for once.
Really I can't believe the mods allow people to just freely lie like this about others. That's right there was mod in April 2008 who was just as good at spreading lies about the Church as you are.
: LightHammer Sun Dec 12, 2010 - 19:56:19
Like I said the exaggerations of a few catholics does not change that officially the Church does not condone anything you have ever said it does.
The Sacraments are not taught as mandatory for salvation aside from baptism.
They don't pray to Mary or our brothers on the other side as they do God.
The pope has never been declared God.
Mary is not worshiped or referred to as a goddess.
ALL your claims about the Church are nothing but a lie.
I'm not even Catholic and I can see this. If any protestant believes what you say than they are blinded by bias and quite frankly confused.
You might as well I'm a freaking clans men and in my spare time I hang with Neo-Nazis and lynch my own kind. Why don't post something truthful for once.
Really I can't believe the mods allow people to just freely lie like this about others. That's right there was mod in April 2008 who was just as good at spreading lies about the Church as you are.
So anything you say about other peoples' post are lies and you never flame people? It takes two to tango.
Read this link,your eyes must be deluded by the devil if you see them as adoring instead of praying.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Mama-Mary/90520432292
Joh 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
Dude these are individuals. Yes they are wrong but the Church doesn't teach them to do this. They are taught to respect and honor Mary as they would their own mother.
People always over do regardless of what "it" is. That's just how people are.
Jesus had to tell one of His own disciples to calm down because he was over doing it when He was trying to Christ from being arrested and ended up cutting off a guys ear.
Does that mean that Christ taught Peter to slice off limbs in the protection of His Lord? OF COURSE NOT!
Men are naturally passionate creatures and they make mistakes.
Ever heard of hero worship? There are those who actually worship comic book heros without ever being told to.
Relax dude gosh. Stop judging official teaching, which can be found simply by visiting the Catholic's official website, on men who are just as sinful and bear just as many shortcomings as anyone else.
Its ridiculous.
: tinker Sun Dec 12, 2010 - 20:22:49
So anything you say about other peoples' post are lies and you never flame people? It takes two to tango.
Read this link,your eyes must be deluded by the devil if you see them as adoring instead of praying.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Mama-Mary/90520432292
Joh 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
Mary is not adored, she is venereated.
Mary and the saints are prayed to in order to seek the power of their prayers, not their power as individuals.
The prayer of the righteous is powerful and effective. None on earth are as righteous as those in heaven who have been fully sanctified.
: chestertonrules Mon Dec 13, 2010 - 07:05:21
: tinker Sun Dec 12, 2010 - 20:22:49
So anything you say about other peoples' post are lies and you never flame people? It takes two to tango.
Read this link,your eyes must be deluded by the devil if you see them as adoring instead of praying.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Mama-Mary/90520432292
Joh 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
Mary is not adored, she is venereated.
Mary and the saints are prayed to in order to seek the power of their prayers, not their power as individuals.
The prayer of the righteous is powerful and effective. None on earth are as righteous as those in heaven who have been fully sanctified.
Why would you settle for second best, when you can go to Jesus himself. In fact it is almost an insult. He is your Savior, but more than that he is my personal friend. Why don't you let him be your personal friend.
God bless
So what?!
Catholics feel like the more peopke praying for the same thing the more powerful the prayer. There's nothing sinful about it. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it wrong Mclees.
Its not second best to petition the saints in heaven to unite under a certain prayer to strengthen it.
You guys are a something else.
: mclees8 Mon Dec 13, 2010 - 07:35:02
: chestertonrules Mon Dec 13, 2010 - 07:05:21
: tinker Sun Dec 12, 2010 - 20:22:49
So anything you say about other peoples' post are lies and you never flame people? It takes two to tango.
Read this link,your eyes must be deluded by the devil if you see them as adoring instead of praying.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Mama-Mary/90520432292
Joh 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
Mary is not adored, she is venereated.
Mary and the saints are prayed to in order to seek the power of their prayers, not their power as individuals.
