Where does the Pope get his authority?

[Titus]

Matt 16:16-19
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. WHATEVER YOU BIND on earth shall be bound in heaven; and WHATEVER YOU LOOSE on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

John 21:15-19
When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?”
“Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.”
Jesus said, “FEED MY LAMBS.”

Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you love me?”
He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.”
Jesus said, “TAKE CARE OF MY SHEEP.”

The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?”
Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.”
Jesus said, “FEED MY SHEEP.

YOUR turn.

Where in Matthew 16:18-19 Does Jesus refer to Peter as the Head or pope of HIS church?

You are inserting catholic doctrine into the text when the text says nothing about a pope.

Matthew 16:13-18;19

Peter makes his public REVELATION that Jesus is the Christ The God.
Jesus tells Peter this knowledge could only come from knowing God not from the world.

Peter means stone Greek (petros) it is a PIECE of rock
The other Greek word rock (petra) large mass of rock

Here are the two Greek words used in Scripture,

Gods wrath is displayed men hide themselves in petra large rock,
Rev. 6:15-17

The foundation of the wise mans house was a petra, a large mass of rock not a petros a small stone.
Matthew 7:24,
-
Also petra refers to rocks split at Jesus' death, Matthew 27:51
The tomb of Jesus was petra (large rock) Matthew 27:60

Peter(petros, tiny rock) cannot be the rock which Jesus will build His house, church.

Some believe Jesus is the rock in Matthew 16:18-19.

The rock is the revelation from Peter's mouth in verse 16

The parallel between verses 16,17,18 illustrates the identity of this rock to which Jesus refers

1Corinthians 3:11,
- for no other foundation(a large foundation stone) can anyone lay than that which is laid which is Jesus Christ

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

Jesus pronounced Himself the builder of His church,
Matthew 16:18,
- I will build My(Jesus) church

- Jesus said to them, But who do you say that I am?

- Simon Peter answered and said,
You are the Christ, the Son of the living God

- Jesus answered and said to him,
Blessed are you Simon Bar- Jonah for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you but My Father who is in heaven

- And I also say to you that you are Peter(petros, tiny rock) and on this rock(Peter's spoken revelation that Jesus is deity)

I will build(Jesus is the petra, large unmovable boulder the foundation of the church)

My (Jesus) church, and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it

Verse 19,
- and I will give you(Peter) the keys of the kingdom of heaven

The keys are the saving gospel message that Jesus has entrusted to Peter to preach to the whole world.
This gospel preaches the church/Kingdom and the saving power of Christ crucified

Conclusion:
No where is Peter appointed the Head of the church as pope by Jesus in these verses.

The catholics have been abusing the words of Jesus to fit their heresy of potentate into the church.

Peter cannot be appointed Head of the church.

Colossians 1:18,
- and Jesus is the  Head of the body the church who is the beginning the firstborn from the dead that in all things He may have the PREEMINENCE

 

[Augustin56]

Where in Matthew 16:18-19 Does Jesus refer to Peter as the Head or pope of HIS church?

You are inserting catholic doctrine into the text when the text says nothing about a pope.

Matthew 16:13-18;19

Peter makes his public REVELATION that Jesus is the Christ The God.
Jesus tells Peter this knowledge could only come from knowing God not from the world.

Peter means stone Greek (petros) it is a PIECE of rock
The other Greek word rock (petra) large mass of rock

Here are the two Greek words used in Scripture,

Gods wrath is displayed men hide themselves in petra large rock,
Rev. 6:15-17

The foundation of the wise mans house was a petra, a large mass of rock not a petros a small stone.
Matthew 7:24,
-
Also petra refers to rocks split at Jesus' death, Matthew 27:51
The tomb of Jesus was petra (large rock) Matthew 27:60

Peter(petros, tiny rock) cannot be the rock which Jesus will build His house, church.

Some believe Jesus is the rock in Matthew 16:18-19.

The rock is the revelation from Peter's mouth in verse 16

The parallel between verses 16,17,18 illustrates the identity of this rock to which Jesus refers

1Corinthians 3:11,
- for no other foundation(a large foundation stone) can anyone lay than that which is laid which is Jesus Christ

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

Jesus pronounced Himself the builder of His church,
Matthew 16:18,
- I will build My(Jesus) church

- Jesus said to them, But who do you say that I am?

- Simon Peter answered and said,
You are the Christ, the Son of the living God

- Jesus answered and said to him,
Blessed are you Simon Bar- Jonah for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you but My Father who is in heaven

- And I also say to you that you are Peter(petros, tiny rock) and on this rock(Peter's spoken revelation that Jesus is deity)

I will build(Jesus is the petra, large unmovable boulder the foundation of the church)

My (Jesus) church, and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it

Verse 19,
- and I will give you(Peter) the keys of the kingdom of heaven

The keys are the saving gospel message that Jesus has entrusted to Peter to preach to the whole world.
This gospel preaches the church/Kingdom and the saving power of Christ crucified

Conclusion:
No where is Peter appointed the Head of the church as pope by Jesus in these verses.

