I have read only part of this long thread, but thought i'd put in this little info here. Some of you may know that the pope is coming to the Philippines today, from Sri Lanka. While there's none we could do as in years ago when other popes came here, you know this is fulfilment of parts of prophecy. Please remember the 'devotees' in prayer, not really knowing as these same people scrambled to touch the black wooden Nazarene a few days ago, as well as those who truly seek the Lord and striving to obey God whatever is happening around. May His will be done.
Catholic Heresy (for the record)
- Thread starter RoboOp
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
M
I have said elsewhere I am catholic. I am also new to the forum.
I is not my intention to offend the sensibilities of the forum owners or managers, so whatever I may think of the specific points made about Mary, I will not challenge them here.
But to avoid conflict it is important to understand the thinking behind it, which I presume is based in the reformation dogma of "sola scriptura", and on that basis I will avoid referring to tradition except in as far as some tradition is accepted interpretations that came with the scripture in some cases.
So I presume it is perfectly reasonable to express reasoned interpretations of scripture: not least because the catholic interpretation of a lot of scripture is exactly the same as others or shared by at least some other groups to a greater or lesser extent. Take absolution and confession, is shared as far as I am aware by some lutherans, anglicans and derivates - eg some methodists, based on the same scriptures, it is not just a catholic thing. Take "faith alone" which is contradicted by epistle of james, and other communities share that view too!
So I presume expressing a reasoned interpretation of scripture, even though held by catholics, does not offend those in charge? That your concerns are things outside the bible as it now stands, rather than discussion meanings of what is in it?. So I assume discussion of bible passages is fair comment, if not what are the rules?
I genuinely want to know what other interpretations others think some of the passages have.
I is not my intention to offend the sensibilities of the forum owners or managers, so whatever I may think of the specific points made about Mary, I will not challenge them here.
But to avoid conflict it is important to understand the thinking behind it, which I presume is based in the reformation dogma of "sola scriptura", and on that basis I will avoid referring to tradition except in as far as some tradition is accepted interpretations that came with the scripture in some cases.
So I presume it is perfectly reasonable to express reasoned interpretations of scripture: not least because the catholic interpretation of a lot of scripture is exactly the same as others or shared by at least some other groups to a greater or lesser extent. Take absolution and confession, is shared as far as I am aware by some lutherans, anglicans and derivates - eg some methodists, based on the same scriptures, it is not just a catholic thing. Take "faith alone" which is contradicted by epistle of james, and other communities share that view too!
So I presume expressing a reasoned interpretation of scripture, even though held by catholics, does not offend those in charge? That your concerns are things outside the bible as it now stands, rather than discussion meanings of what is in it?. So I assume discussion of bible passages is fair comment, if not what are the rules?
I genuinely want to know what other interpretations others think some of the passages have.
Reasoned interpretations of the scripture are indeed welcome. Scripture is seen as superior to traditions and only traditions that are scriptural are useful in doctrinal matters.
At its heart the catholic church is an organization of men. Christ never established an organization but a living organism.
The most serious grievance against the church of Rome is it's contention that its traditions are of equal authority to the scriptures.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
At its heart the catholic church is an organization of men. Christ never established an organization but a living organism.
The most serious grievance against the church of Rome is it's contention that its traditions are of equal authority to the scriptures.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
J
whoever has the Son has Life, whoever has not the Son has not Life. true believers immersed in Yahshua(Jesus) follow Yahshua, listen to Him, obey Him.
the rcc does not allow members of the rcc to follow Jesus. they do not have the Son. they do not abide in Him.
it is a requirement, and always has been , for generations, for almost 2000 years, to obey the pope, no matter what. the pope is FALSELY presented as if he is in Christ, and he is not, as if he is Christ's or God's representative on earth, and he never , never, never has been. the pope has ALWAYS been a murderer of the saints, of the believers both Jewish and gentile, and of other nations if they refused to be under the pope. this is how it has always been, ever since the rcc started.
i.e. "HERESY". no truth in it. no following of Jesus, no followers of Jesus, permitted. anti- Jesus. anti- Jesus followers. anti- truth.
like a veterinarian who, for 130 years, had a zero percent success treating animals. every animal brought to the vet died. even if they had been healthy.
that's what the rcc is comparible to.
everyone who goes in to the rcc, who trusts the rcc, dies. mainly, of course, because they don't trust Jesus. those who begin to and finally do trust Jesus, like martin luther and charles chiniquoy and all the members of charles chiniquoy's congregation, LEFT THE RCC (and THUS SAVED THEIR SOULS) because they were required to. light and darkness cannot have fellowship together.