The prayer of the righteous is powerful and effective. None on earth are as righteous as those in heaven who have been fully sanctified.
Why would you settle for second best, when you can go to Jesus himself. In fact it is almost an insult. He is your Savior, but more than that he is my personal friend. Why don't you let him be your personal friend.
God bless
So you don't ask others to pray for you? The bible recommends it.
Multiply your prays with the intercession of the saints!
: chestertonrules Mon Dec 13, 2010 - 08:31:47
: mclees8 Mon Dec 13, 2010 - 07:35:02
: chestertonrules Mon Dec 13, 2010 - 07:05:21
: tinker Sun Dec 12, 2010 - 20:22:49
So anything you say about other peoples' post are lies and you never flame people? It takes two to tango.
Read this link,your eyes must be deluded by the devil if you see them as adoring instead of praying.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Mama-Mary/90520432292
Joh 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
Mary is not adored, she is venereated.
Mary and the saints are prayed to in order to seek the power of their prayers, not their power as individuals.
The prayer of the righteous is powerful and effective. None on earth are as righteous as those in heaven who have been fully sanctified.
Why would you settle for second best, when you can go to Jesus himself. In fact it is almost an insult. He is your Savior, but more than that he is my personal friend. Why don't you let him be your personal friend.
God bless
So you don't ask others to pray for you? The bible recommends it.
Multiply your prays with the intercession of the saints!
Yes i have asked for prayer, and yes I have prayed for others even when not asked.
But when I ask for prayer I pray they go straight to Jesus with it. I would not feel that they had to go through another to get to Jesus. I have never felt the need to ask a passed on saint to pray for me. Paul says we can now come boldly unto the throne of grace for we do not have a high priest who cannot be touched with feeling of our infirmities. if I ask for prayer I pray they follow this path taking the direct root
God bless
: mclees8 Mon Dec 13, 2010 - 14:18:51
Yes i have asked for prayer, and yes I have prayed for others even when not asked.
But when I ask for prayer I pray they go straight to Jesus with it. I would not feel that they had to go through another to get to Jesus. I have never felt the need to ask a passed on saint to pray for me. Paul says we can now come boldly unto the throne of grace for we do not have a high priest who cannot be touched with feeling of our infirmities. if I ask for prayer I pray they follow this path taking the direct root
God bless
If it is good to ask others to pray for you, why not ask the saints to pray for you?
: chestertonrules Mon Dec 13, 2010 - 15:07:57
: mclees8 Mon Dec 13, 2010 - 14:18:51
Yes i have asked for prayer, and yes I have prayed for others even when not asked.
But when I ask for prayer I pray they go straight to Jesus with it. I would not feel that they had to go through another to get to Jesus. I have never felt the need to ask a passed on saint to pray for me. Paul says we can now come boldly unto the throne of grace for we do not have a high priest who cannot be touched with feeling of our infirmities. if I ask for prayer I pray they follow this path taking the direct root
God bless
If it is good to ask others to pray for you, why not ask the saints to pray for you?
For the same reason I have stated
: mclees8 Tue Dec 14, 2010 - 08:55:48
: chestertonrules Mon Dec 13, 2010 - 15:07:57
: mclees8 Mon Dec 13, 2010 - 14:18:51
Yes i have asked for prayer, and yes I have prayed for others even when not asked.
But when I ask for prayer I pray they go straight to Jesus with it. I would not feel that they had to go through another to get to Jesus. I have never felt the need to ask a passed on saint to pray for me. Paul says we can now come boldly unto the throne of grace for we do not have a high priest who cannot be touched with feeling of our infirmities. if I ask for prayer I pray they follow this path taking the direct root
God bless
If it is good to ask others to pray for you, why not ask the saints to pray for you?
For the same reason I have stated
You didn't state a reason. In fact, you said that you ask others to pray for you.
Interesting debate on videos for RC..
Debate about Papacy.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQ6bLYVD8qM&feature=related
: LightHammer Fri Dec 10, 2010 - 16:53:20
I'm sorry I haven't read your book yet but I can't hold my tongue.....fingers.
