The ROOT of our differences is the AUTHORITY we claim.....

[Magnificat]

Well you say how do I know. I know by faith for all the we are given in the word of God must taken by faith. Hebrew 11:16 says  But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.
By the same we must take Gods word by faith

True. But what you are taking on faith (the Bible, its canon) was something that came from the Catholic Church.
 

As for the rest of you comments. you really don't know to much about the Holy Spirit do you? It takes more than human wisdom or degrees in theology . 

Yes. Completely agree. But it takes a lot of audacity and conceit to think that every conclusion that one derives from reading the Bible is a result of the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

If the Holy Spirit truly guides all private interpretation then all private interpretation would be in agreement. But that is not what we find in reality.

Nickodemus was a very learned Pharisee who knew all about the laws of Moses and old Testament scripture but he was carnal in his thinking. Jesus cut straight to his problem and it is still the problem with carnal scholars. (You must be Born again of the Spirit. ) 

Actually the verse does not say you must be "born again".  This phrase is a result of Nicodemu's misunderstanding what Jesus said. Jesus said you must be "born from above"  but Nicodemus thought Jesus said you must be "born again".

Note Jesus did not go into length with him about it. You are either spiritual and understand the things of the spirit or you do not.  the Holy spirit gives revelation and that is also taken by faith.

The Holy Sprit certainly does. And so does the devil who masquerades as an angel of light.

Some of grandest bible Scholars may know no more about the things of the spirit than a fly. 

But what I asked you to give an exegesis on are plain Bible verses.  Surely if as you claim you are guided by the Spirit, an exegesis on these verses would be a piece of cake.

The bible tells us of two kinds of people. the carnal and the spiritual. and by that I don't mean people who just act spiritual, but truly understand the things of the spirit Listen to what Jesus said about this in john  14:16

16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
This was the promise that was fullfilled on the day of pentecost where 120 waited for the promise 4:1,8
And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. 

This pronouncement he gave to his apostles not his disciples in general. AS a matter of fact, this is the text that supports authority of the bishops. 

5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence. 

And Jesus said you must be born of water AND the Spirit. So therefore water baptism is necessary.

6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? 7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. 8 B[but ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
Just look at the disciples Like Peter himself whom was no Scholar but an uneducated fisherman. Yet when he was spirit filled he confounded the the Pharisees. what does scripture say, that God shall use the Humble things of this world to confound the wise. 

I do not doubt that the Holy Spirit can make the stupid wise. What I am disputing is that He gives this enlightenment to all who read and interpret the Bible in quite the way you claim.

No i am not any great theologian and only have a GED education but i understand the things of the spirit as much as any of them. How about you? 

I am not a theologian either but I can certainly attempt to explain the passages that I asked an explanation for from you. That  wasl all I was asking. If as you say you are guided by the Holy Spirit then an explanation of these would be really easy.

[farouk]

Wrong, Please read the Bible and trust it instead, Friend. John chapter three is a good place to start.

[Magnificat]

Wrong, Please read the Bible and trust it instead, Friend. John chapter three is a good place to start.

Yes that is indeed good.  You can also add Matthew 16, John 6 and John 20:21.

[mclees8]

Well you say how do I know. I know by faith for all the we are given in the word of God must taken by faith. Hebrew 11:16 says  But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.
By the same we must take Gods word by faith

True. But what you are taking on faith (the Bible, its canon) was something that came from the Catholic Church.
 

As for the rest of you comments. you really don't know to much about the Holy Spirit do you? It takes more than human wisdom or degrees in theology . 

Yes. Completely agree. But it takes a lot of audacity and conceit to think that every conclusion that one derives from reading the Bible is a result of the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

If the Holy Spirit truly guides all private interpretation then all private interpretation would be in agreement. But that is not what we find in reality.

Nickodemus was a very learned Pharisee who knew all about the laws of Moses and old Testament scripture but he was carnal in his thinking. Jesus cut straight to his problem and it is still the problem with carnal scholars. (You must be Born again of the Spirit. ) 

Actually the verse does not say you must be "born again".  This phrase is a result of Nicodemu's misunderstanding what Jesus said. Jesus said you must be "born from above"  but Nicodemus thought Jesus said you must be "born again".

Note Jesus did not go into length with him about it. You are either spiritual and understand the things of the spirit or you do not.  the Holy spirit gives revelation and that is also taken by faith.

The Holy Sprit certainly does. And so does the devil who masquerades as an angel of light.

Some of grandest bible Scholars may know no more about the things of the spirit than a fly. 

But what I asked you to give an exegesis on are plain Bible verses.  Surely if as you claim you are guided by the Spirit, an exegesis on these verses would be a piece of cake.

The bible tells us of two kinds of people. the carnal and the spiritual. and by that I don't mean people who just act spiritual, but truly understand the things of the spirit Listen to what Jesus said about this in john  14:16

16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
This was the promise that was fullfilled on the day of pentecost where 120 waited for the promise 4:1,8
And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. 

This pronouncement he gave to his apostles not his disciples in general. AS a matter of fact, this is the text that supports authority of the bishops. 

5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence. 

And Jesus said you must be born of water AND the Spirit. So therefore water baptism is necessary.

6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? 7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. 8 B[but ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
Just look at the disciples Like Peter himself whom was no Scholar but an uneducated fisherman. Yet when he was spirit filled he confounded the the Pharisees. what does scripture say, that God shall use the Humble things of this world to confound the wise. 

I do not doubt that the Holy Spirit can make the stupid wise. What I am disputing is that He gives this enlightenment to all who read and interpret the Bible in quite the way you claim.

No i am not any great theologian and only have a GED education but i understand the things of the spirit as much as any of them. How about you? 

I am not a theologian either but I can certainly attempt to explain the passages that I asked an explanation for from you. That  wasl all I was asking. If as you say you are guided by the Holy Spirit then an explanation of these would be really easy.

Very well i will do it as you ask and even more. Also remember scripture can be broad in meaning so as to speak to many in different ways. Its Gods way of personalizing. Granted there are many who develop their own doctrines and mislead many. Cult people like Jim Jones and David koresh, and even mainline preachers.I do not agree with much of catholic interpriation We need to beware of these kind of people. I interpret scripture not to start any following. You are most likly not to agree with all I say.  Yet I know this that what I say will mislead know one.   I am a slow writer and not fast at all and I also have other things to do as well. but i will respond with in a day or two.   I do not mind friendly discussion but i dispise meaninless debates. With that said i will post soon.
god bless   

[banished]

Hey guys, lets get back on topic, because that is when the Catholics win, and win big !  One of the first places where Peter exercised his authority as the first Pope was at the Council at Jerusalem (50 AD) when questions concerning circumcision and keeping the Law came up.  Peter knew that circumcising 40 year old gentiles would go over like a lead balloon, plus he had previous revelation for God concerning the reception of the Gentiles without circumcision.

Peter (the first Pope) issued this statement in Acts 15: 28 -29  (King James Version)

28) For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no grater burden than these necessary things.

29) That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep youselves, ye shall do well.  Fare ye well.

There you have it.  A complete deviation from the scriptures of that day. After making a decision about Paul, the third thing the council passed, and it surely applies to the present day Christians, charity or love was emphasized.  Christians are not to offend others who may hold to a slightly different point of view.  They are to be at peace and united under the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church.

[mclees8]

Well you say how do I know. I know by faith for all the we are given in the word of God must taken by faith. Hebrew 11:16 says  But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.
By the same we must take Gods word by faith

True. But what you are taking on faith (the Bible, its canon) was something that came from the Catholic Church.
 

