Why did Jesus Christ establish a Church? [Archive]

I Newton

Jan 15, 2010, 12:07 AM

In order to gain power and prestige and lord it over people, some churches claim that Peter was the rock that Jesus built his church on when he said upon “THIS” rock I will build my church.

Matt 16:18
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.

Was Jesus referring to Peter as being the rock?
Or was Jesus referring to himself as being the rock just as he was referring to himself as “THIS” temple at John 2:19

John 2:19
Jesus answered and said to them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."

Consider too:

Matthew 21:42
Jesus said to them, "Have you never read in the Scriptures: 'The stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief cornerstone.

As back then, they still reject Jesus.

Ephesians 2:20
having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone,

Also consider:

If Jesus established a church, which one could it be? Is it possible to find the real church among the 2000 or so false ones? Are you able to eliminate any?

Well, look at some very very basic truths and see if any of them rule any churches out.

Luke 22:24-26
And there arose also a dispute among them {as to} which one of them was regarded to be greatest.
And He said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who have authority over them are called 'Benefactors.'
But {it is} not this way with you,
(If Peter was above them, this would be a lie)

Romans 12:19
Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God; for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord."
(Any church that fights back does not have faith in God taking vengeance)

Matthew 24:24
"For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect.
Galatians 1:8
But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.
(Any church that teaches opposite is obviously not the one)

2Peter 2:1,3
But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you… And many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed … By covetousness they will exploit you with deceptive words
(It is not as if the church as an organisation will be safe)

1John 3:10
By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother.
(You can clearly see if they are from God or the Devil, no matter what they say)

Matthew 23:9
And don't address anyone here on earth as `Father,' for only God in heaven is your spiritual Father.
(Any church that requires you to call their priests “Father” is obviously not the one)

1Corinthians 9:5
Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a wife, as the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?
1Timothy 3:2
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife,
(Any church that does not allow it's priests or bishops to marry is obviously not the one)

Philippians 4:5
Let your gentleness be known to all men
(Are they known for their gentleness? If not, they are not the one)

Proverbs 27:2
Let another man praise you, and not your own mouth; A stranger, and not your own lips.
(What does the world say about them? Or are they the ones praising themselves)

Revelation 02:10
Do not fear any of those things which you are about to suffer. Indeed, the devil is about to throw [some] of you into prison, that you may be tested, and you will have tribulation ten days. Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life.
Romans 12:17
Repay no one evil for evil
1Peter 2:20
But when you do good and suffer, if you take it patiently, this [is] commendable before God.
(Are they prepared to die for their faith, or are they prepared to kill for their faith)

2Corinthians 5:5-7
God, who also has given us the Spirit as a guarantee.
So [we are] always confident, knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord.
For we walk by faith, not by sight.
(Do they believe the guarantee or do they need idols to walk by sight?)

2Corinthians 06:16-17
And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God. As God has said: "I will dwell in them And walk among [them]. I will be their God, And they shall be My people."
Therefore "Come out from among them And be separate, says the Lord.
(Does the church have idols? If so, they are obviously not the church of God)

Acts 17:29-30
Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man's devising.
Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent,
(The days of ignorance were already over, no longer would it be acceptable to need idols to walk by sight. The real church has no idols. Most churches think Jesus is God and they hang a tortured figure of him everywhere.)

Matthew 10:8
Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out demons. You received without paying, give without pay.
(Do they get paid for their spiritual work?)
(Worse still do they ask the people they preach to for payment?)

1Corinthians 9:18
That in my preaching I may present the gospel free of charge,
2Corinthians 11:7
Did I commit sin in humbling myself that you might be exalted, because I preached the gospel of God to you free of charge?

Micah 3:11
Her heads judge for a bribe, Her priests teach for pay, And her prophets divine for money. Yet they lean on the LORD, and say, "Is not the LORD among us? No harm can come upon us."
(Did they collect money to get you to heaven?)
(Do the priests get paid to teach?)
(Do they claim they are God's church)

I could go on for days. It is easy to see if the church you are looking at meets ANY requirements of God.

So, should you believe them if they say Peter is the rock? Should you believe them if they say Peter handed the keys down to them? There is a huge gap between Peter and the founding fathers of Roman infiltrated churches so there is no way anyone can claim such a thing anyway.

BUT, by their action you will know if they are children of God, or children of the Devil, therefore, you will know if they are the church of God, or the church of the Devil.

sndbay

Jan 15, 2010, 06:23 AM

In order to gain power and prestige and lord it over people, some churches claim that Peter was the rock that Jesus built his church on when he said upon “THIS” rock I will build my church.

Newton, I trust Peter was what his name signified, because in the time frame taking place then, names of the bible were given to signify their integrity. It indicates they never fall back from this interpreted meaning.

As Christ means "anointed"
As Peter means "rock"
As Jabez means "sorrow"
(the list goes on and on)

So Peter was as his name indicates, unyeilding rock or stone, and from what scripture has written, Peter was shown spiritually signified unyeilding in his love for Christ Jesus. (John 21:15-16-17) This love for Christ was what Peter was told to feed the sheep.

However, that does not mean that any denomination can claim to be of Peter (nor should they desire this of heart), or take on what was spiritually witnessed and written in scripture concerning Peter.

Furthermore, in full assurance, Peter was never the corner stone of the church foundation. There are many others who are named Peter in the scripture, and none of them are "THE ROCK" written of in 1 Corinthinas 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

Any denomination that would say they drink of Peter would have left their first love "Christ Jesus"

~Confessed faith in the begotten Son of God, Jesus Christ

I Newton

Jan 15, 2010, 07:00 PM

I think that's a pretty fair point sndbay

arcura

Jan 15, 2010, 09:56 PM

I Newton,
Well over 1 billion Christians believe that Jesus established The Church and appointed Peter as its first leader.
They have the right to believe as the wish just as you do.
So PLEASE do not use your belief as a means to bash the several denominations that believe the Peter was the fist leader of The Church just as the bible clearly says.
Thanks,
Fred

I Newton

Jan 16, 2010, 05:49 AM

I can only state what the Bible says and can only answer people's questions from the Bible.

I cannot comment on what churches teach their followers.

The number of people that believe something means nothing when it comes to what is real.

Quantity is not proof.

The proof is in the pudding; what does the actions of their church say about the origins of their church?

It is very simple.

sndbay

Jan 16, 2010, 06:32 AM

I Newton,
Well over 1 billion Christians believe that Jesus established The Church and appointed Peter as its first leader.
Fred

Fred, The question I would have in this statement that Peter is the first leader, is whether you are in belief that Christ is the Master. You must know that Peter did call Christ, Master.

I believe Christ is the Master, and would be called leader. (Matthew 23:10) From what scripture says Christ is the Master and all other are brethren. (Matthew 23:8)

Master is the greatest of all commands of the law! Because it holds true to love for God above all, and is the first commandment. (Matthew22:36)

Peter being one of the 12 disciples, he is among brethren that follow Christ.
Luke 6:40 The disciple is not above his master: but every one that is perfect shall be as his master.

And scripture says those that are perfect, or sanctified meet with what Our Master can use. This goes with following righteousness. And Fred, you with Wondergirl have said you do not believe any are righteous, and that all men are sinners.

Scripture showing that Christ our Master can not use sinners.
2 Timothy 2:21 If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work.

I trust nothing on this earth of man other then Christ can be considered our Master or leader. Peter himself was told to feed the Master's sheep. And we follow Christ, He has the led!

Matthew 20:16 So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.

arcura

Jan 17, 2010, 12:30 AM

I firmly believe what the bible says about Peter being appointed the first leader of what Jesus called "My Church".
If you do not that's sad.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

sndbay

Jan 17, 2010, 06:14 AM

I firmly believe what the bible says about Peter being appointed the first leader of what Jesus called "My Church".
If you do not that's sad.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I firmly believe we are to follow Christ, and there is no sadness in doing so.
Jesus said in (John 10:7) Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

And Christ said His sheep hear His voice. There is no other way then to follow Christ as HE is the leader and Master.

John 10:1 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.

The One body and One spirit is what we as members are called to in One hope. Christ dwells in us, the Holy Spirit is with us.

We are not called to follow Peter, but we should follow Christ as Peter did. The truth is what Peter would feed the sheep. The sheep hear Christ' voice. The Spiritual Truth that came to us in the flesh, the Word of God.

~in Christ

JoeT777

Jan 17, 2010, 04:04 PM

I firmly believe what the bible says about Peter being appointed the first leader of what Jesus called "My Church".
If you do not that's sad.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

It seems that all of Matthew is dedicated to telling the story of how a ‘Church’ was started. In fact this wouldn’t be quite right. All of Matthew is telling how authority of ‘old Church’ is transferred to the new Church. It’s a story told much like the movie the Dirty Dozen.

In Matthew we are told who was selected to become ‘Princes’ of this new Church; how the ‘Twelve’ learned by Christ’s example; how the Twelve went out into the community to train under Christ’s tutelage; when they were commissioned; what they were commissioned to do. Mark and Luke are more historical in this regard. While not as explicit as Matthew these Gospels seem to reinforce the ‘formation’ of the Church in a witness format. John seems to add a spiritual element in the quartette, lets us know that Christ isn’t GONE; Yet a little while and the world sees me no more. But you see me: because I live, and you shall live. (John 14:19) He’s present every day in the Eucharist.

JoeT

arcura

Jan 17, 2010, 10:36 PM

sndbay,
Yes, I do follow Christ every way that I can and being a member of His established Church is one of the important way.
Joe's post is right on the button about this.
Please and kindness,
Fred

sndbay

Jan 18, 2010, 07:32 AM

sndbay,
Yes, I do follow Christ every way that I can and being a member of His established Church is one of the important way.
Joe's post is right on the button about this.
Please and kindness,
Fred

And what I believe by following Christ, is that Christians can be unity unto One Faith. It is one of the seven written vocations in the book of Ephesians that surround Christ Jesus in spiritual perfection.

This is not achieved just because someone is a member of a certain denomination, that came to be a member with one church following each other as members. (The Disciple Peter was a member that followed Christ the Master, and proclaimed that christians follow Christ.)
This is achieved by being a member of the ONE Body, ONE Spirit, ONE Hope, ONE Lord, ONE Faith, ONE Baptism, ONE God and Father.

The One Body that Christ was on earth
The One Spirit that is the spoken Word of God by the Holy Spirit
The One Hope that Christ brought to us
The One Lord that Christ is of the soul
The One Faith that is confessed in begotten Son of God
The One Baptism that buries us with Christ
The One God and Father that Christ was raised to sits on the right hand

I trust in the Spirit of Truth written that says until each of us can be unity in knowledge of the Son of God unto a perfect man, do we achieve the measure of stature in the fullness of Christ.

I do not believe in gathering with sinners or sinning, because Christ brought division between righteousness and evil. Do NOT entangled again with the yoke of bondage with sin and satan is written in (Gal 5:1)

Instead we are to yoke ourselves with Christ. Christ's body and blood brought us righteousness, and faith unto the perfect man. And that perfect man follows Christ in the light of righteousness having the spirit. Dead, Buried and Raised with Christ as one with Christ. Then we are one with Christ just as Christ was One with the Father. (John 17:9-10-11) Christ did pray for us that are not of this world, just as He was not of this world. (John 17:13-14-15)

In (John 8:23-24) it is written how those that sin are from beneath. They that don't follow Christ, they that follow man as the Jews did in following the Pharisees.

Refer:

John 17:14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

Eph 4:13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ

~child of God

JoeT777

Jan 18, 2010, 06:28 PM

…This is achieved by being a member of the ONE Body, ONE Spirit, ONE Hope, ONE Lord, ONE Faith, ONE Baptism, ONE God and Father.

The One Body that Christ was on earth
The One Spirit that is the spoken Word of God by the Holy Spirit
The One Hope that Christ brought to us
The One Lord that Christ is of the soul
The One Faith that is confessed in begotten Son of God
The One Baptism that buries us with Christ
The One God and Father that Christ was raised to sits on the right hand

Haven't you just said , ”Careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4 One body and one Spirit: as you are called in one hope of your calling. 5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism. 6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all,” i.e. ONE CHURCH? (Eph 4:3-6.)

Shouldn't your list of One-ness simply be 'One Church' i.e.

1. One body
2. One Spirit
3. One hope in
4. One Lord
5. One faith
6. One baptism
7. One Father above all, through all, in us all

How do we explain these without 'Church'?

JoeT

sndbay

Jan 19, 2010, 07:41 AM

how do we explain these without 'Church'?

JoeT

The church are members, a gathering of people. Each are giving the vocations to follow. (vocations means divine invitation to embrace salvation of God)

Acts 14:27 And when they were come, and had gathered the church together, they rehearsed all that God had done with them, and how HE had opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles.

Glory is shown to God for opening the door of One Faith, and it is the members that gather to follow, and confess their belief in the begotten Son of God. (Acts 19:18)

John 5:15 The man departed, and told the Jews that it was Jesus, which had made him whole.

The vocations surrounding Christ in spiritual perfection can makes us whole (metaph. teaching which does not deviate from the truth).

Mark 5:34 And he said unto her, Daughter, thy faith hath made thee whole; go in peace, and be whole of thy plague.

450donn

Jan 19, 2010, 08:43 AM

And what I believe by following Christ, is that Christians can be unity unto One Faith. I

So by saying this are you saying that ALL churches other than your brand are false? Or are they simply irrelevant because yours is the ONLY true religion?

JoeT777

Jan 19, 2010, 11:56 AM

The church is members, a gathering of people. Each is given the vocations as follows. (Vocations means divine invitation to embrace salvation of God)

Acts 14:27 And when they were come, and had gathered the church together , they rehearsed all that God had done with them, and how HE had opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles.

Glory is shown to God for opening the door of One Faith, and it is the members that gather to follow, and confess their belief in the begotten Son of God. (Acts 19:18)

This doesn't make much sense to me. A vocation doesn't make a 'Church'. Acts 14 tells us that they had arrived in Antioch and there they 'assembled the Church'. That is an organization that keeps the unity of the Spirit in Christ, “One body and one Spirit: as you are called in one hope of your calling. One Lord, one faith, one baptism to One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all.” I call this ONE CHURCH, what do you think? If we find ourselves in 'unity with Christ' then we accept One, Holy, Universal, and Apostolic Faith in Christ - that's a given, it's like the New York Yankees saying they are part of the St. Louis Cardinal team because they play baseball - it don't work that way, dem Yankee boys don't even speak English. . How are you ONE if each has his own idea of what ONE means, what HOLY, means, what CATHOLIC means, and what APOSTOLIC teachings means. This isn't ONE; it's the anarchy of 'the one is me'.

A Christ centered vocation is described as a special gift (grace) in the Church of Jesus Christ. "Vocation is an affection, an inward force which makes a man feel impelled to enter the religious state, or some other state of life" (Lessius, De statu vitæ deligendo, n. 56). This may be as simple as entering into marriage or answering the call to a religious vocation. A vocation is to accept a state of life received from a Divine source. Unfortunate for our idea of 'Church' as a body of those with vocations is that vocations may be part of a Divine plan to bring the individuals outside the KIngdom of God to Christ through lifes pursuits.

John 5:15 The man departed, and told the Jews that it was Jesus, which had made him whole.

The vocations surrounding Christ in spiritual perfection can make us whole (metaph. Teaching which does not deviate from the truth).

Mark 5:34 And he said unto her, Daughter, thy faith hath made thee whole; go in peace, and be whole of thy plague.

John 5:15 doesn't deal with vocations; rather it deals with Christ's healing. Christ makes the man 'whole', he's told to get up and take his bed with him. The significance here is two fold. One is that it was the Sabbath and was forbidden to do work which raised a controvertible issue of Law – that is to carry his bed. The second occurs later when vesting the Temple (i.e. Church) the man finds Christ, unperturbed by the criticism from the Pharisees he comes to understand who Christ was and the power that was in Christ. Christ didn't say, 'take up your bed and get yourself a vocation' nor did he chastise him for attending 'Church'. Christ sent the man on his way warning him not to sin or worse would happen to him – obviously a reference to losing salvation.

So, how are we made whole with multiple bodies, different Spirits, different hopes in, differing Lords, having multiple faiths, multiple baptisms, and One Father above all, through all, in us all?

JoeT

JoeT777

Jan 19, 2010, 12:18 PM

So by saying this are you saying that ALL churches other than your brand are false? Or are they simply irrelevant because yours is the ONLY true religion?

I have a hunch that SndBay would answer this much differently. For me however, in reference to the ONLY true religion, I'd give you an enthusiastic yes.

JoeT

sndbay

Jan 19, 2010, 12:40 PM

So by saying this are you saying that ALL churches other than your brand are false? No, If you mean by brand (denomination). And please understand I do not adhere to any denomination because, denominations are what man has formed and origanized. What is more important is whether the church organization follows the Christian Faith. No matter what denomination, it would need to be one of Christian Faith for me to consider attending.

Or are they simply irrelevant because yours is the ONLY true religion?

The non-denominational church of Christian Faith is considered a gathering of people adhered to the Word of God, and confessed ONE Faith in the begotten Son of God Christ Jesus

450donn,
Like Jesus said, He came not to bring peace but division. (Luke 12:51). The division was between righteousness and evil. I am not willing to judge people, but do discern between right and wrong. What I answer to is walking worthy of the vocation wherewith we were called (Eph 4:1) Giving diligence in keeping unity with the Holy Spirit that bonds and leads me in peace, love, and righteousness.

Review (Eph 4:7-13)
Every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ. Some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ

Many do not believe what is written, but I do not judge them, but edify with truth that which is written in the Word of God

Review (Eph 4:23-24)
We are to be renewed in the spirit of our mind; And put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

~in Christ

sndbay

Jan 19, 2010, 01:01 PM

A Christ centered vocation is described as a special gift (grace) in the Church of Jesus Christ. "Vocation is an affection, an inward force which makes a man feel impelled to enter the religious state, or some other state of life"

Eph 4:1I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called,

A calling, the divine invitation to embrace salvation of God. Giving diligence in keeping unity with the Holy Spirit that bonds and leads in peace, love, and righteousness.

Mark 5:34 And he said unto her, Daughter, thy faith hath made thee whole; go in peace, and be whole of thy plague.

It was Faith that made possible the man to walk. And the glory unto to God!
As it also is shown that Christ did the work of HIS Father. Christ walked diligence in keeping unity with the Holy Spirit as "One"

JoeT777

Jan 19, 2010, 08:04 PM

Eph 4:1I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called,

A calling, the divine invitation to embrace salvation of God. Giving diligence in keeping unity with the Holy Spirit that bonds and leads in peace, love, and righteousness.

Mark 5:34 And he said unto her, Daughter, thy faith hath made thee whole; go in peace, and be whole of thy plague.

It was Faith that made possible the man to walk. And the glory unto to God!
As it also is shown that Christ did the work of HIS Father. Christ walked diligence in keeping unity with the Holy Spirit as "One"

SndBay:

You're playing dodge ball. Church doesn't mean vocation, Church doesn't mean 'can't we just all get along', Church doesn't mean One Church is as good as another. How do we walk in God's glory bifurcated? Doesn't One-ness simply mean 'One Church' i.e.

1. One body
2. One Spirit
3. One hope in
4. One Lord
5. One faith
6. One baptism
7. One Father above all, through all, in us all?

If not why not? How do you not have One-ness with these? How do you have One-ness with these and a bifurcated Church, a bifurcated faith? How do we explain these without 'Church'?

Step up to the plate...

JoeT

arcura

Jan 19, 2010, 11:09 PM

I'm still interested in everyone's thought on why Jesus established what He called "My Church"
Peace and kindness,
Fred

sndbay

Jan 20, 2010, 07:08 AM

Doesn't One-ness simply mean 'One Church' i.e.,

The church is a gathering of members, if they are consider one-ness in the communed gathering, it is that they each hold stedfast as Christian saints.
(1 Corinthians 1:2)

They believe in Christ Jesus as they are called by
1. One body
2. One Spirit
3. One hope
4. One Lord
5. One Faith
6. One Baptism
7. One Father above all, through all, and in us all

Christ dwells within.

How do we explain these without 'Church'?

Step up to the plate....

JoeT

By each member gathering to commune, does not mean that the individual is disconnected from Christ when they are not gathered.

Christ Body remains within each, Christ dwells within each member and each are gifted in accordance to God's will.(do not deny the Holy Spirit)

(in no way is Christ a material ascent on the outside that surround us)

Eph 1:22-23 And hath put all things under HIS feet, and gave HIM to be the head over all things to the church, Which is HIS body, the fulness of HIM that filleth all in all.

~in Christ

sndbay

Jan 20, 2010, 07:22 AM

I'm still interested in everyone's thought on why Jesus established what He called "My Church"
Peace and kindness,
Fred

To commune in a gathering of love, peace and righteousness.

Maggie 3

Jan 20, 2010, 11:40 AM

The early church came about so the people could fellowship together,
Sharing with one another the things of the kingdom and the things
Of God. They loved God and wanted a relationship with Him and
God also wanted a relationship with them. Joshua 1:8 " This book of the
law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein
day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is
written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and
then thou shalt have good success." They wanted to be successful
And prosperous so by being steadfastly committed to the Word of
God it would come about. There strength comes from interlocking
Their roots in fellowship and a relationship with God. Exodus 36
Paints a picture of the tabernacle being constructrd in biblical
Numerology terms. This is a also a picture of the building of God's
People in the church. It's a good study, but later maybe.

Love and Blessings, Maggie

arcura

Jan 20, 2010, 07:52 PM

Yes, The Church is a place of fellowship.
It is also a place of unity, prayer, worship, and learning.
We must remember that the first church members were recruited by the apostles and disciples of Jesus who lead, taught, and served them.
That is what The Church is supposed to do yet today.
Peace ans kindness,
Fred

sndbay

Jan 21, 2010, 02:28 PM

We must remember that the first church members were recruited by the apostles and disciples of Jesus who lead, taught, and served them.

Fred, are you saying they were not led by the Holy Spirit?(Mark 8:8 Having eyes, see ye not? And having ears, hear ye not? And do ye not remember?)

2 Corinthians 10:17-18 But he that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord. For not he that commendeth himself is approved, but whom the Lord commendeth.

Christ is the Way: (John 10:9 I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture)

John 10:3 To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and He calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out. 10:4 And when He putteth forth His own sheep, He goeth before them, and the sheep follow Him: for they know His voice.

Luke 13:23-24 Then said one unto him, Lord, are there few that be saved? And he said unto them, Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter, and shall not be able.

John 10:2 But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep.

~in Christ

arcura

Jan 21, 2010, 11:12 PM

arcura

Jan 21, 2010, 11:13 PM

paraclete

Jan 22, 2010, 01:08 AM

sndbay,
NO!
I am saying no such thing. I am lead by God who is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and His Church which the bible tells us is the bride of Christ and lead and inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Please do not try to put your words in what I post.
Thank you,
Fred

Well done Fred I didn't think it was possible to post a duplicate around here

sndbay

Jan 22, 2010, 03:27 PM

sndbay,
NO!
I am saying no such thing. I am lead by God who is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and His Church which the bible tells us is the bride of Christ and lead and inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Scripture speak of new Jerusalem, the holy city prepared as the bride.

Revel 21:2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

Revel: 21:9 And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife.

Revel 21:10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,

The bride is detailed in the book of Revelation chapter 21. And when the bride is shown scripture clearly speak of no temple,
Revel 21:22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.

And review nothing will enter in that worketh abomination or that lies.

Revel 21:27 And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.

Please do not try to put your words in what I post.
Thank you,
Fred

I rebuke with scripture speaking the Word of God. The word is a straight plummet with the eyes of the Lord, which run to and fro through the whole earth.

Christ walks to lead HIS sheep and they follow HIM.(John 10:4)

1 John 2:5-6 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him. He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.

arcura

Jan 22, 2010, 08:32 PM

sndbay,
You asked this question. The words are not from scripture.
"Fred, are you saying they were not led by the Holy Spirit?"
My answer was an emphatic NO!!
And I explained why.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

JoeT777

Jan 23, 2010, 07:07 AM

The church is a gathering of members, if they are consider one-ness in the communed gathering, it is that they each hold steadfast as Christian saints.
(1 Corinthians 1:2)

They believe in Christ Jesus as they are called by
1. One body
2. One Spirit
3. One hope
4. One Lord
5. One Faith
6. One Baptism
7. One Father above all, through all, and in us all

That's not a good answerer. You and your bunch gather over there, me and mine gather over here. How is that One? The Spirit tells your bunch one thing, mine another how is that One Spirit? You and yours have hope, me and mine have hope, how is that One hope?

I don't buy it. (Come to think of it, if you accept this disunity and I don't, how is that One?)

JoeT

sndbay

Jan 23, 2010, 07:13 AM

sndbay,
You asked this question. The words are not from scripture.
"Fred, are you saying they were not led by the Holy Spirit?"
My answer was an emphatic NO!!!.
And I explained why.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Fred you posted the following Quote, saying you are led by God, (Father Son, Holy Spirit), AND (HIS Church). So in truth you are not only led by the Holy Spirit, but also include being led by members that commune togther in HIS Church.

Reference your post

sndbay,
NO!
I am saying no such thing. I am lead by God who is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and His Church which the bible tells us is the bride of Christ and lead and inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Please do not try to put your words in what I post.
Thank you,
Fred

This post, also says that HIS Church is the bride of Christ. That statement is Not true according to scripture, the Word of God. I offered and posted scripture in proof for the edifying in Christ. This is to help you Fred, not to offend you in any method. I speak truth and offered you scripture in the Word of God.

Yes, The Church is a place of fellowship.
It is also a place of unity, prayer, worship, and learning.
We must remember that the first church members were recruited by the apostles and disciples of Jesus who lead, taught, and served them.
That is what The Church is supposed to do yet today.
Peace ans kindness,
Fred

Further more you posted [above] that the (first church) who are members, were recruited and led by the apostles and disciples and served the members. I can offer scripture that quotes the apostles saying they too like us who are in Christ, are led by the Spirit. They too followed Christ, and not man. HIS Church is not led by man's doctrine, but is led by the Spirit of Truth in the Word of God. We as members serve the Lord Jesus Christ who is the firstborn of the church.

We Love God above all things, and never leave our first love by following any other, but in one man the Lord Jesus Christ, the begotten Son of God who was sent to led the Way. The church is that of the firstborn Christ Jesus(Romans 8:29)

John 13:16 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him.

This following scripture verse is speak of anyone thinking they can be the bread of life or that they can give the bread of life. Christ alone is bread of life.

John 13:18 I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me.

We are the branches in Christ who is the viine. The vine feeds the branches. The Father in heaven will take away and He will also give to those that are fruitful. In all and through all it is God our Father the Divine Power in control. .

John 15:2 Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.

~Sincerely given in love, God's grace be with you

sndbay

Jan 23, 2010, 07:19 AM

I don't buy it. (Come to think of it, if you accept this disunity and I don't, how is that One?)

JoeT

There is only ONE! That is why we must stay awake to follow ONE!

Who do you follow?

John 15:4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.

~in Christ

galveston

Jan 23, 2010, 08:35 AM

Just a thought:

If Peter was the rock that the Church was established on, then the Church belongs to Peter, not Christ.

sndbay

Jan 23, 2010, 10:48 AM

Just a thought:

If Peter was the rock that the Church was established on, then the Church belongs to Peter, not Christ.

Matthew 16:6 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Review:2 Peter 1:16-18-19 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.

The rock that Peter confessed was in Christ Jesus. Peter had just confessed "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God"
Christ then said My Father has revealed this unto you Peter.

Christ continue in say to Peter, upon this rock, what rock? The rock Peter had just confessed. The firstborn church Christ Jesus.

Isaiah 28:16 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.

2 Peter 1:1-2-3-4 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ: Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord, According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that [pertain] unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

The church of the firstborn (Romans 8:29)](firstborn tranlation from prōtotokos in Christ)As members we are begotten again, (1 Peter 1:3) begotten again of Christ Jesus who was the firstborn.

Hebrew 12:23-24 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

The church of the firstborn, is the church of Christ Jesus.

sndbay

Jan 23, 2010, 01:40 PM

It seems to me that there may be several reasons why Jesus established The Church.
Peace and kindness:),
Fred

This might be to difficult to understand because many on this forum speak against the knowledge concerning the new nature or new man which walks in righteousness. The divine nature that no longer under the law of sin, because he or she walks having the spirit, and able to fulfil the law. It is written: (Romans 8:1-2)

The church of Christ Jesus the firstborn, was established as (2 Peter 2:4) says to grant that each member might be gifted in accordance to God's divine power.

To those that obtain the precious ONE Faith as the apostle and disciples did, through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ. We might be partakers of the divine nature, because we have escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. The apostles were called just as we are called by the Word of God Christ Jesus, to follow.

As we follow the Word of God Christ Jesus, we grow in this divine nature that follows righteousness, because the divine power gives all diligence, adding to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity. (2 Peter 1:5-6-7)

Results in following and in answering HIS call, we are begotten again of Christ Jesus and fruitful in knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

2 Peter 1:9 But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.

We needed the branch of righteousness, that was promised, we had to have Christ Jesus because we were all dead in our sins, and beguiled by satan. Christ has set us free from the curse. We have liberty but should not take the liberty in a manner which places ourselved in bondage again. Instead walk having the spirit, For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. (Romans 8:14)

1 Peter 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead

Not dead, We live in Christ, able to be raised as He was raised.

Eph 4:24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

arcura

Jan 24, 2010, 12:04 AM

galveston,
Not so.
The Church was established here on earth with Peter as the first leader of what Jesus called "MY CHURCH".
So it is His established to serve US.
So the bible say, so I believe.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

arcura

Jan 24, 2010, 12:05 AM

galveston,
Not so.
The Church was established here on earth with Peter as the first leader of what Jesus called "MY CHURCH".
So it is His established to serve US.
So the bible says, so I believe.
:)Peace and kindness,:)
Fred

sndbay

Jan 24, 2010, 06:43 AM

Paul teaches that the church of members is the Father in Heaven's House.
(The House of God)

Christ is the High Priest over the house of members.
Christ is the Shepherd and Bishop of our souls.

Hebrews 3:1 Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;

Hebrew 3:2 Who was faithful to Him that appointed Him, as also Moses was faithful in all His house.

Hebrew 3:3 For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as HE who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house.

Christ examples and idenifies Himself as a man that follows HIS Father in Heaven as the begotten Son of God. Christ being the firstborn(begotten of God) and the members that follow in Christ are begotten again of Christ.
(1 Peter 1:3)

Hebrews 3:4 For every house is builded by some man; but HE that built all things is God.

arcura

Jan 24, 2010, 10:51 PM

sndbay,
I agree, but that does not change the fact that Jesus established HIS Church on earth with Peter as it's first leader.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

sndbay

Jan 25, 2010, 05:10 AM

sndbay,
I agree, but that does not change the fact that Jesus established HIS Church on earth with Peter as it's first leader.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Decisions Decisons that is your's and mine is different

I boast not of Peter, but I boast of Faith (Romans 3:27)

The House of God belongs to our Father, Christ as man was the firstborn, the begotten Son of God. And Peter was begotten again of Christ. We desire to be begotten again of Christ raised from being buried in baptism with Christ.

Christ is who I follow.

1 Peter 1:3-4-5 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

arcura

Jan 25, 2010, 08:14 PM

sndbay,
Just because I believe what the bible says about Peter and Jesus does NOT change the fact that I believe in faith and boast faith.
Nor the fact that I am begotten again of Christ Jesus.
Those are first and foremost to me.
It is also what I became a member of The Church established by Jesus because The Church also believes, lives, and teaches that.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

JoeT777

Jan 29, 2010, 11:55 AM

Just a thought:

If Peter was the rock that the Church was established on, then the Church belongs to Peter, not Christ.