How can say that the "revivals" of the Protestant Reformation are of God when they fail to agree completely on anything concerning the necessities of the Faith?
God is not the author of confusion so do explain.
It's not my book, it's Jeanne Guyon's testimony of her spiritual journey into union with God. For this she was persecuted by family, friends, and the RCC, finally being placed into prison to keep her from sharing her testimony with others. Fortunately, her writings were not destroyed, and have probably sparked more revivals during the last 300 years than any other person.
Protestant Reformers proclaimed similar truths as did Jeanne, and those who are able to hear God's message of salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ are drawn to our Lord in every age. I'm very sorry you seem to be so confused.
: chestertonrules Fri Dec 10, 2010 - 20:12:04
: John 10:10 Fri Dec 10, 2010 - 16:37:57
: chestertonrules Fri Dec 10, 2010 - 14:24:31
The Church leaders are those with the authority of the apostles. If you don't listen to the Church then you are mixing false doctrine in with the Truth.
In the history of the Church, some men have leaned on their own understanding and rejected the authority of the apostles.
God's Word that He gave to the body of Christ declares this:
Eph 11-12 And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ.
The apostles are long gone, and all that remains is their teaching as recorded in God's Word.
The successors of the apostles are alive and well and they are teaching the gospel today.
"And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture a certain place, 'I will appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.'... Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry...For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties." Pope Clement, Epistle to Corinthians, 42, 44 (A.D. 98).
The RCC may rely on so-called RCC successors of the apostles, but God continues His work on earth through "prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ."
: chestertonrules Tue Dec 14, 2010 - 08:59:10
: mclees8 Tue Dec 14, 2010 - 08:55:48
: chestertonrules Mon Dec 13, 2010 - 15:07:57
: mclees8 Mon Dec 13, 2010 - 14:18:51
Yes i have asked for prayer, and yes I have prayed for others even when not asked.
But when I ask for prayer I pray they go straight to Jesus with it. I would not feel that they had to go through another to get to Jesus. I have never felt the need to ask a passed on saint to pray for me. Paul says we can now come boldly unto the throne of grace for we do not have a high priest who cannot be touched with feeling of our infirmities. if I ask for prayer I pray they follow this path taking the direct root
God bless
If it is good to ask others to pray for you, why not ask the saints to pray for you?
For the same reason I have stated
You didn't state a reason. In fact, you said that you ask others to pray for you.
As far as I am concerned i did. I do not ask others to pray for me very often but there have been times. I tend to go to Jesus for all my needs. Are Catholics afraid of him or something that they have to hide behind someone else. the children of Israel hid behind Moses afraid to approach God. they wanted Moses to talk to Him
Its not about fear Mclees. Its about unity. The Catholic Church promotes the idea of the saints living on earth and in heaven strengthening a cause by being unified and one accord through the collective power of prayer. Only the truly misguided or blind would thnk something wrong with that.
: LightHammer Tue Dec 14, 2010 - 15:15:43
Its not about fear Mclees. Its about unity. The Catholic Church promotes the idea of the saints living on earth and in heaven strengthening a cause by being unified and one accord through the collective power of prayer. Only the truly misguided or blind would thnk something wrong with that.
So you believe in the collective approach and I believe in the personal approach
I believe in the personal approach first and the collective second.
God bless
: mclees8 Tue Dec 14, 2010 - 14:22:51
: chestertonrules Tue Dec 14, 2010 - 08:59:10
: mclees8 Tue Dec 14, 2010 - 08:55:48
: chestertonrules Mon Dec 13, 2010 - 15:07:57
: mclees8 Mon Dec 13, 2010 - 14:18:51
Yes i have asked for prayer, and yes I have prayed for others even when not asked.
But when I ask for prayer I pray they go straight to Jesus with it. I would not feel that they had to go through another to get to Jesus. I have never felt the need to ask a passed on saint to pray for me. Paul says we can now come boldly unto the throne of grace for we do not have a high priest who cannot be touched with feeling of our infirmities. if I ask for prayer I pray they follow this path taking the direct root
God bless
If it is good to ask others to pray for you, why not ask the saints to pray for you?