As for the rest of you comments. you really don't know to much about the Holy Spirit do you? It takes more than human wisdom or degrees in theology . 

Yes. Completely agree. But it takes a lot of audacity and conceit to think that every conclusion that one derives from reading the Bible is a result of the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

If the Holy Spirit truly guides all private interpretation then all private interpretation would be in agreement. But that is not what we find in reality.

Nickodemus was a very learned Pharisee who knew all about the laws of Moses and old Testament scripture but he was carnal in his thinking. Jesus cut straight to his problem and it is still the problem with carnal scholars. (You must be Born again of the Spirit. ) 

Actually the verse does not say you must be "born again".  This phrase is a result of Nicodemu's misunderstanding what Jesus said. Jesus said you must be "born from above"  but Nicodemus thought Jesus said you must be "born again".

Note Jesus did not go into length with him about it. You are either spiritual and understand the things of the spirit or you do not.  the Holy spirit gives revelation and that is also taken by faith.

The Holy Sprit certainly does. And so does the devil who masquerades as an angel of light.

Some of grandest bible Scholars may know no more about the things of the spirit than a fly. 

But what I asked you to give an exegesis on are plain Bible verses.  Surely if as you claim you are guided by the Spirit, an exegesis on these verses would be a piece of cake.

The bible tells us of two kinds of people. the carnal and the spiritual. and by that I don't mean people who just act spiritual, but truly understand the things of the spirit Listen to what Jesus said about this in john  14:16

16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
This was the promise that was fullfilled on the day of pentecost where 120 waited for the promise 4:1,8
And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. 

This pronouncement he gave to his apostles not his disciples in general. AS a matter of fact, this is the text that supports authority of the bishops. 

5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence. 

And Jesus said you must be born of water AND the Spirit. So therefore water baptism is necessary.

6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? 7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. 8 B[but ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
Just look at the disciples Like Peter himself whom was no Scholar but an uneducated fisherman. Yet when he was spirit filled he confounded the the Pharisees. what does scripture say, that God shall use the Humble things of this world to confound the wise. 

I do not doubt that the Holy Spirit can make the stupid wise. What I am disputing is that He gives this enlightenment to all who read and interpret the Bible in quite the way you claim.

No i am not any great theologian and only have a GED education but i understand the things of the spirit as much as any of them. How about you? 

I am not a theologian either but I can certainly attempt to explain the passages that I asked an explanation for from you. That  wasl all I was asking. If as you say you are guided by the Holy Spirit then an explanation of these would be really easy.

I know we are not going to agree upon this verse Matt 16:18. I know the catholic aregument that Peter means rock. But lets look a little closer at the verse where Jesus says upon this rock. We all know that protestant theologians look at jesus as the rock and foundation of truth and the gospel, and all the church is built upon. Jesus is the chief corner stone .Look at the whole context here. What was Jesus asking them   . Jesus had just asked ,talking to all of them in verse thirteen (note verse thirteen is plural ) Whom do you say that I am. Of course it was Peter who jump up and said thou art the Christ the son of the living God. Now did this make him more special than the others.  I don't think so but I have also heard all the catholic arguments and yes they are sound. Jesus said flesh and blood has not revealed this to you but my Father in  heaven. Jesus was in fact proclaiming that Yes he was the Christ. Now lets look at the verse again. He said to peter it was a revelation from God that Jesus was in fact the Christ and upon this rock of truth I will build my church. You cannot say Upon this Peter I will build my church.
Now Catholics want to lay everything upon Peter so that he justifies the papacy. And it s almost useless to argue about it. Protestants an Catholics have been at odds about this for decades  I f you are baiting me into an endless debate I will not join you in it.  You will find in most of my posts I give the RC's the benefit of the doubt. May be you could read some of the posts with Banished . Just because I understand the things of the spirit does not make me a seer or a prophet yet I do perceive much


Next verse John 20: 21
I think you have to look at all the verses 19-23 the conversation is plural meaning they were all given the same authority of binding and loosing. Forgiving or retaining sins . Peter is not singled out here. Verse 21 speaks plainly enough   that even as Jesus was sent they also were sent  He gave them all the Holy spirit not so they could flaunt authority but be led of him. That  Christ's Character would be in them through the Holy Ghost.
Those who flaunt authority to make a big thing out of it are not led of the spirit but are led of the flesh and  human desire. The papacy is attempt to be God upon the earth and to be seen as the religious authority of this world.

I hope this gives you what you want. After all I am not a theology major but I do perceive purty well.  

God bless

[Tantor]

Hey guys, lets get back on topic, because that is when the Catholics win, and win big !  One of the first places where Peter exercised his authority as the first Pope was at the Council at Jerusalem (50 AD) when questions concerning circumcision and keeping the Law came up.  Peter knew that circumcising 40 year old gentiles would go over like a lead balloon, plus he had previous revelation for God concerning the reception of the Gentiles without circumcision.

Peter (the first Pope) issued this statement in Acts 15: 28 -29  (King James Version)

28) For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no grater burden than these necessary things.

29) That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep youselves, ye shall do well.  Fare ye well.

There you have it.  A complete deviation from the scriptures of that day. After making a decision about Paul, the third thing the council passed, and it surely applies to the present day Christians, charity or love was emphasized.  Christians are not to offend others who may hold to a slightly different point of view.  They are to be at peace and united under the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church.

Except I do not see anywhere in writing where Peter claimed to be the 'first among brothers' or others acknowledged his lead as head apostle... there is no mention of Pope in the scriptures.

If anything, in the gentile world, Paul should be our lead.

[banished]

Hey guys, lets get back on topic, because that is when the Catholics win, and win big !  One of the first places where Peter exercised his authority as the first Pope was at the Council at Jerusalem (50 AD) when questions concerning circumcision and keeping the Law came up.  Peter knew that circumcising 40 year old gentiles would go over like a lead balloon, plus he had previous revelation for God concerning the reception of the Gentiles without circumcision.

Peter (the first Pope) issued this statement in Acts 15: 28 -29  (King James Version)

28) For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no grater burden than these necessary things.

29) That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep youselves, ye shall do well.  Fare ye well.

There you have it.  A complete deviation from the scriptures of that day. After making a decision about Paul, the third thing the council passed, and it surely applies to the present day Christians, charity or love was emphasized.  Christians are not to offend others who may hold to a slightly different point of view.  They are to be at peace and united under the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church.

Except I do not see anywhere in writing where Peter claimed to be the 'first among brothers' or others acknowledged his lead as head apostle... there is no mention of Pope in the scriptures.

If anything, in the gentile world, Paul should be our lead.

Simply put, the whole doctrine and practice of the Christian Religion rests in the belief that the Pope speaks for Christ, so to disobey him is to disobey Christ.  And of course, there are those who shuffle the Bible Verses in contempt trying to disprove it all.

Where is the word "pope" in the Bible? Well, where is the word "father,"because that's what "Pope" means ("pope" means "papa") . But you won't find the English word "pope" there any more than you'd find the word "Trinity." The reality, though, is there, in Peter, from the very beginning.  The Pope, as Bishop of Rome, is simply the successor of Peter, who was the first Bishop of Rome and head of the earthly Church.  The Roman Catholic Church has kept records including the successors of Peter and many of their homilies.  God the Father made Abraham the earthly father of the Old Covenant (Isaiah 52:1-2) and Peter is the father of the New Covenant.  That should be easy enough to understand, unless you are in contempt.