Galveston, et al:

I get a little laugh out of this logic. Hopefully I can show why. I've been to 'grand openings' and building dedications almost my entire professional life. At the commemoration of the building all the Suits, architects, engineers, other technical people who took the dream of the owner – founder – and made it happen would be there. They stand around patting themselves on the back for the great job they did – and they did. They'll tell little stories how this one did something funny or stupid and all will have a great laugh – or they might argue over how it would have been better to raise a 30th floor over the south wing – another form of self-congratulating ejaculation. These same people, who you might say, 'made' it all possible, laud themselves. After all, whether owner had the wherewithal to do plan the building or construct the building, it was these Suits that made it all possible – after all, standing before them is the evidence in living brick and mortar of their wherewithal. But at the commemoration of the building what name is the building given? 10-years from now how will the building be known? How about 100-years from now? Do you know the name of the architect or engineer of the Chrysler building? His name is William Van Alen; why isn't the building known as the William Van Alen buildings? Or why don't we call it the “Joe-smart engineered building”, or how about the 'Joe the Contractor's building.'

In zeal to 'disprove' the Catholic claim of being the One and only One True Church of Jesus Christ this is what you're proposing. Let's call the Church Luther's Church, how about John's-main-Man Church or the Pilgrim's Church. A gloss of the New Testament is very clear, this is an ages old custom of naming buildings and organization after the founder - no matter where or who actually built the organization – the 'hired' help aren't the important people at the commemoration ceremony or in knowing the building - it's the founder that made it all possible. This is the same simple sense that's being conveyed when Christ says “That you are Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Christ 'the founder' is the cause of the CHURCH of JESUS which was built on Peter.

Thanks for the chuckle.

JoeT

galveston

Jan 29, 2010, 04:28 PM

When the Roman Catholic church starts to lead their people into being filled with the Holy Spirit, heal the sick, cast out devils, and produce disciples that live holy lives, then I will consider its' claim of being the Church that Jesus founded.

So far, I haven't seen any of that going on.

I don't think it is unreasonable to ask for credentials from any group that claims to be the Church.

I say the same about a lot of other denominations, so don't think I have singled out the Catholic church.

arcura

Jan 29, 2010, 11:05 PM

sndbay

Jan 30, 2010, 04:44 AM

I say the same about a lot of other denominations, so don't think I have singled out the Catholic church.

You have that right from what I trust as true according to the Word of God.

I do not judge the people(members) but by discernment of each denomination, and their teaching. Many members are asleep as scripture would say. They have fallen for lies, and are listening to the voice of man.

The Spirit of Truth spoken in the Word of God tells us Christ died to free us from sin. Yet most denominations teach their members, they are sinners. The death Christ suffered, is that we are washed of our sins, dead with Christ from sin. Confessed faith in Christ Jesus for what He has done, trusting we are no longer sinners, but children of God. Baptized to be buried with Christ, able to raise as Christ was raised. Right here and now, adopted by Our Father in Heaven, begotten again unto Christ Jesus. A good conscience toward God to do HIS will on earth as it is in heaven. Walking in the spirit with Christ Jesus. (Romans 8:1 Roman 8:4 Gal 5:16 Gal 5:24)

That is why we commune together in remembrance of Christ's body and bread. Rejoicing of HIS worthiness to set us free. (1 Corinthians 11:24-25)

Communion should not be done as a sinner that can continue to sin daily, and find rest on one day of the week. Nor is it said to crucify Christ over and over again.(Hebrews 6:6) This is the very reason people are sick in this world, because they commune not knowing the truth of Christ body and blood.
(1 Corinthians 11:29-30)

And too, those who pray to any other then Our Father in Heaven. We are told to always pray and worship in the Spirit of Christ Jesus to the Father. Why would you NOT understand this and choose to be blinded by men's doctrine.

Repent and follow Christ Jesus, hear HIS voice.

~in Christ

arcura

Jan 30, 2010, 07:30 AM

sndbay,
The Catholic Church prays only to God, but it does ask the saints to also pray. Just as you may ask a friend or relative to pray for you.
The Catholic faith is totally based on Holy Scripture and those who claim otherwise have always failed to prove that.
I know that for a fact for I was for many years a Protestant trying to prove it and I failed.
Therefore I became a Catholic.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

sndbay

Jan 30, 2010, 01:09 PM

sndbay,
The Catholic Church prays only to God, but it does ask the saints to also pray. Just as you may ask a friend or relative to pray for you.,
Fred

Fred, I have many Catholic members who have confirmed that they pray to the saints for help. One example would be they pray to a certain saint for lost items.. ect

Supplication and worships for saints is not meant in praying to them or to make request to them.

Take for example when Paul said in (Eph 6:18 Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints) Paul was talking about praying for the saints that follow Christ in teaching the gospel, servants of God here on earth who are prosecuted.
Example: Acts 9:13 Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem

So Fred I would rebuke the prayer to saint, and edify in the name of Christ Jesus. We are to pray in the spirit of our Lord Jesus to the Father in Heaven. We have the liberty to do so in the spirit.

~in Christ

galveston

Jan 30, 2010, 01:59 PM

Let's look at the question of holy living.

I know that I have read on these threads that at least some Catholics (and others as well) do NOT believe that it is possible to live without sinning every day.

I don't know about Catholic teaching on this point, but there are some groups that actually tell their people that you cannot know whether you are saved or not until you leave this life.

If you do NOT know you are saved, then you are NOT. Salvation is received by faith, so if you do not believe you are saved, how can you be?

Proponents of this idea like this passage:

Rom 7:11-23
11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.
12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.
14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
24. O wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
25. I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
(KJV)

They use this to say that Paul had a sin problem. They ignore the verses that follow immediately:

Rom 8:1
1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
(KJV)

Paul tells us that he does not walk after the flesh, so he does not have a sin problem.

God expects us believers to walk after the Spirit.

galveston

Jan 30, 2010, 02:04 PM

arcura

Jan 30, 2010, 04:46 PM

sndbay ,
I said that we Catholics ask saints to pray for us just as you might ask someone to pray for you.
Perhaps you didn't know that the ward pray means ask and ask means pray.
There is NOTHING wrong with asking others to pray for us.
galveston,
There are a lot of people who think that they know they are saved who will be surprised. Know-so belief is misleading.
If you do not forgive others you will not be forgiven and if not forgiven you WILL NOT be saved.
So Jesus says, so I believe.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

sndbay

Jan 31, 2010, 05:26 AM

sndbay ,
I said that we Catholics ask saints to pray for us just as you might ask someone to pray for you.

Fred

Perhaps you did not read my post. I have been told by other Catholics that they do indeed pray to the saints.

The doctrine of man have taught, that St. Anthony was a perfect imitator of Jesus. That he was given the power to help find items that are lost. And in addition to that, they pray in hope to this saint, that he prevents the lost of the salvation.

This is false teaching!

This false teaching is not written in the Word of God. No scripture interpretation tells us that we pray to saints no longer in the flesh. Nor do we ask those that are deceased to help us in being saved from lossing salvation.

If you care to suggest differently, then I would expect scripture to back it up.

We obvious disagree where this teaching is concerned, and I leave the disagree in discernment for what I will be accountable.

~in Christ

arcura

Jan 31, 2010, 07:31 AM

sndbay,
Sorry, but I did read your post but apparently you read only the part of mine that you quoted.
The Catholic teaching on this IS Scripture based.
If I asked you as a Christian and therefore a saint to pray for me would you refuse?
The ask is to pray. To Pray is to ask.
Please try to understand that simple truth.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

sndbay

Jan 31, 2010, 09:24 AM

sndbay,

If I asked you as a Christian and therefore a saint to pray for me would you refuse?
The ask is to pray. To Pray is to ask.

Fred

No Fred I would not refuse your request to me, because I am at the present time here, and not deceased from the flesh.

However do you ask in prayer to St. Anthony who is deceased from the flesh to help you? Do you believe St Anthony is a perfect imitator of Jesus, that can help keep you from being a lost soul?

Please reference the Word of God in your answers.

Do we disagree in our answers?

~in Christ

galveston

Jan 31, 2010, 03:50 PM

JoeT,
You got that very well right.
galveston,
Study some history please.
The Catholic Church is lead by the Holy Spirit and thus inspired promulgated the Holy Bible for the world to use.
Priests of The Church have healed the sick, thousands of them over the years.
The Catholic Church is well known for casting out devils via exorcism.
AND there are many disciples of Christ in The Church who do lead holy lives.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Hope you don't mind me emphasizing your first sentence.

I think this shows a mistake common among all religions, that what happened in the past justifies us in the present. That is just not so.

God is the God of the present.

We see it in the Old Testament, in this passage applied to individuals.

Ezek 3:20
20 Again, When a righteous man doth turn from his righteousness, and commit iniquity, and I lay a stumblingblock before him, he shall die: because thou hast not given him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness which he hath done shall not be remembered; but his blood will I require at thine hand.
(KJV)

In the New Testament, applied to the individual:

John 5:14
14 Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.
(KJV)

John 8:10-11
10 When Jesus had lifted himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? Hath no man condemned thee?
11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
(KJV)

Again, in the New Testament, applied to the Pastor and his church:

Rev 2:4-5
4 Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love.
5 Remember therefore whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.
(KJV)

Notice in the context that the church at Ephesus had its doctrine right, everything was correct EXCEPT that pastor and church had LEFT the "first love", and unless they repented, Jesus would remove that candlestick.

Removal of the candlestick would mean that this church could no longer be the representative of Jesus Christ.

Many churches fall into this category.

So I ask again, are the works of Jesus being done by YOUR church (whichever one that may be) today? Yesterday just won't cut it!

PS, Fred, you are a great guy, but it is not I that have to forgive in this instance. I have not been offended or neglected, it is Jesus that has been set aside in so many of our churches, and we need to repent of that and get back to that first love for Him.

JoeT777

Jan 31, 2010, 04:02 PM

How do Catholics receive the Holy Ghost?
What makes you think it would be any different from the way non-Catholic would receive the Holy Spirit?

The Holy Spirit is the Third Person in the Holy Trinity. As such He is consubstantial (homoousion), which is to say, the same essence as God. The Catholic Church believes that the Holy Spirit offers two kinds of gifts, the sanctification for an individual, and a chrismata; an extraordinary unwarranted gift(s). These 'gifts' or graces have permanent and lasting qualities some of which include wisdom, understanding of God's revelation or truth, a spiritual prudence, fortitude, knowledge, and piety, i.e. “ fruit of the Spirit is, charity, joy, peace, patience, benignity, goodness, longanimity [patient endurance of hardship], mildness, faith, modesty, continency, chastity.” (Gal. 5:22-23). While these are normally thought of as 'supernatural' graces, they can be reflected only in our nature.

Is there any specified manner in which this happens?
No special way, some are born with such graces, some 'work' to merit such graces; some receive prayer requests for the graces of the Holy Spirit, i.e. it is the will of God whether you receive such graces.

How can you tell it has happened?

Sometimes you can't discern where or how a special gift came from. To discriminate between the gifts of the Holy Spirit and those from other spirit s(we're talking about the bad guys here) is relatively easy. If the grace or insight given conforms to the teaching Magisterium of the Church then the grace is of God. As Christ stated a house divided cannot stand – logically Third Person in the Trinity will not contradict the other Two Persons in the Trinity. Which explains why many Catholics hold the Protestant Schism in such bad light, it can't be shown as a move to 'unity' in the One True Church of Jesus Christ. Consequently, one need only look at the Church's teaching on faith and morals to discern between 'good' or 'bad'.

If these graces are 'private' in nature then we are not bound to them. For example, if you jump up and say that for the benefit of my salvation, I must recognize privately held understanding of 'Scripture' because it is of the Holy Spirit, I am not bound by those understandings. That particular insight given as a grace was meant for you alone. However, if the Holy Spirit makes it known through the Church that, as an example, Mary was Ever Virgin, then I am bound to 'conform my understanding' to that of the Church's. Notice that this doesn't mean to change my views against my good conscience, I need only conform them so that they align to the Church. If in good conscience I still can't come to the Church's understanding, then I am duty bound to be quite in public on this one subject. I can still discuss it, argue over it, or hash it out in private but a good Catholic must never substitute my own views for that of the Church. This should explain why so many times I've responded with quotes from the doctrine of the Church in response to your comments – If I'm to represent what the Church says, then I must tell you what the Church says – not what JoeT wants you to hear. If I express my personal views as different, I am bound to properly show how they contrast with the proper view of the Church. Unlike the Protestant or Evangelical disposition, Catholics do not hold that the sole rule of faith is Scriptural. And if it were, then what use do we have of the Holy Spirit? Aren't Scriptures black and white in matters of faith?

JoeT

JoeT777

Jan 31, 2010, 04:39 PM

Perhaps you did not read my post. I have been told by other Catholics that they do indeed pray to the saints.

The doctrine of man have taught, that St. Anthony was a perfect imitator of Jesus. That he was given the power to help find items that are lost. And in addition to that, they pray in hope to this saint, that he prevents the lost of the salvation.

This is false teaching!

This false teaching is not written in the Word of God. No scripture interpretation tells us that we pray to saints no longer in the flesh. Nor do we ask those that are deceased to help us in being saved from lossing salvation.

If you care to suggest differently, then I would expect scripture to back it up.

We obvious disagree where this teaching is concerned, and I leave the disagree in discernment for what I will be accountable.

~in Christ

Maybe it would be best to leave to the Catholic what Catholics believe. Catholics do not worship Saints or assign divinity to Saints. Once baptized, Catholics believe that they are of the Kingdom of God. That Kingdom extends from heaven through purgatory and across the earth – that is all of God's creation, heaven and earth is part of His Kingdom.

As I see it, one of the hardest concepts for the non-Catholic (mostly evangelical – and not all by any stretch of the imagination) is that the Kingdom of God resides here on earth in the form of the Catholic Church as well as in heaven. The Kingdom itself is all creation, heaven and earth. Dividing the Kingdom of Heaven from the Kingdom on earth presents several problems. One implies that God no longer holds dominion over the earth; another is to say that God has no dominion in the matters of mankind; yet another is that it separates us from our brothers and sisters who sleep in Christ from those that live in Christ. The Catholic Church doesn't make this distinction. It holds that the population of God's Kingdom includes those of us here on the earth, you might say marching forward; these are called the Church Militant. Those souls which are asleep and destined for heaven but with the stain of sin must become clean before entering heaven, that is purged. These are the members of the Church in purgatory we call the Church Suffering. These souls need our prayers for completion of the processes of purgation–I don't present 'purgatory' here for your contention or argument – rather a Catholic matter of fact. Then there are those whose souls who reside in heaven, which is also God's Kingdom. These members of the Kingdom we call the Church Triumphant. All are living souls, alive in Christ. Thus, we pray, or implore, or entreat, or urge, or beg those already in heaven to pray for us. This is little different than asking your neighbor to pray for you – a thing Catholics do too. While Catholics regard angels and saints as above us in rank or station, they are just as equal to us in the eyes of God as your elected public servant is above you in station, yet equal. And, like the public servant, we expect these angels and saints to, as it were, pass our petitions upward. In so doing we are united in our faith, one people seeking the mercy of God.

JoeT

Maggie 3

Jan 31, 2010, 06:06 PM

Rev. 22:18 & 19 For"I testify to everyone who hears the words of
the prophecy of this book; If anyone adds to these things, God will
add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of this book of prophecy, God shall take away
his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things
which are written in this book."

Prov. 30:5&6 " Every word of God can be trusted. He protects thoes
who come to Him for safety. Do not add to His Words. If you do, He will correct you and prove that you are a liar."

Why would anyone depart from God's Word.

Hebrews 4:12 " For the Word of God is living and powerful, and shapper than any two-edged sowrd, piercing even to the division
of the soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner
of the thoughts and intents of the heart."

Love and Blessings, Maggie 3

JoeT777

Jan 31, 2010, 09:33 PM

It seems to me that there may be several reasons why Jesus established The Church. How many reasons can you think of as to why he did?
I can think of only one reason why God established the Church. It has to do with the promises made to Abraham, Moses, and David. His plan is laid out in the sheep skin of Moses’ Tabernacle and stone of David’s Temple. The physical layout gives us clues to God’s plan, the sacrifices offered to God are returned in His Kingdom as Hope in the form of twelve Apostles.

Think about it, given the time, I think I can explain.

JoeT

arcura

Jan 31, 2010, 09:47 PM

JoeT,
Thanks for those posts. They are very well said.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

sndbay

Feb 1, 2010, 05:59 AM

The physical layout gives us clues to God's plan, the sacrifices offered to God are returned in His Kingdom as Hope in the form of twelve Apostles.

I question this Joe
Hope in the the form of twelve Apostles?

Are you in belief that the Apostiles were somehow God's hope, because they offered their service in sacrifice, and in return for God?

(The Apostles served having the Holy Spirit,(gifted to them) and they served the gospel in Christ Jesus(Romans 1:9)

The Word of God says, Hope is in the gospel that is Christ Jesus

1 Peter 1:21 Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.

When hope is found within us we then are purified, we rest in that hope which is in Christ, and HE made us pure because we are begotten again in HIM, thus even as HE is pure we became pure in HIM. (1 Peter 1:16 Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy)

1 John 3:3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as HE is pure.

~in Christ

sndbay

Feb 1, 2010, 07:37 AM

That Kingdom extends from heaven through purgatory and across the earth – that is all of God's creation, heaven and earth is part of His Kingdom.

JoeT

This is another possible thread question. Because it draws question as to where in the scripture of God's Word would this be founded. I read no where in the gospel, of thoughts concerning purgatory. (purgatory is not spoken of in God's Word, and thus was not inspired by God)

I believe in Heaven, and acknowledge we are flesh on Earth. I believe we can be raised when baptism in spiritual awareness, a good conscience toward God, and begotten again as children of God. And I believe we as children of God are one with Christ, not of this world, but likeness to a third heaven or another world as likeness to Noah's finding a place washed from raiment of the world in sin, in having white raiment.

2 Corinthians 12:2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth) such an one caught up to the third heaven.

Revel 3:18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.

John 17:9-16 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them. And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled. And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves. I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evilThey are not of the world, even as I am not of the world..

We then are sanctify, completeness in spirtual awareness, and hold stedfast in the fullness of Christ Jesus. Christ dwells within the adopt children of God who are holy because Christ is holy. His Kingdom on earth in which the veil was open for us to walk having the spirit, with liberty to come before the Father in Heaven in worship and prayer.

~in Christ

galveston

Feb 1, 2010, 10:45 AM

What makes you think it would be any different from the way non-Catholic would receive the Holy Spirit?

The Holy Spirit is the Third Person in the Holy Trinity. As such He is consubstantial (homoousion), which is to say, the same essence as God. The Catholic Church believes that the Holy Spirit offers two kinds of gifts, the sanctification for an individual, and a chrismata; an extraordinary unwarranted gift(s). These ‘gifts’ or graces have permanent and lasting qualities some of which include wisdom, understanding of God’s revelation or truth, a spiritual prudence, fortitude, knowledge, and piety, i.e., “ fruit of the Spirit is, charity, joy, peace, patience, benignity, goodness, longanimity [patient endurance of hardship], mildness, faith, modesty, continency, chastity.” (Gal. 5:22-23). While these are normally thought of as ‘supernatural’ graces, they can be reflected only in our nature.

No special way, some are born with such graces, some ‘work’ to merit such graces; some receive prayer requests for the graces of the Holy Spirit, i.e., it is the will of God whether or not you receive such graces.

Sometimes you can’t discern where or how a special gift came from. To discriminate between the gifts of the Holy Spirit and those from other spirit s(we’re talking about the bad guys here) is relatively easy. If the grace or insight given conforms to the teaching Magisterium of the Church then the grace is of God. As Christ stated a house divided cannot stand – logically Third Person in the Trinity will not contradict the other Two Persons in the Trinity. Which explains why many Catholics hold the Protestant Schism in such bad light, it can’t be shown as a move to ‘unity’ in the One True Church of Jesus Christ. Consequently, one need only look at the Church’s teaching on faith and morals to discern between ‘good’ or ‘bad’.

If these graces are ‘private’ in nature then we are not bound to them. For example, if you jump up and say that for the benefit of my salvation, I must recognize privately held understanding of ‘Scripture’ because it is of the Holy Spirit, I am not bound by those understandings. That particular insight given as a grace was meant for you alone. However, if the Holy Spirit makes it known through the Church that, as an example, Mary was Ever Virgin, then I am bound to ‘conform my understanding’ to that of the Church’s. Notice that this doesn’t mean to change my views against my good conscience, I need only conform them so that they align to the Church. If in good conscience I still can’t come to the Church’s understanding, then I am duty bound to be quite in public on this one subject. I can still discuss it, argue over it, or hash it out in private but a good Catholic must never substitute my own views for that of the Church. This should explain why so many times I’ve responded with quotes from the doctrine of the Church in response to your comments – If I’m to represent what the Church says, then I must tell you what the Church says – not what JoeT wants you to hear. If I express my personal views as different, I am bound to properly show how they contrast with the proper view of the Church. Unlike the Protestant or Evangelical disposition, Catholics do not hold that the sole rule of faith is Scriptural. And if it were, then what use do we have of the Holy Spirit? Aren’t Scriptures black and white in matters of faith?

JoeT

Thanks, Joe, for actually answering my question.

Now as to receiving the Holy Spirit, the repentant believer receives the Spirit of Christ upon salvation.

That is not the same as the baptism or infilling of the Holy Spirit that the 120 received on that day of Pentecost, which was the giving of power that Jesus promised. That was also the birth of the Church.

Acts 8:18
18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,
(KJV)

What did Simon see that made try to buy the power to give such a gift? Other accounts in the Book of Acts say that the recipients spoke in “tongues” or for those of you with degrees, glossilalia.

Acts 2:4
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
(KJV)

Acts 10:44-47
44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
(KJV)

Acts 19:6
6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
(KJV)

You mention the fruit of the Spirit, which every believer will have in his life, but that is different from the manifestation of the Holy Spirit (called gifts by translators) as enumerated by the Apostle Paul.

1 Cor 12:8-11
8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;
9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;
10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:
11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.
(KJV)

I have experienced some of these gifts in my ministry from time to time and have seen them in many believers’ lives over the years, so I know whereof I speak.

Jesus prophesied that His followers would speak with new tongues, among other things.

Mark 16:17
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
(KJV)

I post all this for the benefit of any who care to know, because I understand that as long as I hold the Scriptures to be all sufficient for spiritual guidance, while you hold that the teaching of your church is equal to Scripture, then we will never bridge that gap.

(Do I detect in your post that there may be a point or two that you privately disagree with your church on but can not say publicly because you are a good church member?)

Isa 8:20
20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
(KJV)

JoeT777

Feb 1, 2010, 11:56 AM

Are you in belief that the Apostiles were somehow God's hope, because they offered their service in sacrifice, and in return for God? Yes, they represented the Shewbread in Moses' Tabernacle, the bread in the presence of God. Twelve loaves of unleavened bread were exposed to God for 7 days, and then replaced them with fresh loaves – in my view this is a mystical prefiguring of the Twelve Apostles and their role in the Church. The priests eat the bread for divine inspiration in the Word of God because the bread was exposed to the word. In this way the Apostles gave hope to the faithful feeding, teaching the knowledge of his Truth (Hope) through the teachings of the priests in Shewbread was because they were

(The Apostles served having the Holy Spirit,(gifted to them) and they served the gospel in Christ Jesus(Romans 1:9)

Yes the Apostles served the faithful; no they didn't 'serve' the Holy Spirit in the sense of that their role was to offer prayers, sacrifices, and libations like a Levite priest.

As a reminder we find this unique offering in Moses' Temple; the "bread of the presence (of Yahweh)" (Exodus 35:13; 39:35, etc.), also called "holy bread" (1 Samuel 21:6), "bread of piles" (1 Chronicles 9:32; 23:29), "continual bread" (Numbers 4:7), or simply "bread" (Hebrew Version, Exodus 11:23). 'ártoi tês prothéseos, "loaves of the setting forth" (Exodus 35:13; 39:35, etc.) which the Latin Vulgate also adopts in its uniform translation panes propositionis, whence the English expression "loaves of proposition", as found in the Douay and Reims versions (Exodus 35:13, etc.; Matthew 12:4; Mark 2:26; Luke 6:4). The Protestant versions have "shewbread" which literally means 'bread of the face' and is used by Josephus the historian to describe the loaves. The loaves of bread spoken of here formed an important sacrificial offering prescribed by the Mosaic Law. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Loaves of Proposition.

The Word of God says, Hope is in the gospel that is Christ Jesus

1 Peter 1:21 Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.

When hope is found within us we then are purified, we rest in that hope which is in Christ, and HE made us pure because we are begotten again in HIM, thus even as HE is pure we became pure in HIM. (1 Peter 1:16 Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy)

1 John 3:3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as HE is pure.

~in Christ

The word of God is Hope, and we receive that word from the Apostles through their successors down to this very day through the bishops of the Church.

Now we can start to see the reason why The Twelve Apostles are so important, without them we don't have the word of God. Thus the Apostles are the men on which Christ founded his Church; just as was told to Peter, “on you I will build my Church”. The Apostles represent the unleavened showbread in Moses' Tabernacle, and David's Temple. Recall, that the bible is vague as to whether the Apostles were baptized by John or in the name of Christ – Acts 2 is equally unclear. I contend that If baptized at all, the Twelve only received John's baptism. This was because they had already received a special grace much the same way the Blessed Virgin Mary was given a special grace. You might recall the angle said, “Blessed art thou among women”. The Apostles were the living version of the “loaves of proposition” [Cf. "bread of the presence (of Yahweh)" (Exodus 35:13; 39:35, etc.) "holy bread" (1 Samuel 21:6), "bread of piles" (1 Chronicles 9:32; 23:29), "continual bread" (Numbers 4:7), or simply "bread" (Hebrew Version, Exodus 11:23)] It's not like Moses 'manna from heaven, but a different type of food, you might say our first grace, food for thought, knowledge of Christ, i.e. hope.

In Moses' Tabernacle loaves of unleavened bread were placed on a table in front of the curtain in two stacks of 6 (12 loaves) in the presence of God. Now the blessed enjoy the sight of God. Christ's loaves of unleavened men were placed in the presence of God; given the knowledge Christ's Kingdom for our hope of salvation.

To the Jew in Abraham's time, Moses' time and the Jew in Christ's time it's a physical mark of a spiritual connection with God. It joined their manhood to God. (John 3:5) The only bread was the “proposition loaves.” The conflict with the 12 loaves should be obvious, bread is bread and meat is meat. Aaron and his priests (only those spiritually clean – presumably through the spiritual purification Mikvah) eat the loaves which made them spiritually pure to teach God's Law, God's Word. Likewise, the twelve Apostles were the loaves “in the presence of God,” exposed to the Logos. Holding the bread Christ said “this is my body,” the twelve holy loves were present – facing God, “face bread.”

“The Lord is in his holy temple, the Lord's throne is in heaven.” But the residence God on earth is in Moses' Tabernacle or in David's Temple or in the presence of Christ. Commemorated and prophesized in for David's song,

“Bring to the Lord, O you children of God: bring to the Lord the offspring of rams. The voice of the Lord is upon the waters; the God of majesty has thundered, The Lord is upon many waters. The voice of the Lord is in power; the voice of the Lord in magnificence. The voice of the Lord breaks the cedars: yea, the Lord shall break the cedars of Libanus. And shall reduce them to pieces, as a calf of Libanus, and as the beloved son of unicorns. The voice of the Lord divides the flame of fire: The voice of the Lord shakes the desert: and the Lord shall shake the desert of Cades. 9 The voice of the Lord prepares the stags: and he will discover the thick woods: The Lord makes the flood to dwell: and the Lord shall sit king for ever. The Lord will give strength to his people: the Lord will bless his people with peace. “(Psalms 29)

A bifurcated fire that bakes these men into a homogeneous body is the very word issued from the mouth of Christ; both the purifying with fire and smelting with fire.

Fire has two properties, one wounds and corrects and the other illuminates with energy and zeal. This explains why the Apostles burn and shed and shed the light on our intellect and understanding, residing, as it were, on wisdom. “Thus those worthy of the fire will feel its caustic quality and those worthy of the lighting will feel the illuminating property of the fire. A hope “much more precious than gold which is tried by the fire” (Cf. 1Peter 1:7) A hope founded in Christ tested in the Smithy's fire, shaping refining the metal of men. It is a fire that consumes the impurities leaving only the precious

Every man's work shall be manifest. For the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed in fire. And the fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is. 14 If any man's work abide, which he has built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. 15 If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire. 1 Cor. 3:13-15

These common men were made into the uncommon or unleavened Apostles they were to become in the presence of God. They resided in the Temple in the presence of God. “Every word of God is fire tried: he is a buckler to them that hope in him. Proverbs 30

The voice of the Lord divides the flame of fire. The Bread of Life offers to us twelve men who will teach us Hope, God's hope under the roof of His Church.

The Voice of the Lord moving the wilderness. The Voice of the Lord perfecting the stags. To abide in God we live in the promised dwellings of the Kingdom of God with Abraham's co-heirs, i.e. Judaism and Catholicism. (John 16:33) The Lord will bless His people in peace. (John 14:27). This bread was the Twelve that are in the Presence of God, who in turn fed the world the Gospel, the Knowledge of God. The Presence Bread in the Tabernacle of Moses was the bread of Knowledge of Christ; unlike Moses' Twelve Loaves, Christ's were multiplied and will continue to be multiplied to the end of time.

JoeT

JoeT777

Feb 1, 2010, 12:20 PM

Thanks, Joe, for actually answering my question.

Now as to receiving the Holy Spirit, the repentant believer receives the Spirit of Christ upon salvation.

That is not the same as the baptism or infilling of the Holy Spirit that the 120 received on that day of Pentecost, which was the giving of power that Jesus promised. That was also the birth of the Church.

Acts 8:18
18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,
(KJV)

What did Simon see that made try to buy the power to give such a gift? Other accounts in the Book of Acts say that the recipients spoke in “tongues” or for those of you with degrees, glossilalia.

Acts 2:4
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
(KJV)

Acts 10:44-47
44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
(KJV)

Acts 19:6
6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
(KJV)

You mention the fruit of the Spirit, which every believer will have in his life, but that is different from the manifestation of the Holy Spirit (called gifts by translators) as enumerated by the Apostle Paul.

1 Cor 12:8-11
8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;
9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;
10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:
11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.
(KJV)

I have experienced some of these gifts in my ministry from time to time and have seen them in many believers’ lives over the years, so I know whereof I speak.

Jesus prophesied that His followers would speak with new tongues, among other things.

Mark 16:17
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
(KJV)

I post all this for the benefit of any who care to know, because I understand that as long as I hold the Scriptures to be all sufficient for spiritual guidance, while you hold that the teaching of your church is equal to Scripture, then we will never bridge that gap.

(Do I detect in your post that there may be a point or two that you privately disagree with your church on but can not say publicly because you are a good church member?)

Isa 8:20
20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
(KJV)

I’m afraid I don’t understand, yes the Holy Spirit gives ‘gifts’ or graces as the translators say. But you seem to be saying the only grace is to ‘speak in tongues’. Is this what I’m to understand, that unless you speak in tongues you don’t have the Holy Spirit? The Scriptures don’t allude to this either in the King James or any other reputable translation. Preempting an expected response, are you suggesting that only those who receive the ‘fruits,’ or graces as the translators say, are the only ones who receive salvation – but you’re dead and gone, what good would graces do you then. When back sliders, who had originally thought they were absolutely assured salvation, slide backwards, do they lose the fruits of these graces – that is become dumb as sin as suddenly as they were ‘saved’?

And what does all this mean with regard to my comment? I can’t make the connection. Essentially, I said Catholics received the Holy Spirit any way He wants. Do Bible only people require God to respond differently? What kind of degree do I need to know what ‘glossialalia’ means – do we require the Holy Spirit to have a masters or phd before he can speak? Your response confuses me – you’ll need to straighten some things out for me. What I read was that the contention is that the believer controls how God reacts with mankind. I can't understand that - we dictate how the Spirit dispenses graces? Would you show me how this isn’t true and yet be a bible only sort of person?