the rcc has a lot in agreement with the world, as it belongs to the world, and to the prince of the power of the air in the world....
it has no submission to Christ Jesus, nor life in Him.
instead of representing Christ Jesus, they always totally deceive everyone that they can deceive, and never lead anyone to the truth. (God can, certainly, but the rcc doesn't even allow God or His Name inside their buildings, services, or gatherings, not written, nor verbal).
re richard wurmbrand pointed out in his journey that Yahweh used the various groups , even those not in Him, i.e. the rcc, to direct his steps,
but the various groups, i.e. the rcc, could not "bring me to Christ, because they had not Christ". God directs all things, like He did egypt, babylon, persia, and other heathen nations to punish or discipline or help at various times His Chosen People.... that means not at all that the heathen are saved nor that they are in Christ Jesus.
so, for identifying the truth. for searching for , learning about , and discussing the truth, "come out of her MY PEOPLE" , to avoid the certain punishment and judgment God has decreed for the heresy, come out of her and live.
the rcc does not allow members of the rcc to follow Jesus. they do not have the Son. they do not abide in Him.
it is a requirement, and always has been , for generations, for almost 2000 years, to obey the pope, no matter what. the pope is FALSELY presented as if he is in Christ, and he is not, as if he is Christ's or God's representative on earth, and he never , never, never has been. the pope has ALWAYS been a murderer of the saints, of the believers both Jewish and gentile, and of other nations if they refused to be under the pope. this is how it has always been, ever since the rcc started.
i.e. "HERESY". no truth in it. no following of Jesus, no followers of Jesus, permitted. anti- Jesus. anti- Jesus followers. anti- truth.
like a veterinarian who, for 130 years, had a zero percent success treating animals. every animal brought to the vet died. even if they had been healthy.
that's what the rcc is comparible to.
everyone who goes in to the rcc, who trusts the rcc, dies. mainly, of course, because they don't trust Jesus. those who begin to and finally do trust Jesus, like martin luther and charles chiniquoy and all the members of charles chiniquoy's congregation, LEFT THE RCC (and THUS SAVED THEIR SOULS) because they were required to. light and darkness cannot have fellowship together.
the rcc has a lot in agreement with the world, as it belongs to the world, and to the prince of the power of the air in the world....
it has no submission to Christ Jesus, nor life in Him.
instead of representing Christ Jesus, they always totally deceive everyone that they can deceive, and never lead anyone to the truth. (God can, certainly, but the rcc doesn't even allow God or His Name inside their buildings, services, or gatherings, not written, nor verbal).
re richard wurmbrand pointed out in his journey that Yahweh used the various groups , even those not in Him, i.e. the rcc, to direct his steps,
but the various groups, i.e. the rcc, could not "bring me to Christ, because they had not Christ". God directs all things, like He did egypt, babylon, persia, and other heathen nations to punish or discipline or help at various times His Chosen People.... that means not at all that the heathen are saved nor that they are in Christ Jesus.
so, for identifying the truth. for searching for , learning about , and discussing the truth, "come out of her MY PEOPLE" , to avoid the certain punishment and judgment God has decreed for the heresy, come out of her and live.
M
Thanks.
Can I assume you are speaking on behalf of the forum admins?
I don't want to offend anyone, and indeed, I didnt come here really to discuss what I believe or as an evangelist or apologist for catholicism, I came to chat to others to find their experiences and what they believe, and why they interpret scriptures as different to mine.
Peace.
Can I assume you are speaking on behalf of the forum admins?
I don't want to offend anyone, and indeed, I didnt come here really to discuss what I believe or as an evangelist or apologist for catholicism, I came to chat to others to find their experiences and what they believe, and why they interpret scriptures as different to mine.
Peace.
K
The Holy Word of God says through Paul who was lead by the Holy Spirit, that no man can give a different gospel message or teach a different Jesus then what was already given to us by Him.....
Galatians 1:8
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
2 Corinthians 11:4
For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.
M
Thanks for the reply.
I don't think any of us are talking about a different jesus!
Doesnt alter the fact there are massive differences in interpretation of scriptures on this forum and elswhere with christians I have spoken to/listened to from exactly the same words.
Four camps for example, all apparently getting their authority from the same scriptures on salvation!
-Once saved always saved. ( I find it hard to believe that ignoring commandments for most of your life has no effect!)
-Saved after one or two actions, unless you mess up big time, when the "saved" might be withdrawn
-Not saved yet until the game is played to the end, and hope that grace might save then( my camp for what it is worth).