For the same reason I have stated
You didn't state a reason. In fact, you said that you ask others to pray for you.
As far as I am concerned i did. I do not ask others to pray for me very often but there have been times. I tend to go to Jesus for all my needs. Are Catholics afraid of him or something that they have to hide behind someone else. the children of Israel hid behind Moses afraid to approach God. they wanted Moses to talk to Him
mclees, you hit the nail on the head,we go directly to Lord Jesus or God with our prayers.The video below is a reminder of what every Christian should know whether Catholics or not,its about the finished work of the Lord Jesus Christ.Be bless.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPD40FdwabU
: tinker Tue Dec 14, 2010 - 18:52:16
mclees, you hit the nail on the head,we go directly to Lord Jesus or God with our prayers.
Mclees admitted that he asks others to pray for him sometimes.
Do you?
: chestertonrules Wed Dec 15, 2010 - 08:28:38
: tinker Tue Dec 14, 2010 - 18:52:16
mclees, you hit the nail on the head,we go directly to Lord Jesus or God with our prayers.
Mclees admitted that he asks others to pray for him sometimes.
Do you?
What would that matter? It would not change anything. But if we look at our model prayer that Jesus taught us it begins with "Our Father who art in heaven". this is praying straight to to God the Father. Jesus and the Father are one. I see no instruction to pay to anyone else.
God bless
: mclees8 Wed Dec 15, 2010 - 21:45:46
: chestertonrules Wed Dec 15, 2010 - 08:28:38
: tinker Tue Dec 14, 2010 - 18:52:16
mclees, you hit the nail on the head,we go directly to Lord Jesus or God with our prayers.
Mclees admitted that he asks others to pray for him sometimes.
Do you?
What would that matter? It would not change anything. But if we look at our model prayer that Jesus taught us it begins with "Our Father who art in heaven". this is praying straight to to God the Father. Jesus and the Father are one. I see no instruction to pay to anyone else.
God bless
The bible also teaches us to pray for each other and to seek the prayers of others.
Catholics follow the teachings of the bible.
: chestertonrules Wed Dec 15, 2010 - 08:28:38
: tinker Tue Dec 14, 2010 - 18:52:16
mclees, you hit the nail on the head,we go directly to Lord Jesus or God with our prayers.
Mclees admitted that he asks others to pray for him sometimes.
Do you?
Lord Jesus taught me to pray directly to God in his name,I don't need any false teaching to corrupt my way of praying.
: tinker Wed Dec 15, 2010 - 22:14:18
: chestertonrules Wed Dec 15, 2010 - 08:28:38
: tinker Tue Dec 14, 2010 - 18:52:16
mclees, you hit the nail on the head,we go directly to Lord Jesus or God with our prayers.
Mclees admitted that he asks others to pray for him sometimes.
Do you?
Lord Jesus taught me to pray directly to God in his name,I don't need any false teaching to corrupt my way of praying.
So you don't pray for anyone or ask anyone to pray for you?
How sad, and unbiblical.
: chestertonrules Wed Dec 15, 2010 - 23:36:05
: tinker Wed Dec 15, 2010 - 22:14:18
: chestertonrules Wed Dec 15, 2010 - 08:28:38
: tinker Tue Dec 14, 2010 - 18:52:16
mclees, you hit the nail on the head,we go directly to Lord Jesus or God with our prayers.
Mclees admitted that he asks others to pray for him sometimes.
Do you?
Lord Jesus taught me to pray directly to God in his name,I don't need any false teaching to corrupt my way of praying.
So you don't pray for anyone or ask anyone to pray for you?
How sad, and unbiblical.
I know that Roman Catholics do pray to and through dead people exactly the same practice like the chinese ancestor worship.
So you really believe that the saints in Heaven are dead?
And you the Catholics partake in necromancy?
Sense when do Christians who die the 1st death stay dead? I could've sworn we were called up to Heaven to LIVE in the in dwelling of God?