JoeT

arcura

Feb 1, 2010, 08:08 PM

JoeT777

Feb 2, 2010, 12:33 AM

This is another possible thread question. Because it draws question as to where in the scripture of God's Word would this be founded. I read nowhere in the gospel, of thoughts concerning purgatory. (Purgatory is not spoken of in God's Word, and thus was not inspired by God)

Let's leave this to another thread; the idea of purgatory is in scripture, granted it's somewhat vague; you need to look outside of your book into the real world. You might think it hidden from you, but it's not hidden from us Catholics. Rather you miss zooming around driving your sporty solo scriptura with the same lack of discipline a 16-year old kid might have with his daddies sport car on an unauthorized spin around the Kingdom.

But, the least you can do is pay attention to where you're going and where you've been. Instead of looking for purgatory try looking for the Kingdom. Look in places where it says that God created the heavens and earth -all creation is under His dominion. But I suppose those who are into schism-thing like dividing things up. So let's just look at the Kingdom of God that is right here on earth. You might recall John the Baptist's proclamation. Now, what was it that John was so fond of saying, wasn't it something like, “repent the KINGDOM is at hand.” Maybe he was talking about some other Kingdom? When Christ sent the Apostles to various outlying regions to preach and teach, didn't he tell them to 'teach the Kingdom of God' – now wasn't that stupid? Teach about a Kingdom that didn't exist or a Kingdom that would simply fade away into the vagaries of a book?

If I were to sift through the number of times “Kingdom of God” was mentioned in the New Testament I'd get about 227- times where the phrase is mentioned. I think I could get a pretty good picture of Christ's Kingdom. In the Gospel of Mathew alone we have a complete image of the 'establishment' of a Kingdom. To fulfill the covenant of the Old Testament prophecy demands Christ to establish the 'Kingdom'. Where do you suppose it went – are you going to argue that the Romans defeated the Kingdom of God in some untold saga? If you remove all 227 references to the 'Kingdom of God, the New Testament becomes nearly meaningless. I got news for you, for sure its gospel, the Kingdom of God is right here on earth, while we hold scripture sacred, we also know the Kingdom of God isn't in a dusty ol' BOOK. Instead, it's real, it's as promised, it's alive with saints and sinners, embattled, under siege from within and without by sin, protected by Christ's promise; we call it the Roman Catholic Church and as promised she will persevere even from the gates of hell, possibly even the BOOK. She is a living breathing Kingdom, complete (figuratively speaking) with body soul and Divinity. You zoomed right past her, as it were, leaving the Bride of Christ on the side of the road; read in your book about the Kingdom and “mystical body of Christ”. That may be why I take the Church bus; I don't want to leave anything Christ gave us abandoned on the side of the road – ohm, on a road to leads to Rome.

Then there is the Kingdom of Heaven which is only mentioned 95-times in my New Testament. Do you reckon it's still in Heaven?

JoeT

sndbay

Feb 2, 2010, 07:32 AM

sndbay,
The apostles offer and provide hope of God's many graces.
That is what I believe an the bible indicates.
The apostles preached God's word and in several cases wrote it.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Fred, The point is that I don't leave my first love that is in Christ Jesus, to follow and praise the Apostles. They were inspired by God, through the gift being the Holy Spirit. It is God's hand and power that I hold stedfast in faith and trust.

Christ Jesus was sent as the Word of God in HIS own flesh that walked this earth. I am led by the spiritual drink, and spiritual meat that is the Rock Christ Jesus. And I will never leave my first love to follow man. It is Christ voice I hear! Scripture is His flesh, the Word made flesh. Spiritual meat in daily bread that is revealed unto us according to Our Father that gives. The Word of God that we eat, is the Bread of Life in Christ Jesus.

The cup of blessing in which we commune together as members is in Christ, His Body and His Blood that we give thanksgiving, and praise. We eat and drink in rememberance of Christ, and HIS worthiness.

~in Christ

sndbay

Feb 2, 2010, 07:46 AM

You zoomed right past her, as it were, leaving the Bride of Christ on the side of the road

Revel 21:2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

The bride of Christ is New Jerusalem according to scripture "The Word of God"

Anyone believing differently has committed adultery by being seduced and betraying the marriage.

sndbay

Feb 2, 2010, 08:27 AM

Christ's promise; we call it the Roman Catholic Church and as promised she will persevere even from the gates of hell, possibly even the BOOK.

The members of the church are Christ's, not belonging to any other then HIM. Christ is the Bishop and Shepherd of the soul (1 Peter 2:25). Love for Christ Jesus prevails againt evil.

People are astonished by Christ's doctrine.
Our Lord and Saviour is at the gate!Matthew 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? And in thy name have cast out devils? And in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock :And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand

Deu 32:4 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.

Revel 22:14 Blessed are they that do HIS commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

Has the Catholic denomination shown all good fruits? A good reason not to follow man's doctrine.
Matthew 7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

John 10:3 To HIM the porter openeth; and the sheep hear HIS voice: and HE calleth HIS own sheep by name, and leadeth them out.

sndbay

Feb 2, 2010, 09:15 AM

Yes, they represented the Shewbread in Moses' Tabernacle, the bread in the presence of God.

Disagree!

The Apostles are not symbolized as the Bread of Life that is place before us. Christ is the Bread of Life, the sure bread known as the food from God given in sacrifice.

John 17:2 As thou hast given HIM power over all flesh, that HE should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given HIM.

John 6:3 For the bread of God is HE which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.

The Word made Flesh
John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

This is what Peter was told to feed HIS sheep! As did the Apostles request in prayer that it would be God's will for them to do.

Yes the Apostles served the faithful; no they didn't 'serve' the Holy Spirit in the sense of that their role was to offer prayers, sacrifices, and libations like a Levite priest.

Their role was to do the will of God. Always praying to God in request that by God's hand of strenght they might be properous. And it was by spiritual guidance in the gospel of God's Begotten Son.

Romans 1:9-10 For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers; Making request, if by any means now at length I might have a prosperous journey by the will of God to come unto you.

~The Spirit dwells within the adopted children of God, that have been begotten again of Christ

sndbay

Feb 2, 2010, 12:29 PM

If I were to sift through the number of times “Kingdom of God” was mentioned in the New Testament I'd get about 227- times where the phrase is mentioned. I think I could get a pretty good picture of Christ's Kingdom. In the Gospel of Mathew alone we have a complete image of the 'establishment' of a Kingdom. To fulfill the covenant of the Old Testament prophecy demands Christ to establish the 'Kingdom'. Where do you suppose it went – are you going to argue that the Romans defeated the Kingdom of God in some untold saga?

Revelation 17:17 For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.

It is up to us in this world on earth to answer the calling of One Hope, or remain doomed with satan and sin.

I am in full assurance Christ is Lord in The Kingdom of God

2 Chronicles 13:5 Ought ye not to know that the LORD God of Israel gave the kingdom over Israel to David for ever, even to him and to his sons by a covenant of salt?

Christ is the Key of David, and new Jerusalem is betrothed to Christ.

The Kingdom of God that Christ rules over as the Shepherd that watches over HIS sheep, Bishop of all souls. Stands at the door to come in and give sup. Parable, properation of the Kingdom of God. (Mark 4:26 Luke 8:10)

Mark 9:1 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.

Mark 10:25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

Romans 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.

1 Corinthians 4:20 For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power

Hebrews 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

JoeT777

Feb 2, 2010, 12:50 PM

For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. (John 6:55)

Disagree!

The Apostles are not symbolized as the Bread of Life that is place before us. Christ is the Bread of Life, the sure bread known as the food from God given in sacrifice.

Nobody doubted that you were – disagreeing that is. But, what then are we to make of the Christ saying he was the ‘meat’? Why would Christ feed his bothers bread when we all know that man doesn’t live by bread alone? Why would he feed us a manna that had a 24 hour shelf life? – you may recall that when the manna fell from heaven, it needed to be collected, processed and cooked in short order, or it would spoil. What value is a food like that? Sounds like Twinkie food to me – a worthless cake surrounding a sweet pasty center, but of no real nutritional value. How long can such sustenance last? I’ve been on Twinkie binges - can’t develop any muscle, just fatty weight that drags you down. Christ reminds us that our “fathers ate manna in the desert, and are dead. (John 6:49). Golly Gee Wilakers Horace! Sounds like all bun to me; such a short lived food can’t take a man through an eternity? Bread without meat is not fulfilling, the bread which is the knowledge of God is a worthless burger without the meat.

Suppose I could give you a real man’s food – something that sticks to the ribs, lasts an eternity, so to speak? As Christ said, why labor “for the meat which perishes;” why not work for “that which endures unto life everlasting, which the Son of man will give you.” So where’s the beef? Christ tells us where, and flat out, and it ain’t bread, “For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. (Cf. John 6:26, 55). You’ll find that Catholics like a 'real meat' burger of faith not a empty pastry on their buns. The meat is in the real presence of Christ.

JoeT

sndbay

Feb 2, 2010, 02:46 PM

For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. (John 6:55)

Perhaps you did not know that scripture speaks of the meat as knowledge and skill in righteousness.

And from what the Catholic denomination does teach, their commune gathering is one with sinners unskilled in righteousness. They are still the babe who uses milk.

But, what then are we to make of the Christ saying he was the 'meat'?

Christ is the branch of righteousness that was promised. Every Word of God is in teaching us to walk having the spirit, not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

So that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. (Romans 8:4)

Why would Christ feed his bothers bread when we all know that man doesn't live by bread alone?

We live by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. (Matthew 4:4 Luke 4:4)

John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

~in Christ

galveston

Feb 2, 2010, 05:18 PM

Joe, without reprintine your post #76, I will try to clarify it for you.

I asked how Catholics know they are filled with the Holy Spirit and then showed what happened in the early Church when believers received this experience. They spoke with "tongues".

That is the initial evidence of the Spirit baptism. It is not the end or even the most important function of the Holy Spirit.

There are fruits of the Spirit, and gifts of the Spirit, two different things.

The Spirit filled believer may go on to receive one or more of the gifts of the Spirit which are given according to God's will for that life.

These gifts are then used by the believer to continue the ministry that Jesus began.

Clearer now?

Have you ever seen anyone receiving the Holy Ghost?

galveston

Feb 2, 2010, 05:30 PM

Here is the problem in any discussion of this kind.

Rom 8:3-8
3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
(KJV)

Carnal does not necessarily mean sinful. It simply means natural.

The carnal mind is one of the things dealt with in salvation, when the mind is "renewed" and can understand spiritual things.

Look at verse 8 above. The natural mind would say that anyone living on Earth can not please the Lord because they live in a body of flesh.

That idea is totally wrong, because "flesh" has to be understood as not having any spiritual life, and that life is Jesus Christ living in the believer through the Holy Ghost.

JoeT777

Feb 2, 2010, 08:53 PM

Perhaps you did not know that scripture speaks of the meat as knowledge and skill in righteousness.

Nonsense, flesh is meat – you’re getting nowhere solo.

Then you don’t know what Moses wrote? The Jewish Sacred tradition of Passover celebrates the first born of every family who ceremoniously eats the flesh of the sacrificial lamb; a commemoration when death passed over the firstborn of Israel. Don’t you watch movies? Good grieve Charlie Brown, everybody our age has seen Charlton Heston’s, ‘The Ten Commandments’ – you should’ve seen it a dozen times since its’ release in 1956. What Got Yul Brynner, aka Rameses, so mad that he went chasing after Moses in a rage? Rameses’ son was killed by the curse he himself uttered. Moses saw it coming and the ‘BLOOD’ of the sacrificial lamb was ordered to be placed over the door header so the curse would ‘PASS OVER’. And I get this part of the story right without the use of a BOOK – who’d a thunk it! Since then, (no, not since 1956 -, since Moses) part of the commemoration of Passover was to sacrifice the lamb in a special feasts and customs. At the home, there was the custom of ‘Pesachim’ which included a search the house for leaven bread. The household was cleared of common bread (leavened) which represented a blotted, vainglorious and arrogant sinful nature. It was hung over a lamp to burn out the leaven (corruption). You might recall Paul’s words “Purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new paste, as you are unleavened.” (1Cor 5: Judaism was steeped with metaphoric visions of leavened and unleavened bread that was culturally ingrained in the Jewish psyche, as it was Christ’s and the Twelve.

One of the many ecclesiastic feasts and ceremonies took place over about 15-days with the festivals ending on the Saturday before the day of the Pasch (fifteenth). On day 14, the male members of the family met in the synagogue or in the Temple and a sacrificed a lamb, part of which was carried home accompanied with the blood . The first born ceremonially ate the flesh of the Lamb and the blood was ceremonially placed on the door jambs. In Judasim, this is a real sacrifice, that is as opposed to a spiritual sacrifice. We know this because of the presence of blood related to the meat where spiritual sacrifices didn't include the reference to blood. The point being that this would have been much better understood, along with all the nuances of a multiple of images representative to the Jew; especially to the Pharisees. Now, re-read John 5 and 6 keeping these images in mind.

Most of John 5 regards other spiritual rituals however there is a sense of getting ready for Pesach (Passover) This period on Judaism yearly cycles is called Shalosh R’glim. The man in the pool that was told to get up and walk, efforts to get in the cleansing water are of particular importance in Judaism. But, what’s important to us is where Christ says to his Twelve; “If you did believe Moses, you would perhaps believe me also: for he wrote of me.” Notice that Christ appeals to their intellect as Jews - no demand for faith is made, not to the heart; maybe we can discuss this later, but it's important that the intellect is required of the Twelve. The question at the end of this chapter is cataclysmic to Christians without a teaching Magisterium, “But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?”

It’s a good question isn’t it? But we know little of Moses compared to our Jewish brothers, how then will we believe His words? The answer is in the Kingdom, His Church, His teaching Magisterium; she feeds the belly, the intellect, the heart and the soul. But, I know you’re disagreeable, so let’s continue. The miracle of 5,000 isn’t as much about the souls saved that day, as it was the millions saved from a people made unleavened sitting on that hillside that day.

Pasch was at hand, a sacrificial lamb was required, and for the first born of the Kingdom – among 5,000 were a special Twelve. Notice it is the men that are told to sit, notice that it is bread that is feed them – we’re not told; it's likely unleavened bread. Right out of the Jewish tradition of Seder. To complete the costom we need the blood sacrifice of the Lamb for the Passover meat of the first-born.

Well shiver-me-timbers; look what happens; Christ tells the first-born of his Kingdom, eat meat. He’s definitely not playing to the chick Pharisee’s cows who want moo miracles, you might say, ‘Punt the burger, pass the Chikin”! Not, at all! Christ says Moses' bread didn’t save. Why, because the bread of the intellect isn’t meat enough to last an eternity. The intellectual bread only lasts for this world. But, Christ will provide the beef that sticks to the soul's ribs, he says “I am that bread of life," the intellect of the living. I am the meat that death passes over, I am the meat of life, a flesh for the life of the spiritual world; a meat for the first-born of the Kingdom. The simple fact of the matter is that “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.” A sacrificial meat for the first born in His Kingdom is given to us all; death will pass over.

And from what the Catholic denomination does teach, their commune gathering is one with sinners unskilled in righteousness. They are still the babe who uses milk.

Ok, am I supposed to get mad? Or what kind of reaction are you looking for here? I do a great impression of a mad Italian scientist.

Christ is the branch of righteousness that was promised. Every Word of God is in teaching us to walk having the spirit, not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

So that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. (Romans 8:4)

We live by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. (Matthew 4:4 Luke 4:4)

John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

~in Christ
How do you know, not knowing what Moses wrote of ; remember what Christ said, “If you did believe Moses, you would perhaps believe me also: for he wrote of me”

JoeT.

JoeT777

Feb 2, 2010, 08:59 PM

arcura

Feb 2, 2010, 09:29 PM

JoeT,
Well said.
When I finally came to believe that I left a breakaway Protestant sect from the Kingdom of God on Earth and became a Catholic.
That was over 35 years ago.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

JoeT777

Feb 2, 2010, 10:26 PM

Here is the problem in any discussion of this kind.

Rom 8:3-8
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.(KJV)

Carnal does not necessarily mean sinful. It simply means natural.

The carnal mind is one of the things dealt with in salvation, when the mind is "renewed" and can understand spiritual things.

I somewhat agree with you up to this point. Where I disagree is that the flesh referred to doesn't sin in and of itself. Rather I'd suggest that the 'flesh' here is that which is in the likeness of sin in the intellect (or mind) does the flesh siin, it's worldly. The body (flesh) is moved by the intellect and the soul, having no means to move itself, it cannot be held to the Law.

Look at verse 8 above. The natural mind would say that anyone living on Earth cannot please the Lord because they live in a body of flesh.

Here is where we differ. First this is indicative of holding the Lutheran doctrine of the 'depravity' of man. That is to say, man cannot be holy; that he is so depraved that even his 'good' is sin. I put this syllogism in the 'bunk' category. Second, that's not what's being said here at all, because in verse 4 we see the righteousness of the law for those who do not walk "as if after the flesh". The converse is also true, that the “law is fulfilled in us that walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” In short, being a living breathing human is not a sin in and of itself. (Cf. St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on Romans, Homily 13). Thirdly, as clarification, the flesh discussed here is not the Flesh of Christ in John 6. The 'Flesh' referred to in John 6 is the 'meat'. That is the body soul and Divinity, the essence of Christ. It's referred to as the Real Presence of Christ.

That idea is totally wrong, because "flesh" has to be understood as not having any spiritual life, and that life is Jesus Christ living in the believer through the Holy Ghost.

The obvious mistake in this statement is that Christ is another form of the Holy Spirit. Christ is not simply another form of the Holy Spirit, they are not the same Person. The man Christ had two natures, one of man, one of Christ that is God. The Holy Spirit has one nature, that of the Holy Spirit, different from God and Christ.

Flesh does have a spiritual capacity in the sense that our final state in heaven is that of men, body and soul. Man is not complete without the soul nor is the soul complete man without the body. It's the soul that moves the body through the intellect. The essence of man is body and soul.

What is meant in these verses is “sin no longer wars against the law of our mind, neither does it lead us away captive as heretofore, for all that state has been ended and broken up, and the affections cower in fear and trembling at the grace of the Spirit “(ibid.) Paul says, “But they that are in the flesh cannot please God,” and continues, “But you are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit.” This is the same sense as is being said in John 15:19, “If you had been of the world, the world would love its own: but because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hates you” Once we turn toward spiritually, we are no longer following after the worldly, and Christ is in us – see vs. 10

JoeT

arcura

Feb 2, 2010, 11:57 PM

JoeT,
Yes, Jesus Christ IS a separate divine being from God the Holy Spirit and God The Father, but those three beings are the makeup of the one true triune God
Peace and kindness,
Fred

sndbay

Feb 3, 2010, 07:01 AM

Nonsense, flesh is meat – you're getting nowhere solo.

Hebrews 5:12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.

Hebrews 5:14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

Ok, am I supposed to get mad? Or what kind of reaction are you looking for here? I do a great impression of a mad Italian scientist.

Hebrews 5:13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.

How do you know, not knowing what Moses wrote of ; remember what Christ said, “If you did believe Moses, you would perhaps believe me also: for he wrote of me”

JoeT.

The Words Commanded by The Lord, that Moses Wrote as a Song. Words that are to be taught today, and words that will be sung by God's children who will go through the gates of heaven (Deu 31:19 Deu 32:46)(Revel 15:2-3)

The Song of Moses (Deu 32:1-46)

Deu 32:1-3 Give ear, O ye heavens, and I will speak; and hear, O earth, the words of my mouth. My doctrine shall drop as the rain, my speech shall distil as the dew, as the small rain upon the tender herb, and as the showers upon the grass: Because I will publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness unto our God.

Deu 32:29 O that they were wise, that they understood this, that they would consider their latter end!

Deu 32:31 is true today in denominations even as it was then, as the Pharisees were the enemy and judges over the people. Teaching in God's name, the doctrine of man. (Luke 12:1) (Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. )

Deu 32:31 For their rock is not as our Rock, even our enemies themselves being judges.

~in Christ the unleavened bread of Passover

(not of man's doctrine raised and fed with leaven)

JoeT777

Feb 3, 2010, 08:32 AM

Hebrews 5:12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.

Hebrews 5:14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

Hebrews 5:13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.

The Words Commanded by The Lord, that Moses Wrote as a Song. Words that are to be taught today, and words that will be sung by God's children who will go through the gates of heaven (Deu 31:19 Deu 32:46)(Revel 15:2-3)

The Song of Moses (Deu 32:1-46)

Deu 32:1-3 Give ear, O ye heavens, and I will speak; and hear, O earth, the words of my mouth. My doctrine shall drop as the rain, my speech shall distil as the dew, as the small rain upon the tender herb, and as the showers upon the grass: Because I will publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness unto our God.

Deu 32:29 O that they were wise, that they understood this, that they would consider their latter end!

Deu 32:31 is true today in denominations even as it was then, as the Pharisees were the enemy and judges over the people. Teaching in God's name, the doctrine of man. (Luke 12:1) (Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. )

Deu 32:31 For their rock is not as our Rock, even our enemies themselves being judges.

~in Christ the unleavened bread of Passover

(not of man's doctrine raised and fed with leaven)

So, if you hear those words of Moses, then you understand these;

"you shall be my peculiar possession above all people: for all the earth is mine. And you shall be to me a priestly kingdom, and a holy nation... Moses came; and calling together the elders of the people, he declared all the words which the Lord had commanded." Ex 19

This is 'Church'. When was this repealed? Does this 'Kingdom' still exist? Is there a statement in scripture that transfers power to the 'New Kingdom'?

JoeT

sndbay

Feb 3, 2010, 09:25 AM

So, if you hear those words of Moses, then you understand these;

"you shall be my peculiar possession above all people: for all the earth is mine. And you shall be to me a priestly kingdom, and a holy nation... Moses came; and calling together the elders of the people, he declared all the words which the Lord had commanded." Ex 19

This is 'Church'. When was this repealed? Does this 'Kingdom' still exist? Is there a statement in scripture that transfers power to the 'New Kingdom'?

JoeT

Ex 19:5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:

Note the importance of obeying the Lord's voice! The very same meaning is found in the NT, Jesus said "My sheep Hear MY Voice" . Only then shall ye be a preculiar treasure unto me. The people that obey and hear the voice of OUR LORD are above all people known as the children of God.

Ex 19:6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These [are] the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

A Kingdom of priests, priests of Jehovah. Hearing the Word of God and follow HIS Word(Christ). Again Joe those that follow Christ walk having the spirit, acknowledging the skill in righteousness(strong meat)

Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

You Joe, told me the Catholic article released which you agreed was true reported that the members of the Catholic denomination were sinners. They walk in sin, which means they walk in darkness. Until they put on the new man as (Eph 4:24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness) by their own admission they remain as babes in need of milk, and easily beguiled by satan.

1 John 3:6 Whosoever abideth in HIM sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen HIM, neither known HIM.

1 John 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

walk having the spirit~in Christ

galveston

Feb 3, 2010, 09:38 AM

It wasn't Luther, it was Paul that wrote:

Rom 7:18
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
(KJV)

Without the new birth that Jesus taught Nicodemus about, we have NO righteousness.

Isa 64:6
6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
(KJV)

The unsaved person CANNOT keep the Law. The first commandment is to love God without reservation, an a sinner can't do that and therefore has broken the whole Law.

True that the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ are not the same person.
However, the Holy Spirit is the only member of the Godhead that we have contact with in this dispensation, and He is one (in perfect unity) with the Father and the Son.

It is the will of the Father that every believer be filled with the Holy Spirit.

And every believer (not every human being) is predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ.

You still are not answering what you personally know about the Holy Spirit baptism.

JoeT777

Feb 3, 2010, 10:07 AM

Ex 19:5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:

Note the importance of obeying the Lord's voice! The very same meaning is found in the NT, Jesus said "My sheep Hear MY Voice" . Only then shall ye be a preculiar treasure unto me. The people that obey and hear the voice of OUR LORD are above all people known as the children of God.

Ex 19:6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These [are] the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

Yes, there is an importance to 'obey'. Which means what?

A Kingdom of priests, priests of Jehovah. Hearing the Word of God and follow HIS Word(Christ). Again Joe those that follow Christ walk having the spirit, acknowledging the skill in righteousness(strong meat)

And that JoeT fails, or sins mean that the Kingdom falls? God's Kingdom doesn't sound very strong that it fails because of its weakest link. Where is that great solo mind that can show me where Holy Scripture says the Kingdom failed or has fallen? JoeT rhymes with St. Thomas show me.

Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Do I take this to mean that you individually are the Kingdom of God? Or are a member of the Catholic Church?

You Joe, told me the Catholic article released which you agreed was true reported that the members of the Catholic denomination were sinners. They walk in sin, which means they walk in darkness. Until they put on the new man as (Eph 4:24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness) by their own admission they remain as babes in need of milk, and easily beguiled by satan.

1 John 3:6 Whosoever abideth in HIM sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen HIM, neither known HIM.

1 John 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

walk having the spirit~in Christ

Answer this. If we can't find in Scripture that the Kingdom of God has been disbanded, where did it go? Are you the Kingdom of God?

What happens if Christ disbands the Old Testament and the Kingdom of God? Now Christ can't be the fulfillment of the Old Covenant, it doesn't exist?

To my way of thinking the Catholicism is keeping the faith with Christ. We understand God's Word to be immutable. Consequently, when God promises Moses a Kingdom we shouldn't dismiss it out of hand because it's Old Testament and the law doesn't apply to the New Covenant. Moses is told, “If therefore you will hear my voice, and keep my covenant, you shall be my peculiar possession above all people: for all the earth is mine. And you shall be to me a priestly kingdom, and a holy nation.” (Ex.19: 5, 6), which is the Old Testament equivalent of Matt 16:18. The promise made to Moses is an integral part of the Old Testament. The Jewish Kingdom was both a spiritual and temporal Kingdom with a priestly heresiarch; the Jews were to be governed by their priests.

Christ didn't overturn this Kingdom by creating a new one; in fact He couldn't because His ministry was the fulfillment of the Old Covenant, which included the Messianic Kingdom along with the prophecies for a new King. To overthrow this Kingdom would have been to over throw himself – which of course is nonsense. However what Christ was to do was to turn over the 'Key' of the Kingdom to a new tenant, what is today and the gentile Kingdom we call the Roman Catholic Church. Which is the reason that in Matthew, we hear Christ say, “I say to you [the Pharisees] that the kingdom of God shall be taken from you and shall be given to a nation yielding the fruits thereof.” This too is a pronouncement of on Mt. Sinai. It's here we see Christ conquering the world in the Messianic vision of David; but instead of “nation building” it is “Church” building.

JoeT

sndbay

Feb 3, 2010, 10:37 AM

Yes, there is an importance to 'obey'. Which means what?

Answer the calling.. Follow Christ, HEAR HIS VOICE

And that JoeT fails, or sins mean that the Kingdom falls? God's Kingdom doesn't sound very strong that it fails because of its weakest link. Where is that great solo mind that can show me where Holy Scripture says the Kingdom failed or has fallen? JoeT rhymes with St. Thomas show me.

Sin means people failed, beguiled by satan. It means they have free will to answer the calling, and follow or they fail. They are accountable to reap what they sow.

Those that follow Christ do not fail, they do not sin because they are sanctiified in Christ with the Holy Spirit. The new man which walks in righteousness and holiness.

Do I take this to mean that you individually are the Kingdom of God? Or are a member of the Catholic Church?

Christ dwells within me, and I walk to follow HIM. It is not an organizational structure, it is spiritual awareness of a heavenly place in Christ. He never leaves me or forsakes me.

Eph 1:3 Blessed the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in [B]heavenly places in Christ

Eph 2:6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus

Eph 3:9-10-11 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: To the intent that now unto the [U]principalities and powers in heavenly places {{{might be known}}} by the church the manifold wisdom of God, According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:

JoeT777

Feb 3, 2010, 11:38 AM

Answer the calling.. Follow Christ, HEAR HIS VOICE

Sin means people failed, beguiled by satan. It means they have free will to answer the calling, and follow or they fail. They are accountable to reap what they sow.

Then the devil made me do it? Why am I promised discipline for failing when the devil did it?

Those that follow Christ do not fail, they do not sin because they are sanctiified in Christ with the Holy Spirit. The new man which walks in righteousness and holiness.

Really, what happened to Judas?

Christ dwells within me, and I walk to follow HIM. It is not an organizational structure, it is spiritual awareness of a heavenly place in Christ. He never leaves me or forsakes me.

Eph 1:3 Blessed the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in [B]heavenly places in Christ

Eph 2:6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus

Eph 3:9-10-11 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: To the intent that now unto the [U]principalities and powers in heavenly places {{{might be known}}} by the church the manifold wisdom of God, According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:

So, I guess the answer is yes, you hold yourself to be the Kingdom of God? Interesting.

JoeT

galveston

Feb 3, 2010, 11:55 AM

Interesting!

Joe contends that the Word of God is immutable (look up the meaning) and then says that the word of a man (the Pope) can alter or supercede it.

Which is it?

JoeT777

Feb 3, 2010, 01:21 PM

Interesting!

Joe contends that the Word of God is immutable (look up the meaning) and then says that the word of a man (the Pope) can alter or supercede it.

Which is it?

This was a pretty cheap shot, primarily because your statement is false on any level you'd like to consider it. Does this mean you can't debate on the merits of your case? Or is it that you would rather look to ad Hominem comments to detract from your weak claims.

JoeT

JoeT777

Feb 3, 2010, 02:08 PM

All:

The faithful in Christ know that apostolic teachings are important, as faith is believing in something yet unseen. Thus the intellect must know of the existence of the true Christ, His Messianic ministry, and His teachings before faith can work. Thus the Apostles were told to go and baptize and teach to all nations. In this regard do Catholics conform their beliefs to the God's Truth. Thus when I say “I have the right to believe anything in the bible that does not conflict with the Magisterium,” I'm placing my trust in God Truths and those infallible Christ given axiomatic Truths. Truth is immutable. If it is Truth for Peter, its Truth for us today, and it will be Truth tomorrow, it can't be destroyed regardless of how distorted non-Catholics present it. If you ever wanted to use the precepts of Solo Scriptura as the rule of faith , the only way to achieve a true understanding of Scripture, you need these eight individual principles, Scripture, Tradition, the Church, Councils, the Fathers, the Pope, miracles, and natural reasoning.

I've said it before, and I'll keep right on saying it, while I am allowed to have private interpretations, my faithful duty is to conform, or better still reform, those interpretations to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. Faithfull Christians of any stripe have this obligation to Christ. Furthermore, as one of the faithful, it is my obligation “to strive so that the divine message of salvation may be known and accepted by all people throughout the world.” When in good conscience I can't conform, I remain silent until, as you say, I see the light. With prayer, perseverance and God's good graces I will conform heart and mind to the Magisterium – that infallible teaching arm of Christ.

In trusting my eternal soul to the Catholic Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, the Kingdom of God I am trusting in God's promise to Moses of a Kingdom that not only continues the eternal Seat of Moses, but that of her authority.

The Old Testament tells us of the coming of the Kingdom in the Messianic age. The Kingdom is meant for the sanctification of the twelve tribes as well as the Gentiles. Even kings are to serve and obey (Psalm 21:28 sq.; 2:7-12; 116:1; Zechariah 9:10). It's clear that a universal faith and common worship is implied, “And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be prepared in the top of the mountains, and high above the hills: and people shall flow to it. And many nations shall come in haste, and say: Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, and to the house of the God of Jacob: and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for the law shall go forth out of Sion, and the word of the Lord out of Jerusalem.” (Micah 4:1-2) A unified worship, One worship under the authority who teaches and keeps the Divine Truth for all; “And it shall come to pass in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem: half of them to the east sea, and half of them to the last sea: they shall be in summer and in winter. And the Lord shall be king over all the earth: in that day there shall be one Lord, and his name shall be one. “(Zechariah 14:8)

Prophecies in the Old Testament tell of a future Kingdom holding the authority in the rule of the Messiah; Psalms 2 and 71; Isaiah 9:6 sq. We see that authority in the shepherd that leads his sheep between the fields of Divine Truth (Ezekiel 34:23; 37:24-28).