The bottom line:  Christ spoke Aramaic and nicknamed Simon "Kepha".  Christ did not speak Greek.  Peter IS "the rock", the earthly head of Christ's Church as Christ Himself states in Matthew 16.

[Magnificat]

I know we are not going to agree upon this verse Matt 16:18. I know the catholic aregument that Peter means rock.

The way to properly do this is to just let the text speak for itself rather than imposing on it a preconceived theology so let us start.

But lets look a little closer at the verse where Jesus says upon this rock. We all know that protestant theologians look at jesus as the rock and foundation of truth and the gospel, and all the church is built upon. Jesus is the chief corner stone .Look at the whole context here.

Yes Jesus is the ultimate rock but this is not what Matthew 16 is all about. If you are going to look at the whole context you first have to refer it back to Chapter itself. So let us stick to what the Bible says rather than what protestant theologians say.

It is important to have the verses laid out properly when discussin them so here it is.
13 When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi 9 he asked his disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"
14 They replied, "Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
16 Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God."
17 Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

What was Jesus asking them   . Jesus had just asked ,talking to all of them in verse thirteen (note verse thirteen is plural ) Whom do you say that I am. Of course it was Peter who jump up and said thou art the Christ the son of the living God.  Now did this make him more special than the others.  I don't think so 

You may not think so but the verses speak for themselves. Notice, while the other disciples were in confusion as to who Jesus really is, Peter makes this pronouncement. 
In V17 Jesus calls Simon Blessed, because it was the Father, remember that, the Father who made this revelation to Peter. So think about that, Jesus's identity and mission was not revealed by Jesus Himself.  This revelation, God the Father WILLED to be pronounced through Peter.  So here clearly the Father has specifically CHOSEN Peter, not any other. And not all the disciples either, for they could have all proclaimed this in unison if the Father has so willed. Very  important here to note that this is the Father's WILL.

but I have also heard all the catholic arguments and yes they are sound. Jesus said flesh and blood has not revealed this to you but my Father in  heaven. Jesus was in fact proclaiming that Yes he was the Christ.

It will be helpful if you stick to our own discussion and not bring up other Catholics's arguments. This is just us here having a discussion.
Jesus was indeed affirming this proclamation. But notice, He did not proclaim it Himself. He could have done that but He CHOSE NOT TO.  The Father and the Son WILLED that proclamation to be done through Simon.

Now lets look at the verse again. He said to peter it was a revelation from God that Jesus was in fact the Christ and upon this rock of truth 

Actually you are wrong there. Let the verse speak for itself. Jesus DID NOT SAY UPON THIS ROCK OF TRUTH.  What the Bible actually says is: AND I SAY TO YOU, YOU ARE PETER ( which means ROCK) AND UPON THIS ROCK I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH. 

I will build my church. You cannot say Upon this Peter I will build my church.

And I am not saying that at all, I am merely sticking to what is exactly written in the Bible. What Jesus actually said for a straightforward translation is : YOU ARE ROCK, AND UPON THIS ROCK I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH.

Now Catholics want to lay everything upon Peter so that he justifies the papacy. And it s almost useless to argue about it.

Please don't diverge. We are simply doing a study of Matthew 16 here not discussing the papacy.

So now that I have shown you were you went wrong in your analysis of these verses, can you continue with verses 17-18?

Protestants an Catholics have been at odds about this for decades  I f you are baiting me into an endless debate I will not join you in it.   

This will not be an endless debate if you truly listen.
I go back to your claim of being guided by the Holy Spirit when you read the Bible and I am challenging you on the truth of that.

You will find in most of my posts I give the RC's the benefit of the doubt.

I am not after the benefit of the doubt. This is an exercise to ferret out the truth of our interpretations. Are you not interested in finding out the truth?

May be you could read some of the posts with Banished . Just because I understand the things of the spirit does not make me a seer or a prophet yet I do perceive much 

I am not questioning that at all. I simply want you to explain a simple passage. If you perceive much then you will perceive much about this verses in Matthew 16, so please continue.

Next verse John 20: 21

I will address this in another post because we are not done with Matthew 16 yet and it is good to keep this issues separate so we get a clearer line of thought.

[Magnificat]

Next verse John 20: 21
I think you have to look at all the verses 19-23 the conversation is plural meaning they were all given the same authority of binding and loosing. Forgiving or retaining sins .

100% Correct there. Jesus was addressing all the APOSTLES.

Peter is not singled out here.

That is correct.

Verse 21 speaks plainly enough   that even as Jesus was sent they also were sent  He gave them all the Holy spirit not so they could flaunt authority but be led of him. 

Once again you are imposing on the verse what it is not saying.  What does the verse say exact?  Didn't Christ say "Receive the Holy Spirit. Whosoever sins YOU forgive they are forgiven them, whosoever sins YOU retain they are retained.?

How do you understand those words?

That  Christ's Character would be in them through the Holy Ghost.

Not quite. The verse says He BREATHED on them. Think back to Genesis when God breathed on Adam.  Christ here is not imparting his character, he is giving them His Spirit. What does that mean to be given Christ's spirit? Remember the words about forgiving sins follow thereafter.

Those who flaunt authority to make a big thing out of it are not led of the spirit but are led of the flesh and  human desire. 

But the verse does not say that at all. Please stick to the verse.  If you love the Bible then you will not try to muzzle the words it is speaking.

The papacy is attempt to be God upon the earth and to be seen as the religious authority of this world.

No it is not but we will get to why it is not. For the meantime, just stick to the Bible. I am sure you are one of the "Bible" believing protestants so allow it to speak for itself. Do not impose your words on it.

I hope this gives you what you want. After all I am not a theology major but I do perceive purty well.   

Not quite but if you continue conversing with me I think we will come a real understanding of the passage.

I am not quite sure what you mean when you say you perceive purity. Please kindly give an explanation.

[Magnificat]

Except I do not see anywhere in writing where Peter claimed to be the 'first among brothers' or others acknowledged his lead as head apostle... there is no mention of Pope in the scriptures.

If anything, in the gentile world, Paul should be our lead.

Paul indeed wrote a lot and is a very learned apostle. But He was not numbered with the 12.  He lived during Christ's time and the Father could have WILLED for Him to be one of those whom Jesus called yet the Father DID NOT DO THAT. NEITHER DID THE SON.

Who did the Father and the Son CHOOSE?  Peter.

Peter's primacy he did not claim for himself. It was handed to him by God Himself, Jesus Christ our Lord.

[mclees8]

I know we are not going to agree upon this verse Matt 16:18. I know the catholic aregument that Peter means rock.

The way to properly do this is to just let the text speak for itself rather than imposing on it a preconceived theology so let us start.

But lets look a little closer at the verse where Jesus says upon this rock. We all know that protestant theologians look at jesus as the rock and foundation of truth and the gospel, and all the church is built upon. Jesus is the chief corner stone .Look at the whole context here.

Yes Jesus is the ultimate rock but this is not what Matthew 16 is all about. If you are going to look at the whole context you first have to refer it back to Chapter itself. So let us stick to what the Bible says rather than what protestant theologians say.