-Or it is all predestined anyway, you were chosen or not before you were born, so no free will and why worry about it? ( all very nihilist )
Another difficulty I have chatting to others.
- Some of the churches and communities don't appear to have a consensus view on what they believ, some it is central, others local down to the pastor. Many of which split, time and again over doctrinal differences. Hasnt the presbyterian church been called the Split P in the past because of it? I can say our anglican church no longer has any apparent consensus on important things.
- Some communities allow their members to take their own views from scripture, do not enforce a view - a view expressed by some here.
A difficulty I have chatting to cradle catholics, is many dont seem to know the tenets of the faith, or why they believe them - indeed are somewhat off piste of what the church believes!.
( I am not, I took a conscious switch after study and time both in main stream protestant and in evangelical )
It is all a very confusing world...
I don't think any of us are talking about a different jesus!
Doesnt alter the fact there are massive differences in interpretation of scriptures on this forum and elswhere with christians I have spoken to/listened to from exactly the same words.
Four camps for example, all apparently getting their authority from the same scriptures on salvation!
-Once saved always saved. ( I find it hard to believe that ignoring commandments for most of your life has no effect!)
-Saved after one or two actions, unless you mess up big time, when the "saved" might be withdrawn
-Not saved yet until the game is played to the end, and hope that grace might save then( my camp for what it is worth).
-Or it is all predestined anyway, you were chosen or not before you were born, so no free will and why worry about it? ( all very nihilist )
Another difficulty I have chatting to others.
- Some of the churches and communities don't appear to have a consensus view on what they believ, some it is central, others local down to the pastor. Many of which split, time and again over doctrinal differences. Hasnt the presbyterian church been called the Split P in the past because of it? I can say our anglican church no longer has any apparent consensus on important things.
- Some communities allow their members to take their own views from scripture, do not enforce a view - a view expressed by some here.
A difficulty I have chatting to cradle catholics, is many dont seem to know the tenets of the faith, or why they believe them - indeed are somewhat off piste of what the church believes!.
( I am not, I took a conscious switch after study and time both in main stream protestant and in evangelical )
It is all a very confusing world...
Last edited:
There are only two groups. The saved and the unsaved. All men begin in the unsaved group and those who respond to the light of the gospel move to the second group. John 3:16-20 esp vs 18
I have experienced in the church of Rome those who do not know their doctrines and those who deny their doctrines so it is a universal problem. There are many different levels of sanctification within the body of Christ which is the living church.
God is not the author of confusion. It is the diabolical one who sows confusion and strife.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
I have experienced in the church of Rome those who do not know their doctrines and those who deny their doctrines so it is a universal problem. There are many different levels of sanctification within the body of Christ which is the living church.
God is not the author of confusion. It is the diabolical one who sows confusion and strife.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
M
Not sure if this is the right place to discuss this, but If only it were simple.
The problem comes in defining words what in that context and such as john 3:17 or acts 16:30 is the scope of "believes" or in your phrase above - "respond to the gospels". Such as matthew 25:27 (and other texts show) there are many ordinances, commandments and others, baptism etc and some are told they will not be saved if they fail to live up to them or told if they fail to consume body and blood they will not be raised up, and so on..
Many things are stated as necessary, and I do not think it is safe to assume any actions in this life are sufficient for salvation. In the end all fall short and are saved by grace and mercy, which can only be decided when the course has been run. I know I fall short and can only hope. That which is the catholic view feels right to me.
To assume salvation is spiritual pride, and certainly more than a little presumptious!. I think the arguments between faith and works, are academic, because none of us truly understand, and all we can do is give our best shot at everything we think we are asked to do knowing none of what we do is good enough to earn salvation as of right. Picking and choosing which is more important, is trying to second guess god, which is not a good idea in my view!
Anyway thanks for answering.
Peace.
The problem comes in defining words what in that context and such as john 3:17 or acts 16:30 is the scope of "believes" or in your phrase above - "respond to the gospels". Such as matthew 25:27 (and other texts show) there are many ordinances, commandments and others, baptism etc and some are told they will not be saved if they fail to live up to them or told if they fail to consume body and blood they will not be raised up, and so on..
Many things are stated as necessary, and I do not think it is safe to assume any actions in this life are sufficient for salvation. In the end all fall short and are saved by grace and mercy, which can only be decided when the course has been run. I know I fall short and can only hope. That which is the catholic view feels right to me.