Taking the seat of Moses, Christ is the High Priest of the Kingdom of God, “The Lord hath sworn, and he will not repent: Thou art a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech.” (Psalm 109:4) And that priesthood is institutionalized in the Kingdom, “For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts” (Malachi 1:11). The priesthood in this Messianic Kingdom is a continuation of the priesthood in the Old Testament with continued sacrificial offerings; “Thus saith the Lord: if my covenant, with the day can be made void, and my covenant with the night, that there should not be day and night in their season" (Jeremiah 33:20)

The importance of “God's Kingdom” is that it is a direct connection with the Divine by which we are “ruled” by our faith and love of God. I like to make that connection this way:

The Roman Catholic holds that both Scripture and tradition must be a harmonious foundation for the rule of faith to be infallible. Consequently, this makes what we call Apostolic tradition which is usually found in the form of papal and council decrees. It is the only legitimate and infallible interpreter of the Bible.

On the other hand, we have a view (primarily Protestant) that canonical Scripture are the only infallible basis for the rule of faith . Each individual holding the principle of Sola Scriptura asserts the right to interpret the Scripture. Most Protestants form distinct groups of likeminded sole arbitrators of the rule of faith , i.e. Lutheran, Calvinist, Methodist, etc. Since each individual has the same rights to authenticate what the Scriptures represent then there are as many different rules of faith as there are Protestant denominations; for that matter hypothetically we could end up with as many denominations as there are Protestants (Since the number of Protestants faiths are increasing exponentially it won't be long before we reach this asymptotic state). Only one can represent an absolute truth; which is infallibly correct and which isn't? Which has Christ's Authority, and which doesn't?

We see that Protestantism isn't 'one' faith and can never be 'one' given that each is the arbitrator of his own faith. As you may recall Christ prayed, “And now I am not in the world, and these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name whom thou hast given me: that they may be one, as we also are.” (John 17:11). This is the Tradition guarded, kept, and taught, ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC, AND APOSTOLIC FAITH.

We take God's Word as being immutable. God's promises Moses a Kingdom and nowhere do we find a verse that terminates the Kingdom of God. Moses is told, “If therefore you will hear my voice, and keep my covenant, you shall be my peculiar possession above all people: for all the earth is mine. And you shall be to me a priestly kingdom, and a holy nation.” (Ex.19: 5, 6), which is the Old Testament equivalent of Matt 16:18. The promise made to Moses is an integral part of the Old Testament. The Jewish Kingdom was both a spiritual and temporal Kingdom of God with a priestly hierarchy (the Jews were to be governed by their priests), where the presence of God was veiled. The difference being that the mosses' sacrifice was given up to be consumed by God conversely Christ is sacrificed at the altar continually every day to consume use, bite by bite. (Cf. Tractates on the Gospel of John, CHAPTER 26,) newadvent.org/fathers/1701026.htm

Christ didn't overturn this Kingdom by creating a new one; in fact He couldn't because His ministry was the fulfillment of the Old Covenant, which included the Messianic Kingdom along with the prophecies for a new King. To overthrow this Kingdom would have been to overthrow himself – which of course is nonsense. However what Christ was to do was to turn over the 'Key' of the Kingdom to a new tenant, what is today the gentile Kingdom we call the Roman Catholic Church. Which is the reason that in Matthew, we hear Christ say, “I say to you [the Pharisees] that the kingdom of God shall be taken from you and shall be given to a nation yielding the fruits thereof.” This too is a pronouncement of on Mt. Sinai. It's here we see Christ conquering the world in the Messianic vision of David; but instead of today's “nation building” it is called Christ's “Kingdom” building.

Where is the Church and the authority in scripture? The precepts and doctrine are obeyed out of obedient love for the Church; we do it willingly, like a new bride obeys her husband. I've read more than a few books in my life; except for one, in the context of 'Church', not a single one returned my love for them and promised Hope of redemption. The Church is constituted for the redemption of the faithful. Its claim as the Messianic Kingdom is the envy of the world. As a consequence it is always under attack by the 'dark side'.

At the synagogue at Nazareth,”And he began to say to them: This day is fulfilled this scripture in your ears.” (Luke 4:21) Christ lays claim to His prophecy as Messianic King, in person, in his 'real presence'. If you will read your book, you'll see that Christ claims his universal Kingship in the New Solomon. “And behold more than Solomon here. The men of Ninive shall rise in the judgment with this generation and shall condemn it; Because they did penance at the preaching of Jonas. And behold more than Jonas here.” (Luke 11:31); THE KING IS HERE is the proclamation, one greater than the Temple. (Matt 12:6). Lord over the Sabbath (Luke 6:5). The personification of Elias (Mat 12:6), He requires our faith based on His Divinity (John 6:29), “29 Jesus answered and said to them: "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent." To glorify the Father he created a in their midst, the Law and the Prophets had been, He said, but a preparation (Luke 16:16; cf. Matthew 4:23; 9:35; 13:17; 21:43; 24:14; Mark 1:14; Luke 4:43; 8:1; 9:2, 60; 18:17).

The Church is absolutely necessary for redemption; this is explicit in baptism in particular and the other sacraments by extension, ministering to the faithful. A corporate family of adopted 'sons of God' we are redeemed through the graces given freely. "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: he that believeth not shall be condemned" (Mark 16:16).

The body is animated by the soul, so is the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ animated by its soul the Holy Spirit. The third century St. Origen (185-232) who once said “Let no man deceive himself. Outside this house, i.e. outside the Church, none is saved" was eqully unyielding concerning Apostolic teachings, warning that Holy Scripture should not be interpreted based on our own judgment, instead said interpretation should be "on the rule of the Church instituted by Christ".

Yes, I do place my faith in the Catholic Church, particularly what you call the Roman Catholic Church. I receive in return a direct connection with the Divine, a guide and rule over my faith, along with the administrations of sacraments Christ ordained for His Kingdom of redemption.

JoeT

sndbay

Feb 3, 2010, 02:10 PM

Then the devil made me do it? Why am I promised discipline for failing when the devil did it?

Are you a child and think like a child? It is in scripture teaching.
1 Corinthians 13:11-12-13 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

Are you unable to discern right from wrong? Are you unskilled in righteousness? You claimed to have knowledge of the meat, but speak of one who drinks milk.

We are warned to watch carefully, and not fall asleep.

1 Corinthians 10:21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils.

Really, what happened to Judas?

Scripture has told us that Judas Isariot was beguiled by satan. His own free will to do as he felt would be profitable.

Luke 22:3 Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve.

So, I guess the answer is yes, you hold yourself to be the Kingdom of God? Interesting.
JoeT

I trust in the word of God that as a good and righteous servant, confessed my faith in the begotten Son of God, Jesus Christ. And in full awareness in being begotten again unto the living hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. I have been raised, adopted as a child of God, into heavenly places.

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

sndbay

Feb 3, 2010, 02:41 PM

. If you ever wanted to use the precepts of Solo Scriptura as the rule of faith , the only way to achieve a true understanding of Scripture, you need these eight individual principles, Scripture, Tradition, the Church, Councils, the Fathers, the Pope, miracles, and natural reasoning.

JoeT

According to Christ Jesus, and the words He spoke to His disciples.

John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Do you really think God has forsaken us to be followers of men. Those who follow Christ, walk having the spirit within them. Just as Christ Himself is said to be one with the Father having the Holy Spirit. They the disciples were inspired by the Holy Spirit. Paul spoke in the spirit of our Lord Jesus Christ, and God the Father.

Eph 1:17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:

And as we are today, they were kept by the power of God through One Faith

1 Peter 1:5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

John 17:6 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.

JoeT777

Feb 3, 2010, 02:56 PM

and make our abode with him.

Some animals can read, only man reasons. Who do you think Christ was referring to when he said 'OUR'?

If you love Christ then His Church will make abode with us.

JoeT

sndbay

Feb 3, 2010, 03:15 PM

Some animals can read, only man reasons. Who do you think Christ was referring to when he said 'OUR'?

metaph.of God and Christ by their power and spirit exerting a most blessed influence on the soul of the believers

John 14:2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

If you love Christ then His Church will make abode with us.

JoeT

His church are the members who walk in the light of righteousness, begotten again from the dead(crucified) and buried(baptized), by the resurrection of Christ Jesus, and the sanctification of the Holy Spirit through baptism.

JoeT777

Feb 3, 2010, 03:23 PM

metaph.of God and Christ by their power and spirit exerting a most blessed influence on the soul of the believers

John 14:2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

The mansions are multiple - plural, there is only one 'Father's house'- singular. 'I' told you - singular

We make our residence with him- the 'many of us' will come live with him. Christ and his buddies are coming over for dinner - AND HE'S bringing the BAND!

JoeT

galveston

Feb 3, 2010, 03:27 PM

You write a good argument, Joe.

But you see, it is those very traditions and many of the writings of earlier "fathers" that I take issue with. They are the words of men, and when they do not conform to the writings of the original Apostles, I reject them as false.

Charles Chiniquy pointed out over 100 years ago that it is impossible to conform to the words of the "fathers" because the "fathers" didn't even agree with each other on several important issues.

It is not only the RCC that has deviated from the original Gospel message. Most of what is loosely called Protestant has done the same thing.

The church that is not doing the works that Jesus did is not The Church but is a counterfeit

PS: Since catholic means universal Christian, that makes me a catholic priest, right?

JoeT777

Feb 3, 2010, 04:00 PM

You write a good argument, Joe.

Thank you.

But you see, it is those very traditions and many of the writings of earlier "fathers" that I take issue with. They are the words of men, and when they do not conform to the writings of the original Apostles, I reject them as false.

So, you were expecting words of mice? Would words of mice be anymore reliable? Certainly they were men, as men they made mistakes. That is where the Magisterium of the Church comes into play, both guiding and teaching in God’s Truth.

Charles Chiniquy pointed out over 100 years ago that it is impossible to conform to the words of the "fathers" because the "fathers" didn't even agree with each other on several important issues.

You don’t trust the Early Fathers, but you would rather take the word of Charles Chinquy? How do you know they didn’t agree with each other on matters of faith and morals? Have you read them? If so have you found where the Early Fathers conflict with Catholic doctrine on matters of faith and morals? I haven't.

It is not only the RCC that has deviated from the original Gospel message. I disagree with this premise made here.

Most of what is loosely called Protestant has done the same thing.
I wouldn’t know, except for one - and you don't want to hear it.

The church that is not doing the works that Jesus did is not The Church but is a counterfeit

Agreed.

PS: Since catholic means universal Christian, that makes me a catholic priest, right?

Ok, I got to admit – that was a funny!!

JoeT

P.S. Back in the late 50's a wise Bishop once said, "Few Americans hate the Catholic Church, but millions hate what they think is the Catholic Church". (Bishop Fulton Sheen)

arcura

Feb 3, 2010, 10:43 PM

sndbay ,
So are you saying that there are people like you who do not commit any sins.
That seem to be what you are saying.
Your slap against Catholics that sin are walking in darkness is unfounded, for according to you anyone who sins is walking in darkness, that includes me.
I lost my temper the other day, that was a sin, but I still walk in the light of God's forgiveness for I repent of it.
It seems to me that you are falling off that high horse you are riding. EVERYONE WHO IS HUMAN WALKING THIS EARTH SINS so the bible says, so I believe.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

sndbay

Feb 4, 2010, 04:54 AM

sndbay ,
EVERYONE WHO IS HUMAN WALKING THIS EARTH SINS so the bible says, so I believe.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Fred, perhaps you can answer these questions.

(Gal 3:13)
Did Christ set us free from the curse of sin?

(1 Peter 3:18)
Did Christ suffer for our sin, so that we can be quickened by the spirit?

(Hebrew 9:28)
Did Christ once offered to bear the sins for many? And will those that follow HIM appear before Him without sin?

(Hebrews 10:10)
Are we sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all?

(Romans 8:2)
Does Christ's law of life in the spirit set us free from death and sin that we were doomed by?

(1 Cr 1:3 1 Th 4:3 - 4:4 2 Th 2:13 1 Peter 1:2)
Fred, Do you know the meaning of being sanctified through the Holy Spirit?

Romans 6:18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.
Romans 6:22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.

If you know all this is written in scripture ( Word of God), why would you think we that follow Christ can not walk having the spirit of promise? Christ dwells with those that are sanctified. The Holy Spirit can not and will not dwell in sin.

JoeT777

Feb 4, 2010, 09:22 AM

Fred, perhaps you can answer these questions.

(Gal 3:13)
Did Christ set us free from the curse of sin?

Christ died on the cross for all sins. We knew this. The verse isn't disparaging of the law per se, but rather that part of the law that casts curses. Paul doesn't say there is no longer a Law, but rather that the covering of sins by ritual and customs no longer holds sway. Thus Paul says, “That the justification of the law might be fulfilled in us who walk not according to the flesh, but according to the spirit.” The Law is still there but no longer is it to, as it were, be worn on the outside but rater internalized, brought into the soul.

Not only is this verse being mischaracterized but it's not applicable here. Even when rendered anyway you want the verse only says the obvious and doesn't add to the discussion.

(1 Peter 3:18)
Did Christ suffer for our sin, so that we can be quickened by the spirit?

Again you cited a verse that states the obvious. Of course Christ died for the sins of mankind. But how does being ”inspired” or having the spirit enlivened help with the discussion here. This verse too doesn't add or subtract from any of the arguments made.

(Hebrew 9:28)
Did Christ once offer to bear the sins for many? And will those that follow HIM appear before Him without sin?

(Hebrews 10:10)
Are we sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all?

(Romans 8:2)
Does Christ's law of life in the spirit set us free from death and sin that we were doomed by?

All of these verses are similar in that they don't add to our conversation. If they do, I'm at a lost as to how. Maybe somehow you've gotten the wrong impression of what Catholicism is; we're Christians, in fact we're a Christian body that pre-dated Luther's 'Evangel'; we're not criminals who are doomed to hell.

(1 Cr 1:3 1 Th 4:3 - 4:4 2 Th 2:13 1 Peter 1:2)
Fred, Do you know the meaning of being sanctified through the Holy Spirit?

1 Cor 1:3 is part of the salutation of Paul's message - you know something like 'howdy folks'. He invites us to the Church for our Grace and our peace which comes from the Father. I prefer verse 13 in the same epistle, its more germane to the question here and I've been asking you this same question for well over a year now! “ Is Christ divided? Was Paul then crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” (1Cor 1:13)

Overall, you haven't addressed any of the topics we've discussed here, you definitely haven't shown, or 'disproven' the Church. I can't find any reason for the post except that you get some perverse pleasure out of citing hell and damnation as if you were slinging mud.

Unable to understand your point, I'm quite frustrated; if you have a point it's muddled and clouded. So, what is your point?

JoeT

sndbay

Feb 4, 2010, 12:16 PM

Unable to understand your point, I'm quite frustrated; if you have a point it's muddled and clouded. So, what is your point?

JoeT

The point is in the Word of God review: Jude 1:1-25

1 John 3:6 Whosoever abideth in HIM sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen HIM, neither known HIM.

1 John 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

JoeT777

Feb 4, 2010, 01:09 PM

The point is in the Word of God review: Jude 1:1-25

1 John 3:6 Whosoever abideth in HIM sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen HIM, neither known HIM.

1 John 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

To acknowledge isn’t to abide – simply acknowledging Christ isn’t to abide in Christ – in fact to abide would be to ‘work’ and the merit would be not to sin. So, to me, in your terms, this is WORK theology; very Catholic

Ok, Christ destroys the work of the devil. AND? AND? How does this add to the conversation? Are you saying the Catholic Church is the work of the devil? Are you saying those in the Church are the work of the devil? Who and what does this apply too? And what does it mean? If you’re going to pass around dispersion like they’re compliments at least you can do is tell us why.

As far as Jude is concern this doesn’t add anything appreciable either. So where are you going with all this – are you ever going to let us in on the secret?

sndbay

Feb 4, 2010, 01:15 PM

1 Cor 1:3 is part of the salutation of Paul's message - you know something like 'howdy folks'. He invites us to the Church for our Grace and our peace which comes from the Father. I prefer verse 13 in the same epistle, it more germane to the question here and I've been asking you this same question for well over a year now! “ Is Christ divided? Was Paul then crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” (1Cor 1:13)

JoeT

I will forgive your exampled mockery that you speak towards the Word of God. Perhaps your playful speak is nothing intentional, but I would advise you against childish speech, that gives the impression of less then a sincere heart towards what is written in scripture.

Paul's speech as in example of full awareness, addressing those members in the church of God, which is at Corinth, and states that they are sanctified in Christ Jesus.

He did continue with his words of greeting and spoke of the grace and peace in the mist of them from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

However Paul was clearly warning them to speak the same things, as was given to them as breathren unity in the name of Christ Jesus. Making sure to be perfectly joined in the same mind and judgement to the fellowship of God's Son Jesus our Lord. Man's doctrine and man's traditions do not hold stedfast in the auchor of Christ Jesus that brought us in the flesh the Word of God. We must recognize that Christ Himself would not speech of Words other then what was told to HIM by the Father. Christ is the perfect example to follow.

Paul's straight way of saying there are contentions/strifes among them.Strifes are stated plainly in Romans 1:29. This causes confusion rather then the unity of perfecting faith in Christ Jesus. There is only One Body, One Spirit, One Hope, One Faith, One Lord, One Baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, through all, and in us all. (Eph 4:4-5-6)

We are to walk in love, rooted and grounded that Christ may dwell in our hearts by One Faith (Eph 3:17) And the glory be unto Christ in the church of members throughout all ages (Eph 3:21)

~in God's Grace

sndbay

Feb 4, 2010, 01:39 PM

And what does it mean? If you’re going to pass around dispersion like they’re compliments at least you can do is tell us why.

Because I was answering Fred posting when you intervened with your belief.

sndbay ,
It seems to me that you are falling off of that high horse you are riding. EVERYONE WHO IS HUMAN WALKING THIS EARTH SINS so the bible says, so I believe.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

If the appearance is that I am falling off a high horse, I can only remark to say, your accusation was once done to Christ in the same manner.And it is written the same will be done to us that follow HIM in full awareness of HIs worthiness.

Hebrews 10:14 For by one offering HE hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

JoeT777

Feb 4, 2010, 02:01 PM

I will forgive your exampled mockery that you speak towards the Word of God. Perhaps your playful speak is nothing intentional, but I would advise you against childish speech, that gives the impression of less then a sincere heart towards what is written in scripture.

Paul's speech as in example of full awareness, addressing those members in the church of God, which is at Corinth, and states that they are sanctified in Christ Jesus.

He did continue with his words of greeting and spoke of the grace and peace in the mist of them from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

However Paul was clearly warning them to speak the same things, as was given to them as breathren unity in the name of Christ Jesus. Making sure to be perfectly joined in the same mind and judgement to the fellowship of God's Son Jesus our Lord. Man's doctrine and man's traditions do not hold stedfast in the auchor of Christ Jesus that brought us in the flesh the Word of God. We must recognize that Christ Himself would not speech of Words other then what was told to HIM by the Father. Christ is the perfect example to follow.

Paul's straight way of saying there are contentions/strifes among them.Strifes are stated plainly in Romans 1:29. This causes confusion rather then the unity of perfecting faith in Christ Jesus. There is only One Body, One Spirit, One Hope, One Faith, One Lord, One Baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, through all, and in us all. (Eph 4:4-5-6)

We are to walk in love, rooted and grounded that Christ may dwell in our hearts by One Faith (Eph 3:17) And the glory be unto Christ in the church of members throughout all ages (Eph 3:21)

~in God's Grace

Well tell me how we are one in unity? Your views are guided by a subjective reasoning that looks inward for it's authority. My faith on the other hand has completely different views; two different Christs. Where is the unity? Why we likely have the same final goal, your faith looks to a different faith for its hope; how is that unity? Your faith says nobody can be holy, all of mankind is depraved, incapable of holiness; my faith looks for all its members to persevere until holiness. How is that unity? My Church is meant for all those in the universe, yours is privately interpreted. How is that unity? Your church buries the Apostles, my reveals every word they wrote or taught? How is that unity?

So let me ask, what would you have me do for 'unity'?

JoeT

galveston

Feb 4, 2010, 03:03 PM

Thank you.

JoeT

P.S. Back in the late 50's a wise Bishop once said, "Few Americans hate the Catholic Church, but millions hate what they think is the Catholic Church". (Bishop Fulton Sheen)

You seem to misuinderstand me. I don't hate any church. I am simply pointing out that most of what is called the church doesn't measure up to New Testament standards.

You didn't answer how many believers you have seen filled with the Holy Spirit, so I assume you haven't seen any.

How many healings by the power of Jesus have you observed?

Have you ever heard a spoken prophetic message uttered under the power of the Holy Spirit?

Where are the spiritual credentials of your denomination?

Mark 16:20
20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.
(KJV)

sndbay

Feb 4, 2010, 04:04 PM

Well tell me how we are one in unity?

We are each in unity, when we have the fullness of knowledge in Christ Jesus, One Faith full of grace and truth through the Holy Spirit. One must remember, we are given in accordance to the will of God.
(Eph 4:13)

Your views are guided by a subjective reasoning that looks inward for it’s authority.

The circumcision of the heart in love towards Christ Jesus. Sanctified throught the Spirit.

Luke 11:34 The light of the body is the eye: therefore when thine eye is single, thy whole body also is full of light; but when thine eye is evil, thy body also is full of darkness.

John 1:16-17 And of HIS fulness have all we received, and grace for grace. For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

Luke 4:1 And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness

I follow Christ Jesus, and through the Holy Spirit full of grace and truth, I do walk having the spirit .

Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

My faith on the other hand has completely different views; two different Christs. Where is the unity?

Two different Christs? Perhaps you will explain this comment?

Why we likely have the same final goal, your faith looks to a different faith for its hope; how is that unity?

Then I tell you, what I hold as One Hope is the One Faith in Christ. Unity with Christ our One Lord and Saviour.

What I trust is that the church are members in fellowship with Christ the One Body. Each member called in One Hope, in Christ.

Your faith says nobody can be holy, all of mankind is depraved, incapable of holiness;

No that is untrue. Sanctified means holy just as the 7th days was in the beginning. We are sanctified through the Holy Spirit, full of grace and truth.

Hebrew 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for HIM shall HE appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

my faith looks for all its members to persevere until holiness.

All are Called to be members of One Body Christ Jesus

My Church is meant for all those in the universe, yours is privately interpreted. How is that unity?

Free will choice in who you follow. You follow a rock, and call Him all authority .

I follow Christ to eat and drink of the spiritual Rock.

Eph 1:2-3-4 Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: And hath put all things under HIS feet, and gave HIM to be the head over all things to the church Which is HIS Body, the fulness of HIM that filleth all in all. ,

Your church buries the Apostles, my reveals every word they wrote or taught? How is that unity?

Untrue Joe, I just posted the fullness of truth and grace the Apostles wrote, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. They held stedfast in the spirit with our Lord and Saviour Christ Jesus. The One Body, One Spirit, One Hope, One Faith, One Lord, and One God and Father above all, who was through all and in all things.

So let me ask, what would you have me do for ‘unity’?

JoeT

Deny yourself, and walk having the spirit. Suffer yourself to follow Christ in righteousness, hearing HIS voice. Be baptized in full awareness that you are buried with Christ and able to raise as He raised. Be begotten again unto One Hope in Christ.

JoeT777

Feb 4, 2010, 05:21 PM

You seem to misunderstand me. I don't hate any church. I am simply pointing out that most of what is called the church doesn't measure up to New Testament standards.
No, it was me that misunderstood, the fault was mine. I didn't think anything of using the word 'hate' it was only part of the quote. It was meant to imply that many criticize the Catholic Church without really knowing it.

You didn't answer how many believers you have seen filled with the Holy Spirit, so I assume you haven't seen any.

I thought I answered the question, none that I know of. But, I'm not sure there would necessarily be any outward physical signs. As there should be, if there is a permanent inner change toward holiness I'd suggest I've meet many. Generally, not all, Catholics don't believe that the Holy Spirit 'possesses' a person. Rather, the Holy Spirit dispenses certain graces with which the will is free to cooperate with or not.

How many healings by the power of Jesus have you observed?

I know of a Catholic priest who is a healer, I think, in New York. I do know of several charismatic priests here, but have never seen a healing.

Have you ever heard a spoken prophetic message uttered under the power of the Holy Spirit? there are several charismatic parishes here have had prayer sessions where the participants 'speak in tongues' knowing a few of the participants I came to find out there are several Church rules that the priest must follow to insure this isn't somehow demonic.

Where are the spiritual credentials of your denomination?

Mark 16:20
20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.(KJV)
The Kingdom of God, the Holy Roman Catholic Church, i.e. the Church of Jesus Christ – it's not a denomination; it was commissioned by Christ. See Matt 16. Her head is Christ who is heaven, her earthly substitute or vicar is the Bishop of Rome, i.e. the Pope.

JoeT

P.S. I forgot to add, Catholics are generally more charismatic than non-Catholic Christians. We look for God to act in our lives through nature or spiritually. They regularly have daily mass, vespers, Stations of the Cross, Hours, and other similar prayer and devotional activates. I took the opportunity to join a group on a holy pilgrimage last year.

arcura

Feb 4, 2010, 11:24 PM

sndbay

Feb 5, 2010, 04:33 AM

sndbay,
I think Joe did a good job answering what you asked me.
I still believe what the bible says about you and me and others, we are all sinners.
Please tell us all, do you think or believe that you never sin?
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Fred, Do you realize what the Word of God says about willful sin. I suffer myself each day in this troubled world surrounded by sin. But I deny myself, and walk having the spirit, not walking after the lust of this world in sin. We that do walk in the spirit, hold a full awareness in faith that by God power we are kept in the light of righteousness, grace and truth.

Would you say the spirit could or would lead anyone to sin?

Scripture says we have liberty. Liberty to chose whether we follow Chist in righteousness and love for mankind, or satan in sin of the flesh.
We are warned in not taking that liberty to walk in lust of the flesh, but rather walk in love, a perfect law that serves as Christ did to the Father in glory and unto man on this earth. (Gal 5:13)

Review: (1 Peter 1:3 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time)

James 1:25 But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.

Go read of the strong meat in which Joe spoke of eating. (Hebrew 5:12-13-14)

~enlightened through the Spirit

No Fred,I am no longer a sinner but walk having the spirit. All glory unto God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

JoeT777

Feb 5, 2010, 03:47 PM

Fred, do you realize what the Word of God says about willful sin. I suffer myself each day in this troubled world surrounded by sin. But I deny myself, and walk having the spirit, not walking after the lust of this world in sin. We that do walk in the spirit, hold a full awareness in faith that by God power we are kept in the light of righteousness, grace and truth.

Being no holier than thou or probably no greater a sinner than you, I have a hard time understanding this. What it seems to be saying is that you would rather sin but you deny yourself a perceived benefit sin might offer. Although I walk in that same said world my view is different. It’s been my experience that not sinning a gain of certain freedoms, and conversely sinning is to lose a certain freedoms. Thus the more temptations I turn away from the freer my actions and thoughts become, i.e. I gain - and we call this merit.

To walk in the spirit translates to my way of thinking as being holy. Holiness seems to have scale. That is, we can be a little bit holy or we can be a lot holy, i.e. saintly. Obviously the better of the two states is to be saintly. We that walk in the spirit (or in holiness) are not assured righteousness or grace or truth, rather we merit holiness – God’s returning love, which is a grace that builds on itself. And we merit it the same way as when you try to please your pop, who in return would compliment with a heartfelt pat on the head returning your obedient love. What chains us to our obedience or discipline of faith is our love of God, we shoulder these chains willingly with gusto – these chains lift us up. This is best understood as the same obedience of love the bride has for the groom, she submits to the demands of groom for no other reason but her love. Conversely, your way would be to suggest that obedience or discipline of faith uses fear to chain us to God; the bride now becomes a slave girl submitting out of fear of stripes. Boy, your God is hard.

I thought we had a One-ness of faith by just simply believing in the book?

JoeT

galveston

Feb 5, 2010, 04:58 PM

What about "unity"?

The unity spoken of by Paul was not visible unity, but one of the Spirit. Basically that we should all teach the same doctrine.

I read with interest your account of the charismatic movement within the Catholic Church. And you are right, everything must conform to the written Word of God, or Satan just might inject some of his own teaching into the mix.

I notice that in all of your appeals for unity, the only way that can be achieved is for the rest of us to accept the Pope as the undisputed leader of all Christendom.

There is never any indication that your side will give an inch.

Of course, those who believe as I do will never accept many of the Catholic dogmas. They are extra-Biblical and therefore false, in our eyes.

Now, if you will just give those ideas up, we may be able to move toward unity. (Hey, why should we do all the giving up?)

JoeT777

Feb 5, 2010, 07:49 PM

What about "unity"?

The unity spoken of by Paul was not visible unity, but one of the Spirit. Basically that we should all teach the same doctrine.

Catholics believe that there is one body (a mystical body of Christ), one Church. As an adult is to be baptized is a doorway into that Church with a unity of faith:

1 Cor 12:13 For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free: and in one Spirit we have all been made to drink. ...

Paul was no slacker when it came to a unity of faith, a unity of spirit, i.e. Church. John however tells of Christ’s beckoning to unity, not only for the Twelve and other disciples but for all the faithful:

And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me. That they all may be one, as you, Father, in me, and I in you; that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that you have sent me. And the glory which you have given me, I have given to them: that, they may be one, as we also are one. I in them, and you in me: that they may be made perfect in one: and the world may know that you have sent me and have loved them, as you have also loved me. Father, I will that where I am, they also whom you have given me may be with me: that they may see my glory which you have given me, because you have loved me before the creation of the world. Just Father, the world has not known you: but I have known you. And these have known that you have sent me. And I have made known your name to them and will make it known: that the love wherewith you have loved me may be in them, and I in them. (John 17:20 seqq.)

I notice that in all of your appeals for unity, the only way that can be achieved is for the rest of us to accept the Pope as the undisputed leader of all Christendom. There is never any indication that your side will give an inch.

We believe that the fullness of faith resides in the Church. So to answer your question directly, yes unity in its fullest can only be realized in the Catholic Church.

Can’t give an inch, or a foot, or a yard, or a mile of something that’s not ours; that is to say, the Church is Christ’s Kingdom, not ours.

Of course, those who believe as I do will never accept many of the Catholic dogmas. They are extra-Biblical and therefore false, in our eyes.

Ok, but I don’t recall asking you to, though the door is always open. But either way, her doctrine are neither extra biblical nor false. I can’t help you with your vision, you might try glasses – worked wonders for me.

JoeT

arcura

Feb 5, 2010, 11:26 PM

sndbay

Feb 6, 2010, 09:43 AM

To walk in the spirit translates to my way of thinking as being holy. Holiness seems to have scale. That is, we can be a little bit holy or we can be a lot holy, i.e. saintly.
JoeT

Obvious by your thoughts, putting on the new man as written in Eph 4:24 is a perhaps choice, if the scale would stay balanced.

The parable written by Luke, and spoken by Christ tells a different story and is one of truth.

This example the new man, but some are blinded to the understanding of parables.

Luke 5:37 And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish

Notice there is no scale in this concept of newly made being capable to survive with old. The old man is the same concept, he can not please God and that is why we suffer in obedience and love to walk having the spirit to put on the new man.

Luke 5:39 No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better.

And as scripture indicates man does not desire to suffer himself in walking without sinning(having the spirit of truth and grace), yet Christ told us to follow HIM, follow HIS footsteps that includes in righteousness, and love.

I assure everyone loving Christ is easy, and done above all things.

~in Christ

sndbay

Feb 6, 2010, 11:06 AM

Catholics believe that there is one body (a mystical body of Christ), one Church. As an adult is to be baptized is a doorway into that Church with a unity of faith:

1 Cor 12:13 For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free: and in one Spirit we have all been made to drink. ...

Joe you obviously cut off the one drink( into One Spirit )

1 Cor 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

Is it because you also realize that scripture says that the One Spirit is the spiritual drink that is the Rock Christ Jesus

That would put the idea that the Catholic religion believe they drink of their spiritual rock Peter/Pope.