It is important to have the verses laid out properly when discussin them so here it is.
13 When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi 9 he asked his disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"
14 They replied, "Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
16 Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God."
17 Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

What was Jesus asking them   . Jesus had just asked ,talking to all of them in verse thirteen (note verse thirteen is plural ) Whom do you say that I am. Of course it was Peter who jump up and said thou art the Christ the son of the living God.  Now did this make him more special than the others.  I don't think so 

You may not think so but the verses speak for themselves. Notice, while the other disciples were in confusion as to who Jesus really is, Peter makes this pronouncement. 
In V17 Jesus calls Simon Blessed, because it was the Father, remember that, the Father who made this revelation to Peter. So think about that, Jesus's identity and mission was not revealed by Jesus Himself.  This revelation, God the Father WILLED to be pronounced through Peter.  So here clearly the Father has specifically CHOSEN Peter, not any other. And not all the disciples either, for they could have all proclaimed this in unison if the Father has so willed. Very  important here to note that this is the Father's WILL.

but I have also heard all the catholic arguments and yes they are sound. Jesus said flesh and blood has not revealed this to you but my Father in  heaven. Jesus was in fact proclaiming that Yes he was the Christ.

It will be helpful if you stick to our own discussion and not bring up other Catholics's arguments. This is just us here having a discussion.
Jesus was indeed affirming this proclamation. But notice, He did not proclaim it Himself. He could have done that but He CHOSE NOT TO.  The Father and the Son WILLED that proclamation to be done through Simon.

Now lets look at the verse again. He said to peter it was a revelation from God that Jesus was in fact the Christ and upon this rock of truth 

Actually you are wrong there. Let the verse speak for itself. Jesus DID NOT SAY UPON THIS ROCK OF TRUTH.  What the Bible actually says is: AND I SAY TO YOU, YOU ARE PETER ( which means ROCK) AND UPON THIS ROCK I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH. 

I will build my church. You cannot say Upon this Peter I will build my church.

And I am not saying that at all, I am merely sticking to what is exactly written in the Bible. What Jesus actually said for a straightforward translation is : YOU ARE ROCK, AND UPON THIS ROCK I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH.

Now Catholics want to lay everything upon Peter so that he justifies the papacy. And it s almost useless to argue about it.

Please don't diverge. We are simply doing a study of Matthew 16 here not discussing the papacy.

So now that I have shown you were you went wrong in your analysis of these verses, can you continue with verses 17-18?

Protestants an Catholics have been at odds about this for decades  I f you are baiting me into an endless debate I will not join you in it.   

This will not be an endless debate if you truly listen.
I go back to your claim of being guided by the Holy Spirit when you read the Bible and I am challenging you on the truth of that.

You will find in most of my posts I give the RC's the benefit of the doubt.

I am not after the benefit of the doubt. This is an exercise to ferret out the truth of our interpretations. Are you not interested in finding out the truth?

May be you could read some of the posts with Banished . Just because I understand the things of the spirit does not make me a seer or a prophet yet I do perceive much 

I am not questioning that at all. I simply want you to explain a simple passage. If you perceive much then you will perceive much about this verses in Matthew 16, so please continue.

Next verse John 20: 21

I will address this in another post because we are not done with Matthew 16 yet and it is good to keep this issues separate so we get a clearer line of thought.

Dear sir I know you are priding yourself on your analysis of the versrses .I told you right off we were not going to agree. You are a catholic and you are just going to go at it from that mentality.  I most often give the benefit of the doubt.

You want to prove if I am being guided of the Holy spirit . This will not prove it. But if I be guided of the Holy Spirit here I ask what is truly important. It is not going back and forth about Peter. Believing Peter was the first pope or not will not weigh one ounce on our salvation   If you want to believe he was the ordained of Christ to be the head of the church then fine. Then keep the Lords commandments just the way Peter did and you will be just fine. After all we all must follow Christ ultimately. Are you trying to justify the RCC and its papacy through Peter.? Maybe I will have some thing to say when we discuss the next verse
God bless

[Magnificat]

Dear sir I know you are priding yourself on your analysis of the versrses .I told you right off we were not going to agree. You are a catholic and you are just going to go at it from that mentality.  I most often give the benefit of the doubt.

No not priding myself.  Does truth not matter to you? Are you going to hang on to what you believe whether it is true or not?  Surely if Jesus matters to you then truth would matter to you becuase Jesus said I am the way the Truth and the Life.

Furthermore, you said you are being guided by the Holy Spirit. If you indeed are being so guided, then truth would matter to you.

This is not about 'benefits of the doub" because there is such a thing as objective truth.

By the way, it is Miss not Sir :-)

You want to prove if I am being guided of the Holy spirit . This will not prove it. But if I be guided of the Holy Spirit here I ask what is truly important. It is not going back and forth about Peter.

If you are indeed being guided by the Holy Spirit then you will come up with a truthful understanding of the verse in question.

Believing Peter was the first pope or not will not weigh one ounce on our salvation 

Yes it does because on this hinges whether Christ did establish a Church and if Christ did establish A (one) Church then that church would still be here becuase He made the promise that the gates of hell will not prevail against it and he gave the promise to send the Holy Spirit to guide her into all truth.

If you want to believe he was the ordained of Christ to be the head of the church then fine.

But that is not what this is about. The point is, is that the truth. Can we actually find out what is the truth regading this matter. Can we trust the Bible to speak with conviction on this matter?

Then keep the Lords commandments just the way Peter did and you will be just fine. After all we all must follow Christ ultimately. Are you trying to justify the RCC and its papacy through Peter.? Maybe I will have some thing to say when we discuss the next verse

If you will try to stick to what we are discussing and stop assuming what I am and am not trying to justify then we can move forward.

Why are you so afraid to dig deeper into this text?

[Tantor]

Who did the Father and the Son CHOOSE?  Peter.

He chose the 12.. the rock he built his church on was Peter's first acknowledgment of who Jesus was... the church is built on the Rock of our acknowledgement of Jesus.. its the core of Christianity.

You my friend have bought the RCC's wrong interpretation of that verse.. and will probably defend it since its the only verse in the bible that backs their claims..

[mclees8]

Next verse John 20: 21
I think you have to look at all the verses 19-23 the conversation is plural meaning they were all given the same authority of binding and loosing. Forgiving or retaining sins .

100% Correct there. Jesus was addressing all the APOSTLES.

Peter is not singled out here.

That is correct.

Verse 21 speaks plainly enough   that even as Jesus was sent they also were sent  He gave them all the Holy spirit not so they could flaunt authority but be led of him. 

Once again you are imposing on the verse what it is not saying.  What does the verse say exact?  Didn't Christ say "Receive the Holy Spirit. Whosoever sins YOU forgive they are forgiven them, whosoever sins YOU retain they are retained.?

How do you understand those words?

That  Christ's Character would be in them through the Holy Ghost.

Not quite. The verse says He BREATHED on them. Think back to Genesis when God breathed on Adam.  Christ here is not imparting his character, he is giving them His Spirit. What does that mean to be given Christ's spirit? Remember the words about forgiving sins follow thereafter.

Those who flaunt authority to make a big thing out of it are not led of the spirit but are led of the flesh and  human desire. 

But the verse does not say that at all. Please stick to the verse.  If you love the Bible then you will not try to muzzle the words it is speaking.

The papacy is attempt to be God upon the earth and to be seen as the religious authority of this world.

No it is not but we will get to why it is not. For the meantime, just stick to the Bible. I am sure you are one of the "Bible" believing protestants so allow it to speak for itself. Do not impose your words on it.

I hope this gives you what you want. After all I am not a theology major but I do perceive purty well.   

Not quite but if you continue conversing with me I think we will come a real understanding of the passage.