To assume salvation is spiritual pride, and certainly more than a little presumptious!. I think the arguments between faith and works, are academic, because none of us truly understand, and all we can do is give our best shot at everything we think we are asked to do knowing none of what we do is good enough to earn salvation as of right. Picking and choosing which is more important, is trying to second guess god, which is not a good idea in my view!
Anyway thanks for answering.
Peace.
K
The thing is that some people still let their personal traditions, morals, and principals get in the way of the true word. And others even though they may not admit it let hatred blind them to other scriptures. What I mean by that for example is if one denomination does not like another denomination, they let that dislike and hatred toward them cancel out doing some things that is in scripture because the other one does it.......To many are still doing the same that Paul warned about when some of the disciples were walking around saying I am of Apollos, or I am of such and such.
His disciples ( us now days ) still do that, going around saying I am baptist, I am protestant, I am catholic, I am such and such......Paul speaks as though this is wrong, because this was not the division the Lord spoke of that He came to do.
Well at least you are honest enough with yourself to admit it. No man is good enough nor can any man do enough to achieve the standard established by God.
Sin enters through the law. Righteousness enters by grace. Only God can achieve all that is necessary to satisfy His demands. Through knowledge of the law all men became responsible to God for their transgressions. Through knowledge of Christ God imputes His righteousness to who so ever wills to receive.
This is not difficult unless one is very religious and convinced of their self righteousness.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
Sin enters through the law. Righteousness enters by grace. Only God can achieve all that is necessary to satisfy His demands. Through knowledge of the law all men became responsible to God for their transgressions. Through knowledge of Christ God imputes His righteousness to who so ever wills to receive.
This is not difficult unless one is very religious and convinced of their self righteousness.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
That's one of the RCC's false beliefs. There is no contradiction in James that resists any other apostle or goes against Jesus. By faith in the blood of Jesus one is saved, but the absence of works of righteousness is proof whatever one regards as his saving faith is dead, ineffective. Your 'branch on the Vine' must produce fruit acceptable to the Lord, else it is 'pruned off and cast into the fire' because it is useless. It is by that faith that you should know the promise of God is yours, that you are already, in Christ, a child of God and ready to die fearlessly regardless of how many works of righteousness you have done. People fearing death tend to be ignorant of scriptures, yet somehow hope they are "saved". You can know without a doubt you will live eternally with the Lord.
I suggest reading James 2 again. If you will read through it in one sitting you will see that "faith alone" is not an issue. All the apostles were in agreement that works don't save, but works follow the believer. Say you have faith? You must to be in Christ. But then prove it by your works. If our works are evil, then we have nothing in Christ. You will find Paul in total agreement with that, and of course Jesus taught it to the apostles. The Jews declined it.
It's a good idea to study up before trying to discuss RCC matters, because what Christian sites see mostly out of them is the tradition stuff, which can't be derived strictly from scriptures. Like the Jewish scribes, their lawyers (Pharisees), and priests assembled a huge library of many biblically unfounded interpretations and traditions that were used to condemn Jesus, so have the RCC priesthood and various scholars distorted the simple, plainly written, understandable word of God.
The various Church denominations other than RCC all post their fundamental beliefs, usually sufficiently presented on one sheet of paper. I have a very old hardbound Catholic Encyclopedia set that I think is 18 books. It takes at least that entire set to present the RCC doctrines of belief. The online Catholic Encyclopedia is much better and updated. It's all to me like telling a lie, then having to keep adding lies to cover up the first one. It's far better to simply make it clear you believe the Bible, then for fellowship value among the larger body of Christ state the main tenets of belief, such as who God is, Jesus is, what is believed about baptism. Rather than post a lot of text, they typically refer to scripture passages, so you must go to the Bible to see what they are citing.
I suggest reading James 2 again. If you will read through it in one sitting you will see that "faith alone" is not an issue. All the apostles were in agreement that works don't save, but works follow the believer. Say you have faith? You must to be in Christ. But then prove it by your works. If our works are evil, then we have nothing in Christ. You will find Paul in total agreement with that, and of course Jesus taught it to the apostles. The Jews declined it.
It's a good idea to study up before trying to discuss RCC matters, because what Christian sites see mostly out of them is the tradition stuff, which can't be derived strictly from scriptures. Like the Jewish scribes, their lawyers (Pharisees), and priests assembled a huge library of many biblically unfounded interpretations and traditions that were used to condemn Jesus, so have the RCC priesthood and various scholars distorted the simple, plainly written, understandable word of God.