And scripture says when we are baptized we are buried with Christ
Romans 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Instead you believe baptism is a doorway into the Catholic fellowship, and unity in drinking the spiritual rock Peter/Pope.

sndbay

Feb 6, 2010, 11:26 AM

sndbay,
That IS interesting.
I know of no person other than Jesus Christ whom did not and does not sin.
Now you come along and claim that you do not commit any sin.
Pardon me but I do not believe you.
The bible says that we all are sinners.
I believe the bible.
Peace and kindness,
Fred.

No the scriptures say we were once cursed and doomed by death in sin.

Romans 5:21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

Romans 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

You have of your own free will, chosen to obey satan in sin when you obey the flesh.

And we were once cursed, but Christ set us free. What Adam and Eve once did in the garden was changed.

James 1:5 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

I have told you before, we as children of God can not eat at the table of satan and also then expect to eat at the Lord's table.

1 Corthinians 10:21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils.

sndbay

Feb 6, 2010, 11:35 AM

sndbay,
Now you come along and claim that you do not commit any sin.
Pardon me but I do not believe you.

Fred.

You would rather that I would be a child of satan's?

No thanks Fred, I will speak in the spirit of truth and grace.
1 John 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

I am begotten again in Christ! (born of God)adopted as a child of God.

Do you really believe scripture lies to us? Whoever is born of God can not sin! let no man deceive you[B] (1 John3:7)

galveston

Feb 6, 2010, 06:05 PM

Re: Unitiy.

I am not questioning any man's testimony. If you say you are saved, I have no right to say you are not.

Now, Joe, Fred, Sndbay, and myself all say we are saved.

Being saved makes us a part of the Mystical Body of Christ.

Baptism into ANY church cannot do that because the Bible tells us that baptism is the answer of a good conscience, and you cannot have a good conscience toward God unless you are saved already.

So you see that we already have that unity that Jesus prayed for.

Do you really think ALL Catholics, or whatever denomination are saved?

Not so!

If you admit to that truth, then you have to admit that baptism into your church does NOT save, otherwise everyone baptised into it are saved.

I am trying to show you that as a believer, you are living far below what Jesus provided for His followers.

Why don't youi check it out with Him with an open heart and mind?

What have you got to lose?

arcura

Feb 6, 2010, 09:41 PM

sndbay,
First of all you are like many. You DO NOT understand the Catholic faith.
We drink and eat Jesus Christ not the pope or anyone else.
Jesus said "This IS my blood" --- "this Is my flesh"---My blood is drink indeed"---"My flesh is food indeed" ----
"Those who eat may flesh and drink my blood I WILL raise them up on the last day"
No you are wrong about that also the bible does say that no one is sinless, "NO NOT ONE"
That includes you and me.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Maggie 3

Feb 6, 2010, 10:51 PM

How can we rightly comprehend God's truth? His goal is that we desire
To comprehend and fully understand His truth. God has given to all
Believers a divine Person who helps us to receive and understand the
Truth. The Holy Spirit, who perfectly knows the mind of God (1 Cor.2
:10) and who receives and communicates to our spirit, the truth God
Wants our understanding to grow in. He wants us to grasp His majesty,
His holiness, His power, His love, His grace, and His joy. When we begin
To comperhend these mighty truths about the person of God, we find
Our lives enriched, enabled, and energized. Our ultimate aim in life
Must be to know Christ Jesus. God wants us to know our position and
Who we are in Christ. Since we are one with Christ, all His divine privileges become ours. His righteousness is ours because He
Abides in us. His wisdom and His sanctification we can now accept .

Love and blessings, Maggie 3

JoeT777

Feb 6, 2010, 11:06 PM

Being saved makes us a part of the Mystical Body of Christ. Baptism into ANY church cannot do that because the Bible tells us that baptism is the answer of a good conscience, and you cannot have a good conscience toward God unless you are saved already.
Somehow you've gotten the wrong impression. Catholics hold that the Mystical Body of Christ is the Church, it includes the lay, priests, bishops, and Pope. The population consists of those baptized, in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit; both sinners and the holy are included. This is only the beginning of an individual's journey; it doesn't offer any assurance of being 'saved'. That type of theology is Luther's, not Christ's.

So you see that we already have that unity that Jesus prayed for.

No, I'm afraid I don't see. The call for unity isn't the simple call to say 'Lord, Lord'. Many make that call, not all are 'saved'

Do you really think ALL Catholics, or whatever denomination are saved? If you admit to that truth, then you have to admit that baptism into your church does NOT save, otherwise everyone baptized into it are saved.
Again, Catholics or Protestants, or Evangelist, or those who cry 'Lord, Lord' are [not] given assurance of being saved, baptized or otherwise. I hold, as do Catholics that we are to cooperate with the salvific graces given us all, these include the sacraments of the Church. Thus, we strive for holiness in our lives. To some it comes early and easy, to others it comes hard and late in life – sometimes so late as to be on the deathbed.

To me, to be 'saved' in the Protestant sense that is receiving an absolute assurance of salvation and that sin no longer merits judgment received by the ritual of 'walking the isle' seems meaningless. It's kind of like the man who refuses to work, has never worked, and will never work yet demands entitlement to subsistence from the government. Catholics work for their sustenance in faith in cooperation with the same graces given all. We persevere with fear and trembling to work out our salvation. (Cf. Phil 2:12)

I am trying to show you that as a believer, you are living far below what Jesus provided for His followers. Why don't you check it out with Him with an open heart and mind? What have you got to lose?

Good grief! What do I have to lose? Only my soul!

If you see that as being close-minded, then so be it. I can suffer a little 'close-mindedness' in this life to benefit the next.

Look, the way I envision the situation is that you and I spiritually reside on two different ships of faith sailing on the high seas of life. My boat rides high above the water powered by the great engine of the Holy Spirit, has a captain, first mate, helmsman, crew and passengers. Under sail everybody has his place and duty; discipline and order abounds for the good of all aboard. The captain orders the direction, when to batten down the hatches, and when to tack against the wind. Real bread and meat is served at every meal, washed down with a heady spiritual wine. Our mission is to cast out nets and haul in fish. It seems the more that we bring on board the larger the ship becomes, so it's quite roomy. Passage is free as longe as you are disciplined enough to follow the captain's lead.

Your boat by comparison seems to ride low in the water, with water topping gunwale, powered by the occupants paddling with their feet, there seems to be as much water in the boat as outside, everybody on board is the captain, nobody is crew, there doesn't seem to be a helm, and most of the passengers have drowned below decks, direction is happenstance based on how many are paddling on the port side versus the starboard side at any given moment, and order is the state of mind. Spiritual meals are symbols with deferred nourishment based on empty promises washed down with Cool Aid.

Gee thanks, I'll pass.

JoeT

arcura

Feb 6, 2010, 11:39 PM

JoeT,
I agree.
There is NO biblical absolute assurance of salvation.
Luther was wrong about that as are those who follow his misguided teaching.
There is thew biblical HOPE OF SALVATION which is an expectation of salvation.
I expect to be saved as do many but only the final judge can tell us whether we are saved or not.
Faith which is a work and any other works are refined to be pure for those who are saved or to be saved. That is after we pass from this mortal realm.
In the mean time it is our job to do as much pre-refining of our souls as possible.
But being imperfect humans we can not do a perfect job of that, but we MUST try for that is what proves our faith.
Luther wanted to leave the book of James out of the bible for it taught other than what Luther tried to teach and of that what far to many still wrongly believe.
Of that, it is one of the reasons Jesus establish HIS Church.
That is to help guide us in these later days after His resurrection for the correct interpretation of His words and those of His apostles.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

sndbay

Feb 7, 2010, 05:27 PM

JoeT,
I agree.
There is NO biblical absolute assurance of salvation.

Eph 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

There is thew biblical HOPE OF SALVATION which is an expectation of salvation.

Our One Hope is Christ Jesus. Do you find HIM in worthiness to save us?

The reason why a person might not feel they are saved is because they desire the way of sin that keeps them walking in darkness. The lust of the flesh that belongs to the old man that can't please God.

It is written instead that in love and obedience, the good conscience toward God, and the circumcised heart, does bring us as one with Christ Jesus and the Father in Heaven. We rest in Christ Jesus through One Faith. The confessed love and belief in the begotten Son of God. We are raised in baptism from being buried with Christ, as He was raised from the dead. People that sin remain dead, doomed and unable to be one with Christ. Sin is death.

Hebrew 6:11-12 And we desire that every one of you do shew the same diligence to the full assurance of hope unto the end: That ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises.

Hebrews 6:17 Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath:

But being imperfect humans we can not do a perfect job of that, but we MUST try for that is what proves our faith.

James 3:2 For in many things we offend all. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man, and able also to bridle the whole body.

Col 3:10 And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of HIM that created him

Eph 4:24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

Concluded Truth

2 Cr 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

~in Christ

sndbay

Feb 7, 2010, 05:42 PM

Realize what happen on the cross to the old man that couldn't please God.

Romans 6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

Scripture is spoken in Truth, and if you are not dead with Christ on the cross, then it is because you do not believe sin was destroyed in you, and you choose to cintinue serving sin.

sndbay

Feb 7, 2010, 05:54 PM

.

Now, Joe, Fred, Sndbay, and myself all say we are saved.

I believe in the Spirit of Truth, and what was inspired through the Holy Spirit to be written " The Word of God which is the flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ"

John 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

John 10:27-28 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow ME: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

~Rest in Christ

arcura

Feb 7, 2010, 09:40 PM

sndbay
Keep it up all that you want to, but there is no absolute biblical assurance of salvation.
Only God on judgment day can provide that.
We are all sinners. ALL OF US.
And that must be dealt with.
Jesus took punishment for our sinfulness to the cross and grave IF we do all as told in the Gospels.
Do you know anyone who has done that fully and completely?
I know some who have tried, but I do not know for sure if they succeeded.
ONLY God knows.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

gromitt82

Feb 8, 2010, 10:05 AM

Dear Fred,
I am copying a text by Fritz Tuttle, a Catholic Teologian
Jesus Christ Established a Visible Church On Earth

Every Christian believes that Jesus Christ established and sustains a community of faith, hope and love for all believers. This community we call His Church. The Church that Christ founded is the Catholic Church which has a formal earthly structure established by Christ and which continues under His authority and protection.

In the Old Testament we see God's continual involvement in the lives of the Israelites through appointed prophets. God delivered, instructed and admonished the Israelites. He made His motions in a visible, specific and formal way. He always did so through human hands, mouths, feet, minds and wills. God established a law and a means for executing it.

In concert with His redemptive act, Jesus did three things that established the framework of His Church. First, He chose humans to carry out His work. He appointed Peter to be the visible head of the Church. Jesus said to Peter, "You are Rock and on this rock I will build my Church." (Matthew 16: 18) Jesus said "build," as in to create a structure. Jesus built His structure on specifically chosen human beings Peter and the apostles.

Second, Jesus gave Peter and the apostles the power and authority to carry out His work. "Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven."(Matthew 16:19; 18:18) "Receive the Holy Spirit, whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven, whose sins you retain, they are retained."(John 20:23)

Third, Jesus gave Peter and the apostles commands as to what that work should be. At the last supper, He commanded, "Do this in memory of Me." (Luke 22:19) He commanded them to "Make disciples of all nations" (Matthew 28:19), and to "Go into the whole world and proclaim the Gospel to every creature." (Mark 16:15)

The early Church was structured in a hierarchical manner as it is today. We see in Acts, chapter 15 how the apostles and the elders came together under the leadership of St. Peter to decide the question of what was required of Gentiles. We also see how St. Peter was regarded as the head of the Church when St. Paul, "Went up to Jerusalem to confer with Kephas [Peter] and remained with him fifteen days." (Galatians 1:18) There is no Scriptural evidence of independent local churches.

The Catholic Church is the only church that can claim to have been founded by Christ personally. Every other church traces its lineage back to a mere human person such as Martin Luther or John Wesley. The Catholic Church can trace its lineage back to Jesus Christ who appointed St. Peter as the first pope. This line of popes has continued unbroken for almost 2,000 years.

God rules, instructs and sanctifies His people through His Church. Under her teaching office, the Catholic Church preserves the Word of God. She is the custodian, keeper, dispenser and interpreter of teachings of Christ. And she accomplishes this under the protection of the Holy Spirit.
I do not know whether this is the right answer you are looking for.
Incidentally, would you send me a mail. I've been sending you mails to your address which have been returtned to me. Thanks. Gromitt82

JoeT777

Feb 8, 2010, 10:19 AM

God rules, instructs and sanctifies His people through His Church. Under her teaching office, the Catholic Church preserves the Word of God. She is the custodian, keeper, dispenser and interpreter of teachings of Christ. And she accomplishes this under the protection of the Holy Spirit.
I couldn’t agree more. I particularly like his last paragraph.

On another matter, I think Fritz Tuttle is an apologist with the Legion of Mary, not a theologian. I could be wrong; I’ve only run across some of his work a few times.

JoeT

gromitt82

Feb 8, 2010, 11:25 AM

You are right. And I was wrong. He is at present with the Legion of Mary. Thanks for the correction

arcura

Feb 8, 2010, 11:02 PM

gromitt82,
Very good.
By the way, I have not heard from you lately and I've lost your e-mail address.
Please send me a e-mail so I will again have it.
Pax Christi,
Fred

gromitt82

Feb 9, 2010, 04:22 AM

gromitt82,
Very good.
By the way, I have not heard from you lately and I've lost your e-mail address.
Please send me a e-mail so I will again have it.
Pax Christi,
Fred

My e-mail address is: [email protected] and the reason you haven't heard from me is because I keep sending you mails which are returned. I still use the same address I had which is: [email protected]

Have you changed it?
Claude

galveston

Feb 9, 2010, 10:40 AM

Somehow you’ve gotten the wrong impression. Catholics hold that the Mystical Body of Christ is the Church, it includes the lay, priests, bishops, and Pope. The population consists of those baptized, in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit; both sinners and the holy are included. This is only the beginning of an individual’s journey; it doesn’t offer any assurance of being ‘saved’. That type of theology is Luther’s, not Christ’s.

JoeT

So because I am not a member of the RCC I am NOT saved?

Wrong!

How do I know that I am saved?

John 1:12-13
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
(KJV)

Rom 8:14-16
14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
(KJV)

These and other Scriptures prove that we CAN know that we are saved.

I know, do you?

JoeT777

Feb 9, 2010, 11:22 AM

So because I am not a member of the RCC I am NOT saved?

Wrong!

How do I know that I am saved?

John 1:12-13
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
(KJV)

Rom 8:14-16
14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
(KJV)

These and other Scriptures prove that we CAN know that we are saved.

I know, do you?

I can't read - so I can't be saved? I guess if you rationalize away a few verses I could get the Bible to say that "JoeT has hair on top of his head." Which of course is as far from the truth as you can get.

More important, you apparently didn’t read what I said, but yet you want to argue about what I didn’t say. Ok, let’s argue; if you argue as good as you read this ought to be easy.

What was said was that there is no ‘assurance’ of being saved. Simply bearing witness doesn’t do it either. It’s God’s judgment over a life’s merit in its perseverance with fear and trembling working out its salvation. (Cf. Phil 2:12)

JoeT

galveston

Feb 9, 2010, 11:45 AM

I can't read - so I can't be saved? I guess if you rationalize away a few verses I could get the Bible to say that "JoeT has hair on top of his head." Which of course is as far from the truth as you can get.

More important, you apparently didn’t read what I said, but yet you want to argue about what I didn’t say. Ok, let’s argue; if you argue as good as you read this ought to be easy.

What was said was that there is no ‘assurance’ of being saved. Simply bearing witness doesn’t do it either. It’s God’s judgment over a life’s merit in its perseverance with fear and trembling working out its salvation. (Cf. Phil 2:12)

JoeT

Sorry Joe, I DID read what you wrote, and it is clear that you believe that the only way to Heaven is through the RCC.

Go back to my previous post and think about the Scripture. Or does Scripture matter?

BTW, It isn't Luther's theology, it is Biblical theology.

As to Phil 2:12, that cannot mean that we are saved by works, because the same Paul that wrote phil. 2:12 ALSO wrote:

Eph 2:8-9
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
(KJV)

This is a case of needing the Holy Spirit to understand the Word. Paul also wrote:

2 Tim 2:15
15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
(KJV)

JoeT777

Feb 9, 2010, 12:57 PM

Sorry Joe, I DID read what you wrote, and it is clear that you believe that the only way to Heaven is through the RCC.

Go back to my previous post and think about the Scripture. Or does Scripture matter?

I wondered why you didn't provide the quote. It was because I didn't say 'the only way to heaven is through the RCC'. I will argue that it is like trying to pass a camel through the eye of a needle. But, it would have been wrong for me to make that assertion. What I did say was, “We believe that the fullness of faith resides in the Church. So to answer your question directly, yes unity in its fullest can only be realized in the Catholic Church.”

As to Phil 2:12, that cannot mean that we are saved by works, because the same Paul that wrote phil. 2:12 ALSO wrote:

Maybe not the way you read the bible it cannot mean 'saved by works'. But, even if we take your gloss of the bible, it certainly doesn't say 'assurance of salvation' without work.

BTW, It isn't Luther's theology, it is Biblical theology.

Oh, but this line of argument is Luther's; it's the same perversion of Scripture.

I'm of the opinion that Luther was simply mad, demented or possessed – maybe all three. Most every Catholic scholar would mention one or several of the less scandalous stories about Luther; of course, probably out of charity; connections to the man's stability were seldom made. (It seems the tentacles of political correctness are everywhere).

Let's put Luther under a little scrutiny? Comparatively even though they may have a repudiated past we most always see Saints make a real and lasting change or move to a permanent holiness. Let's see how Luther measure up. Generally speaking, in Luther, I see right the opposite, that is a move towards immorality. This was the issue with Henry VIII's bigamy and his devoice; it seems that Luther proposed that bigamy was more expedient than divorce. While it might raise a flag, it's not too big a deal. What then should we make of the case of bigamy dealing with Phillip of Hesse? Luther reneged on certain assurances given the Pope Leo X, to his Bishop, Bishop Scultetus, and to Emperor Charles. Why? What's the story behind this? Chivalry hadn't died in 1500, not yet anyway – some would say that chivalry moved along with a more 'rationalized' morality shortly after Luther; you might say see moral truth becoming a shivaree of mendacity. What do we make of Luther's Evangel? Are there grounds to suggest that there is a psychological problem with Luther's sanity? Luther's writings are complete with battles with the devil – funny? Take it serious - did he lose the battle with the devil? Luther had a funny outlook on the sacrament of marriage, especially for somebody who was a Catholic priest, who claimed to be a profit (I wonder for whose profit he prognosticates for – the good spirits or the bad guys?)

I'll go a step further and suggest that from the onset Luther's goal was to destroy the Church. There was no attempt at 'reform' or 'correction.' From a gloss we can see schism early in Luther's career. His main goal was to tear down what Christ had built up. Considering himself a great prophet on the order of Moses; no doubt aligned with the great deceiver, openly declared his desire to disrupt the Mass:

If I succeed in doing away with the Mass, then I shall believe I have completely conquered the Pope. On the Mass, as on a rock, the whole of the Papacy is based, with its monasteries, bishoprics, colleges, altars, services and doctrines. ... If the sacrilegious and cursed custom of Mass is overthrown, then the whole must fall. Through me Christ has begun to reveal the abomination standing in the Holy Place (Dan. ix. 27), and to destroy him [the Papal Antichrist] who has taken up his seat there with the devils help, with false miracles and deceiving signs. (Grisar, Luther, Vol. II, pg 320 seqq., London Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., LTD., Broadway House, 68-74 Carter Lane, E.G., 1913)

His scheming was hidden from the faithful. It was difficult sometimes to recognize the differences in outward appearance. Yet, at Luther's direction the liturgy of the Mass was incrementally and imperceptibly altered, like the boiled frog with the heat slowly increased, the faithful didn't know they were embroiled in schism until they were poached. Later Luther was to brag,

“Thank God, in indifferent matters our churches are so arranged that a layman, whether Italian or Spaniard, unable to understand our preaching, seeing our Mass, choir, organs, bells, chantries, etc., would surely say that it was a regular papist church, and that there was no difference, or very little, between it and his own.” (Grisar, Luther, Vol. II, pg 322, London Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., LTD., Broadway House, 68-74 Carter Lane, E.G., 1913)

Luther has a big credibility gap with me, especially when I'm told that such is “God's word,” and “here I stand, here I take my seat, here I stay, here I triumph and laugh to scorn all Papists." I see Luther somewhat like Judas. After all is said and done, you never seem to grasp Luther's motivation. Was Luther a puppet acting out some play – to what end – what good came of it? You'll have to excuse me but I've just about settled on the conclusion that Luther lost his battle in his white washed cell tossing his “scheiss” at the devil (or black ink as some would tell us). Therefore, why should I hold the same theology gospel as a man that throws 'scheiss' at the demon that possess him? And you'll tell me a madman was biblically correct?

JoeT

galveston

Feb 9, 2010, 01:29 PM

I will not answer your rant on Luther, as I know very little about him.

My beliefs are based on Scripture.

So if you can't show me in the Bible where I err, then I conclude that you either don't know the Bible, or choose to ignore most of it.

The only Scripture passage that I have ever heard used to support the idea that Jesus founded the RCC is here:

Matt 16:18-19
18 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.
19 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.
(KJV)

If you know of any other, I'll be glad to hear it.

Also, why would you think that the promise of the keys of the kingdom of heaven were given to Peter more than any other follower of Christ?

It is dangerous to build a theology on only one passage. All proper scriptural interpretation will agree with the whole revealed Word of God.

There are several passages of Scripture that show the error of the idea that Peter was the first Pope, or that the RCC was founded by Jesus.

The Church that Jesus founded is not an organization, it is a spiritual organism. It is made up of every one who believes on Jesus as Savior and Lord.

JoeT777

Feb 9, 2010, 03:51 PM

Re-form your question; I'm not sure what it is I'm suppose to provide scriptural proof for. I'm not in a location where I can do this now. I'll respond later tonight as long as Mrs. JoeT doesn't make me do the dishes tonight.

JoeT

JoeT777

Feb 9, 2010, 07:25 PM

God's Church,The Kingdom of God, i.e. the Mystical Body of Christ

The faithful in Christ know that apostolic teachings are important, as faith is believing in something yet unseen. Thus the intellect must know of the existence of the true Christ, His Messianic ministry, and His teachings before faith can work. “The law and the prophets were until John. From that time the kingdom of God is preached: and every one uses violence towards it.” (Luke 16:16-17). What do you think Christ meant? That the Kingdom would come and go? It's right here in the Catholic Church – more fully in the Roman Catholic Church. In this regard Catholics conform their beliefs to the God's Truth as taught by the Apostles. Truth is immutable, therefore if it is Truth for Peter, we can be assured it is Truth for us today, and it will be Truth for us tomorrow. If you ever wanted to use the precepts of Solo Scriptura as the rule of faith in discerning truth in Scripture, you still need these eight individual principles to 'measure' or validate truth we need to look to Scripture, Tradition, the Catholic Church, Councils, the Fathers, the Pope, miracles, and natural reasoning. But this sounds like 'Church.'

Private interpretations must be reformed to the doctrines of the Church. Those interpretations of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church have been jealously guarded by the Holy Spirit. Faithfull Christians of any stripe have an obligation to Christ to either 'sign-up' or like the rich man, walk away.

All of which is to say the Church forms our faith; it's not the object of our faith. In Holy Scripture we find no single verse or equally important a line of thought throughout Scripture that the Church is a body of like minded bible reading and believing people. Furthermore, logic would dictate, that if it were it there could only be ONE such body.

In trusting my eternal soul to the Catholic Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, the Kingdom of God, I am trusting in God's promise to Moses' covenant Kingdom who established an eternal Seat of authority. Where does this authority come from – yeah, I know, God – but to whom and when was this transfer of authority made. What was Christ's role in all this? Does this authority still exist, where's the seat? The Roman Catholic Church is 'The Kingdom of God' the seat of this authority. The Old Testament tells of the coming of the Kingdom in the Messianic age that even kings will serve and obey (Psalm 21:28 sq.; 2:7-12; 116:1; Zechariah 9:10). (Micah 4:1-2) “(Zechariah 14:8)

Prophecies in the Old Testament tell of a future Kingdom holding the authority in the rule of the Messiah; Psalms 2 and 71; Isaiah 9:6 sq.

Taking the seat of Moses, Christ is takes the office of High Priest of the Kingdom of God, “The Lord hath sworn, and he will not repent: Thou art a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech.” (Psalm 109:4) And that priesthood is institutionalized in the Kingdom, “For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts” (Malachi 1:11). The priesthood in this Messianic Kingdom is a continuation of the priesthood in the Old Testament with continued sacrificial offerings; “Thus saith the Lord: if my covenant, with the day can be made void, and my covenant with the night, that there should not be day and night in their season" (Jeremiah 33:20)

The importance of 'God's Kingdom' is that it is a direct connection with the Divine by which we are 'ruled' in our faith and love of God. Thereby, the only legitimate interpreter of Holy Scripture found in apostolic tradition.

On the other hand, we have another view (primarily Protestant) that canonical Scripture in itself is the only infallible basis for the rule of faith. Most Christians, other than Catholic, form distinct groups of likeminded sole judges of the rule of faith. Since each individual has the same rights there can be as many different measures in faith as there are non-Catholic denominations. This produces chaos in the order of faith, a state antithetical to moral order. One and only one faith can be representative of God's absolute truth. So we're left with the real question, which has Christ's Authority, and which doesn't?

Sometimes it's easier to see 'what is' by contrasting it with 'what isn't'. We see that Protestantism isn't 'one' faith and can never be 'one' given that each is the arbitrator of his own faith (Cf. John 17:11). This is the Tradition guarded, kept, and taught, one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic faith.

In contrast, we take God's Word as being immutable. God promises Moses a Kingdom; nowhere do we find a verse that terminates that Kingdom of God. What is found though is a transfer of power, “Therefore I say to you that the kingdom of God shall be taken from you and shall be given to a nation yielding the fruits thereof. And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it shall grind him to powder.” (Matt 21:43-44). So, Christ whose word is immutable is an Indian giver? He gives us the Church and then takes it up with Him at the Ascension? His very life was given for the Church as well as our redemption. He spent the better part of His ministry teaching the Twelve his Church.

The Jewish Kingdom was both a spiritual and temporal Kingdom of God with a priestly hierarchy, where the presence of God was veiled and only found in the Tabernacle. Mosses' sacrifices, different from the Christ's sacrifice, was given up to be consumed by God. Conversely Christ is sacrificed at the altar continually every day consuming us, bite by bite. (Cf. Tractates on the Gospel of John, CHAPTER 26,) newadvent.org/fathers/1701026.htm

Christ didn't overturn this Kingdom by creating a new one; in fact He couldn't because His ministry was the fulfillment of the Old Covenant, which included the Messianic Kingdom along with the prophecies for a new King. However what Christ was to do was to turn over the 'Key' of the Kingdom to a new tenant, what is today the gentile Kingdom we call the Roman Catholic Church. Its here we see Christ conquering the world in the Messianic vision of David; but instead of today's “nation building” it was then called Christ's “Kingdom” building.

Where is the Church's authority in scripture? The precepts for authority are in fact scriptural, the living memory of His words. The Church is constituted for the salvation of the faithful. Its claim as the Messianic Kingdom is the envy of the world. (Cf. Luke 4:21) Christ lays claim to His prophecy as Messianic King, in person, in his 'real presence'. If you will read your book, you'll see that Christ claims his universal Kingship in the New Solomon. (Matt 12:6). Lord over the Sabbath (Luke 6:5). The body is animated by the soul, as the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, is animated by its soul the Holy Spirit. When asked by non-Catholics, I explain, Yes, I do place my faith in the Catholic Church, particularly what you call the Roman Catholic Church. I receive in return a direct connection with the Divine, a guide and rule over my faith, along with the administrations of sacraments Christ ordained for His Kingdom of redemption.

Here lies the Church, in the heart, mind and soul; just down the street, around a corner or two. Her name is known to you as The Roman Catholic Church. In her is the Presence of Christ, as promised He is always with us.

JoeT

arcura

Feb 9, 2010, 11:42 PM

gromitt82,
Yes, my email has been changed.
I'll send you my new address.
Pax Christi,
Fred

gromitt82

Feb 10, 2010, 10:53 AM

galveston

Feb 10, 2010, 11:09 AM

Joe, there is only one fly in the ointment, and that is your insistence that THE CHURCH is the RCC.

My steadfast position is that the Church is an invisible, spiritual body, you know, like Jesus said about salt and leaven.

Otherwise, I find no problem with most of that post.

Fred, I know you don't quite understand it, but I KNOW what I know, and that is that my salvation is assured, as long as I do not turn my back on Jesus and go back into a life of sin.

I ain't going to do that.

JoeT777

Feb 10, 2010, 12:03 PM

JoeT & Galveston,
If you allow a member (who is not as bright as you two in debating such an important matter as salvation) to interfere let me just tell you that, in my humble opinion, those who stand the best chances of being saved, but not the certainty, are those who fulfil GOD's Law, whether Prostestans, Catholics, Ortodox or you name it!
Good Luck!
Gromitt82

Good point, which in a round-about way is mine. What I was suggesting is that the fullness of Divine Law is found in the Catholic Church. Hence, in order to wholly (completely – as much as humanly possible) fulfill God’s Law is to be Catholic as it is founded by Christ.

In my estimation, the guarantee found in Scripture is ‘Divine Justice.’ For some that might be a good outcome, for others that may be something else not-so-good. God judges as he wills, His findings are Just.

JoeT

JoeT777

Feb 10, 2010, 12:54 PM

Joe, there is only one fly in the ointment, and that is your insistence that THE CHURCH is the RCC.

My steadfast position is that the Church is an invisible, spiritual body, you know, like Jesus said about salt and leaven.

I'd suggest to cover your ointment if you have flies.

Are you suggesting that Christ put the “light of the world” under a basket; seems strange to me that the Church would be invisible? Why did Christ let John the Baptist run around saying the Kingdom of God was near-at-hand? How did the Apostles find out about the Church?

I'm not sure what salt and leaven have to do with a 'hidden Church'. Salt was used in every sacrifice by the Jew (Ezra 7:22). It was never mixed with a leaven, it spoiled the bread. (Cf. Lev 2).

Can you clear the salt thing up? While we do find references to salt and leaven, none which would suggest a secrete Church.

JoeT

PS, Salt seasons food and preserves things, usually foods. Christ uses salt to refer to the good earthly things, e.g. “ salt of the earth”. Leaven is used when referring to the Pharisees and was most always negative, e.g. puffed-up, pompous, and pretentious. But it also has another metaphoric meaning; such as to rise up from some unseen force. Consequently, you can see why I'm a bit confused when we see the allegoric use of the words by Pope Paul VI, especially when you use them for an invisible church:

But the Church knows that it is the seed, the leaven, the salt and light of the world. It sees clearly enough the astounding newness of modern times, but with frank confidence it stands upon the path of history and says to men: "I have that for which you search, that which you lack."

It does not hereby promise earthly felicity, but it does offer something--its light and grace--which makes the attainment as easy as possible; and then it speaks to men of their transcendent destiny. In doing this it speaks to them of truth, justice, freedom, progress, concord, peace and civilization. (His Holiness Pope Paul VI, Encyclical - Ways in which the Church Must Carry Out its Mission in the Contemporary World, August 6, 1964)

galveston

Feb 10, 2010, 05:27 PM

Luke 17:20-21
20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:
21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! Or, lo there! For, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
(KJV)

Jesus and John have both already said that the Kingdom of heaven is at hand, but Jesus now says that it is within the believer, not external.

The individual believer is to let his light shine, so there is no hiding that light.

Some of all Christian disciplines will be in Heaven, I'm sure.

I'm also sure a lot of church members will not make it.

I also know that most Christians live far below their privileges in Christ.

Maranatha

JoeT777

Feb 10, 2010, 08:01 PM

Luke 17:20-21
And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you. (KJV)

Jesus and John have both already said that the Kingdom of heaven is at hand, but Jesus now says that it is within the believer, not external.