I am not quite sure what you mean when you say you perceive purity. Please kindly give an explanation.

What is the drive here that you want me to see? I thought I saw what it was saying very well. It is not difficult to understand.

Do you think discernment is a gift of the Holy Spirit.?  There will always be disagreements on scripture. Its human nature. A good discerner will see   more than just tit for tat over making verses say what they want them to say.

I keep my focus on what is important. What is important is knowing Christ  You said I imposed on the verse. Yes I did because I know you are trying to justify something so you analize the verse so you can try to sway  my thinking and see that way you want me to .

Look here again at this and apply common sense. Jesus spoke to all of them and gave all them the gift of the Holy Spirit and also the same authority. He never said Peter was over any of them. So what is you want to justify.  What point are you trying to  make


Let me ask you one question and see if you can honestly see Peter wearing religious vestments and have the other apostles recognize him As the modern day popes sitting on a throne and fellow apostles kneeling at his feet. I cant help it I am just a common sense person.  Give me you honest answer

You are hung on authority so much you cant see what truly is important.   
God bless

[mclees8]

Dear sir I know you are priding yourself on your analysis of the versrses .I told you right off we were not going to agree. You are a catholic and you are just going to go at it from that mentality.  I most often give the benefit of the doubt.

No not priding myself.  Does truth not matter to you? Are you going to hang on to what you believe whether it is true or not?  Surely if Jesus matters to you then truth would matter to you becuase Jesus said I am the way the Truth and the Life.

Furthermore, you said you are being guided by the Holy Spirit. If you indeed are being so guided, then truth would matter to you.

This is not about 'benefits of the doub" because there is such a thing as objective truth.

By the way, it is Miss not Sir :-)

You want to prove if I am being guided of the Holy spirit . This will not prove it. But if I be guided of the Holy Spirit here I ask what is truly important. It is not going back and forth about Peter.

If you are indeed being guided by the Holy Spirit then you will come up with a truthful understanding of the verse in question.

Believing Peter was the first pope or not will not weigh one ounce on our salvation 

Yes it does because on this hinges whether Christ did establish a Church and if Christ did establish A (one) Church then that church would still be here becuase He made the promise that the gates of hell will not prevail against it and he gave the promise to send the Holy Spirit to guide her into all truth.

If you want to believe he was the ordained of Christ to be the head of the church then fine.

But that is not what this is about. The point is, is that the truth. Can we actually find out what is the truth regading this matter. Can we trust the Bible to speak with conviction on this matter?

Then keep the Lords commandments just the way Peter did and you will be just fine. After all we all must follow Christ ultimately. Are you trying to justify the RCC and its papacy through Peter.? Maybe I will have some thing to say when we discuss the next verse

If you will try to stick to what we are discussing and stop assuming what I am and am not trying to justify then we can move forward.

Why are you so afraid to dig deeper into this text?

And what truth is that? the truth that you want me to see. May be I see atruth you don't want to see. What is the truth. Yo said said ( I am the wasy the trtuth and the life and no man comes to  the father but by me)

[Magnificat]

What is the drive here that you want me to see? I thought I saw what it was saying very well. It is not difficult to understand. 

Okay, how about letting the Bible speak for itself.

Do you think discernment is a gift of the Holy Spirit.? 

Most definitely

There will always be disagreements on scripture. Its human nature. A good discerner will see   more than just tit for tat over making verses say what they want them to say.

Very true.  But scripture cannot both be saying yes and no. If the Spirit is truly the one guiding the interpretation, then interpretations should be in agreement in so far as it applies to the Body of Christ in general.

I keep my focus on what is important. What is important is knowing Christ 

If knowing Christ is important, then Christ's WILL is important don't you think?
What is the point of knowing Christ if we do not follow what He WILLS.

You said I imposed on the verse. Yes I did because I know you are trying to justify something so you analize the verse so you can try to sway  my thinking and see that way you want me to . 

But if the analysis is what can be truly supported Biblically, then why would you impose a meaning on the verses that the book itself does not support?

Look here again at this and apply common sense. Jesus spoke to all of them and gave all them the gift of the Holy Spirit and also the same authority. 

That is true of John 20:21.  But take note of who is present. His Apostles. His chosen 12.

He never said Peter was over any of them.

Yet He renamed Simon, Rock and promised to build His Church upon this Rock.
He said just before He died that He prayed specifically for Peter. so that Peter will strengthen the others.
After His ressurection He singled Peter out again and told him to tend to His (Jesus') sheep.

So what is you want to justify.  What point are you trying to  make

That Peter was prime among the apostles, that there is such a thing as authority, that Jesus did not leave us to wallow in uncertainty as to what exactly Scripture means.

Let me ask you one question and see if you can honestly see Peter wearing religious vestments and have the other apostles recognize him As the modern day popes sitting on a throne and fellow apostles kneeling at his feet. 

No. But to see it that way is to misinterpret what the Primacy of Peter means and what authority in the church means.

I cant help it I am just a common sense person.  Give me you honest answer

That is why I am giving you common sense answers. Not just common sense answers but Biblically based answers.

Here is a common sense link as to what I am trying to get at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWYwBDqFsuE

You are hung on authority so much you cant see what truly is important.   

Yes, because it is very important.  AS I have said over and over again, Jesus did not write anything. What did Jesus WILL? Jesus WILLED a Church, the Catholic Church.  The Bible you believe in came from that Church.

[Magnificat]

And what truth is that? the truth that you want me to see.

That Jesus established a Church - the Catholic Church, and that he chose Peter to be prime apostle (note my response to your other post), that we do need authority, and that Jesus WILLED it this way.

May be I see atruth you don't want to see.

Well, tell me about it. I am listening. But be prepared that I may counter your arguments.

What is the truth. Yo said said ( I am the wasy the trtuth and the life and no man comes to  the father but by me)

Yes, indeed Jesus is the truth.  What does He have to say about what you and I believe about His Church? That is what I am trying to get at.

[mclees8]

And what truth is that? the truth that you want me to see.

That Jesus established a Church - the Catholic Church, and that he chose Peter to be prime apostle (note my response to your other post), that we do need authority, and that Jesus WILLED it this way.

May be I see atruth you don't want to see.

Well, tell me about it. I am listening. But be prepared that I may counter your arguments.

What is the truth. Yo said said ( I am the wasy the trtuth and the life and no man comes to  the father but by me)

Yes, indeed Jesus is the truth.  What does He have to say about what you and I believe about His Church? That is what I am trying to get at.

Yes I knew this was what you wanted to drive home to me . The primacy of Peter and the justification of the papacy through his authority  Even thought you said the catholic church. It seems that it always boils down to this. To justify the unjustifiable. Well I have been at this for a long time and I did not start just yesterday .  I am not trying to force anything here just present the truth as I see it. 

Do you  believe Peter became an example of Christ and that he knew all that Jesus taught. True Peter messed up when he fell into the trap of Jewish circumcision . But truly I believe he understood all that Jesus taught concerning walking in the spirit and displaying Christ likeness don't you think.  After all he is the RCC foundational rock.

