Posted on 02/28/2015 5:16:22 PM PST by RnMomof7
Yes, Rashputin, 66 was such an unfortunate number to settle upon considering the Book of the Apocalypse. You would think it would have been 65 or 67. But maybe God permitted the Bible to be whittled to 66 books to give a sign to the perceptive of where every man as an authority unto himself would lead in the End.
bkmk
After reading the orignal link 2x’s I suspect the author is either trying to garner published success thru publication & move on up in his hierarchy.
It also sounds like a watered down thesis question or him trolling for answers & in-put to a possible thesis questions.
I’m not too happy about the source.
kinda’ stinky to me
Yes; after being challenged by Fatheroffive on a number of issues. I began an intense scripture study. I also began to read several books by Tim LaHaye and Lorraine Boettner, both made some very basic errors about the teachings and practices of the Catholic Church. The mistakes were ludicrous since they could have been avoided by simply checking with an unbiased secular source.
No but quoting out of context and ignoring history is.
Does the Catholic Church decide whom is upheld or whom is fallen? Or does that decision rest solely with God? Is the Catholic Church claiming to be higher that God?
The Catholic Church was begun by Jesus, He gave it the power to bind and loose.
It was the Jews to whom the oracles of God were entrusted not some Nicolaitan Catholic.
Probably because they were never part of the oracles of God entrusted to the Jews in the first place. Some Nicholaitan Catholic added books later in order to usurp authority.
Yes, true.
Where/when did God give this authority to the Catholic Church?
Is the Magesterium of the church made up of individuals or one individual? If so, then how can they interpret the Bible, but other individuals cannot? Are they infallible?
Agree. Quoting out of context is stupid. Especially when you have the word to interpret the word.
Where did Jesus give this authority directly to the Catholic Church?
I have read some of Enoch and Thomas and in my unqualified opinion I agree with the author.
>Luther wanted to remove James, Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation from the New Testament so people who prefer to discard any portion of Scripture that challenges the authority of their Self and Self Alone are just following in Luther’s footsteps.<
I don’t follow Luther - I could not care less about Luther. I follow Scripture. And Scripture tells me that James lied when he claimed that Abraham was considered righteous by God “when he offered his son Isaac on the altar”. Paul and Moses are his accusers.
>Once someone insists the Holy Spirit is imperfect and incapable of keeping His Word free from error there’s no real limit on what alterations to Scripture they’ll advocate because they’ve elevated their Self above the Holy Spirit.<
Such ignorant arrogance. The accepted book list of the N.T. canon has changed many time over the centuries. And some cultures have had different lists from others. Who put such nonsense in your head?
>Throwing Scripture into the garbage and defaming what Scripture clearly teaches should be sacred is an example of how right Bishop Fulton Sheen was when in 1931 in response to non-Catholics accepting contraception he said, “Since a week ago last Saturday, we can no longer expect them to defend the law of God. These sects will work out the logic of their ways and in fifty or a hundred years there will be only the Church and paganism. We’ll be left to fight the battle alone and we will.”<
The epistle to the Laodiceans was accepted as canonical until the mid 1400s by your very own Roman church, and then discarded “into the garbage” as you say. So by your own definition the Roman church is a “sect” that “insists the Holy Spirit is imperfect and incapable of keeping His Word free from error”.
Bishop Fulton Sheen was wrong by about 2,000 years. The early Church itself was a “sect” of Judaism, still strictly keeping to a Law-based gospel. James as the head of the Church in Jerusalem sent his men to challenge Paul’s teachings of a grace-only gospel. It was only at the council of Acts 15 that Paul prevailed with his grace-only gospel. The epistle of James was obviously written during this Law-based gospel period since James insisted that members of the Church must keep the O.T. Law. Indeed, the Church was being run out of the temple in Jerusalem for the first two decades of its existence. If they had not kept the Law they would have been at best driven out of Jerusalem, and at worst stoned to death.
What did the false witnesses say against Stephen? “This fellow never stops speaking against this holy place and against the law.” This was a false witness (Ac.6.13), meaning that Stephen had not been preaching against keeping the Law. Stephen then turned it around on his accusers and accused them of not keeping the law. He claimed that they were “uncircumcised”. No wonder they stoned him to death.