What makes you think that? Would the Pharisees have understood that the Church was within them? How would, or could think, the Church of Jesus Christ IS within His enemies, those same said enemies of that Kingdom? Would Christ feed pearls to swine; do pigs fly? The plain text of this has been known for nearly 2,000 years, since Christ said these very words;

And being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God should come. (Luke 17: 20) Douay-Rheims. Christ’s words are directed at the Pharisees not to his followers, then or now. {I’m using the Douay-Rheims only because I have resources linked to certain verses.} It’s like a classic comedic movie scene - you know the punch line, before its said, but you die laughing anyway.

Close your eyes and envision, (wait - don’t close’em till you finish reading), Christ is addressing the Pharisees with Christ’s faithful mingled among the Pharisees. After all they’re both of Judah and the erudite Pharisees would grudgingly permitted closeness of the lowclass to their person. After all, one must stoop down once in awhile. This group of Pharisees sarcastically asks Christ, where this great and wondrous Kingdom of God hails from and where can they see it. All the while their great lofty aristocratic bearded head fain a mock search. Hand to forehead, they shade their eyes, looking with a mocking double-wide eyed stare into the heavens while swiveling heads turn – some heads may have actually turned more than 360 degrees, several times. Imagine that several elbows reaching for the funny bone, one or another pointing to the two boys playing in the street snidely says, “His Praetorian Guard, all that’s lacking is the Roman Aquila standard.“

But, Christ brings the jerks back to reality with a world slapping sober answer, “The kingdom of God comes not with observation. Neither shall they say: Behold here, or behold there,” after all those who are among the first of “the kingdom of God [are among] you”(Luke 17: 20-21). Look around you arrogant pips, there are no holier men in the world than in Kingdom of God which mingles with you right here. Behold where is there any holier than these among you? Behold here is the last of the Old Pharasiee who falsely claim holiness; behold the first of the next generation, these holy men among you.

Christ tell them, before the changing of the guard takes place and my standard replaces yours, I must first “be rejected by this generation. And as it came to pass in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.” (Luke 17:15-26) What a bunch of morons these Pharisees, because then a great tribulation will come to pass, like that of Noah’s. Those who look back on these times hearts will turn to stone like Lot’s wife (Cf. (Cf. Luke 17:27-36). Listen to what Christ says to the Pharisees, “Wheresoever the body [Church the Kingdom of God] shall be, thither will the eagles also be gathered together.” St. Jerome in his letter to Marcella (letter 46), tells us that these that follow Christ’s standard are legions of the holy, the holy priests, monks, and virgins, that march with greatness;

…they all assemble here and exhibit in this one city the most varied virtues. Differing in speech, they are one in religion, and almost every nation has a choir of its own. Yet amid this great concourse there is no arrogance, no disdain of self-restraint; all strive after humility, that greatest of Christian virtues. Whosoever is last is here regarded as first. Matthew 19:30 Their dress neither provokes remark nor calls for admiration. In whatever guise a man shows himself he is neither censured nor flattered. Long fasts help no one here. Starvation wins no deference, and the taking of food in moderation is not condemned. To his own master each one stands or falls. Romans 14:4 No man judges another lest he be judged of the Lord. Matthew 7:1 Backbiting, so common in other parts, is wholly unknown here. Sensuality and excess are far removed from us. And in the city there are so many places of prayer that a day would not be sufficient to go round them all. Here lies Christ’s equivalent of the Roman Standard; Before the Church marches the Aquila (eagle). This is His Kingdom, i.e. the Church.

Source: CHURCH FATHERS: Letter 46 (Jerome) (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3001046.htm)

Individuals may be in heaven, but it will be those individuals that fight the spiritual war behind Aquila Standard of God, in His Holy Kingdom, the Roman Catholic Church.

JoeT

classyT

Feb 10, 2010, 09:35 PM

Joe, there is only one fly in the ointment, and that is your insistence that THE CHURCH is the RCC.

My steadfast position is that the Church is an invisible, spiritual body, you know, like Jesus said about salt and leaven.

Otherwise, I find no problem with most of that post.

Fred, I know you don't quite understand it, but I KNOW what I know, and that is that my salvation is assured, as long as I do not turn my back on Jesus and go back into a life of sin.

I ain't gonna do that.

Gal... never say never! Your flesh is always with you... besides... SALVATION is of the Lord. There are no conditions.. My natural self is capable of anything... but I choose to surrender to HIM. Some days I wake up with emotions and feelings that perhaps make me less likely to surrender... or because I am like the simple minded SHEEP I forget. But Salvation IS of the LORD... I didn't earn it and I can't keep it. Last I checked HE is the AUTHOR and FINISHER of my faith.so... from what I can tell all MY righteousness are as filthy rags. EVEN as a saved chickidee... they are filthy. I am ONLY made the righteousness of Christ by being place IN HIM... one last time... SALVATION is OF the Lord.

classyT

Feb 10, 2010, 09:38 PM

Fred,

When do you think he established the Chruch?

arcura

Feb 10, 2010, 10:43 PM

classyT,
I know when Jesus began the establishment of His Church.
It is clearly in the bible..
Jesus said to Simon who He renamed Peter which means rock.
"You are Peter (Rock) and on this Rock I will build MY CHURCH."
Jesus was speaking to Peter and about Peter, nothing or no one else.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

JoeT777

Feb 10, 2010, 10:46 PM

Fred,

When do you think he established the Chruch?

I don’t mean to steal Fred’s thunder, but I’d say the Catholic Church was commissioned when these words were spoken:

All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world. Matt 28

JoeT

arcura

Feb 10, 2010, 10:55 PM

JoeT,
Yes that also in addition to what I posted about Jesus saying to Peter about Peter.
Thanks much,
Fred

450donn

Feb 11, 2010, 07:37 AM

I don’t mean to steal Fred’s thunder, but I’d say the Catholic Church was commissioned when these words were spoken:

All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world. Matt 28

JoeT

HUMMMM! You must have a different version of the bible than I do. Mine does not even mention the RCC anywhere. Oh but then again the passage you quoted does not either!

JoeT777

Feb 11, 2010, 08:31 AM

HUMMMM! You must have a different version of the bible than I do. Mine does not even mention the RCC anywhere. Oh but then again the passage you quoted does not either!

Well, now you know.

elscarta

Feb 11, 2010, 09:29 AM

I apologise for backtracking to this old post but I haven't been able to follow this thread for a while.

I asked how Catholics know they are filled with the Holy Spirit and then showed what happened in the early Church when believers received this experience. They spoke with "tongues".

That is the initial evidence of the Spirit baptism. It is not the end or even the most important function of the Holy Spirit.

Galveston, you seem to think that speaking with “tongues” is a necessary gift for someone who is filled with the Holy Spirit but your previous quote

1 Cor 12:8-11
8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;
9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;
10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:
11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.
(KJV)

points out that the Spirit gives out different gifts to different people as he wills. Further in the passage we read

1 Cor 12:28-31
28And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
29Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?
30Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?
31But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.

This clearly tells us that not all speak with tongues!

In fact in the next chapter St Paul tells us that without Charity it doesn’t matter what gift of the Spirit one has it's worthless.

Charity or Love | Learn The Bible (http://www.learnthebible.org/charity-or-love.html)
defines biblical charity as
“Charity specifically refers to the love that we have toward other men.”
“Charity is the love toward others that suffers long with them and is kind (1 Corinthians 13:4), that does not behave unseemly, seek to get its own way, or is easily provoked (1 Corinthians 13:5); that rejoices not in the iniquity of others (1 Corinthians 13:6); that bears, believes, hopes, and endures (1 Corinthians 13:7).”

So to answer your question, how do Catholics know that they are filled with the Holy Spirit? By the charity in themselves, each other and the Catholic Church in her teachings.

elscarta

Feb 11, 2010, 09:32 AM

Also
Of course, those who believe as I do will never accept many of the Catholic dogmas. They are extra-Biblical and therefore false, in our eyes.

Now, if you will just give those ideas up, we may be able to move toward unity. (Hey, why should we do all the giving up?)

Galveston, are you prepared to give up any part of your belief in order to move towards unity? If so can you enlighten us on what it is that you would be willing to give up?

gromitt82

Feb 11, 2010, 10:03 AM

HUMMMM! You must have a different version of the bible than I do. Mine does not even mention the RCC anywhere. Oh but then again the passage you quoted does not either!

The passage of Matt.28 does not certainly mention the RCC. The point our colleague is probably driving at is that all the duties to be accomplished by the apostles implied in this passage are, obviously, those which are supposed to be imparted by the RCC. But then, most Orthodox and Protestant churches also follow the same instructions which makes me repeat what I said yesterday in another thread. i.e.:
That I'm almost certain (NOBODY CAN BE ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN) that those who follow God's Commandments, no matter their denomination, will probably be accepted in the Kingdom of God.

Jesus's message as to what we are supposed to do to reach our Salvation is crystal clear. A different thing is whether we understand it or not. HE died in the Cross for all of us, irrespective of our petty differences.

We should not forget either that these differences arethe work of humans. We were the ones that decided to divide the Church Jesus built into the hundreds of different Churches we have right now in our world.
To speak only of the Catholic Church, there are, at least 27 or 28 Churches that consider themselves as Catholic but do not accept the Pope's authority.

Should we therefore say that all the members of these Churches, just because they place themselves out of the Roman jurisdiction are to be doomed? I do not think so, as long as the abide by the God's Law. On the other hand, there have been throughout History countless diistinguished members of the RCC who will probably be facing a tough doomsday.

So I insist. The safest way, in my opinion, is to abide by GOD's Law, or as you say in English walk the line...

gromitt82

Feb 11, 2010, 10:11 AM

Also

Galveston, are you prepared to give up any part of your belief in order to move towards unity? If so can you enlighten us on what it is that you would be willing to give up?

For Galveston,
Perhaps you would not mind to enlighten me and point out 3 or 4 of these dogmas of the RCC you say are anti-biblical in your eyes? I would like to be able to double check your answer with the several versions of the Bible I have. Or if you prefer, tell me what are those beliefs you have that the RCC will never accept?

galveston

Feb 11, 2010, 10:39 AM

For Galveston,
Perhaps you would not mind to enlighten me and point out 3 or 4 of these dogmas of the RCC you say are anti-biblical in your eyes? I would like to be able to double check your answer with the several versions of the Bible I have. Or if you prefer, tell me what are those beliefs you have that the RCC will never accept?

Catholic dogmas that I (and other non-Catholics) will not accept:

IMMACULATE CONCEPTION

Isa 64:6
6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
(KJV)

Rom 3:23
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
(KJV)

Rom 3:9-10
9 What then? Are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
(KJV)

Gal 3:22
22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
(KJV)

Are we to ignore these plain words of Scripture and say that Mary was exempt from them?

PERPETUAL VIRGINITY OF MARY

Matt 1:24-25
24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
(KJV)
(What does that little word “till” say to us? If Joseph never had relations with Mary, then that word would not be in the original texts, but it is.)

Matt 12:47-50
47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? And who are my brethren?
49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.
(KJV)

Matt 13:55-56
55 Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?
(KJV)

The Greek word used in all these passages is:

80 adephos (ad-el-fos');

From 1 (as a connective particle) and delphus (the womb); a brother (literally or figuratively) near or remote [much like 1]:
KJV-- brother.

If used figuratively, it applies to every believer in Jesus. It is the same word that describes the relationship of Peter and Andrew or James and John.

The word for “sisters” is the feminine of the same Greek word.

I expect you can cite pages from the Catholic encyclopedia explaining why the clear and reasonable understanding of these passages is incorrect.

THE BODILY ASSUMPTION OF MARY

John 3:13
13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
(KJV)

Jesus said here that He is the only one. Notice that he speaks as though it had already happened even though His ascention is yet future at that time and He is not in Heaven at that time.

I doubt you can cite even one scripture that hints at a bodily ascention for Mary, and that dogma is a fairly recent one, based only on the word of a Pope.

PETER THE FIRST POPE

Does the Pope exercise dominion over all the other priests? I think he does. What do the Scriptures say?

Matt 20:25-27
25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.
26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;
27 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:
(KJV)

Jesus told Peter specifically that what John did was none of his business.

John 21:21-22
21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?
22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? Follow thou me.
(KJV)

Paul publicly rebuked Peter for violating Christian principle. Would Paul have dared to do this if Peter was the Pope?

Gal 2:11
11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
(KJV)

Apparently Peter accepted the rebuke and had this to say about Paul:

2 Pet 3:15-16
15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
(KJV)

Here, Peter says that Paul’s epistles are scripture.

As to the last part of your question, since the RCC accepts charismatic priests, then it is not likely that there are any major beliefs of ours that you could not accept.

It all comes back to the authority of the Pope, doesn't it?

gromitt82

Feb 11, 2010, 10:43 AM

Catholic dogmas that I (and other non-Catholics) will not accept:

IMMACULATE CONCEPTION

Isa 64:6
6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
(KJV)

Rom 3:23
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
(KJV)

Rom 3:9-10
9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
(KJV)

Gal 3:22
22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
(KJV)

Are we to ignore these plain words of Scripture and say that Mary was exempt from them?

PERPETUAL VIRGINITY OF MARY

Matt 1:24-25
24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
(KJV)
(What does that little word “till” say to us? If Joseph never had relations with Mary, then that word would not be in the original texts, but it is.)

Matt 12:47-50
47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.
(KJV)

Matt 13:55-56
55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?
(KJV)

The Greek word used in all these passages is:

80 adephos (ad-el-fos');

from 1 (as a connective particle) and delphus (the womb); a brother (literally or figuratively) near or remote [much like 1]:
KJV-- brother.

If used figuratively, it applies to every believer in Jesus. It is the same word that describes the relationship of Peter and Andrew or James and John.

The word for “sisters” is the feminine of the same Greek word.

I expect you can cite pages from the Catholic encyclopedia explaining why the clear and reasonable understanding of these passages is incorrect.

THE BODILY ASSUMPTION OF MARY

John 3:13
13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
(KJV)

Jesus said here that He is the only one. Notice that he speaks as though it had already happened even though His ascention is yet future at that time and He is not in Heaven at that time.

I doubt you can cite even one scripture that hints at a bodily ascention for Mary, and that dogma is a fairly recent one, based only on the word of a Pope.

PETER THE FIRST POPE

Does the Pope exercise dominion over all the other priests? I think he does. What do the Scriptures say?

Matt 20:25-27
25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.
26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;
27 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:
(KJV)

Jesus told Peter specifically that what John did was none of his business.

John 21:21-22
21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?
22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.
(KJV)

Paul publicly rebuked Peter for violating Christian principle. Would Paul have dared to do this if Peter was the Pope?

Gal 2:11
11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
(KJV)

Apparently Peter accepted the rebuke and had this to say about Paul:

2 Pet 3:15-16
15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
(KJV)

Here, Peter says that Paul’s epistles are scripture.

As to the last part of your question, since the RCC accepts charismatic priests, then it is not likely that there are any major beliefs of ours that you could not accept.

It all comes back to the authority of the Pope, doesn't it?

Thank you. Will revert on the matter. :)

galveston

Feb 11, 2010, 10:44 AM

I apologise for backtracking to this old post but I haven't been able to follow this thread for a while.

Galveston, you seem to think that speaking with “tongues” is a necessary gift for someone who is filled with the Holy Spirit but your previous quote

points out that the Spirit gives out different gifts to different people as he wills. Further in the passage we read

1 Cor 12:28-31
28And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
29Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?
30Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?
31But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.

This clearly tells us that not all speak with tongues!

In fact in the next chapter St Paul tells us that without Charity it doesn’t matter what gift of the Spirit one has it's worthless.

Charity or Love | Learn The Bible (http://www.learnthebible.org/charity-or-love.html)
defines biblical charity as
“Charity specifically refers to the love that we have toward other men.”
“Charity is the love toward others that suffers long with them and is kind (1 Corinthians 13:4), that does not behave unseemly, seek to get its own way, or is easily provoked (1 Corinthians 13:5); that rejoices not in the iniquity of others (1 Corinthians 13:6); that bears, believes, hopes, and endures (1 Corinthians 13:7).”

So to answer your question, how do Catholics know that they are filled with the Holy Spirit? By the charity in themselves, each other and the Catholic Church in her teachings.

You put different ministries of the Holy Ghost together.

1. The initial evidence of the Baptism of the Holy Ghost
2. The gifts given to believers (as He wills) by the Holy Ghost
3. The fruit of the Spirit

These are not all the same experience, but are all given by the Holy Ghost.

sndbay

Feb 11, 2010, 11:16 AM

What was said was that there is no 'assurance' of being saved. Simply bearing witness doesn't do it either. It's God's judgment over a life's merit in its perseverance with fear and trembling working out its salvation. (Cf. Phil 2:12)

JoeT

Phil 2:12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

Phil 2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of HIS good pleasure.

The scripture referance you offered says it is God that has HIS hand of power to lead us, just as it was in the OT. And working out your own salvation which is done through One Faith. When you finally see that the denomination of religion is what you have chosen to follow (man/Pope is your rock), and instead it should be the same spiritual Rock Jesus Christ. Christ voice says, My sheep hear My Voice and follow Me.

Plus your faith appears to rest in man and the gathering of members in the church, known to you as the Catholic faith.

The first love and glory shown in Christ Jesus is much more obvious in what my rest is yoked through by One Faith Phil 2:10-11 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

The answer in working out your own salvation is confirmed in Eph 6:13-14-15-16 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.

~One Faith in Christ

galveston

Feb 11, 2010, 02:32 PM

Let's reverse this for a moment.
I have told you why I cannot accept Catholic dogma.

Now look at what I believe, and tell me which one of these beliefs you, as a Catholic can NOT accept, and why.

I. The Scriptures inspired, both Old and New Testaments are verbally inspired by God, and are the revelation of God to man, the infallible, authoritative rule of faith and conduct. 2 Timothy 3:15-17; I Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Peter 1;21
II. The one true God, revealed in principles of relationship as, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Deuteronomy 6:4; Isaiah 43:10,11; Matthew 28:19; Luke 3:22
a. Deity of Jesus Christ
i. Virgin birth
ii. Sinless life
iii. His miracles
iv. His substitutionary work on the cross
v. His bodily resurrection
vi. His exhaltation to the right hand of God
III. The fall of Man
IV. The salvation of Man through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ
V. The Ordinances of Holy Communion and water baptism
VI. The Baptism in the Holy Ghost for every believer
VII. The INITIAL evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Ghost is speaking in unknown tongues as the Spirit gives utterance.
VIII. Sanctification of the saved believer from a life of sin to a life of righteousness (a process of time by heeding the Word and being led by the Holy Ghost)
IX. The Church is the corporate Body of Christ, habitation of God through the Spirit.
X. A Divinely called ministry (Apostles, Prophets, Teachers, Pastors, Evangelists)
XI. Healing for the human body provided in the Atonement.
XII. The resurrection of the redeemed to everlasting life with God.
XIII. The Millennial reign of Christ
XIV. The final judgment
XV. New Heavens and New Earth

paraclete

Feb 11, 2010, 02:42 PM

This is all a very tired argument promoted by those who feel they must justify the position of their Church. Scripture is very clear, the "Church" are those who believe in Christ, not a location, not an organisation, more often a small group who meet in a house.

Each christian is exhorted to spead the message of the Gospel, That message did not include the RCC or any other Church organisation. This has not changed from the first day and yet we still have the same tired argument that Paul describes about who we follow. Telling Jesus which branch of the Church you belong to will not get you in the door, he is only interested in whether you believe in him.

JoeT777

Feb 11, 2010, 04:31 PM

this is all a very tired argument promoted by those who feel they must justify the position of their Church. Scripture is very clear; the "Church" are those who believe in Christ, not a location, not an organization, more often a small group who meet in a house.

If you intended to criticize and if that criticism is pointed at me, I would like to point-out that I’ve always responded in this thread with a reasoned response to the OP, “Why did Jesus Christ establish a Church?” In so doing I've explained WHY and HOW Christ established His Church, often described in Scripture as “the Kingdom of God. “ Furthermore, the connection was made between “The Kingdom of God” and “Church”. I have never felt compelled to ‘defend’ the Church of Jesus Christ. What I have done is respond to questions regarding the Church, what and how I understand the Catholic belief. All of which was discussed in previous posts; I have never ‘condemned’ or quoted ‘damnation’ verses to those who disagree, unlike others. I would invite you to re-read any of my posts; if I have done such a thing please let me know. I’ll make every effort possible to correct the matter – wise cracks excluded. What I don’t make is excuses for irrefutable arguments (well OK, as close to irrefutable as I can make it). You can make the claim that I’m a hardnosed Catholic (I'll wear that as a badge of honor), but you can’t say that I made ad hominem remarks as argument.

For the reasons stated in this thread, I do not agree with your understanding of scripture. “Church” is much more than your definition would allow. ‘Church’ is not necessarily a gathering of two or three, ‘Church’ is a Divine organization including those of us on earth, in purgatory, and in heaven, and it contains both the sinner and the holy – the size of the building called Church is immaterial and is as large or as small as need dictate. ‘Church’ is the recipient of the ‘Divine’ commission to baptize and teach, this commission is not given to each individual, but to One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, otherwise known as the Roman Catholic Church.

Each Christian is exhorted to spread the message of the Gospel, That message did not include the RCC or any other Church organization. This has not changed from the first day and yet we still have the same tired argument that Paul describes about who we follow. Telling Jesus which branch of the Church you belong to will not get you in the door, he is only interested in whether you believe in him.

Implicit in the command to teach the Gospel is to teach God’s Truth, to do otherwise would be heresy. What you know as the RCC is that body called ‘Church’ who’s first members, the Apostles, received knowledge of those things revealed by God as ‘Truth’. They in their turn taught others. While the Church does make every effort to ‘get along,’ the revealed Truth contained in her can never be compromised. I can’t ‘see it your way’, I can’t compromise what doesn’t belong to me, I can’t be open minded about absolute truth; Divine Truth cannot be ‘rationalized’ away.

Thus, Catholics claim that in her we have the ‘fullness of faith’; not that what we receive is to be ‘saved-by-Church-alone', not that we are better, different, or any less (or more) sinners than any other people on the earth. But, we do have something you want – The fullness of faith.

JoeT

paraclete

Feb 11, 2010, 04:51 PM

If you intended to criticize and if that criticism is pointed at me, I would like to point-out that I've always responded in this thread with a reasoned response to the OP, “Why did Jesus Christ establish a Church?” In so doing I've explained WHY and HOW Christ established His Church, often described in Scripture as “the Kingdom of God. “ Furthermore, the connection was made between “The Kingdom of God” and “Church”. I have never felt compelled to 'defend' the Church of Jesus Christ. What I have done is respond to questions regarding the Church, what and how I understand the Catholic belief. All of which was discussed in previous posts; I have never 'condemned' or quoted 'damnation' verses to those who disagree, unlike others. I would invite you to re-read any of my posts; if I have done such a thing please let me know. I'll make every effort possible to correct the matter – wise cracks excluded. What I don't make is excuses for irrefutable arguments (well ok, as close to irrefutable as I can make it). You can make the claim that I'm a hardnosed Catholic (I'll wear that as a badge of honor), but you can't say that I made ad hominem remarks as argument.

For the reasons stated in this thread, I do not agree with your understanding of scripture. “Church” is much more than your definition would allow. 'Church' is not necessarily a gathering of two or three, 'Church' is a Divine organization including those of us on earth, in purgatory, and in heaven, and it contains both the sinner and the holy – the size of the building called Church is immaterial and is as large or as small as need dictate. 'Church' is the recipient of the 'Divine' commission to baptize and teach, this commission is not given to each individual, but to One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, otherwise known as the Roman Catholic Church.

Implicit in the command to teach the Gospel is to teach God's Truth, to do otherwise would be heresy. What you know as the RCC is that body called 'Church' who's first members, the Apostles, received knowledge of those things revealed by God as 'Truth'. They in their turn taught others. While the Church does make every effort to 'get along,' the revealed Truth contained in her can never be compromised. I can't 'see it your way', I can't compromise what doesn't belong to me, I can't be open minded about absolute truth; Divine Truth cannot be 'rationalized' away.

Thus, Catholics claim that in her we have the 'fullness of faith'; not that what we receive is to be 'saved-by-Church-alone', not that we are better, different, or any less (or more) sinners than any other people on the earth. But, we do have something you want – The fullness of faith.

JoeT

Joe I have not aimed my remarks at anyone in particlar but at the notion that the Church is anything more than a collection of all believers doing what Christ told them to do, which is to spend the message of Jesus Christ to all parts of the world. I will say it again, this is a very tired debate, it has been going on for two thousand years and it is time we put it aside and got on with the job we were given and answered the question for ourselves, WHY DID JESUS CHRIST ESTABLISH A CHURCH? It was not so we could feel nice and fuzzy about the fact that we belonged to a church, but so others would come to know about him. The Truth we must embrace is Jesus died so we could be born to eternal life, not so we could spend our time arguing about who has been appointed to lead. I think Jesus rebuke of the appostles on that point makes it clear, it is not about who is the greatest in the kingdom. He gave us his Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth. One of the things a Church is not required to do is to preach doctrines not found explicitally in Scripture

TUT317

Feb 11, 2010, 06:12 PM

The problem with the types of arguments experienced in this post and similar posts is that NO progress is made.

I see the problem in the type of sentences we are using to prove a point.

When we argue a point we can do one of two things. We can use what might be called basic propositions such as," Peter was a disciple of Jesus"
The truth of this proposition can be tested not only by reference to the bible put by examining the proposition itself. Subject, Peter stands in a certain relation to the predicate disciple. This type of proposition depicts a relationship of classes and as such can be tested by logical analysis.

I am quite sure that the majority of people would agree, "Peter was a disciple of Jesus" is true. This is based on the historical record and the nature of the basic proposition.

On the other hand, a complex proposition would be, "Peter is the rock upon which Jesus built his church" This complex proposition can be broken down into two basic propositions:
(a) Peter is the rock
(b) Jesus will build his church.

The two basic propositions are joined by the logical connectives "upon which". Logical connectives do not relate to any facts, in this world or any other. Therefore, it is important not to get bogged down discussing the merits or other wise of connectives.

But this is only part of the problem, believers and non-believers would argue that religious people believe in all sort of things which are inaccurate or non-existent.

Let us look at the proposition,"God necessarily exists" An atheist would say that all we are putting forward is the idea that a non-existent entity exists.

BUT HE DOES EXIST, maybe not in the same way as you or I exist but he exists nonetheless. Therefore it is important to distinguish between types of existence. That is the type of existence we normally experience and a SPECIAL IDEAL EXISTENCE.

"God necessarily exists". God is the subject of the sentence and exists is the predicate. "God necessarily exists" is meaningful but not in a factual way but a special ideal way. In other words, this sentence cannot be broken down into the same basic propositions as we did with our,"Peter the rock" example.

We run into all sorts of confusion and problems when we try to treat all these "special ideal propositions", which we find in the bible ( for the want of a better way of saying this) as being the same as any other proposition. This is why our arguments are not making any progress.

arcura

Feb 11, 2010, 08:43 PM

paraclete

Feb 11, 2010, 08:56 PM

The problem with the types of arguments experienced in this post and similar posts is that NO progress is made..

The reason no progress is made is that the inherent proposition is based on a false intrepretation of Scripture attempting to give preeminence to one group. Scripture clearly teaches, (Paul,) that the argument about who's teaching is better is a wrong argument

When we argue a point we can do one of two things. We can use what might be called basic propositions such as," Peter was a disciple of Jesus"
The truth of this proposition can be tested not only by reference to the bible put by examining the proposition itself.

I am quite sure that the majority of people would agree, "Peter was a disciple of Jesus" is true. This is based on the historical record and the nature of the basic proposition..

No one has any problem with the proposition that Peter was a disciple, that he was a leader, and that he carried the burden that all Christians should carry, but preminent and one who's doctrine was faultless, I doubt the events at Antioch indicate that Paul was of that opinion. Paul saw the need to correct Peter because he was straying back into Judaism and would have taken the Church with him.

On the other hand, a complex proposition would be, "Peter is the rock upon which Jesus built his church" This complex proposition can be broken down into two basic propositions:
(a) Peter is the rock
(b) Jesus will build his church..

Peter is not the Rock, Jesus Christ is the Rock, in fact Jesus used the term pebble at that time to describe Peter and his wrong attitude, a stumbling block, and this particular misintrepretation is still a stumbling block to Christians two thousand years later.

Christ is building his Church on the Rock that he is the son of God. He has been doing that for two thousand years, he doesn't say to us follow Peter, he says follow me. If you want to follow Peter go get yourself crucified upside down

arcura

Feb 11, 2010, 09:13 PM

paraclete,
Sorry, but Yes Jesus is a rock and so IS Peter because Jesus said so.
He said that Peter is the Rock on which Jesus would build His Church.
I believe Jesus.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

450donn

Feb 11, 2010, 09:17 PM

galveston,
Perhaps you did not know that the Pope is considered to be the greatest SERVANT in the Catholic Church.
As has been said, He who serves most leads best.
In Jesus time on earth He was the greatest servant AND the best leader. He still is.
The Pope is Christs vicar on this planet.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
And what did Jesus say about the Pharisees and leaders of the day?
They proclaimed exactly the same thing about themselves. But Jesus had some very harsh words to them about their hypocrisy.

galveston

Feb 11, 2010, 09:38 PM

Is no one bold enough to answer my 16 articles of faith as posted earlier?

I think Catholics will find much to agree with there.

arcura

Feb 11, 2010, 10:29 PM

450donn,
I believe that is was Jesus who TOLD His disciples that the best leader is the best servant.
At least that is what my bibles say.

Galbveston,
I'll need to find them and take a look see.
Thanks,
Fred

JoeT777

Feb 11, 2010, 10:33 PM

The reason no progress is made is that the inherent proposition is based on a false intrepretation of Scripture attempting to give preeminence to one group. Scripture clearly teaches, (Paul,) that the arguement about who's teaching is better is a wrong argument

There is no 'argument' from me over who is right and who is wrong. At least I never took that position. What I did show was proof based on Catholic doctrine. In matters regarding faith and morals I take this as objective truth - like in any science you can not argue with what is axiomatic. This, no doubt, sounds arrogant but my position isn't negotiable, nor do I view a faith worth having if it were negotiable.

JoeT

JoeT777

Feb 11, 2010, 10:51 PM

Is no one bold enought to answer my 16 articles of faith as posted earlier?

I think Catholics will find much to agree with there.

I've got 10(?) objections or disagreements. I took out the ones I agreed with at least in a general sense.

I. I can't agree with this: the infallible, authoritative rule of faith and conduct is scripture. 2 Timothy 3:15-17; I Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Peter 1;21
ii. Our sinless life (if I can change this to holy life) no such thing as a sinless life unless you're baptize at the point of death.
iv. His substitutionary work on the cross (don't know what this means)
vi. His exhalation to the right hand of God (Not sure what's meant)
III. I disagree with this: The fall of Man as in 'totally depraved – i.e. per Luther's definition.
V. I can agree with this if ordinances is in reference to sacraments and includes all seven Catholic sacraments: The Ordinances of Holy Communion and water baptism
VI. I don't hold to this: we are baptized in the name of God, Son and Holy Spirit – the Holy Spirit doesn't normally possess body and soul: The Baptism in the Holy Ghost for every believer
VII. This is true in the sense of what is written in scripture, but not necessarily true in every believer in every time: The INITIAL evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Ghost is speaking in unknown tongues as the Spirit gives utterance.
VIII. I disagree if this is 'once saved always saved' or 'I can't sin after being saved' :Sanctification of the saved believer from a life of sin to a life of righteousness (a process of time by heeding the Word and being led by the Holy Ghost)
IX. The Catholic Church is the corporate body of Christ - not sure what is meant about 'habitation':The Church is the corporate Body of Christ, habitation of God through the Spirit.
XI. Not normal: Healing for the human body provided in the Atonement.
XIII. Wholly disagree: The Millennial reign of Christ

JoeT777

Feb 11, 2010, 11:01 PM

And what did Jesus say about the Pharisees and leaders of the day?
They proclaimed exactly the same thing about them selves. But Jesus had some very harsh words to them about their hypocrisy.