You gave me an honest answer when you said you could not see Peter sitting in grandeur on a throne with lavish vestments and hats. Or even the other apostles bowing at his feet whom were all given the same authority. Oh yes even Paul who was not one of the twelve yet it was Paul that had to challenge and correct Peter . Also  it was James who headed the Jerusalem church.  Please remember I apply common sense along with what we learn from the New testament and the things Jesus taught about selflessness and humility. This is not what we see in the papacy after the bishops of Rome used fraud to get their power as the political religious authority of the empire. These are facts and should speak volumes yet the argument never changes. It's. still the same all primacy of Peter to justify a papacy that Christ never ordained  This may take a little writing here 

So you are all hung up on justifying an authority that lost its sight and was no longer led of the spirit but self centered wisdom of men that were carnal as the day is long. Yes it is Christ up front but it is rotten on the inside. This of course will take some time but I have some when I can sit down at my computer a while. The fifth century Bishops were hungry for power and authority. Yes it is granted that we respect and follow authority in all matters living examples of Christ, but Jesus  said to respect the hypocritical Pharisees also. So we are subject to all in authority over us.  But he said not to be as the Pharisees were. What did he say about them. They were white washed tombs. And so it was with the corrupt Bishops of Rome who flaunted their authority  and abused it. They except and do all that Jesus taught not to be.  Also remember it was corruption of the popes that caused the reformation in the first place. So time an time again Catholics dogmatically justify what is not justified because you are hung up on the authority of an institution and its hierarchy.

So what is really important. It is knowing Christ and becoming personally more like Him everyday as the Holy Spirit guides and teaches us. You see it isn't the Bible that becomes worldly and corrupt but men. Are getting it yet? We all have been given power over Satan and his works. Christ's righteousness prevails over evil every time. Do we need good teachers? Absolutely but be sure you glorify the one who is to be glorified in your own personaLwalk. As it says, we must all work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. In the end you will stand alone and the pope will not be their with you and you will not be able to brag what A good chatholic you were defending a worldly political church that is in the world and of it.   

I haven't scratched the surface yet.
God bless

[banished]

Hello mclees8,

(quote)

I haven't scratched the surface yet>

(end of quote)

Well, I took a day off yesterday, so I'm well rested.  One of the biggest problems you are having with the Roman Catholic Church is the requirement for obedience. One God, one Son, one Spirit, one Church. Christ did not create a fragmented Protestant Church. That was a creation of man. For almost 1600 years there was only one Church. Not until several members of the Catholic clergy (Luther, Calvin, etc)  began to preach heresies in contempt to the Pope did the Protestant reformation begin.

The most important point for you to understand is that obedience to the Church IS obedience to God.  Read 1 Timothy 3:15

"But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth." 1 Timothy 3:15

Pay attention to the fact that Paul calls the Catholic Church the pillar and foundation of truth. For you to resist the Catholic Church is to resist truth. When you interpret the scripture outside the Catholic Church teaching, you are setting yourself up for heresies.

[Tantor]

Christian unity under one church is never what Jesus intended...

Not Peace but Division
49"I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! 50But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is completed! 51Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. 53They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law."

He came to cause division... but you fight against it... why?

[banished]

Christian unity under one church is never what Jesus intended...

Not Peace but Division
49"I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! 50But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is completed! 51Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. 53They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law."

He came to cause division... but you fight against it... why?

Hello Tandor,

Luke 12: 49 - 53 is slightly off topic, but if you feel that those verses apply to authority we will look at them.  First, lets not take those verses out of text.  They are the words of Jesus as he foretold the opposition to the Gospel.  Jesus was not talking about the Protestant reformation that took place 1600 years later.  So, those verses cannot be used to justify the contempt for the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church that the Protestant reformation brought into the Christian Faith.

There is one area where maybe we can apply those verses, because the Mass is actually the Gospel.  Every word of the original Mass and the original Gospels were one in the same, and still are one in the same.  This where Protestants were taught lies and think that the King James Version somehow dropped from heaven direct into their hands.  It didn't.  The King James Bible is in fact the Mass of the Roman Catholic Church.   So, where are those verses in relation to the authority of the Pope we have today.  Jesus foretold the opposition from the Protestants to the Gospel that we see nowadays.  The authority of Pope is the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Thus we have seen that Luke 12 can not be used to justify the Protestant reformation, but instead may have foretold the opposition that the Protestants have towards the Gospel.   In that they do things today in contempt to the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church.  
   

[Magnificat]

Yes I knew this was what you wanted to drive home to me . The primacy of
Peter and the justification of the papacy through his authority  Even
thought you said the catholic church. It seems that it always boils down to
this. To justify the unjustifiable. 

But it is not unjustifiable.  Besides this is not justifying, this is giving support for a doctrine.  And the support we are giving are all in the bible.

Well I have been at this for a long time and I did not start just yesterday.  I am not trying to force anything here just present the truth as I see it. 

THAT'S GOOD.

Do you  believe Peter became an example of Christ and that he knew all thatJesus taught. True Peter messed up when he fell into the trap of Jewish
circumcision . But truly I believe he understood all that Jesus taught
concerning walking in the spirit and displaying Christ likeness don't you
think.  After all he is the RCC foundational rock. 

And this is the whole point of the matter. Peter is probably an illiterate
hot headed fisherman with great failings (denying christ,cutting off the
servants ears,etc) and yet, Crist chose him.  You cannot deny the fact that Christ CHOSE him.

That is why we need to keep going back to to the WILL of God.  What has God
WILLED as written in the bible? Isn't it that He WILLED to choose Peter and He WILLED to build a (one) Church?

You gave me an honest answer when you said you could not see Peter sitting in grandeur on a throne with lavish vestments and hats. Or even the other
apostles bowing at his feet whom were all given the same authority.

But that is all beside the point. The bowing is just a sign of respect nothing more.

Oh yes even Paul who was not one of the twelve yet it was Paul that had to challenge and correct Peter.

And isn't that a glaring fact. Paul was not one of the twelve, because God
willed that he not be one of the twelve. God has very specific purposes. So
again here it comes down to what has God WILLED.

Also  it was James who headed the Jerusalem church.   

But that is neither here nor there. Jesus did not say to James, you are rock
and upon this rock I will build my Church.  Jesus did not say to James, I
have prayed for you. Jesus did not say to James feed my lamb, feed my sheep

Please remember I apply common sense along with what we learn from the New testament and the things Jesus taught about selflessness and humility.

And that is what i have applied in what i have written above. It is common
sense to regard someone as having a primacy over others when the Son of God,
yes God Himself, keeps singling him out.

This is not what we see in the papacy after the bishops of Rome used fraud to get their power as the political religious authority of the empire.

Here you have to give factual support. You cannot just throw generalizations
without backing them up with facts. [/quote]

True there has been corruption in the Church, but this has nothing to do
with the fact that Christ chose to structure the church this way, that
someone has authority.

These are facts and should speak volumes yet the argument never changes.

Sorry but you have not supplied any facts.  It would be good if you could do though.

It's still the same all primacy of Peter to justify a papacy that Christ
never ordained.

Sorry but as I have shown above, Christ willed it this way, as is written in
the Bible.

This may take a little writing here 

So you are all hung up on justifying an authority that lost its sight and
was no longer led of the spirit but self centered wisdom of men that were
carnal as the day is long.

Again, these are just assertions without any factual or Biblical support. True they
have erred. You must make a distinction between doctrine and practice.

Yes it is Christ up front but it is rotten on the inside.

If Christ is at front, then Christ is in the inside as well.  Christ chose
sinful men. That was Christ's choice. Who you are angry with is Christ (and not the Church)  for chosing sinful men to be His apostles. Christ chose a man who He knew would deny him. But the point is Christ chose him. It seems to me you have a problem with God's choices.

This of course will take some time but I have some when I can sit down at mycomputer a while. The fifth century Bishops were hungry for power and
authority. 