The various Church denominations other than RCC all post their fundamental beliefs, usually sufficiently presented on one sheet of paper. I have a very old hardbound Catholic Encyclopedia set that I think is 18 books. It takes at least that entire set to present the RCC doctrines of belief. The online Catholic Encyclopedia is much better and updated. It's all to me like telling a lie, then having to keep adding lies to cover up the first one. It's far better to simply make it clear you believe the Bible, then for fellowship value among the larger body of Christ state the main tenets of belief, such as who God is, Jesus is, what is believed about baptism. Rather than post a lot of text, they typically refer to scripture passages, so you must go to the Bible to see what they are citing.
M
With respect it is not just that one text that disproves "faith alone" they are legion - i have cited a few elsewhere, that show there is much more to it than that, but it is the only place "faith" and "alone" are found together in a sentence. Much of what catholics believe is straight out of the bible - there is little that relies on tradition of what others thought and did.
But I have said elsewhere, I am not here to justify catholicism, at least part in deference to those who run the site.
What I was hoping to discover, is what other interpretations people have for some of the core scriptures.
For those who don't like the petrine succession: what do they think Jesus meant by directly referring a scripture - that is the "keys" of the kingdom, an office to a person below the king. What authority do you think he was giving and to whom.
Nobody will give me an answer on that. They point to other scriptures they think disagree with petrine succession, but never answer the question asked. Or take the "those sins you would forgive will be forgiven them". Who was jesus giving power to to forgive sins with relevance to present day? If scripture was the only authority, why does st paul say that "the pillar and foundation of truth is the church" and so on.
I am happy to hear alternative views on these scriptures to the ones held by RCC. But one of the frustrations for me has been, I have never got straight answers from evangelical christians on them. I have raised the issue of "keys" perhaps three times, and not a single person has ventured an opinion on why Jesus referred a delegated authority if that was not relevant to the person he spoke to, this case Peter. Ditto the arguments over "petra" and "petros" - prime problem is Peter was a simple man, to whom Jesus would have spoken Aramaic so that distinction in Greek often used on this forum to prevent peter being considered the rock of the church- that distinction did not exist in Aramaic. Thou are peter , and upon this rock, are the very same person in Aramaic.
I am happy , and want to hear (consistent) alternatives. Havent been getting them so far.
Anyway, not here for an argument, just a chat. Find out what others believe.
But I have said elsewhere, I am not here to justify catholicism, at least part in deference to those who run the site.
What I was hoping to discover, is what other interpretations people have for some of the core scriptures.
For those who don't like the petrine succession: what do they think Jesus meant by directly referring a scripture - that is the "keys" of the kingdom, an office to a person below the king. What authority do you think he was giving and to whom.
Nobody will give me an answer on that. They point to other scriptures they think disagree with petrine succession, but never answer the question asked. Or take the "those sins you would forgive will be forgiven them". Who was jesus giving power to to forgive sins with relevance to present day? If scripture was the only authority, why does st paul say that "the pillar and foundation of truth is the church" and so on.
I am happy to hear alternative views on these scriptures to the ones held by RCC. But one of the frustrations for me has been, I have never got straight answers from evangelical christians on them. I have raised the issue of "keys" perhaps three times, and not a single person has ventured an opinion on why Jesus referred a delegated authority if that was not relevant to the person he spoke to, this case Peter. Ditto the arguments over "petra" and "petros" - prime problem is Peter was a simple man, to whom Jesus would have spoken Aramaic so that distinction in Greek often used on this forum to prevent peter being considered the rock of the church- that distinction did not exist in Aramaic. Thou are peter , and upon this rock, are the very same person in Aramaic.
I am happy , and want to hear (consistent) alternatives. Havent been getting them so far.
Anyway, not here for an argument, just a chat. Find out what others believe.
MikeUK, here's my perspective for you to consider.
Deuteronomy 32:4 (KJV)
[SUP]4 [/SUP] He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.
[FONT="]1 Corinthians 10:1-5 (KJV) [/FONT][FONT="]
[SUP]1 [/SUP] Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
[SUP]2 [/SUP] And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
[SUP]3 [/SUP] And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
[SUP]4 [/SUP] And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
[SUP]5 [/SUP] But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness. [/FONT]
Matthew 16:16-20 (KJV)
[SUP]16 [/SUP] And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
[SUP]17 [/SUP] And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
[SUP]18 [/SUP] And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
[SUP]19 [/SUP] And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
[SUP]20 [/SUP] Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.
Jesus was talking to his disciples, not just Peter.
Peter identified who Jesus really was, the Christ, by revelation from Father God.