No they didn't!

arcura

Feb 11, 2010, 11:20 PM

Joet,
Yes, I do agree with you. They did not!!
It was Jesus who said to his followers that then one who serves most serves best.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

TUT317

Feb 11, 2010, 11:41 PM

Peter is not the Rock, Jesus Christ is the Rock, in fact Jesus used the term pebble at that time to describe Peter and his wrong attitude, a stumbling block, and this particular misintrepretation is still a stumbling block to Christians two thousand years later.

Hello paraclete,

I wasn't trying to use any proposition to establish a position. e.g.. "Peter is the rock...." In fact I am not even sure I've got the quote right. It was just an example off the top of my head. I decided upon this example because it can be established historically, i.e.. Peter was a historical character who was/was not regarded as a rock.

I think it is these types of propositions which progress can be made. Not everyone is going to agree, but by turning complex propositions into more basic subject/ predicate propositions, progress is possible, especially if we do this in light of historical facts.

To be honest I haven't given this area much consideration so I have not developed a view one way or the other, but it would be an interesting exercise.

I will try to highlight my argument using a less quarrelsome example.The example I will use should highlight what I am getting at.

If I were to put forward the point of view that, "Richard Nixon was a bad president" I believe that we could reach some type of consensus on the issue. Why is this possible? Firstly, I think that we could establish a definition as to what is entailed by the term," bad president".

Once we have established this we can see if Nixon meets the criteria of a bad president. If we are still unable to agree then we can consult the historical records, e.g.. Tapes, diaries, accounts given by witnesses etc, etc. When we are dealing with physical facts then progress is possible.

But what about about non-physical things? Can we come up with some type of agreement. As stated in my previous post I think the answer is no.Why? Because propositions involving such things as the Trinity cannot be broken down into more basic propositions which can then be analyzed in light of physical facts.

Here is an example of why it is very difficult agree about the nature of non-physical things

If I were to say," Hamlet was a left-wing anti monarchist". Then such a statement can be regarded as meaningless because Hamlet doesn't exist. He is only a character in a play. But there is a problem saying that he doesn't exist. If he doesn't exist then why do people have a idea of who he is? Why is he mentioned in many publications? Why do people borrow famous quotes from a non existent prince of Denmark? For example Hamlet said," There is something rotten in the state of Denmark".

Hamlet does exist but not in the same way as you or I exist. He has a special category of existence. I cannot prove that Hamlet is a left-wing anti monarchist. I can go through the play with a fine tooth combe and not find any evidence. Even if I could find something it would do my case no good because I have nothing historical to compare it with.

I cannot go to the F.B.I. and investigate Hamlet's left- wing associates.
I cannot ask his relations about his political leanings. There is of course no historical record of this type.

In the end these types of special category propositions should not be broken down into basic types because it is a pointless exercise. We cannot prove anything by referring to physical evidence.All we can do is refer to other quotes and this seems to get us little progress.

This was the point I was trying to make in my previous post.

paraclete

Feb 12, 2010, 12:48 AM

There is no ‘argument’ from me over who is right and who is wrong. At least I never took that position. What I did show was proof based on Catholic doctrine. In matters regarding faith and morals I take this as objective truth - like in any science you can not argue with what is axiomatic. This, no doubt, sounds arrogant but my position isn’t negotiable, nor do I view a faith worth having if it were negotiable.

JoeT

Joe you need to understand Catholic doctrine doesn't have the same authunticity as Scripture. It might be based on Scripture and it might be based on opinion.; Catholic doctrine holds that Tradition is equal with Scripture that is clearly a wrong view, even Jesus told us that, if there is conflicit Scripture is clearly truth and doctrine must stand aside.

galveston

Feb 12, 2010, 11:02 AM

I've got 10(?) objections or disagreements. I took out the ones I agreed with at least in a general sense.

I. I can’t agree with this: the infallible, authoritative rule of faith and conduct is scripture. 2 Timothy 3:15-17; I Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Peter 1;21
ii. Our sinless life (if I can change this to holy life) no such thing as a sinless life unless you’re baptize at the point of death.
iv. His substitutionary work on the cross (don’t know what this means)
vi. His exhalation to the right hand of God (Not sure what's meant)
III. I disagree with this: The fall of Man as in ‘totally depraved – i.e., per Luther’s definition.
V. I can agree with this if ordinances is in reference to sacraments and includes all seven Catholic sacraments: The Ordinances of Holy Communion and water baptism
VI. I don’t hold to this: we are baptized in the name of God, Son and Holy Spirit – the Holy Spirit doesn’t normally possess body and soul: The Baptism in the Holy Ghost for every believer
VII. This is true in the sense of what is written in scripture, but not necessarily true in every believer in every time: The INITIAL evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Ghost is speaking in unknown tongues as the Spirit gives utterance.
VIII. I disagree if this is ‘once saved always saved’ or ‘I can’t sin after being saved’ :Sanctification of the saved believer from a life of sin to a life of righteousness (a process of time by heeding the Word and being led by the Holy Ghost)
IX. The Catholic Church is the corporate body of Christ - not sure what is meant about 'habitation':The Church is the corporate Body of Christ, habitation of God through the Spirit.
XI. Not normal: Healing for the human body provided in the Atonement.
XIII. Wholly disagree: The Millennial reign of Christ

OK. Now, what Scripture(s) do you give for your disagreements?

(Yes, I can give scriptures for every one of the 16 points if you ask, but it would be better to take one subject at a time to shorten posts.)

gromitt82

Feb 12, 2010, 11:47 AM

For Galveston,
I was expecting this dogma to be on the list. Basically, because it has been discussed since a long time ago and by eminent scholars like St. Bonaventure (Doctor Seraphicus) or St. Thomas Aquinas (Doctor of the Church).
These two scholars believed that Mary was completely free from sin but that she was not given this grace at the instant of her conception. Later on, they said the would accept the determination of the Church, which they did.
I often have the feeling that many of us can’t see the forest for the trees. The important question we should have to answer is whether we believe in One Only God and in Jesus Christ, his Son, who died in the Cross, and in Jesus’ personal message to all of us which is written in the Gospels. All the rest, in my opinion of course, is what the Italians say “Peccata minuta” , i.e. not so important. We surely ALL accept that God is Almighty, and therefore nothing is impossible for His Power. I wonder where will all these speculations go when one day we finally realize that there are other living beings in other Planets in this or other Galaxies. To start with the RCC is already starting to consider this possibility as quite likely to happen one of these days…
But let us revert to the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin. I am quoting herewith some of what the Catholic Encyclopedia has to say in this respect: Quote:
… John Duns Scotus (1265/66-1308) was one of the most important and influential philosopher-theologians of the High Middle Ages, defended this doctrine. Scotus proposed a solution to the theological problem involved of being able to reconcile the doctrine with that of the universal redemption in Christ, by arguing that Mary's immaculate conception did not remove her from redemption by Christ; rather it was the result of a more perfect redemption that was given to her on account of her special role in history. Furthermore, Scotus said that Mary was redeemed in anticipation of Christ's death on the cross. Duns' arguments remained controversial, however, particularly among the Dominicans, who were willing enough to celebrate Mary's sanctificatio (being made free from sin) but, following the Dominican Thomas Aquinas' arguments, continued to insist that her sanctification could not have occurred at the instant of her conception.
The doctrine itself had been endorsed by the Council of Basel (1431–1449), and by the end of the 15th century was widely professed and taught in many theological faculties. However, the Council of Basel was later held not to have been a true General (or Ecumenical) Council with authority to proclaim dogma; and such was the influence of the Dominicans, and the weight of the arguments of Thomas Aquinas (who had been canonised in 1323 and declared "Doctor Angelicus" of the Church in 1567) that the Council of Trent (1545–63)—which might have been expected to affirm the doctrine—instead declined to take a position; it simply reaffirmed the constitutions of Sixtus IV which had threatened with excommunication anyone on either side of the controversy who accused the others of heresy.
Unquote:
In 1854 Pope Pius IX, with the support of the overwhelming majority of Roman Catholic Bishops, whom he had consulted between 1851–1853, promulgated the papal bull Ineffabilis Deus (Latin for "Ineffable God"), which defined ex-cathedra the dogma of the Immaculate Conception:
The papal definition of the dogma declares with absolute certainty and authority that Mary possessed sanctifying grace from the first instant of her existence and was free from the lack of grace caused by the original sin at the beginning of human history.
This dogma is therefore the consequence of a long time mulled over and discussed decision. Not really the result of some divine inspiration (I guess) but rather the corollary resulting from the fact the Virgin Mary being the Mother of Jesus Christ She might have been as well granted by God the Grace of her Immaculate Conception.
But the point is, as far as you are concerned, what difference does it make whether She was or was not granted that Grace. We Catholics cannot prove it, but you cannot prove the contrary either. It is just a matter of believing it or not, which in our case is a must, but not in yours.
For many years the nationality of Christopher Columbus has been under discussion. While some maintain he was born in Genoa, others claim he was Catalan, Portuguese, French and even English.
But what difference does it make? The actual fact is that in 1492 he discovered an island which now is the Dominican Republic and, consequently, one of the first Europeans to discover the American Continent.
For the Roman Catholic Church the dogma of the Immaculate Conception gained additional significance from the reputed apparitions of Our Lady of Lourdes, in 1858. In this little village a 14-year-old girl, Bernardette Soubirous, claimed that a beautiful woman appeared to her and said, "I am the Immaculate Conception ". Many believe the woman to have been the Blessed Virgin Mary.
In any case, the many extraordinary healings that have taken place over there ever since have met with no explanations whatsoever by some eminent doctors who have borne witness of them. My elder son was 5 years old and for 1 year he had been developing what the doctors considered to be a “Bullous Pemphigoid”, a sub epidermal blistering skin disease, very rare in infants, and which in the 50s there was no cure for, in Spain. We took him to Lourdes, and we bathed him in those kinds of bathtubs they have, where water is never changed and yet remains clean, and by the time we got back to Barcelona he was cured. We took him to his dermatoleg, and until he died he was wondering how that was at all possible…!
I would like you to go to this website:
Medjugorje Messages and Apparitions - Our Lady of Medjugorje website - Virgin Mary of <b style="color:black;background-color:#99ff99">Medjugorje</b> (http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:CV7hUPKMghwJ:www.medjugorje.ws/+Our+Lady+de+Medjugorje&cd=2&hl=es&ct=clnk&gl=es)
The curious thing is that the town of Medjugorje is located at 25 kms, of Mostar and, during the Bosnia war (1992/95), that area was one of the parts of Bosnia that suffered the most terrible bombings. And yet, not a single shell ever fell in that little town.
This is something – like the Lourdes or the Fatima sites – to be personally seen to start believing in something miraculous. Perhaps, if you can afford it, it would be a nice trip for you and your wife to visit these places…
Then you might understand (without having to give up to your beliefs) why we Catholics have such devotion for the Virgin Mary, though I insist that the relevant matter is that she was Jesus’ Mother, and that you believe, don’t you?
Gromitt82

classyT

Feb 12, 2010, 11:52 AM

When Jesus walked on this earth he did not start the church. If you will read in Acts after his resurrection,the disciples thought he was ready to set up his earthy Kingdom. They were clueless about the age of grace, the church, the body of christ, assemblies. COMPLETELY CLUELESS. They were still heading to the temple to worship. It isn't until the Apostle Paul's ministry do we start to understand the "church" or the body of Christ. ( The Lord revealed these things to PAUL)

Why did the Lord start it... THEN? Because he wanted His Word spread to the ends of the earth. It isn't his will that any perish in their sins. He also started it so that we could worship him corporately, he also wanted us to remember him together with the bread and the wine.( symbols of his broken body and shed blood) He wanted us to work together and love one another and show love to others that are not part of the church. He started it so that we might be salt ( for the thirsty) and light ( to those in the dark.) He started the church because he wanted a bride one day... and we are his bride. He started it to teach us of his mercy and grace, love and forgiveness.

The body of Christ or the Church or the Assemblies or whatever you want to call it.. is not a denomination.. ( He didn't start division). It is a people called out for HIS name sake.

sndbay

Feb 12, 2010, 11:55 AM

What I did show was proof based on Catholic doctrine. JoeT

The Catholic doctrine? What a shameful thought that you follow a doctrine, and do not even consider the facts as they are written.

There is only one with authority that stands above all.

Matthew 7:28-29 And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at HIS doctrine:For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.

John 17:16-17 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

2 John 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God.
He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
2 John 9:10-11 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

Beware! Watch carefully not to fall asleep.

Matthew 16:12 Then understood they how that he bade them]not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.

galveston

Feb 12, 2010, 12:03 PM

sndbay

Feb 12, 2010, 12:11 PM

The body of Christ or the Church or the Assemblies or whatever you want to call it..is not a denomination..( He didn't start division). It is a people called out for HIS name sake.

ClassyT, Respect for all that you have spoken, except it is written that Christ said Himself, He did bring division.

Luke 12:51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division

The division was between the doctrine of Christ to follow Him, and the false teaching of the Pharisees who would not deny themselves to follow Christ.

JoeT777

Feb 12, 2010, 12:47 PM

Why did the Lord start it.... THEN?

This is why: https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christianity/why-did-jesus-christ-establish-church-433985-11.html#post2210169

JoeT

classyT

Feb 12, 2010, 01:29 PM

ClassyT, Respect for all that you have spoken, except it is written that Christ said Himself, He did bring division.

Luke 12:51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division

The division was between the doctrine of Christ to follow Him, and the false teaching of the Pharisees who would not deny themselves to follow Christ.

Snd!!

He wasn't talking to the CHURCH.. . no way,, no HOW! Yes! He said he came to divide.. but Snd, he wasn't talking About the church or TO the church.. not about his BRIDE. He wants US in unity... we aren't OBVIOUSLY but that isn't from him. Rightly dividing the word of Truth... if we could do that.. then we could get somewhere in the Body of Christ... Satan loves our divisions.

classyT

Feb 12, 2010, 01:44 PM

This is why: https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christianity/why-did-jesus-christ-establish-church-433985-11.html#post2210169

JoeT

Grumpy Joe,

I don't think so. :( I admit I haven't read all of it... I skimmed but you mention the CHRUCH is necessary for redemption? Huh? The church can't redeem squat. Only Jesus... I will take a closer look at it when I don't have kids wanting the computer but as usual my friend.. I think we disagree but I love you for trying... :D

sndbay

Feb 12, 2010, 02:32 PM

Snd!!!!

He wasn't talking to the CHURCH. ..no way ,,,,no HOW! Yes! he said he came to divide..but Snd, he wasn't talking BOUT the church or TO the church ..not about his BRIDE. He wants US in unity...we aren't OBVIOUSLY but that isn't from him. Rightly dividing the word of Truth....if we could do that..then we could get somewhere in the Body of Christ....Satan loves our divisions.

ClassyT it is true, Christ does not want division within His follwers which would be the fellowship of members within HIS church.

His bride, do you means new Jerusalem?

The idea is that His follower believe in Him and walk in His footsteps. No division in doing it HIS Way because He is the Way.

classyT

Feb 12, 2010, 02:38 PM

450donn

Feb 12, 2010, 02:44 PM

Joet,
Yes, I do agree with you. They did not!!!
It was Jesus who said to his followers that then one who serves most serves best.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Fred, are you trying to quote JN12;26? If anyone serves me he must follow me;and where I am there my servent will be also, if anyone serves me the father will HONOR him.
Or is it HE 12;28?
Therefore, since we receive a kingdom which cannot be shaken, let us show gratitude by which we may offer to God an acceptable service with reverence and awe;
No sure what translation you are using to get "best" out of, Mine sure doesn't read like that.

sndbay

Feb 12, 2010, 07:11 PM

Snd,

The Bride of Christ...is the Church of Christ according to the scriptures. There will be a marriage supper of the lamb. The New Jerusalem is a place the bride ( the body of Christ) will dwell with Him....forever.

Revelation 21:2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

I have always trusted that we hope to be dressed in white linen, able to attend the wedding.

Isa 61:10 I will greatly rejoice in the LORD, my soul shall be joyful in my God; for he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, he hath covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decketh himself with ornaments, and as a bride adorneth herself with her jewels.

And that God will rejoice over those dressed in white linen

Isa 62:5 For as a young man marrieth a virgin, so shall thy sons marry thee: and as the bridegroom rejoiceth over the bride, so shall thy God rejoice over thee.

SORRY
interesting thread possible, off thread

arcura

Feb 12, 2010, 11:40 PM

sndbay,
Yes lets get back to the thread topic.
What reasons are there for Jesus to have established His Church?
Peace and kindness,
Fred

sndbay

Feb 13, 2010, 04:13 AM

sndbay,
Yes lets get back to the thread topic.
What reasons are there for Jesus to have established His Church?
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I had hope the idea might spark a light of truth concerning the thread discussion. Jesus was the corner stone, the first born.

When we follow Christ in confession that Christ is the begotten Son of God, and walk in One Fath being HIS doctrine, then we have unity of fellowship in Christ. That would be the established church known as HIS church and members of HIS One Body.

Thus we rejoice in the LORD, because our souls are joyful in God, our hearts circumcised, and our flesh now walks having the spirit, a good conscience toward God; for He hath clothed us with the garments of salvation, He hath covered us with the robe of righteousness. (As a bridegroom decketh himself with ornaments, and as a bride adorneth herself with her jewels) There is grace for grace brought forth in preparation for a new Jerusalem.

~In Christ

JoeT777

Feb 13, 2010, 07:23 PM

“Under the fig tree I knew you” (John 1:48): Where do I know you from? Not to unusual a question when a familiar face jogs the memory. The question isn't 'where' did we meet but 'from what source' do you hail, i.e. who sent you. This, on the other hand, is an unusual question to ask, you don't normally ask 'who sent you'. Nathanael's question went straight to the quick; he was obviously a blunt person. This is the type of person whose conversations are 'eye to eye,' without any pretense. In fact in this scene John seems to be sketching Nathanael as measuring up Christ; he draws himself up, setting himself face to face with Christ but turns to Philip to ask, “Can anything of good come from Nazareth? ” Christ immediately recognized the intangible qualities of the man; “no guile” here.

In response to Nathanael's question to Christ, he got, what would seem perfectly ordinary response, “Before that Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you.” This can be taken to mean that Christ had his eye on Nathanael for selection as an Apostle – ordinary small talk. John had more in mind with these verses than to waste precious words on simple conversation. There's a undercurrent of a parallel at play. The clue to a parallel is the unusual response given by Nathanael, “Rabbi: You are the Son of God. You are the King of Israel.” Now, that's a strange response, or was it?

The fig tree is a symbol that runs deep in Judaism. It was more than a national symbol, it was a symbol of the Kingdom of God, a priestly nation, “And Juda, and Israel, dwelt without any fear, every one under his vine, and under his fig tree” (1 Kings 4:25). It was a symbol of the comfort in nationalism the Old Covenant brings. However, there is a prophetic image conveyed by the imagery of the fig tree, “I saw their fathers like the firstfruits of the fig tree in the top thereof: but they went in to Beelphegor (the baal of Mt. Phogor), and alienated themselves to that confusion, and became abominable, as those things were, which they loved.” Hosea 9:10. The ultimate outcome of which we get to see in Matthew, fib tree was unfruitful (The Jewish sons of the first Covenant had not answered God's call to holiness).

Nathaniel was one of those who followed the one who was crying in the wilderness, St. John the Baptist. So Christ's response would have explicitly understood as recalling Hosea, “The days of visitation have come, the days of repaying have come: know, O Israel, that the prophet was foolish, the spiritual man was mad, for the multitude of your iniquity, and the multitude of your madness. The watchman of Ephraim was with my God: the prophet has become a snare of ruin upon all his ways, madness is in the house of his God. They have sinned deeply, as in the days of Gabaa: he will remember their iniquity, and will visit their sin.” (Hosea 9:7-9). The parallels in John chapter 1 are so strong that every first century Jew would have understood Christ was to take the Seat of Moses replacing a spiritual barren land for a kingdom where, “For the Lord your God will bring you into a good land…wherein fig trees and pomegranates, and oliveyards grow: a land of oil and honey. (Deut. 8:7-8).

In the most innocuous verse we find a call to a new Kingdom. The very same Kingdom promised Moses, “If therefore you will hear my voice, and keep my covenant, you shall be my peculiar possession above all people: for all the earth is mine. And you shall be to me a priestly kingdom, and a holy nation.” (Ex.19: 5, 6). The nation of Israel which failed to bear first fruit, “Therefore I say to you that the kingdom of God shall be taken from you and shall be given to a nation yielding the fruits thereof. And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it shall grind him to powder.” (Matt 21:43-44).

The Kingdom of God, the New Covenant, what history produced in the Roman Catholic Church, can be found even sitting in the shade of a fig tree. This we see even in the most inconsequential Scriptural verses Christ's ministry to bring us the Kingdom of God.

But you are a chosen generation, a kingly priesthood, a holy nation, a purchased people: that you may declare his virtues, who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light 1 Peter 2:9

JoeT

arcura

Feb 13, 2010, 10:53 PM

JoeT,
Thou art indeed a bible scholar.
I so much enjoy your posts regarding holy Scripture.
You tie it together so nicely that it is easy to contemplate AND understand.
Thanks much,
Fred

elscarta

Feb 14, 2010, 02:54 AM

dividing the word of Truth.....
ClassyT could you please explain what you meant by the above quote.

gromitt82

Feb 14, 2010, 09:23 AM

I will not accept the Catholic Encyclopedia when the views given are not backed up by a solid Bible base.

It is as I feared, even when you can agree on a point, you still have to disagree with me because I am not a member of your denomination.

That's sad, and shows why the ecumenical movement will never go anywhere.

I am sorry you keep on bestowing more importance to the tiny differences that separate the different denominations than the great and basic facts that unite us:

a) Do you or do you not believe that Jesus' mother was the Virgin Mary?
b) Do you or do you not believe that Jesus is the Son of God?
c) If you believe the 2 above facts then it should follow that there must be some kind of divine intervention in Mary's pregnancy and consequently, in Jesus' birth.
d) Do you or do you not believe in the Holy Trinity?
e) Do you or do you not believe that what is written in the Gospels muest be substantially what Jesus preached during his life?

If you do, these in my opinion are basic concepts that unite us. And if you do, chances are that sooner or later the ecumenic efforts to join all denominations may finally succeed.

As a matter of fact, the Anglican CHurch and the RCC are sustaining rather constructive conversations in this regard.

On the other hand, I'm somewhat surprised to see that you completely skip my mention of the Virgin's apparitions in the 20th Century.
They certainly could not be substantiated by the Bible because it was written 20 to 40 centuries ago.

You look to me like St. Thomas who had to put his fingers on Jesus' wounds to believe the He was Jesus all right.

Do you or do you not believe in the Virgin's apparitions that happened last century?

I am curious to see what you have to answer to the above questions.

Gromitt82

TUT317

Feb 14, 2010, 02:54 PM

I am sorry you keep on bestowing more importance to the tiny differences that separate the different denominations than the the great and basic facts that unite us:

a) Do you or do you not believe that Jesus' mother was the Virgin Mary?
b) Do you or do you not believe that Jesus is the Son of God?
Gromitt82

Gromitt, if you don't mind I would like to borrow one of your dot points to highlight my previous argument.

Your example (b) Do you not believe that Jesus is the son of God.

This is a complex proposition which can be broken down into basic subject/predicate sentences. Jesus(subject) is the son of God(predicate) and God(subject) is the father of Jesus(predicate). The two sentences are joined by the logical connective 'and'. When joined together these two sentences are logically consistent. In other words, we don't require any additional knowledge to know its truth. We know it is true just by looking at the structure of the sentence.

Now the important point is that this sentence is NOT a fact.
"Jesus rode on the back of a donkey" is a fact. By that I mean that it is possible to verify at some point in history if a person called Jesus rode on the back of a donkey. I think it is possible to come to some sort of agreement/disagreement over this fact.

But why are they two different types of propositions? "Jesus is the son of God" and "Jesus rode on the back of a donkey". Even though they are both of the subject/predicate type they are completely different. They are GRAMMATICALLY similar but not LOGICALLY similar.

Proposition (b) is a general proposition of the subject/predicate form which cannot be broken down any further. To break it down only confuses matters. Because it cannot be broken down further we have to accept it as it is.

From my point of view I BELIEVE THAT (b) IS TRUE because it is written. However, I acknowledge that there are other people in this world who do not believe (b). How can I show them that (b) or similar propositions are true?

There are only two possibilities.
(a) Show them where it is written in the Bible.
(b) Show them the self evident structure of the proposition

In the final analysis if someone were to reject my two possibilities, just above (a) and (b) then this is not logically inconsistent on their part. There is nothing we can do about it. You accept it or your don't. Trying to break it down into facts does not work for these types of propositions.

Interestingly enough, I think your last proposition, (e) Do you or do you not believe what is written in the Gospels must be substantially what Jesus preached during his life? --This is of the factual kind and can be verified.

galveston

Feb 14, 2010, 03:49 PM

I am sorry you keep on bestowing more importance to the tiny differences that separate the different denominations than the the great and basic facts that unite us:

a) Do you or do you not believe that Jesus' mother was the Virgin Mary?Yes
b) Do you or do you not believe that Jesus is the Son of God?Yes
c) If you believe the 2 above facts then it should follow that there must be some kind of divine intervention in Mary's pregnancy and consequently, in Jesus' birth. dsMary's pregnancy, or her mother's? Mary was pregnant by the Holy Ghost, her mother was not.
d) Do you or do you not believe in the Holy Trinity? Yes
e) Do you or do you not believe that what is written in the Gospels muest be substantially what Jesus preached during his life? Yes This very point is why I will hold to what the Apostles wrote in their histories of Jesus and the early Church.

If you do, these in my opinion are basic concepts that unite us. And if you do, chances are that sooner or later the ecumenic efforts to join all denominations may finally succeed.

As a matter of fact, the Anglican CHurch and the RCC are sustaining rather constructive conversations in this regard.

On the other hand, I'm somewhat surprised to see that you completely skip my mention of the Virgin's apparitions in the 20th Century.
They certainly could not be substantiated by the Bible because it was written 20 to 40 centuries ago.

You look to me like St. Thomas who had to put his fingers on Jesus' wounds to believe the He was Jesus alright.

Do you or do you not believe in the Virgin's apparitions that happened last century?

I am curious to see what you have to answer to the above questions.

Gromitt82

I'm not buying into any supposed apparitions or visions.

Keep this in mind:

2 Cor 11:14-15
14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.
(KJV)

Regardless of what an apparitioin looks like or says, it can be as false as Satan himself. The whole thing is extra-Biblical and if you rely on it you are sure to be deceived.

classyT

Feb 14, 2010, 07:43 PM

ClassyT could you please explain what you meant by the above quote.

Sure, it means not taking things out of context... understanding WHO is writing, WHO it is written to, and Why it was written... I believe that MOST Christians... ( myself included) need to always remember this when reading the Bible. :)

paraclete

Feb 14, 2010, 09:23 PM

On the other hand, I'm somewhat surprised to see that you completely skip my mention of the Virgin's apparitions in the 20th Century.
They certainly could not be substantiated by the Bible because it was written 20 to 40 centuries ago.

You look to me like St. Thomas who had to put his fingers on Jesus' wounds to believe the He was Jesus alright.

Do you or do you not believe in the Virgin's apparitions that happened last century?

I am curious to see what you have to answer to the above questions.

Gromitt82

Gromitt you have a pecular view of the Bible. Biblical prophesy has indeed fortold events many centuries ahead and even in the twentieth century but it makes little mention of Mary beyond her role in the birth of Jesus. What then are we to think about these non biblical events associated with Mary. Are we to think that God was taken by surprise by the twentieth century and he needed some additional weight to overcome the opposition. What the Bible says is that an evil generation looks for a sign so we need to be very careful about such signs and the motivations behind them. The veneration and elevation of Mary beyond her biblical role is a deception. Christ is the redeemer

arcura

Feb 14, 2010, 10:17 PM

gromitt82

Feb 15, 2010, 10:37 AM

Gromitt, if you don't mind I would like to borrow one of your dot points to highlight my previous argument.

Your example (b) Do you not believe that Jesus is the son of God.

This is a complex proposition which can be broken down into basic subject/predicate sentences. Jesus(subject) is the son of God(predicate) and God(subject) is the father of Jesus(predicate). The two sentences are joined by the logical connective 'and'. When joined together these two sentences are logically consistent. In other words, we don't require any additional knowledge to know its truth. We know it is true just by looking at the structure of the sentence.

Now the important point is that this sentence is NOT a fact.
"Jesus rode on the back of a donkey" is a fact. By that I mean that it is possible to verify at some point in history if a person called Jesus rode on the back of a donkey. I think it is possible to come to some sort of agreement/disagreement over this fact.

But why are they two different types of propositions? "Jesus is the son of God" and "Jesus rode on the back of a donkey". Even though they are both of the subject/predicate type they are completely different. They are GRAMMATICALLY similar but not LOGICALLY similar.

Proposition (b) is a general proposition of the subject/predicate form which cannot be broken down any further. To break it down only confuses matters. Because it cannot be broken down further we have to accept it as it is.

From my point of view I BELIEVE THAT (b) IS TRUE because it is written. However, I acknowledge that there are other people in this world who do not believe (b). How can I show them that (b) or similar propositions are true?

There are only two possibilities.
(a) Show them where it is written in the Bible.
(b) Show them the self evident structure of the proposition

In the final analysis if someone were to reject my two possibilities, just above (a) and (b) then this is not logically inconsistent on their part. There is nothing we can do about it. You accept it or your don't. Trying to break it down into facts does not work for these types of propositions.

Interestingly enough, I think your last proposition, (e) Do you or do you not believe what is written in the Gospels must be substantially what Jesus preached during his life? --This is of the factual kind and can be verified.

It had never occurred me trying to analize whether or not Jesus is God's Son through a syntactical analysis. For two obvious reasons. I was never too god at syntactical analysis. I could not care less about subjects and predicates when it comes to believe whether God sent His Son to our beautiful planet to redeem us...

On the other hand, I DO NOT THINK either that believing what the Gospels say is more factual than believing Jesus is God's Son. If the latter cannot be verified to believe the former implies a lot of faith too.
There is actually - unless I'm awfully wrong - any way to factually prove that what the Apostles wrote were in fact the very words Jesus said.
Yet, we believe them because we have faith the Jesus is God's Son and therefore, these Words are likely to be those Jesus actually pronounced, for they are basically the same a loving father would tell his sons, and this is what we are, Jesus' sons.

When we read in History books that Julius Caesar said "allea jacta est" when doubting whether or nor to cross the Rubicon river, we believe it hook, line and sinker. We do not even stop to ponder whether this might be the invention of some historian...

But, when we are told by the Apostles -who are also historians in a way-
That Jesus is God's Son, then we start to mull over the possibility this might be a fake argument!

If I may add something to your statement I would say we all are extremely gullible when it comes to when our Governments tell us how much they love us -and this can be easily verified to a be a big lie - whereas we tend to doubt Jesus' love when he gied in the Cross for us...

Is not that a sign that we are not as bright as we think we are?

Gromitt82

gromitt82

Feb 15, 2010, 10:54 AM

I'm not buying into any supposed apparitions or visions.

Keep this in mind:

2 Cor 11:14-15
14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.
(KJV)

Regardless of what an apparitioin looks like or says, it can be as false as Satan himself. The whole thing is extra-Biblical and if you rely on it you are sure to be deceived.

Congratulations, my dear friend, for I see that what unite us is by far more important and vital than what separate us.

So there are still big hopes for both of us, which does not mean that you have to fully accept what I say no more than I have to accept what you say. Perhaps, one good day, people like you and I, will find the right way in between.

As for believing or not in apparitions, this is simply a matter of opinion, although, of course, if you have never been to one of these places your own opinion cannot be very objective, as proven by the fact that infer the possibility they are the work of Satan, without having appreciated the consequences.

