Christian Forums

Quote from: John 10:10 on Wed Nov 17, 2010 - 23:46:35

Quote from: chestertonrules on Wed Nov 17, 2010 - 14:44:41

Quote from: John 10:10 on Wed Nov 17, 2010 - 14:39:55

Quote from: chestertonrules on 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!   

Quote from: chestertonrules on 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!  

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.

Quote from: chestertonrules on Wed Nov 17, 2010 - 14:44:41

Quote from: John 10:10 on Wed Nov 17, 2010 - 14:39:55

Quote from: chestertonrules on 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.

QuoteJohn 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.

Quote from: John T on 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

Quote from: chestertonrules on Thu Nov 18, 2010 - 15:57:37

Quote from: John T on Thu Nov 18, 2010 - 11:56:42

Quote from: Selene on 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.  

Quote from: mclees8 on Thu Nov 18, 2010 - 01:22:07

Quote from: chestertonrules on Wed Nov 17, 2010 - 14:44:41

Quote from: John 10:10 on Wed Nov 17, 2010 - 14:39:55

Quote from: chestertonrules on 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.   

Quote from: mclees8 on 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.   

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.

Quote from: chestertonrules on Thu Nov 18, 2010 - 18:10:28

Quote from: mclees8 on 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.   

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.

Quote from: mclees8 on 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.

Quote from: chestertonrules on Thu Nov 18, 2010 - 15:57:37

Quote from: John T on 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.

QuoteHere'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.

Quote from: chestertonrules on Thu Nov 18, 2010 - 21:25:07

Quote from: mclees8 on 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.

Quote from: chestertonrules on Thu Nov 18, 2010 - 18:10:28

Quote from: mclees8 on 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.   

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.

Quote from: mclees8 on Thu Nov 18, 2010 - 21:40:32

Quote from: chestertonrules on Thu Nov 18, 2010 - 21:25:07

Quote from: mclees8 on 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.

Quote from: John T on Thu Nov 18, 2010 - 21:43:21

Quote from: chestertonrules on Thu Nov 18, 2010 - 18:10:28

Quote from: mclees8 on 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.   

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.

Quote from: John T on Thu Nov 18, 2010 - 21:26:45

Quote from: chestertonrules on Thu Nov 18, 2010 - 15:57:37

Quote from: John T on 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.

QuoteHere'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?

Quote from: mclees8 on Thu Nov 18, 2010 - 21:40:32

Quote from: chestertonrules on Thu Nov 18, 2010 - 21:25:07

Quote from: mclees8 on 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]

QuotePlease 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.

QuoteWhat 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.

Quote from: John T on Thu Nov 18, 2010 - 21:58:34

QuoteWhat 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.

Quote from: John T on Thu Nov 18, 2010 - 21:53:18

Quote from: mclees8 on Thu Nov 18, 2010 - 21:40:32

Quote from: chestertonrules on Thu Nov 18, 2010 - 21:25:07

Quote from: mclees8 on 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]

QuotePlease 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. 
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. 

Continue

Quote from: John T on Thu Nov 18, 2010 - 21:58:34

QuoteWhat 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.

Quote from: chestertonrules on 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.

Quote from: LightHammer on Thu Nov 18, 2010 - 15:36:50

QuoteJohn 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:

QuoteIf 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

Quote from: John T on 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.

Quote from: John T on 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

Quote from: John T on 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.

Quote from: John T on 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.

Quote from: John T on 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

Quote from: Catholica on 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.

Quote from: John 10:10 on Fri Nov 19, 2010 - 09:37:22

Quote from: LightHammer on Thu Nov 18, 2010 - 15:36:50

QuoteJohn 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:

QuoteIf 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.

Quote from: LightHammer on 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.

QuoteThe 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 from: LightHammer on Fri Nov 19, 2010 - 12:58:14

Quote from: John 10:10 on Fri Nov 19, 2010 - 09:37:22

Quote from: LightHammer on Thu Nov 18, 2010 - 15:36:50

QuoteJohn 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:

QuoteIf 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.
#

Quote from: mclees8 on 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.

Quote from: John 10:10 on Sat Nov 20, 2010 - 15:25:52

Quote from: mclees8 on 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

Quote from: mclees8 on Sat Nov 20, 2010 - 16:44:35

Quote from: John 10:10 on Sat Nov 20, 2010 - 15:25:52

Quote from: mclees8 on 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.''........

Quote from: John 10:10 on Sat Nov 20, 2010 - 09:19:21

Quote from: LightHammer on 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?

Quote from: chestertonrules on Sun Nov 21, 2010 - 07:43:46

Quote from: John 10:10 on Sat Nov 20, 2010 - 09:19:21

Quote from: LightHammer on 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?