PROBABLY. But please give specifics.

Yes it is granted that we respect and follow authority in all matters living
examples of Christ, but Jesus  said to respect the hypocritical Pharisees
also. So we are subject to all in authority over us.  But he said not to be
as the Pharisees were. 

He said not to act as they acted but to follow what they taught. So here we
have a very clear teaching from Christ which is analogous to what we are
discussing. If you are to follow that line of thought, Christ is tellig you,
do not behave in the same way as the bad Popes and bad bishops, but follow what they teach. So you are actually being told to follow their teaching but
not their evil behaviour.

What did he say about them. They were white washed tombs. And so it was with the corrupt Bishops of Rome who flaunted their authority  and abused it.
They except and do all that Jesus taught not to be.

And yet Jesus told us to follow them.

Also remember it was corruption of the popes that caused the reformation in the first place. So time an time again Catholics dogmatically justify!

Yes.  And herein lies the problem. It was the behaviour and practice that needed to be changed, not the doctrine. This is the major error that the protestant rebellion made.  The doctrine was good. If Luther had stuck to just calling the popes and bishops to task for their evil deeds, that would have been good. But no, because of his pride (that sin of adam that caused the fall), he (singly) decided that he knew better than all the other men that went before him and came up with a whole new set of doctrines. That is the height of pride.  And pride goes before a fall.

what is not justified because you are hung up on the authority of an
institution and its hierarchy. 

i have supported my claims from the Bible and with rational arguments.

So what is really important. It is knowing Christ and becoming personally
more like Him everyday as the Holy Spirit guides and teaches us. 

Yes. That is true.  But if you know Christ, then you know that He built a church; tat he instituted the sacraments.  You cannot sever Christ from his church.

You have to take the WHOLE CHRIST, not just the bits that suit your own preconceived theology.

You see it isn't the Bible that becomes worldly and corrupt but men. 

And I never said otherwise. But based purely on this discussion, you seem to evade parts of the Bible that do not agree with what you have chosen to believe.

Are you getting it yet? We all have been given power over Satan and his works. Christ's righteousness prevails over evil every time. 

Yes, Christ prevails over Satan all the time. But it doesn't mean that YOU prevail over Satan all the time.

Do we need good teachers? Absolutely but be sure you glorify the one who is to be glorified in your own personal walk. As it says, we must all work out our own salvation with fear and trembling.  In the end you will stand alone and the pope will not be their with you 

Oh No. I will not stand alone.  The pope and the saints will always be with me. Why, we all form part of the Body of Christ, the Communion of Saints. And the Pope and the entire Body of Christ prays for me as I pray for them. No, we do not stand alone.  It is sad that you do.

and you will not be able to brag what A good chatholic you were defending a worldly political church that is in the world and of
it.   

Have no intention of bragging. I am not defending a worldly political Church. I am defending the Church that Christ built here on earth.  That Church that is His Body. Your church maybe a worldly one, but the Catholic church is not. She is divine because Christ Her Head is Divine.

I haven't scratched the surface yet.

Look forward to when you do.

[mclees8]

Addressing Magnificat

Im sorry I just assume you knew. It is a fact the the fifth century Bishops of Rome lied and committed fraud to get their power and seat. Here is a history Leseon i came across while researching . i don't expect it will sway you but it is informative. the clincher is that it is true and can be found in your own Catholic Encyclopedia. (the Donations of caonstantine were found to be frauds but to late to change anyhting. they got what they wanted anyway. 

Again it may not impress you but at least you will be informed. since the fraud is true I can only assume John did his homework well. I will address the Political issue next but it is a subject by itself     

The Fraudulent Papacy - A History Lesson The Fallacy of Catholicism's Papacy, Part II JOHN SCHROEDER Contender Ministries Posted: September 5, 2003 As a 4-year-old child in a family of devout Roman Catholics, I could recite by heart Matthew 16:18 and 19 long before I could read or write. On cue, when prompted by parent or sibling, I would emote as follows: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and what- soever thou shalt bind upon earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth shall be loosed in heaven.

[banished]

mclees8-

That last post of yours is really over the top.  Apparently, when you look back at the 2,000 year history of the Roman Catholic Church you see all the dirt?  Maybe it would be easier for you to look forward with Neale Walsch and his New Age theology?  According to him our greatest spiritual challenge of the future is God?   Neale Walsch who was brought up as Roman Catholic, but switched his perspective to the New Spirituality claims that life is the process of awakening. His books are on the best seller list.  And of course, the Catholics wont touch that stuff with a ten foot pole, but I have listened to sermons at Assembly of God churches that quoted Walsh word for word.  My wife didn't believe me until I read to her out of one of Walsch's books at Barns & Noble.

[mclees8]

mclees8-

That last post of yours is really over the top.  Apparently, when you look back at the 2,000 year history of the Roman Catholic Church you see all the dirt?  Maybe it would be easier for you to look forward with Neale Walsch and his New Age theology?  According to him our greatest spiritual challenge of the future is God?   Neale Walsch who was brought up as Roman Catholic, but switched his perspective to the New Spirituality claims that life is the process of awakening. His books are on the best seller list.  And of course, the Catholics wont touch that stuff with a ten foot pole, but I have listened to sermons at Assembly of God churches that quoted Walsh word for word.  My wife didn't believe me until I read to her out of one of Walsch's books at Barns & Noble.

Dear banised history is a teacher and reveals our future. I am not looking to any man who has some new Ideal. Our present is Christ  and our Future is Christ .  he is the only Ideal I need.

[Corbley]

Our authority is from God and the word.

What you are talking about is confussion and that is from Satan.

Look how confussed the Catholic church is  :)

[banished]

mclees8-

That last post of yours is really over the top.  Apparently, when you look back at the 2,000 year history of the Roman Catholic Church you see all the dirt?  Maybe it would be easier for you to look forward with Neale Walsch and his New Age theology?  According to him our greatest spiritual challenge of the future is God?   Neale Walsch who was brought up as Roman Catholic, but switched his perspective to the New Spirituality claims that life is the process of awakening. His books are on the best seller list.  And of course, the Catholics wont touch that stuff with a ten foot pole, but I have listened to sermons at Assembly of God churches that quoted Walsh word for word.  My wife didn't believe me until I read to her out of one of Walsch's books at Barns & Noble.

Dear banised history is a teacher and reveals our future. I am not looking to any man who has some new Ideal. Our present is Christ  and our Future is Christ .  he is the only Ideal I need.

mclees8,

It's not as simple as, "history is a teacher and reveals our future".  If you were a Catholic at one time you should know that St Francis taught that when we look out our window we see a reflection of oneself.  No modern Protestant or Secular teacher has been able to change perception into anything other than what St Francis taught.  So, when we look at the 2,000 year history of the Roman Catholic Church and only see the dirt, we must ask ourselves why we don't see the good?  Basically, it's unforgiven sin that dwells inside our hearts that makes us hostile toward our family members, and also makes us see bad when we look out our window.  If you take the Protestant route, only extreme faith in the blood of Christ to pay for our sins will make things look good again.  And of course, the Catholics have their sins absolved by a priest who received his Holy Orders directly in succession from St Peter.  Remember, Jesus gave the key to Peter, so if you go it alone it will require extreme faith in Christ to have a clean spirit like the Catholics do.  Some Protestants do have the faith required to be nice, and it bubbles out all over them.  Joel Osteen is a good example.