: tinker Thu Dec 16, 2010 - 00:07:31
I know that Roman Catholics do pray to and through dead people exactly the same practice like the chinese ancestor worship.
John 11:26
Indeed, everyone who lives and believes in me
will never die. Do you believe that?"
Mark 12
Long after Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had died, God said to Moses,'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.' 27 So he is the God of the living, not the dead.
You have made a serious error.
I love the half cocked necromancy shot. It always goes just as far as the guy gets in half done research.
Haha As if the saved in Heaven are dead. If that isn't the biggest pile of heresy to date.
: chestertonrules Wed Dec 15, 2010 - 23:36:05
: tinker Wed Dec 15, 2010 - 22:14:18
: chestertonrules Wed Dec 15, 2010 - 08:28:38
: tinker Tue Dec 14, 2010 - 18:52:16
mclees, you hit the nail on the head,we go directly to Lord Jesus or God with our prayers.
Mclees admitted that he asks others to pray for him sometimes.
Do you?
Lord Jesus taught me to pray directly to God in his name,I don't need any false teaching to corrupt my way of praying.
So you don't pray for anyone or ask anyone to pray for you?
How sad, and unbiblical.
To answer your question,
(1) yes, we pray to our
Lord to send forth laborers in the His fields which are white unto harvest (Luke 10:2)
(2) yes, we pray for one another that the
Lord would send His healing (James 5:16)
(3) yes, we pray and ask that
God would fill you with the knowledge of His will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding (Col 1:9)
(4) yes, we pray to
God that you do no wrong (2 Cor 13:7)
(5) yes, we pray for
God's kingdom to come, and
God's will to be done on earth as it's being done in heaven (Matt 6:10)
: LightHammer Thu Dec 16, 2010 - 08:54:11
I love the half cocked necromancy shot. It always goes just as far as the guy gets in half done research.
Haha As if the saved in Heaven are dead. If that isn't the biggest pile of heresy to date.
Wow, you even have a word for worshipping dead people-necromancy. Oh yes,perhaps you like my chinese friends to coach you on how to do it properly as they and their ancestors have been doing this practice for thousands of year,even before Christianity started.Let me know okay.
: John 10:10 Thu Dec 16, 2010 - 14:21:26
: chestertonrules Wed Dec 15, 2010 - 23:36:05
: tinker Wed Dec 15, 2010 - 22:14:18
: chestertonrules Wed Dec 15, 2010 - 08:28:38
: tinker Tue Dec 14, 2010 - 18:52:16
mclees, you hit the nail on the head,we go directly to Lord Jesus or God with our prayers.
Mclees admitted that he asks others to pray for him sometimes.
Do you?
Lord Jesus taught me to pray directly to God in his name,I don't need any false teaching to corrupt my way of praying.
So you don't pray for anyone or ask anyone to pray for you?
How sad, and unbiblical.
To answer your question,
(1) yes, we pray to our Lord to send forth laborers in the His fields which are white unto harvest (Luke 10:2)
(2) yes, we pray for one another that the Lord would send His healing (James 5:16)
(3) yes, we pray and ask that God would fill you with the knowledge of His will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding (Col 1:9)
(4) yes, we pray to God that you do no wrong (2 Cor 13:7)
(5) yes, we pray for God's kingdom to come, and God's will to be done on earth as it's being done in heaven (Matt 6:10)
Catholics pray for the exact same thing when the seek the intersecting prayers if the saints.
: tinker Thu Dec 16, 2010 - 19:28:01
: LightHammer Thu Dec 16, 2010 - 08:54:11
I love the half cocked necromancy shot. It always goes just as far as the guy gets in half done research.
Haha As if the saved in Heaven are dead. If that isn't the biggest pile of heresy to date.
Wow, you even have a word for worshipping dead people-necromancy. Oh yes,perhaps you like my chinese friends to coach you on how to do it properly as they and their ancestors have been doing this practice for thousands of year,even before Christianity started.Let me know okay.
