[adam7gur]

classyT
Maybe what you describe as the Holly Spirit ''leaving'' is better explained by the words of our Lord on the cross
Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
As I wrote before somewhere I believe we are in the ''sixth hour'' the hour of darkness which will lead to the '' death '' of Jesus on earth.But of course only His body died while He preached elsewhere to prisoned souls and came back in glory.
I think that what happened to Him will happen to us.People will consider us dead , as they considered Him dead but after a while we will come back for the Millennium with Him!
What do you say ?

[adam7gur]

The Greek word for "church", ekklesia, does, as Fred pointed out, mean "assembly".

In Greek...
O eklektos means the chosen one
Oi eklektoi(the oi sounds like an e like easy) means the chosen ones
H ekklesea ( the H sounds like an e like easy the first e sounds like pe sounds like pen n and the rest of the e's like easy means the singular word of the sum of the chosen ones

Not every assembly is an ekklesea ! The Catholic church is an assembly.
Btw... Do you think that Peter ''the first leader'' of the Catholic church would like the fact that you have bulid a temple in his name?
As far as I remember he did not allow Cornelius to bow in front of him and told him that he is also human .So what the Catholic church does , does not sound that authentic after all!
One more thing... Did not Paul arrive to Rome at least 4 years earlier than Peter?
Why is then Peter ''the first leader'' of the Catholic church .
To be honest both of them would tell you that there is only ONE leader of the church of Jesus Christ and that is Jesus Christ Himself.
Yes , you claim that Peter is ''the first leader'' of the Catholic church but you did not ask him and of course he is not here today to answear you for all those things that you do in his name.
As for the term '' leader'' , are you sure you have it right?

[450donn]

OK, this has gotten too far off topic. Three pages of bashing/defending the catholic church is enough. If someone wants to start a discussion of why the catholic church is better than others then please do so. Otherwise, please get back on topic or moderator please close this thread.
Thanks
450donn

[classyT]

classyT
Maybe what you describe as the Holly Spirit ''leaving'' is better explained by the words of our Lord on the cross
Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
As I wrote before somewhere I believe we are in the ''sixth hour'' the hour of darkness which will lead to the '' death '' of Jesus on earth.But of course only His body died while He preached elsewhere to prisoned souls and came back in glory.
I think that what happened to Him will happen to us.People will consider us dead , as they considered Him dead but after a while we will come back for the Millenium with Him!
What do you say ?

Adam,

Interesting. I have never heard that before. It is true that we will come back with him! What an exciting day that will be. He will defeat the antichrist and the false prohphet with a WORD. I don't know that the world will consider us dead though. I think the world will be in chaos and America in particular will be shattered. There are more believers here than anywhere on the planet. However I kind of like your analogy, so you think that the Lord's death could be a picture of the rapture of the Church? Something to ponder.

[Tj3]

Tj3,
That is hogwah,
FOR YEARS I HAVE PROVIDED YOU WITH THE TRUTH BUT YOU REJECT IT.
THAT IS WHY I IGNORE YOU.

Fred,

Telling me that I have to believe your opinion is not convincing.

[adam7gur]

The restrainer is clear in scripture...
Rev. 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come.

[adam7gur]

classyT
Maybe dead is not the right word to say , confused sounds better!

[adam7gur]

Correction!
The Greek word ekklesea comes from the two Greek words ek and kalo which means call someone out of something , so ekklesea means the sum of those who are called by Jesus to come out from the world!
Sorry for not making it clear from the start!

[classyT]

classyT
Maybe dead is not the right word to say , confused sounds better!

OK.. I can go with confused and certainly there was much confusion after the Lords death too. I like that Adam. Good thoughts , think I will bring that up at my Bible Study.

[Akoue]

Just a little help with the Greek:

The Gk. Word ekklesia (the second to last letter is not epsilon but iota) is quite commonplace, and is not reserved in its use for religious assemblies (as I pointed out). It is a feminine noun, preceded by the article eta, with a rough breathing mark: It is pronounced "hay".

When Cornelius falls to his feet at Acts 10.25, the Gk. Word is prosekunesen (pronounced prosekunaysen). In Gk. proskunesis (pronounced proskunaysis) can be offered only to God: It is a humbling gesture which can be offered only God. The root word is that for dog: The Persians used to bow down in this way before their king, and the ancient Greeks mocked them for this by likening them to dogs.

Also, it is pronounced hoy eklektoi (the article has a rough breathing mark over it).

For all you posers out there.

[arcura]

adam7gur,
Thank you for that post.
I don't think that Peter would mind having a nice big church building for the worship of God named after him.
I think Saint Peter is honored and humbled over that.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[arcura]

Tj3,
I am not insisting that you believe the truth about the Catholic Chirch.
That is your choice.
You can believe as you want to just like me and everyone else.
I just wish you peace and kindness as always.
Fred

[Tj3]

Tj3,
I am not insisting that you believe the truth about the Catholic Chirch.

Right. You are insisting that I believe your opinion and ignore the historic and Biblical evidence.