Upon the occasion Jesus awarded Simon a new name Peter (from Greek petros) meaning a piece of rock, not a whole rock. Jesus was and remains the Rock.
Upon this, not your being, but Jesus’ rock (Chief Corner Stone - Jesus) Jesus will build the church, the body of Christ. Peter was commended for by faith speaking the revelation. Upon the manifestation of the Christ would the Church be built. There was then no doubt Christ was present. The body of the Rock Jesus would be built upon Jesus.
No building would be built upon a fragment of rock, but a whole rock.
The Kingdom keys were not given to Peter alone, but to all the disciples. Jesus repeats it to the disciples in Matthew 18:18 (KJV)
[SUP]18 [/SUP] Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
The keys Jesus spoke of were not a symbol of authority of one Church leader’s authority over all the body, but represents the privileges all believers may exercise, in faith believing, taking part in answered prayers, casting out demons, moving ‘mountains’, laying hands on the sick, etc. .
The members of the body of Christ are all equal in importance, from strongest to weakest. The Pope is not biblically more important than the feeblest among believers.
1 Corinthians 12:23-25 (KJV) [SUP]23 [/SUP] And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness.
[SUP]24 [/SUP] For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked:
[SUP]25 [/SUP] That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.
Man tends to elevate some fellow chips off the Rock as superior to others, as equal in authority to the Rock Jesus, to act as rulers ([priests, cardinals, popes), sovereign spiritual king or high priest with final authority, when it is Jesus that holds that distinction. Christians don’t need a priest to teach them if they have received the Word of God (Bible) and retain that. One will find it by reading the Bible without disputing any of it.
1 John 2:26-27 (KJV) [SUP]26 [/SUP] These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you.
[SUP]27 [/SUP] But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
The Church was and is built upon the Rock Jesus, not a mortal man.
Deuteronomy 32:4 (KJV)
[SUP]4 [/SUP] He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.
[FONT="]1 Corinthians 10:1-5 (KJV) [/FONT][FONT="]
[SUP]1 [/SUP] Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
[SUP]2 [/SUP] And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
[SUP]3 [/SUP] And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
[SUP]4 [/SUP] And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
[SUP]5 [/SUP] But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness. [/FONT]
Matthew 16:16-20 (KJV)
[SUP]16 [/SUP] And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
[SUP]17 [/SUP] And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
[SUP]18 [/SUP] And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
[SUP]19 [/SUP] And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
[SUP]20 [/SUP] Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.
Jesus was talking to his disciples, not just Peter.
Peter identified who Jesus really was, the Christ, by revelation from Father God.
Upon the occasion Jesus awarded Simon a new name Peter (from Greek petros) meaning a piece of rock, not a whole rock. Jesus was and remains the Rock.
Upon this, not your being, but Jesus’ rock (Chief Corner Stone - Jesus) Jesus will build the church, the body of Christ. Peter was commended for by faith speaking the revelation. Upon the manifestation of the Christ would the Church be built. There was then no doubt Christ was present. The body of the Rock Jesus would be built upon Jesus.
No building would be built upon a fragment of rock, but a whole rock.
The Kingdom keys were not given to Peter alone, but to all the disciples. Jesus repeats it to the disciples in Matthew 18:18 (KJV)
[SUP]18 [/SUP] Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
The keys Jesus spoke of were not a symbol of authority of one Church leader’s authority over all the body, but represents the privileges all believers may exercise, in faith believing, taking part in answered prayers, casting out demons, moving ‘mountains’, laying hands on the sick, etc. .
The members of the body of Christ are all equal in importance, from strongest to weakest. The Pope is not biblically more important than the feeblest among believers.
1 Corinthians 12:23-25 (KJV) [SUP]23 [/SUP] And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness.
[SUP]24 [/SUP] For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked:
[SUP]25 [/SUP] That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.
Man tends to elevate some fellow chips off the Rock as superior to others, as equal in authority to the Rock Jesus, to act as rulers ([priests, cardinals, popes), sovereign spiritual king or high priest with final authority, when it is Jesus that holds that distinction. Christians don’t need a priest to teach them if they have received the Word of God (Bible) and retain that. One will find it by reading the Bible without disputing any of it.
1 John 2:26-27 (KJV) [SUP]26 [/SUP] These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you.
[SUP]27 [/SUP] But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
The Church was and is built upon the Rock Jesus, not a mortal man.
M
Thanks for answering, but that explanation does not line up with the scriptures: I pointed out the flaws in it previously.
I am disappointed you made no attempt to tackle them directly.