I wonder whether Satan would have appreciated that the results of these apparitions (were they his responsibility) would the building of great Basilicas and the conversion of hundreds of thousands... As we say in Spanish he would be throwing stones at his own roof, don't you think?

gromitt82

Feb 15, 2010, 10:59 AM

Gromitt you have a pecular view of the Bible. Biblical prophesy has indeed fortold events many centuries ahead and even in the twentieth century but it makes little mention of Mary beyond her role in the birth of Jesus. What then are we to think about these non biblical events associated with Mary. Are we to think that God was taken by surprise by the twentieth century and he needed some additional weight to overcome the opposition. What the Bible says is that an evil generation looks for a sign so we need to be very careful about such signs and the motivations behind them. The veneration and elevation of Mary beyond her biblical role is a deception. Christ is the redeemer

While I could not agree with you more that Christ is our redeemer, I wonder what events have the Bible foretold in the 20th century?

For the rest you may care to read what I write about the Virgin Mary to our colleague Galveston in this very thread...

gromitt82

Feb 15, 2010, 11:01 AM

gromitt82,
I'm sure that there are more things and bible teachings that are believed by most all denominations than the few you mentioned.
Leaders of several denominations have met in the recent past to discuss more unity.
That is a very hopeful sign, I do believe.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Of course, there are many more, although it depends on the Denominations. I am totally hopeful, though I may not be able to beaar witness of it, unfortunately.
Gromitt82

galveston

Feb 15, 2010, 05:04 PM

We have thoroughly hijacked Fred's thread, Sorry Fred.

Let's take this discussion to the religious discussions forum.

I will launch one titled "Jesus the man and the Immaculate Conception"..

arcura

Feb 15, 2010, 08:26 PM

gromitt82,
Excellent several posts.
Thank you.
Fred

JoeT777

Feb 17, 2010, 10:45 PM

ClassyT it is true, Christ does not want division within His follwers which would be the fellowship of members within HIS church.

His bride, do you means new Jerusalem?

The idea is that His follower believe in Him and walk in His footsteps. No division in doing it HIS Way because He is the Way.

The Bride of Christ is the Church, that is the Roman Catholic Church.

JoeT

arcura

Feb 17, 2010, 10:55 PM

JoeT,
Yes, that is true.
The Church is the bride and Christ Jesus is the groom.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

JoeT777

Feb 18, 2010, 09:31 AM

JoeT777

The Bride of Christ is the Church, that is the Roman Catholic Church.

Then what about the other Churches?

I don’t know; what about them? You might read this (it’s on this forum and part of this debate):

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christianity/why-did-jesus-christ-establish-church-433985-11.html#post2210169

They are not the Bride?

It would be called polygamy for a man to have more than one wife, which of course is opposed to scripture. What kind of a God would demand an unyielding fidelity and yet be a polygamist? So, as a man has only one wife, so too is their only One Bride of Christ.

JoeT

classyT

Feb 18, 2010, 09:42 AM

Yo, Joe, give me the verse in the Bible for the Roman Catholic Church being the Bride. When I asked for the verse, I mean from the BIBLE written by men inspired by GOD?. come on now, remember?? The one that has 66 books... starts with Genesis... ends with Revelation? Because THAT Bible, says the Bride is the entire BODY of believers.

:)

JoeT777

Feb 18, 2010, 12:07 PM

Now who's being grumpy? I didn't know you wanted verses from the Bible, you do recall I'm not bound to strictly the bible, or to just 66 books. Nevertheless, let's see if I can show you from the bible-only view point.

First, Catholics hold that 'The Bride of Christ' is a metaphorical view of the union of Christ with His Church; that is just like the marriage union between a man and his bride. The children from this mystical union are the faithful.

The Bride of Christ

Apocalypse 21:9-10: And there came one of the seven angels, who had the vials full of the seven last plagues, and spoke with me, saying: Come, and I will shew thee the bride, the wife of the Lamb. And he took me up in spirit to a great and high mountain: and he shewed me the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God,

Ephesians 5:22-33: Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord: Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church. He is the saviour of his body. Therefore as the church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himself up for it:

That he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life: That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any; such thing; but that it should be holy, and without blemish. So also ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife, loveth himself. For no man ever hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, as also Christ doth the church: Because we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh. This is a great sacrament; but I speak in Christ and in the church. Nevertheless let every one of you in particular love his wife as himself: and let the wife fear her husband.

1 Corinthians 12:12-14: For as the body is one, and hath many members; and all the members of the body, whereas they are many, yet are one body, so also is Christ. For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free; and in one Spirit we have all been made to drink. For the body also is not one member, but many.

One Body, i.e. the Roman Catholic Church.

Matthew 9:15: And Jesus said to them: Can the children of the bridegroom mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then they shall fast.

Children of the Bridgroom are the faithful

Mark 2:19: And Jesus saith to them: Can the children of the marriage fast, as long as the bridegroom is with them? As long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast.

John: 3:26-30: And they came to John, and said to him: Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond the Jordan, to whom thou gavest testimony, behold he baptizeth, and all men come to him. John answered, and said: A man cannot receive any thing, unless it be given him from heaven. You yourselves do bear me witness, that I said, I am not Christ, but that I am sent before him. He that hath the bride, is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, who standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth with joy because of the bridegroom's voice. This my joy therefore is fulfilled. He must increase, but I must decrease.

The friend of the bridegroom is John

Emphasis is mine.

JoeT - Grump himself.

arcura

Feb 18, 2010, 03:38 PM

ClassyT,
The bible uses the name "The Church" with Peter as the first leader.
Later, after biblical times other people estanblished what THEY called to be a church. Most of them were very heretical and some where very inaccuate.
So "The Church" added the name "Catholic" to indicate that it was and is the true universal Church.
That is how The Catholic Church came to be known world wide.
That info can be found in just about any actual, authentic, history on the subject.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Feb 18, 2010, 03:44 PM

Yeah just like fish isn't meat.

450donn

Feb 18, 2010, 06:03 PM

MODERATOR PLEASE close this ridiculous thread. JoeT and others have degraded it to a Catholics only club and the rest of us are no longer Christians. I for one am insulted!

JoeT777

Feb 18, 2010, 08:09 PM

MODERATOR PLEASE close this ridiculous thread. JoeT and others have degraded it to a Catholics only club and the rest of us are no longer Christians. I for one am insulted!
I can't say what the moderator will do or not, either way I have brought significant and meaningful material to answer Fred's question which was as follows:

It seems to me that there may be several reasons why Jesus established The Church. How many reasons can you think of as to why he did?

I established that Christ did commission one and only one Church,

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christianity/why-did-jesus-christ-establish-church-433985-16.html#post2220650

I explained who made-up the Body of Christ.

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christianity/why-did-jesus-christ-establish-church-433985-16.html#post2222632

And among other sundry issues, I explained why John 6 concerned the 'Real Presence'

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christianity/why-did-jesus-christ-establish-church-433985-9.html#post2209063

It's very likely these views were not met kindly by a great many people, nevertheless they were legitimate arguments. Many, chose not to answer Fred's question directly, rather they found fault that a Catholic should post a view counter to theirs. Nobody has shown the error of my statements as of yet. All are invited to continue to inspect my posts for Catholic errors. I will be happy to continue to discuss them. However, If there is anybody who should cry foul, it should be the Catholics. If there was insult, I'd suggest that those insults are result of prejudices that produce a false sense indignity for argument's sake.

I argued my case with straightforward reasoning, fairly and honestly, without insult. When I didn't agree, I said so, without ad hominem and with supporting views from other Catholics, usually from antiquity. What I also did, when possible, was to provided insight to malformed statements by others; again, without name calling, or whining about the fact that Protestants were allowed to post their opinions.

But, I'll make you a deal; I will not submit a single post, ever again if you, 450donn, will simply ask me to withdraw, here in this open thread – I don't do the PM thing so it needs to be here. No, questions asked, I'll simply never submit a post again; all your Catholic problems will be over.

JoeT

450donn

Feb 18, 2010, 08:28 PM

The Bride of Christ is the Church, that is the Roman Catholic Church.

JoeT

JoeT Like I said comments like this are an insult. I have also made insults toward the RCC here before and I regret those comments. Maybe you do to, maybe not. But if this is your belief maybe you need to sit down and rethink your position. You claimed that the RCC is the bride of Christ excluding all others. So explain how you can come to that and still believe in the ONLY one true word of God. In other words the Bible?

classyT

Feb 18, 2010, 10:07 PM

Now who’s being grumpy? I didn’t know you wanted verses from the Bible, you do recall I’m not bound to strictly the bible, or to just 66 books. Nevertheless, let’s see if I can show you from the bible-only view point.

First, Catholics hold that ‘The Bride of Christ’ is a metaphorical view of the union of Christ with His Church; that is just like the marriage union between a man and his bride. The children from this mystical union are the faithful.

The Bride of Christ

Apocalypse 21:9-10: And there came one of the seven angels, who had the vials full of the seven last plagues, and spoke with me, saying: Come, and I will shew thee the bride, the wife of the Lamb. And he took me up in spirit to a great and high mountain: and he shewed me the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God,

Ephesians 5:22-33: Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord: Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church. He is the saviour of his body. Therefore as the church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himself up for it:

That he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life: That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any; such thing; but that it should be holy, and without blemish. So also ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife, loveth himself. For no man ever hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, as also Christ doth the church: Because we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh. This is a great sacrament; but I speak in Christ and in the church. Nevertheless let every one of you in particular love his wife as himself: and let the wife fear her husband.

1 Corinthians 12:12-14: For as the body is one, and hath many members; and all the members of the body, whereas they are many, yet are one body, so also is Christ. For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free; and in one Spirit we have all been made to drink. For the body also is not one member, but many.

One Body, i.e. the Roman Catholic Church.

Matthew 9:15: And Jesus said to them: Can the children of the bridegroom mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then they shall fast.

Children of the Bridgroom are the faithful

Mark 2:19: And Jesus saith to them: Can the children of the marriage fast, as long as the bridegroom is with them? As long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast.

John: 3:26-30: And they came to John, and said to him: Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond the Jordan, to whom thou gavest testimony, behold he baptizeth, and all men come to him. John answered, and said: A man cannot receive any thing, unless it be given him from heaven. You yourselves do bear me witness, that I said, I am not Christ, but that I am sent before him. He that hath the bride, is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, who standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth with joy because of the bridegroom's voice. This my joy therefore is fulfilled. He must increase, but I must decrease.

The friend of the bridegroom is John

Emphasis is mine.

JoeT - Grump himself.

LOL... now grumpy Joe... I put a :) and the end of my post... sos I didn't appear to be a grouch.. so there. Ha ha

You listed verses in the Bible( that I am BOUND only to) but I never noticed the roman catholic church being mentioned... just the church.. which includes me. Why? Because I am a believer in Christ and his finished work on the cross. In all honesty, I never knew much about the Roman Catholic church until I got on this website. I am part of the body dude... sorry. I may be the armpit to you... lol... but I am THERE. :)

Fred,

I just don't believe that the Catholic church is the bride of Christ.. I believe it includes ALL believers, yes EVEN the catholics that believe. :)
Hope you are doing well by the way and your pain has subsided!!

arcura

Feb 18, 2010, 10:34 PM

I do not like that, Joe.
You are entitled to post here and on other threads just like the many other Christians who post here, and there are many, at times, from several different denominations, all Christians.
If a person is not a Catholic does not ever mean or suggest that they are not Christians.
I think that and do admire several here who are not Catholic who are very good Christians to my point of view and I think that is true of others here.
This thread has produced a lot of good thoughtful answers and I do hope it continues to do so.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

JoeT777

Feb 18, 2010, 10:35 PM

JoeT Like I said comments like this are an insult. I have also made insults toward the RCC here before and I regret those comments. Maybe you do to, maybe not. But if this is your belief maybe you need to sit down and rethink your position. You claimed that the RCC is the bride of Christ excluding all others. So explain how you can come to that and still believe in the ONLY one true word of God. In other words the Bible?
I don’t make deliberate insults, but I have rightly been accused of being cynical. Cynicism I do well, it’s just part of what makes me JoeT.

I have already explained how the Catholic Church is the Bride of Christ. It is an exclusive ‘club’, but one that has open doors and excludes nobody that is willing to discipline themselves in her doctrines. The simple reason is that there can only be one ‘One True Church of Jesus Christ’ – He only started One Church, and He didn’t really ‘start’ it.

I’ll agree my posts are crude, so I’ll try to outline Catholic understanding of ‘Church’ again for your benefit. I can’t stress this enough, the claim I make isn’t mine, it’s belongs to the 2,000 years of the Catholic faithful; from Christ’s mouth, to the Apostles ear, from Bishop to Bishop, finally reaching me across a distance of two-millennia and half a globe. It’s also found in ‘right reasoning’ in the faith. This is a disciplined way of thinking or reasoning that keeps the faith within the confines of doctrine thereby assuring an objective faith (a faith rooted in God’s absolute Truth). Many Protestants claim Catholics are ‘indoctrinated’, i.e. brainwashed. This, at least in my case, is far from the truth. Instead what Catholic doctrine does is allow one to explore the Truth in matters of morals and faith. The discipline prevents the human tendency to slip into relativism and rationalism. It’s from here that you’ve heard me make the claim that the only way one can literally have sola-scriptura is to do it with Catholic Tradition; because, outside of her organizational rules, the doctrine of faith is strictly Scriptural. And since God’s Truth is immutable, that Truth doesn’t change – we can come to understand it better, but we can’t ‘re-truth’ it.

KINGDOM OF GOD

• Kingdom of God given to Moses, “If therefore you will hear my voice, and keep my covenant, you shall be my peculiar possession above all people: for all the earth is mine. And you shall be to me a priestly kingdom, and a holy nation.” (Ex.19: 5, 6), Remember, Moses spoke to God ‘face to face’ – who else in biblical history talked to God ‘face to face’?

• Kingdom in the Messianic age that even kings will serve and obey (Psalm 21:28 sq.; 2:7-12; 116:1; Zechariah 9:10). (Micah 4:1-2) “(Zechariah 14:8)

• Prophecies in the Old Testament tell of a future Kingdom holding the authority in the rule of the Messiah; Psalms 2 and 71; Isaiah 9:6 sq.

• Christ takes Moses’ Seat Luke 4:21

• THE KING IS HERE is the proclamation, one greater than the Temple. (Matt 12:6). Lord over the Sabbath (Luke 6:5).

• Perpetuation of the Law (Luke 16:16; cf. Matthew 4:23; 9:35; 13:17; 21:43; 24:14; Mark 1:14; Luke 4:43; 8:1; 9:2, 60; 18:17).

• Taken from the Jew and given to the Twelve: “Therefore I say to you that the kingdom of God shall be taken from you and shall be given to a nation yielding the fruits thereof. And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it shall grind him to powder.” (Matt 21:43-44).

• The Kingdom of God is represented by the Apostles within the former Kingdom Luke 17: 20-21. Luke 17:21 seqq is Christ is establishing His Kingdom, not so much as within each of us, but in the middle of Judaism with His first Saints; the Twelve.

• The appointment of an earthly head Matthew 16, the Commissioning of the Church Matthew 28. Everywhere you look in Scripture there is a reference to ‘Kingdom of God,’ ‘Kingdom of Heaven’, and ‘Kingdom of the Father,’ and other similar constructs. Well over 100 references to the establishment of, the training of, the commissioning of, the rules and regulations for a living body, i.e. the Living Church of Christ.

The more I study the connective verses on ‘Kingdom of God’ and the more I read of the Early Fathers, I find that this is precisely what Christ’s mission was; to take the seat of Moses and rule over God’s Church through Peter's Seat.

JoeT

JoeT777

Feb 18, 2010, 10:41 PM

LOL...now grumpy Joe...I put a :) and the end of my post... sos I didn't appear to be a grouch.. so there. ha ha

You listed verses in the Bible( that I am BOUND only to) but I never noticed the roman catholic church being mentioned...just the church..which includes me. Why? because I am a believer in Christ and his finished work on the cross. In all honesty, I never knew much about the Roman Catholic church until I got on this website. I am part of the body dude....sorry. I may be the armpit to you...lol...but I am THERE. :)

Fred,

I just don't believe that the Catholic church is the bride of Christ..i believe it includes ALL believers, yes EVEN the catholics that believe. :)
Hope you are doing well btw and your pain has subsided!!!

I just thought you went Smiley happy. No it doesn't say 'Catholic', nor does it say 'Trinity'. It's only a name we've come to know her by, Catholic, Roman, Western, Eastern, etc. Whatever you call it it's Christ's Church, she calls herself The Church of Jesus Christ. – Hey! It's just like when you call me Grumpy JoeT, that's not my real name, but it gets my attention!

JoeT

arcura

Feb 18, 2010, 10:46 PM

arcura

Feb 18, 2010, 11:47 PM

inhisservice,
For me to answer...
I believe the Bible is the holy word of God and filled with God's truth.
I'm a Catholic and I know that a great many Catholics believe as I do.
The Catholic Church was built on and because of Bible ans what it says and in fact it is the Church that promulgated the bible what the world now uses.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

gromitt82

Feb 19, 2010, 08:48 AM

Well said, JoeT!
Gromitt82

JoeT777

Feb 19, 2010, 09:25 AM

JoeT,
Thanks for that clear explanation.
But it does not mean that if people are not members of the Catholic Church that they are not Christians.
I know many people who are Christians and not Catholics.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Well, no I don't think I said "if you are not Catholic you are not Christian." And just for clarification, I’m not saying that if you are non-Catholic you are going to “the-very-bad-place”. What I am saying, and I’ve said this many times, is that the fullness of our Christian faith is found in Catholicism. This isn’t the same rationalism that some seem to have, that one faith is as good as another; rather it looks to recognize God’s Truth wherever you might find it and to reason in that Truth. In matters of faith and morals we can find many Christian Truths in Protestantism, you can find some of God’s Truth in Buddhism, and I suppose you could even find some of God’s Truth in atheism. That Truth is immutable, can never change and it is universal (not just for Catholics, not just for Christians, etc); His promises to man are irrevocable. God’s New Covenant in Christ is the fullness of that Truth insofar as man is able to comprehend, but the entirety of God’s known Truth doesn’t reside in a book. He placed that Truth in what we call today as the Catholic Church, thus she, and she alone, contains that Truth insofar as we men are able to understand. She produced Scripture in her Tradition of that Truth. We weren’t given a book-only, we weren’t given an unseen faith-only, or grace-only, or Christ-only, or glory-only, but rather an organization to minister with those Truths, faiths, graces, commandments revealed by Christ, and the ‘Real Presence of Christ.’ e.g. “eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood”.

I apologize if I gave the wrong impression in my previous post, I should have been more explicit.

JoeT

JoeT777

Feb 19, 2010, 12:33 PM

JoeT777

Some of the statements you have made are totally misunderstandings. So I thought I will have a small discussion with you.

Are you sure about my 'total misunderstanding'? Might it be that I'm Catholic because I do understand? I don't think however it would be appropriate to discuss it in this thread. Why don't you start a new thread and I'll join in – if not me, I'm sure other Catholics would be happy to discuss their 'misunderstandings' as well.

First of all do you believe that the Bible is the word of God? Do you believe that there is truth in it?

Holy Scriptures are the Holy Word of God and were written by men who were inspired by God to reveal his Truth. So as to discern Scripture from other writings we look to the authority of the Catholic Church. Thus we find that Roman Catholic Church doctrines harmonize with apostolic teachings (tradition) as well as Holy Scriptures.

Catholics hold that both Scripture and tradition are harmonious creating a foundation for an infallible rule of faith . In so doing, I'm placing my trust in God's Truths and those infallible Christ-given axiomatic Truths. Truth is immutable. If it is Truth for Peter, its Truth for us today, and it will be Truth tomorrow, it can't be destroyed. If you ever wanted to use the precepts of Solo Scriptura as the rule of faith , the only way to achieve a true understanding of Scripture, you need these eight individual principles, Scripture, Tradition, the Church, Councils, the Fathers, the Pope, miracles, and natural reasoning. Consequently, what comprises apostolic Tradition is usually taken to be papal and council decrees as the legitimate and infallible interpreter of the Bible; primarily because Scripture allocates this authority to them, i.e. the rule of faith.

Within itself, taken alone, without authentication, the Bible cannot be the sole arbiter of the rule of faith as it makes no claim of authority for itself. This is why, when speaking of doctrine, St. Augustine says, “But those reasons which I have here given, I have either gathered from the authority of the church, according to the tradition of our forefathers, or from the testimony of the divine Scriptures, or from the nature itself of numbers and of similitudes”. St. Augustine, On the Trinity

JoeT

sndbay

Feb 19, 2010, 02:04 PM

I have already explained how the Catholic Church is the Bride of Christ. It is an exclusive 'club', but one that has open doors and excludes nobody that is willing to discipline themselves in her doctrines. The simple reason is that there can only be one 'One True Church of Jesus Christ' – He only started One Church, and He didn't really 'start' it.

JoeT

RRC doctrine you call it, yet the Word of God tells us : mark those that come with a doctrine that causes division or contrary to the doctrine of Christ Jesus.

Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

You also say Jesus did not start His Church, yet it is written in the Word of God as "MY CHURCH" Without the corner stone there would be no beginning. Without the first begotten, first raised, the first of all.

According to the Word of God all "SCRIPTURE" is profitable as doctrine because it was the inspired word of God. We are throughly furnished by the written inspired Word of God! The man of God may is perfect by the inspired Word of God!

2 Timothy 3:16-17 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

1 Timothy 4:13 Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.

This is not speaking of newly formed doctrine or a doctrine made by men, but rather the inspired Word of God.

1 Timothy 6:1 Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and HIS doctrine be not blasphemed.

Tts 2:10 Not purloining, but shewing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things.

If you do not abide in the "One Hope" that is in One Body, One Spirit, One Faith, One Baptism, One God and Father then you do not abide in Christ Jesus or with HIS members that gather in unity in Christ Jesus.

Warning:
2 John 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

~in Christ

arcura

Feb 19, 2010, 03:30 PM

sndbay,
Please keep timing in mind.
The biblical passage is in reference to doctrine of the that time and the past NOT doctrine The Church Jesus established which is the pillar and foundation of the truth and all its teachings are based on Holy Scripture.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

JoeT777

Feb 19, 2010, 03:44 PM

RRC doctrine you call it, yet the Word of God tells us : mark those that come with a doctrine that causes division or contrary to the doctrine of Christ Jesus.

Good point sndbay. This is precisely why Christ's doctrine needs, as it were, governance; certainly we don't want Scriptural understanding to run amuck. Why before you know somebody will jump up and say "Pecca fortiter, sed crede forties”; the bumper sticker translation is, sin all you want, simply 'believe' for forgiveness. That wouldn't be good, would it? There needs to be an earthly authority for as long as Christ no longer resides with us. Which of course was foreseen by Christ; “whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.” The authority to 'bind and loose' places a Divine discipline over Tradition and the Scripture that Tradition produced, guided by the Holy Spirit, acting through the Church.

JoeT

arcura

Feb 19, 2010, 03:54 PM

JoeT,
Excellent point.
Well made.
Fred

TUT317

Feb 20, 2010, 03:31 AM

I’ll agree my posts are crude, so I’ll try to outline Catholic understanding of ‘Church’ again for your benefit. I can’t stress this enough, the claim I make isn’t mine, it’s belongs to the 2,000 years of the Catholic faithful; from Christ’s mouth, to the Apostles ear, from Bishop to Bishop, finally reaching me across a distance of two-millennia and half a globe. It’s also found in ‘right reasoning’ in the faith. This is a disciplined way of thinking or reasoning that keeps the faith within the confines of doctrine thereby assuring an objective faith (a faith rooted in God’s absolute Truth).

JoeT

Hello Joe T,

Catholicism has a long history but it is not an unbroken tradition.

The disciplined way of thinking or reasoning required for the Catholic faith was not a consideration in the early development of Christianity.
Early Christianity was characterized by what could be termed,'pastoral Christian ethics'. Christ was considered to be a holy profit, giving divinely inspired guidance.

This is far removed from from the much more analytic approach to Christianity which we see unfold in subsequent philosophies developed by the Catholic Church.

It would seem that only after the Catholic Church developed as a social and political entity that we have a change in direction. That is, a change due to the discovery of Plato and Aristotle and their contribution to the possibility that Christians can reason their way to an understanding of 'other-worldliness'. In other words, it brings forward the possibility of a metaphysical interpretation which was not evident in early Christian thinking.

I would argue that this alone suggests there is not a 2,000 year unbroken tradition.

Tut

sndbay

Feb 20, 2010, 10:21 AM

Good point sndbay. This is precisely why Christ's doctrine needs, as it were, governance; certainly we don't want Scriptural understanding to run amuck. Why before you know somebody will jump up and say "Pecca fortiter, sed crede forties”; the bumper sticker translation is, sin all you want, simply 'believe' for forgiveness. That wouldn't be good, would it? There needs to be an earthly authority for as long as Christ no longer resides with us. Which of course was foreseen by Christ; “whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.” The authority to 'bind and loose' places a Divine discipline over Tradition and the Scripture that Tradition produced, guided by the Holy Spirit, acting through the Church.

JoeT

That is a strange doctrine Joe, because I trust Christ dwells within us even today. The Word of God, the doctrine of Christ Jesus, and the gift of the Holy Spirit are present to those that follow Christ Jesus. Our Father in Heaven watches over us, and it is His hand of power and grace that permits the revealed spirit of truth. Being filled with the fruits of righteousness, which are by Jesus Christ, unto the glory and praise of God. (Phl 1:11)

Revel 2:13 I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan's seat is: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth.

In the Word of God we have the sharp sword with two edges, that cut both ways. We hold the knowledge of what is written, and warned about a church that held a doctrine of Balaam, and who presented a stumbling block before the people in continued sacrifices, worship of idols, and committing fornication.

I trust the Spirit of Truth that through prayer, and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ, we hold to ONE Hope, and that ONE Hope is Christ Jesus. The ONE Faith unto death I will stand as a faithful servant, never really wanting life without Christ, and as Paul wrote "to live is Christ, and to die is gain."

My love is not for any denomination of faith, or doctrine other then the gospel of Christ Jesus. You seem to forget that you said, RRC doctrine is where your heart rest, and that Christ really didn't start your church. Because of that strange notion, I would warn anyone against such a communion gathered to trust such a lie.

We will all be accountable to our own choice. And I would clearly follow the voice, Christ Jesus. Remember, Christ Himself spoke the Words of His Father. Christ was one with HIS Father and we are to called to be one with Christ.

2 John 1:2 For the truth's sake, which dwelleth in us, and shall be with us for ever.

2 John 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

~in Christ

JoeT777

Feb 20, 2010, 12:36 PM

Hello Joe T,

Catholicism has a long history but it is not an unbroken tradition.

The disciplined way of thinking or reasoning required for the Catholic faith was not a consideration in the early development of Christianity.
Early Christianity was characterized by what could be termed,'pastoral Christian ethics'. Christ was considered to be a holy profit, giving divinely inspired guidance.

This is far removed from from the much more analytic approach to Christianity which we see unfold in subsequent philosophies developed by the Catholic Church.

It would seem that only after the Catholic Church developed as a social and political entity that we have a change in direction. That is, a change due to the discovery of Plato and Aristotle and their contribution to the possibility that Christians can reason their way to an understanding of 'other-worldliness'. In other words, it brings forward the possibility of a metaphysical interpretation which was not evident in early Christian thinking.

I would argue that this alone suggests there is not a 2,000 year unbroken tradition.

Tut

Tut, et al;

To first define “pastoral Christian ethics” I understand the meaning as an emphases on ritual to teach morals and ethics. Pastoral Christian ethics, the speculation goes, receives its 'authority' from the musings of a divinely inspired oracle for 'right' living without connection to an esoteric philosophy. First, I would suggest that you've over 'philosophized' my statements – more important, it turns Catholicism into a divine discipline of metaphysics, which it's not. Second, your comments misrepresent both Catholicism in particular and Christianity in general by reducing its ultimate goal to 'right living' as opposed to persevering in faith for salvation – the everlasting life promised us all. Under the pastoral Christian ethic label everlasting life is achieved through Pharisaical-like observances in the Law of Moses. Conversely, Catholic or the early Christian finds the modality of eternal life in faith, hope, and charity (love); the greatest of which is charity. Consequently, we can view or study Catholicism with the sciences of philosophy and metaphysics only if we give just deference to a mysticism rooted in God. A more analytical approach to Christianity, more particularly Catholicism, without this element of spirituality always moves to a meaningless point of singularity. But, by including the a spiritual theological belief with metaphysics and we can move closer to God's Truth, although some of the rigors of science are lost – you simply can't test faith.

The best example of this is St. Thomas' a priori proof (a reasoning that moves from principle to a effect; not supported by fact, i.e. non-Empiricism) to formulate God's existence. In my estimate, this is the only way to prove God's existence, yet in the world of science this falls flat because the proof assumes elements of spirituality that can't be tested. Defining man as both body and soul wherein the soul moves the body we instantly run into trouble with science, while it can analyze and test the body, the soul remains a 'mystery,' that is the essence of which is unknown. All, we can deduce, is that body and soul define life; one without other (or without both) is an earthly death. Consequently, whether a science can define spirituality, it exists and should be incorporated into its findings. From this I've come to view life (body and soul) as living in a bubble of reality surrounded by a sea of spirituality. Or, in a mathematical sense, those 'real' things that make life is a subset of those things contained in spirituality. Thus we exist in God's will.

All of which is to say that I disagree with your reasoning because it's formation leaves out the element of spirituality, not to mention being factually wrong. Christianity or Catholicism dose contain elements of patristic rituality but is not dependent on it. In short you've allowed the equations of philosophy to lead you to a single point where it can no longer continue to a conclusion, this is a point of singularity. The science of philosophy must come to function in the realm of spirituality to measure the living man, which it is incapable of doing.

JoeT

arcura

Feb 20, 2010, 12:46 PM

TUT317,
That is interesting but I do disagree very much.
Your attitude about the Catholic Church and history is in error.
I agree with JoeT who did a good job explaining his disagreements with you.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

JoeT777

Feb 20, 2010, 01:59 PM

That is a strange doctrine Joe, because I trust Christ dwells within us even today. The Word of God, the doctrine of Christ Jesus, and the gift of the Holy Spirit are present to those that follow Christ Jesus. Our Father in Heaven watches over us, and it is His hand of power and grace that permits the revealed spirit of truth. Being filled with the fruits of righteousness, which are by Jesus Christ, unto the glory and praise of God. (Phl 1:11)

My comment ”Christ no longer resides with us” was only meant to convey the idea that Christ currently does not walk among us in his physical body. I used the word 'resides' to imply physical occupancy of a house, home or building. He left his Messianic seat to Peter and body and soul currently resides in heaven, i.e. “no longer resides with us”.

Revel 2:13 I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan's seat is: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth.

In the Word of God we have the sharp sword with two edges, that cut both ways. We hold the knowledge of what is written, and warned about a church that held a doctrine of Balaam, and who presented a stumbling block before the people in continued sacrifices, worship of idols, and committing fornication.

I trust the Spirit of Truth that through prayer, and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ, we hold to ONE Hope, and that ONE Hope is Christ Jesus. The ONE Faith unto death I will stand as a faithful servant, never really wanting life without Christ, and as Paul wrote "to live is Christ, and to die is gain."

Which ONE truth do you prefer? If you say Chritst’s Truth, then you looking for the Catholic Church. If you say a ‘Scriptural’ Truth then you are looking for the Catholic Church. And if you are saying you are looking for the same Truth the Apostles taught, then you are looking for the Catholic Church.

In her you will find His Name, His Word, His Faith, His Mystical Body.

My love is not for any denomination of faith, or doctrine other then the gospel of Christ Jesus. You seem to forget that you said, RRC doctrine is where your heart rest, and that Christ really didn't start your church. Because of that strange notion, I would warn anyone against such a communion gathered to trust such a lie.

You love a ‘denomination of faith’ but communion in the Scripturally founded Church of Jesus Christ is a lie? That is strange? A denomination of a faith is a ‘sub-class’ of the One True Faith in Christ, by definition they contain varying different ‘Truths’ from that found in Catholicism. So, you find all of them, collectively and individually, ‘correct’ in the Gospels and yet find the Catholic faith from which these sects broke ‘wrong’ in the Gospels; strange.

2 John 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the DOCTRINE of Christ hath not God. He that abideth in the DOCTRINE of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

JoeT