[arcura]

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]

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]

JoeT,
Yes that also in addition to what I posted about Jesus saying to Peter about Peter.
Thanks much,
Fred

[450donn]

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]

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]

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
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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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
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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[paraclete]

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