Specifically - The keys of the old testament was an office given to one single person, as "second in command" in a kingdom by the king hezekiah to equivalent of a a prime minister. Look it up. It was an office with robe and keys, that was handed down to successors.
So it is not a credible intepretation of that old testament scripture , for authority to be given to the apostles generally or the church. Jesus's reference would simply not make sense in those contexts. And why would jesus refer it so specifically, if that was not what he was trying to say? So who was the (single) person?
Second. He was speaking to Peter. The fine distinction of greek m / f gender of petra and petros small rock/large rock does not exist in spoken aramaic. Same word as far as I am aware. So the peter and upon this rock, are the very same man. On that basis having named peter, he is the rock. That does not usurp Christs kingship at all, in this he is simply delegating something. Primarily related to things "on earth". Elsewhere he delegates power to forgive sins "the sins you would forgive" etc, so it is hardly that surprising.
So I am left still asking. Those scriptures delegate the power to bind Who were they given to if not peter, and why does he refer a scripture with an office of succession, if the authority handed to peter was not intended to have succession.
I still look for somebody to give me explanation actually consistent with old testament scripture.
Sure we all agree, Christ is king, head of the church. There are other problems too would Christ refer to himself as "you"! When giving powers to the object "you" of the conversation. Peter. I have never heard anyone refer to themselves as you in spoken english. Again it does not make sense, for christ to be the rock.
Like it or hate, the RCC interpretation of those scriptures at least makes sense and is at least compatible with the allegory of the Keys of David. I have yet to hear an evangelical alternative that gives the keys the proper context of the old testament.
And I doubt that Jesus would say anything that was deliberately misleading or misdirecting, since as he says
he will not allow the gates of hell to prevail against the kingdom or his church.
That is what I think, scriptural, and that is why I think it. Happy to hear alternatives provided they actually line up with the allegory of the keys.
I think we should stick to single issues if we are to make progress, what power did the keys represent, and who were they given to? Consistent with the old testament referred?
To inject other stuff like "priests" in a single discussion just confuses the conversation. Suffice to say they are biblical too. The old jewish law and tradition refers to them, and Jesus said not one iota would pass from the law etc.
I have made these same points a few times, so unless something new is injected into the conversation, I think it is getting repetitive, so I will
leave it be, unless new answers give some other profoundly different interpretation.
Anyway thanks for answering.
Peace.
I am disappointed you made no attempt to tackle them directly.
Specifically - The keys of the old testament was an office given to one single person, as "second in command" in a kingdom by the king hezekiah to equivalent of a a prime minister. Look it up. It was an office with robe and keys, that was handed down to successors.
So it is not a credible intepretation of that old testament scripture , for authority to be given to the apostles generally or the church. Jesus's reference would simply not make sense in those contexts. And why would jesus refer it so specifically, if that was not what he was trying to say? So who was the (single) person?
Second. He was speaking to Peter. The fine distinction of greek m / f gender of petra and petros small rock/large rock does not exist in spoken aramaic. Same word as far as I am aware. So the peter and upon this rock, are the very same man. On that basis having named peter, he is the rock. That does not usurp Christs kingship at all, in this he is simply delegating something. Primarily related to things "on earth". Elsewhere he delegates power to forgive sins "the sins you would forgive" etc, so it is hardly that surprising.
So I am left still asking. Those scriptures delegate the power to bind Who were they given to if not peter, and why does he refer a scripture with an office of succession, if the authority handed to peter was not intended to have succession.
I still look for somebody to give me explanation actually consistent with old testament scripture.
Sure we all agree, Christ is king, head of the church. There are other problems too would Christ refer to himself as "you"! When giving powers to the object "you" of the conversation. Peter. I have never heard anyone refer to themselves as you in spoken english. Again it does not make sense, for christ to be the rock.
Like it or hate, the RCC interpretation of those scriptures at least makes sense and is at least compatible with the allegory of the Keys of David. I have yet to hear an evangelical alternative that gives the keys the proper context of the old testament.
And I doubt that Jesus would say anything that was deliberately misleading or misdirecting, since as he says
he will not allow the gates of hell to prevail against the kingdom or his church.
That is what I think, scriptural, and that is why I think it. Happy to hear alternatives provided they actually line up with the allegory of the keys.
I think we should stick to single issues if we are to make progress, what power did the keys represent, and who were they given to? Consistent with the old testament referred?
To inject other stuff like "priests" in a single discussion just confuses the conversation. Suffice to say they are biblical too. The old jewish law and tradition refers to them, and Jesus said not one iota would pass from the law etc.
