Christian Forums

Quote from: Amo on Sat Oct 09, 2010 - 10:34:31

QuoteI'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

Quote from: islanddogs on 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.

QuoteJesus 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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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:

QuoteAgain, 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.

QuoteHere 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.

QuoteYou 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.

QuoteGod 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:




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.

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

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

Quote from: mclees8 on 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.

Quote from: LightHammer on Sun Oct 10, 2010 - 19:24:03

Quote from: mclees8 on 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

QuoteHi 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"?

Quote
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?

QuoteAnother 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? 

QuoteGalatians 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..."  ?

Quote" 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. 

QuoteThe 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)?

Quote
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. 

Quote
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. 

QuoteI 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? 

QuoteEven 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. 

Quote
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. 

Quote
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!

Quote
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.

Quote
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. 

Quote
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

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

don't be found sleeping!!!

Quote from: Visionary on 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

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?

Quote from: Selene on Tue Oct 12, 2010 - 07:32:55

Quote from: Visionary on 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

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

Quote from: islanddogs on 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).

Quote from: mclees8 on 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.      

Quote from: Selene on Tue Oct 12, 2010 - 17:21:41

Quote from: mclees8 on 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

Quote from: mclees8 on Wed Oct 13, 2010 - 17:33:28

Quote from: Selene on Tue Oct 12, 2010 - 17:21:41

Quote from: mclees8 on 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! 

Quote from: Selene on 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.

Quote from: mclees8 on Thu Oct 14, 2010 - 11:12:07

Quote from: Selene on 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.

 

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

Quote from: Visionary on Thu Oct 14, 2010 - 13:56:49

Quote

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? 

Quote from: Visionary on Thu Oct 14, 2010 - 13:56:49


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?  

Quote from: mclees8 on Thu Oct 14, 2010 - 11:12:07

Quote from: Selene on 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?  

Quote from: Selene on Fri Oct 15, 2010 - 07:51:46

Quote from: mclees8 on Thu Oct 14, 2010 - 11:12:07

Quote from: Selene on 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

Quote from: mclees8 on 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.  

Quote from: chestertonrules on Thu Oct 14, 2010 - 13:20:04

Quote from: mclees8 on Thu Oct 14, 2010 - 11:12:07

Quote from: Selene on 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.   

Quote from: Selene on Fri Oct 15, 2010 - 09:49:15
I'm still waiting for Visionary to answer my question.  It's going on two days now.   

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.

God bless

Quote from: mclees8 on 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.

Quote from: chestertonrules on Sat Oct 16, 2010 - 17:57:30

Quote from: mclees8 on 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

Quote from: mclees8 on 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.  

Quote from: Selene on Sat Oct 16, 2010 - 22:51:04

Quote from: mclees8 on 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