Now mods, when you let guys like this post lies regularly it makes me lash out and call them thickheads. Catholics don't partake in necromancy. The saints in heaven are alive just as we are alive on earth, I think we all agree. How is asking for their help any worse than me asking one of you to pray for me while I'm out on a deployment?
: LightHammer Thu Dec 16, 2010 - 19:36:54
: tinker Thu Dec 16, 2010 - 19:28:01
: LightHammer Thu Dec 16, 2010 - 08:54:11
I love the half cocked necromancy shot. It always goes just as far as the guy gets in half done research.
Haha As if the saved in Heaven are dead. If that isn't the biggest pile of heresy to date.
Wow, you even have a word for worshipping dead people-necromancy. Oh yes,perhaps you like my chinese friends to coach you on how to do it properly as they and their ancestors have been doing this practice for thousands of year,even before Christianity started.Let me know okay.
Now mods, when you let guys like this post lies regularly it makes me lash out and call them thickheads. Catholics don't partake in necromancy. The saints in heaven are alive just as we are alive on earth, I think we all agree. How is asking for their help any worse than me asking one of you to pray for me while I'm out on a deployment?
Mods you can clearly see who started using necromancy first so I just elaborate for Lightham, oh yes,by the way you are not a Catholic,you have no right to speak on behalf of them.Funny isn't it?
: tinker Thu Dec 16, 2010 - 19:42:16
: LightHammer Thu Dec 16, 2010 - 19:36:54
: tinker Thu Dec 16, 2010 - 19:28:01
: LightHammer Thu Dec 16, 2010 - 08:54:11
I love the half cocked necromancy shot. It always goes just as far as the guy gets in half done research.
Haha As if the saved in Heaven are dead. If that isn't the biggest pile of heresy to date.
Wow, you even have a word for worshipping dead people-necromancy. Oh yes,perhaps you like my chinese friends to coach you on how to do it properly as they and their ancestors have been doing this practice for thousands of year,even before Christianity started.Let me know okay.
Now mods, when you let guys like this post lies regularly it makes me lash out and call them thickheads. Catholics don't partake in necromancy. The saints in heaven are alive just as we are alive on earth, I think we all agree. How is asking for their help any worse than me asking one of you to pray for me while I'm out on a deployment?
Mods you can clearly see who started using necromancy first so I just elaborate for Lightham, oh yes,by the way you are not a Catholic,you have no right to speak on behalf of them.Funny isn't it?
You don't have to be a catholic to read the Cathechism, a history book, or the Bible without bias.
I know that Roman Catholics do pray to and through dead people exactly the same practice like the chinese ancestor worship.
Your words. The Chinese ancestor worship is a form of necromancy which is the practice you applied to members of our Christian family because you don't want to accept the clear explanation of their true beliefs.
This is turning into a gaggle of arguing children unfortunately with me being the ugliest looking kid at the playground. I am done with those who simply refuse to post honestly.
: Catholica Mon Oct 04, 2010 - 05:40:58
: Visionary Sun Oct 03, 2010 - 23:54:41
Have you ever seen the King Selene? No man can. Likewise you dont know who you are arguing against. I tell you the truth, The King will come and he will say, kill those in front of me who did not want me to be king over them.
And the King of kings commands you thus, Visionary:
1Pet. 2:13 Be subject to every human institution for the Lord's sake, whether it be to the king as supreme
1Pet. 2:14 or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the approval of those who do good.
1Pet. 2:15 For it is the will of God that by doing good you may silence the ignorance of foolish people.
1Pet. 2:16 Be free, yet without using freedom as a pretext for evil, but as slaves of God.
1Pet. 2:17 Give honor to all, love the community, fear God, honor the king.
So if you consider the Pope a king, then perhaps God is telling you to obey him. ::sarcasmalert:
Truly, the Pope is not a king in the meaning of a "king" meant by this verse; he is simply a prime minister. Jesus Christ is our king.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Where do you guys get these cool avatars?lol
I'm locking this thread until everybody can be nicer, or my headache goes away.