I have made these same points a few times, so unless something new is injected into the conversation, I think it is getting repetitive, so I will
leave it be, unless new answers give some other profoundly different interpretation.
Anyway thanks for answering.
Peace.
Last edited:
the motives and the reasons for <rcc> doctrine, interpretation, training, teachings, life, and literature is all heresy, always has been, and is against the site rules to promote .
the source, the beginning, the middle, and all of the ongoing energy of the <rcc> is anti-christ and anti-truth and anti-life.
(like mormon/atheists/islam/muslim/buddhists/harekrishna/hare kare/b'hai/ etc etc etc all "instead of" and opposed to Christ.)
also, <rcc><doctrine><dogma><substance> is diametrically contrary to and against Scripture and against Jesus and against the ekklesia abiding in Yahweh.
and those who participate in <rcc> heresy, willingly or not, and continue without repenting, are according to the Bible accursed, and to be disfellowshipped - with the hope that they will truly repent and be saved; but in the mean time, don't even greet such a one nor have a meal with them lest you become guilty with them of their sin.
the source, the beginning, the middle, and all of the ongoing energy of the <rcc> is anti-christ and anti-truth and anti-life.
(like mormon/atheists/islam/muslim/buddhists/harekrishna/hare kare/b'hai/ etc etc etc all "instead of" and opposed to Christ.)
also, <rcc><doctrine><dogma><substance> is diametrically contrary to and against Scripture and against Jesus and against the ekklesia abiding in Yahweh.
and those who participate in <rcc> heresy, willingly or not, and continue without repenting, are according to the Bible accursed, and to be disfellowshipped - with the hope that they will truly repent and be saved; but in the mean time, don't even greet such a one nor have a meal with them lest you become guilty with them of their sin.
M
With respect , the discussion is about scripture, and I am asking such as you what they mean by ( such as ) keys, consistent with the Old Testament,. If you do not like my interpretation , I would love to hear the alternative. The core creed is all firmly based in scriptures such as that.
RCC beliefs are many and varied. not a single thing, most of which are shared by some or a lot other congregations, and many shared by all Christians - most would agree with most of the creed as it stands. I have already said I will steer clear of issues based in tradition in deference to the site owners.
We are all Christians. I am here to find out what others think about some of the issues.Blanket unreasoned anti RCC rhetoric as above really is not helpful in that context., and rather implies you have not studied it, or I am sure you would find a lot we and all Christians agree on.
RCC beliefs are many and varied. not a single thing, most of which are shared by some or a lot other congregations, and many shared by all Christians - most would agree with most of the creed as it stands. I have already said I will steer clear of issues based in tradition in deference to the site owners.
We are all Christians. I am here to find out what others think about some of the issues.Blanket unreasoned anti RCC rhetoric as above really is not helpful in that context., and rather implies you have not studied it, or I am sure you would find a lot we and all Christians agree on.
It is very simple even childlike if you stick to what the bible says.
Jesus never said that ordinances or sacraments save. We are saved by grace. We receive grace when we believe Gods word and trust Christ alone to save us. No trusting in one's own merits through ordinances and rituals or rites.
Demonstrate from the scriptures what is necessary above and beyond grace. God has declared that those who are saved will know it because His Holy Spirit will witness with their spirit that they are His. Do not confuse this with the charismatic stuff but saved folks know the still soft voice of God in their hearts.
You are in error if you assume that those who are saved and know it are proud. In fact just the opposite is true. It is quite humbling to know that your personal sin sent the Lamb of God to the cross of Calvary. It is quite humbling to stand in the presence of Almighty God and give thanks for what He and He alone has done to redeem one so unworthy.
Spiritual pride and presumption is quite evident in the false humility of the high church religion. The church where pomp and pride are on continuous display.
Attempting to change God into something more appealing to the flesh of man is never a good plan. You cannot know the joy of salvation if you must fear falling into condemnation for the slightest infraction of some pious frauds arbitrary standard of good enough to satisfy God. All the mighty works man might imagine are but dross before God Who alone is Holy.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
Spiritual pride and presumption is quite evident in the false humility of the high church religion. The church where pomp and pride are on continuous display.
Attempting to change God into something more appealing to the flesh of man is never a good plan. You cannot know the joy of salvation if you must fear falling into condemnation for the slightest infraction of some pious frauds arbitrary standard of good enough to satisfy God. All the mighty works man might imagine are but dross before God Who alone is Holy.
For the cause of Christ
Roger