Try reading and believing what Scripture says instead of your denominational traditions of man.
Matthew 16:18 "I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.
Do you all still have Matthew in your Bibles, or did it get tossed out during the deformation?
Just kidding I know that it is in prot Bibles, none of you understand it, but you have it.
I am certain that you have been told this before, so feel free to have the last word.
>Where did Jesus give this authority directly to the Catholic Church?
Matthew 16:18 “I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.<
Actually, it says the exact the opposite of what you have been led to believe. “Peter” (petros) means little stone, or piece of a rock. The Greek word for “rock” (petra) here means a massive, immovable rock. Jesus was saying that the Church would not be built on a little stone like Peter, but on “this (massive, immovable) rock” who is Christ. Of course, Christ and Peter probably spoke to each other in Aramaic, the common language of the time. Christ may have used specific Aramaic wording to differentiate His meanings, or perhaps He pointed to Peter and then to Himself as He spoke. Matthew in turn makes the case for the contrast between the two rocks by his selection of the Greek. There is no doubt, Christ said that He would build the Church upon Himself, not upon Peter.
If Christ had meant to call Peter a small stone there was a perfectly good word to use "Lithos" which is the root word of Lithograph, Lithography, etc....
I am pretty certain that there is nothing I can say that will alter your misperception, so feel free to have the last word.
Thank you, verga, I don’t have the last word. That is G-d’s authority. :-)
Love Matthew 16. What a powerful message!!
There is a depth in these scriptures that is wonderful. As Jesus often did He used the backdrop of where He was speaking from to give clarity and depth to His words. In the Jewish tradition Christ also used play on words.
Jesus took the disciples to Caesarea Philippi to a site where sacrifices where made to the Greek idol Pan (and before that Ba’al and many others). It was on a rock at Mt. Hermon and the opening was called, “The doorway to Hades”.
Peter Declares That Jesus Is the Messiah
13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”
14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.
18 And I tell you that you are Peter,[b] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[c] will not overcome it.
19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[d] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.”
20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.
Christ is saying that His Church would be built upon the fact of what Peter spoke, that He is the Messiah, not on Peter himself. Peter is called a pebble here, not a rock.
Reasoning? Would Jesus build His Church upon man whom is fallible? No. Would He build it upon the fact that He is the Messiah, an infallible truth? Yes.
What was the subject at hand? Peter’s revelation that Jesus was the Messiah, not that Christ had changed Peter’s name from Shim‘on Bar-Yochanan to Shim’on Kefa, nor on Peter himself. Peter was not the subject. That Christ is the Messiah is the subject.
Other scriptures telling us that Christ is the rock:
Daniel 2 The unhewn rock that destroys the nations.
1 Peter 2:4-7
1 Corinthians 3:11
1 Corinthians 10:4
Ephesians 2:12
And we see in Isaiah 22:22 and Revelation 3:7 that Christ is holding the keys to the Kingdom.
In Matthew 18:18 Christ gives authority to all the disciples.
There are many more. Only scripture can interpret scripture and in that fact I am grateful to a glorious God whose Word is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow!
The Holy Spirit accurately used the words He intended. And they were words that have a distinctly different meaning.
I thought you gave me the “last word” last time. Maybe this time...
He didn’t call Peter “Lithos” because Petros was his name. Petros means a piece of a rock. Petra means massive, immovable rock.
Besides being called Petra in Mt.16.18, Christ is also referred to as Petra in Ro.9.33, 1Co.10.4 and 1Pe.2.8.
Petra is also used for the foundation in the parables of Mt.7.24-25 and Lk.6.48.
Nowhere is Christ referred to as petros. And nowhere is Peter referred to as petra. Sorry, your whole Church is based on a misinterpretation of Scripture.
◄ 2786. Képhas ► Strong's Concordance Képhas: "a rock," Cephas, a name given to the apostle Peter
1 Cor 15:5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve.
John 1:42 And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas" (which, when translated, is Peter).
1 Corinthians 1:12 What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas"; still another, "I follow Christ."
Well it seem that the Holy Spirit wanted him Called "Rock."
I realize the truth will not change the heart of pharaoh, so feel free to have the last word.
The Holy Spirit didn't use the Aramaic in Matthew.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.