I Have to modify this message, becasue I forgot to mention that I have spent a lot of time down in Southern Oregon where Welsch was homeless and had been in contact with AG churches along Highway 199.  They even named a town, "Wonder, Oregon", becasue of all the spiritual happening.    

[mclees8]

Our authority is from God and the word.

What you are talking about is confussion and that is from Satan.

Look how confussed the Catholic church is  :)

Yes he is confusion and the master of it. Look at How the church is so divided today and i am talking about Christianity as a whole. See what he has done to it. I left the valley of confusion some time back. Don't get me wrong I am not an island and still need fellowship but first of all I need fellowship with my Lord through the Hole Spirit.

[banished]

b

Our authority is from God and the word.

What you are talking about is confussion and that is from Satan.

Look how confussed the Catholic church is  :)

Yes he is confusion and the master of it. Look at How the church is so divided today and i am talking about Christianity as a whole. See what he has done to it. I left the valley of confusion some time back. Don't get me wrong I am not an island and still need fellowship but first of all I need fellowship with my Lord through the Hole Spirit.

Perception is every thing!

[TradCath]

Jesus Christ established a Church—not a book—to be the Foundation of the Christian faith
(Luke 20:29-32; Matt. 10:40; 28:18-20).

The Church is Still the 'Pillar and Bulwark of the Truth' -Paul, 1st Timothy 3

Jesus entrusted Peter with his flock, making him too a Good Shepherd (John 21:15-17).


- After his conversion Paul went to see Peter, the chief apostle (Gal. 1:18).

And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Peter: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.'

Peter was First Patriarch of Antioch then Founded Church of Rome.
(Matt. 16:18)

Protestant scholar J. N. D. Kelly "Peter spent his closing years in Rome'

[banished]

b

Our authority is from God and the word.

What you are talking about is confussion and that is from Satan.

Look how confussed the Catholic church is  :)

Yes he is confusion and the master of it. Look at How the church is so divided today and i am talking about Christianity as a whole. See what he has done to it. I left the valley of confusion some time back. Don't get me wrong I am not an island and still need fellowship but first of all I need fellowship with my Lord through the Hole Spirit.

Perception is every thing!

Good morning mclees8,

Lets face it, the Bible gives us plenty of opportunity to get confused, especially when the Apostle Peter has been given two nicknames, the Greek name Cephas and Aramaic name Kepha. Paul uses the Aramaic name rather than the Greek name for Simon Peter when he writes to the churchs in Galatia and Corinth. Why didn't Paul use the Greek nickname Cephas when I believe Greek was the native language in Galata and Corinth?

Also, according to some Church Fathers, such as Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius, there were two people named Cephas: one was Apostle Simon Peter, and the other was one of Jesus' Seventy Apostles. Clement goes further to say it was Cephas of the Seventy who was condemned by Paul in Galatians 2 for not eating with the Gentiles.

It's amazing what we can find at The Free Internet Encyclopedia Wikipedia.

The bottom line:  Christ spoke Aramaic and nicknamed Simon "Kepha".  Christ did not speak Greek.  Peter IS "the rock", the earthly head of Christ's Church as Christ Himself states in Matthew 16.

[Jimmy]

b

Our authority is from God and the word.

What you are talking about is confussion and that is from Satan.

Look how confussed the Catholic church is  :)

Yes he is confusion and the master of it. Look at How the church is so divided today and i am talking about Christianity as a whole. See what he has done to it. I left the valley of confusion some time back. Don't get me wrong I am not an island and still need fellowship but first of all I need fellowship with my Lord through the Hole Spirit.

Perception is every thing!

Good morning mclees8,

Lets face it, the Bible gives us plenty of opportunity to get confused, especially when the Apostle Peter has been given two nicknames, the Greek name Cephas and Aramaic name Kepha. Paul uses the Aramaic name rather than the Greek name for Simon Peter when he writes to the churchs in Galatia and Corinth. Why didn't Paul use the Greek nickname Cephas when I believe Greek was the native language in Galata and Corinth?

Also, according to some Church Fathers, such as Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius, there were two people named Cephas: one was Apostle Simon Peter, and the other was one of Jesus' Seventy Apostles. Clement goes further to say it was Cephas of the Seventy who was condemned by Paul in Galatians 2 for not eating with the Gentiles.

It's amazing what we can find at The Free Internet Encyclopedia Wikipedia.

The bottom line:  Christ spoke Aramaic and nicknamed Simon "Kepha".  Christ did not speak Greek.  Peter IS "the rock", the earthly head of Christ's Church as Christ Himself states in Matthew 16.

You would think that if Peter is the "rock" that you seem to think he is, then Paul in all of his writings to the various churches would have acknowledge that.  But in fact Paul never even alludes to such a situation in any of his letters.  He does speak about the foundation of the cdhurch.  Peter is not even mentioned there except by inclusion as one of the "apostles and prophets".  He does point out it is Christ who is the cornerstone.

No, Matthew 16 gives us a pretty clear picture of just what the church is really built upon.  It is built upon the truth of Jesus Christ as the Son of the living God, as Peter proclaimed.

[zoonance]

Though I may not have any proof, it is a bit ... odd to think that Jesus couldn't speak any language he wanted to.  Never thought of that before.  Perhaps he did not, could not speak greek, english, spanish, arabic, swahili, etc.

[banished]

b

Our authority is from God and the word.

What you are talking about is confussion and that is from Satan.

Look how confussed the Catholic church is  :)

Yes he is confusion and the master of it. Look at How the church is so divided today and i am talking about Christianity as a whole. See what he has done to it. I left the valley of confusion some time back. Don't get me wrong I am not an island and still need fellowship but first of all I need fellowship with my Lord through the Hole Spirit.

Perception is every thing!

Good morning mclees8,

Lets face it, the Bible gives us plenty of opportunity to get confused, especially when the Apostle Peter has been given two nicknames, the Greek name Cephas and Aramaic name Kepha. Paul uses the Aramaic name rather than the Greek name for Simon Peter when he writes to the churchs in Galatia and Corinth. Why didn't Paul use the Greek nickname Cephas when I believe Greek was the native language in Galata and Corinth?

Also, according to some Church Fathers, such as Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius, there were two people named Cephas: one was Apostle Simon Peter, and the other was one of Jesus' Seventy Apostles. Clement goes further to say it was Cephas of the Seventy who was condemned by Paul in Galatians 2 for not eating with the Gentiles.

It's amazing what we can find at The Free Internet Encyclopedia Wikipedia.

The bottom line:  Christ spoke Aramaic and nicknamed Simon "Kepha".  Christ did not speak Greek.  Peter IS "the rock", the earthly head of Christ's Church as Christ Himself states in Matthew 16.

You would think that if Peter is the "rock" that you seem to think he is, then Paul in all of his writings to the various churches would have acknowledge that.  But in fact Paul never even alludes to such a situation in any of his letters.  He does speak about the foundation of the cdhurch.  Peter is not even mentioned there except by inclusion as one of the "apostles and prophets".  He does point out it is Christ who is the cornerstone.

No, Matthew 16 gives us a pretty clear picture of just what the church is really built upon.  It is built upon the truth of Jesus Christ as the Son of the living God, as Peter proclaimed.

Jimmy-

In Matthew 18:18 Jesus gave the key to Simon Peter the Rock of the Christian Church.

Now backing up Scripture with Scripture:

I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open." Isaiah 22:22

Jesus said, "The holy one, the true, who holds the key of David, who opens and no one shall close, who closes and no one shall open ......" Revelation 3:7