[arcura]

Tj3,
LOL
Wrong AGAIN.
My opinion about the Catholic Church is the truth backup by real authentic history.
You believe as you want ti be I will believe the truth.
Fred

[Tj3]

Tj3,
LOL
Wrong AGAIN.
My opinion about the Catholic Church is the truth backup by real authentic history.

Well, Fred, I have posted validation for my view. You just tell us what we have to believe according to you.

Not convincing.

[arcura]

Tj3,
Your validation is Bogus.
Wrong.
Real History proves it.
PLEASE STOP bothering me with your not valid opinions
Thanks,
Fred.

[Akoue]

This back-and-forth is extraordinarily tiresome. And, at the risk of being indelicate, I have found, having read through numerous threads, that Tj3 is consistently ill-mannered, even in instances when his interlocutors make every effort to be gracious.

I have no intention to continue following this thread, but I would like to take just a brief moment to sort something out. I made the claim that Peter was the first bishop of Rome, a claim which is not in itself particularly pro-Catholic inasmuch as Anglicans, Lutherans, Orthodox, secular historians, etc. agree. I certainly did not assert the primacy of Rome. Now Tj3 objected to this claim. He offered no evidence that this widely accepted fact is not after all factual: To do this he would have to either show that there was no bishop of Rome or he would have to show that someone other than Peter was the first bishop of Rome. Having re-read this thread, I find that he has offered no evidence in support of either claim.

Now no one has ever denied that Christ is the head of the Church (Tj3 cites Ephesians here). The claim was simply that Peter was bishop, and as such, the leader of the community of Christians then living in Rome. Surely the Apostles played a leadership role in the early Church; and surely they themselves appointed other Christians to assist them, in some cases travelling together, and in some cases appointing others to play leadership roles in various communities. What could possibly be controversial about this? (Again, there isn't anything particularly pro-Catholic about it, either.)

We have documentary evidence of the fact that some of those in leadership roles were called bishops (episkopoi). Peter, like the other Apostles, clearly were leaders of the early Church. If there is anything wrong with what I've said--or with Fred's endorsement of it, as far as it goes--the burden is on Tj3 to make a compelling and detailed case for this. But this he has refused to do. Instead his responses often come very close to bullying--and it concerns me that others are willing to countenance this behavior, especially as it has been remarked upon a great many times in other threads going back quite some time. Nothing like a genuine conversation is possible where the participants refuse to adhere to, and enforce, basic norms of civility.

[Tj3]

Tj3,
Your validation is Bogus.

I would be most interested in seeing your proof for that. The book is a well known book, and the Cardinal John Henry Newman is one of the best known leaders of your denomination.

As for it being bogus, apparently Amazon.com disagrees because they are selling the book:

An Essay on the Development of ... - Google Book Search

You might want to check out your facts before declaring things to be "bogus".

Wrong.
Real History proves it.
PLEASE STOP bothering me with your not valid opinions
Thanks,
Fred.

Just telling everyone that you are right and they are wrong when the facts are easily proven (as I did above) simply discredits your position.

[Tj3]

I have no intention to continue following this thread, but I would like to take just a brief moment to sort something out. I made the claim that Peter was the first bishop of Rome, a claim which is not in itself particularly pro-Catholic inasmuch as Anglicans, Lutherans, Orthodox, secular historians, etc. agree.

Anglicans and Orthodox are Catholic. As for the claim that Lutherans hold to this, I have never seen that claim validated, but ultimately, even if it were true, truth is not decided by the number of denominations for or against (a contest that you would likely lose in any case since most denominations reject that claim, as did the early church fathers).

NOTE: After posting this message, I checked on a Lutheran church site, and found a document which speaks to the point of the primacy of Peter. Here is an excerpt:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And Calvin's doctrine of the presbytery as the office which rules the church has no better Scriptural foundation than the corresponding doctrine of the episcopate or the primacy of Peter in the church. The common error which overturns all these theories is the conviction that there is one "order by which the Lord desired to have His church governed" (ordo, quo Dominus ecclesiam suam gubernari voluit), and that the New Testament necessarily contains a law regarding it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It appears that your view regarding Lutheran doctrine regarding peter was not well founded.

I certainly did not assert the primacy of Rome. Now Tj3 objected to this claim. He offered no evidence that this widely accepted fact is not after all factual:

You are the one who made the claim - it is up to you to provide evidence of the claim. The fact is that we find absolutely nothing in scripture to substantiate this claim. If you find something, let us know.

Now no one has ever denied that Christ is the head of the Church (Tj3 cites Ephesians here).

Then it is simple. If Christ is the head, Peter is not.

[arcura]

Tj3,
Your interpretation of what Newman said is bogus as has been pointed out to you by me ans several other people over the years.
He was referring to the new religion that is and was Christianity
Now I have asked you nicely to quick bothering me with your opinions.
I am not interested in them at all.
So I ask why can't you be nice and honor my request?
Please do not address any more of your posts to me.
Thank you,
Fred