The catholics have been abusing the words of Jesus to fit their heresy of potentate into the church.

Peter cannot be appointed Head of the church.

Colossians 1:18,
- and Jesus is the  Head of the body the church who is the beginning the firstborn from the dead that in all things He may have the PREEMINENCE

Jesus refers to Peter as the head of His Church in Matt. 16:19, when He gives Peter the "keys to the kingdom." In order to properly interpret Scripture, you have to understand the culture and language of the times in which it was written. Not an English translation, interpreted through 21st century lenses. The "keys" is a clear reference that every first century Jew would have understood. Kings in those days (we claim that Jesus is our King! We call him Lord!) had a second-in-command who ruled the kingdom when the king was unavailable (off to war, visiting another kingdom, ill, etc.). This individuals bindings and loosing (rulings) made by the second-in-command were upheld by the king upon his return. The symbol of this second-in-command's office was a large key or two, about 2-3 feet long that he carried over his shoulder as a symbol of his authority. This position of second-in-command was dynastic, i.e., it had successors. If the second-in-command died, another was appointed to take his place. You can see an example of this position in Isaiah 22:22.

 

[Brakelite]

The Ark of the Covenant carried symbols of God’s power within it. It had to be inlaid with pure gold and purified and blessed.

How much MORE pure and blessed would the vessel that actually carried GOD Himself be?

OT - The Tabernacle that housed the Ark was overshadowed by the cloud of glory of the Lord (Shekinah glory) filled the Tabernacle (2 Chron. 5:13-14).
NT - Mary was overshadowed by the power of the Most High (Luke 1:35).

OT - The Word was written by God on Tablets of Stone (Ex. 25:10) placed inside the Ark (Deut. 10:1)
NT - The Word of God became Flesh (John 1) conceived inside Mary (Luke 2:38) who carried the Word of God.

OT - "Who am I that the Ark of my Lord should come to me?" (2 Sam. 6:9)
NT - "Who am I that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" (Luke 1:43)

OT - The When the Ark carrying the Word of God returned “David was leaping and dancing before the Lord” (2 Sam. 6:14)
NT - When Mary came into Elizabeth's presence carrying the Word of God, the baby “leaped for joy” in Elizabeth's womb (Luke 2:38)

OT - The Ark, carrying the Word of God is brought to the house of Obed-Edom in the hill country of Judea for 3 months, where it was a blessing. (2 Sam. 6:11)
NT - Mary (the new Ark) carrying the Word of God goes to Elizabeth's house in the hill country of Judea for 3 months, where she is a blessing (Luke 1:56)

OT - The Ark is captured (1 Sam 4:11) and brought to a foreign land and later returns (1 Sam 6:13)
NT - Mary (the new Ark) is exiled to a foreign land (Egypt) and later returns (Matt. 2:14)

OT - On the Day of the Dedication of the Temple which Solomon built, there were 120 priests present (2 Chron. 5:11). The Ark of the covenant was carried into the Temple (2 Chron. 5:7) and fire came down from Heaven to consume the burnt offering (2 Chron. 7:7).
NT - On the Day of Pentecost, there were 120 disciples of Jesus present in the Upper Room (Acts 1:15). Mary, the Mother of Jesus and the Ark of the NEW Covenant was also present while the Holy Spirit came down as tongues of fire (Acts 2:3).

In the Book of Revelation, we see the Ark of the Covenant in Heaven being spoken of at the very end of Chapter 11, verse 19: Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant could be seen in the temple. There were flashes of lightning, rumblings, and peals of thunder, an earthquake, and a violent hailstorm.

The very next verse is in Chapter 12 (Rev 12:1): A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.

Verse 2 says: She was with child and wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth.

We know that this child is Jesus because in verse 4, we read: She gave birth to a son, a male child, destined to rule all the nations with an iron rod.
There is simply no getting around the fact that the Woman here in Revelation 12 is Mary.

Finally – the Greek word is kecharitomene that Luke used in his Gospel (v.1:28), which is the perfect passive participle, indicates a completed action with a permanent result. Thus it translates, “completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace.” It is used as a title – a name.

The Angel didn’t say, “Hail Mary, full of grace.” He said, Hail, Kecharitomene.”

A very clever exposition of error. The question you need to answer, is what is the fruit of such a belief? How does accepting such a belief impact on one's understanding of Jesus and His sinlessness? And finally, the whole justification is not built on a "thus saith the Lord", but on the basis of symbols and signs and human surmising. And that from a church that relies more on tradition than it does scripture, and willing to adjust scripture to suit theories, such as in
KJV Genesis 3:15
15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel....
Genesis 3:15
[15]I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel. Douay Rhiems

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

I wonder if we can all agree that the assault on the "gates of hell" has yet to be mounted. The prophecy that those gate will not withstand the Church's assault (not the Church repelling Satan, but Satan's gates being unable to repel the Church) is the end game. We're not there yet.

Are you saying the Church has not been attacked??? From within and from without??? Would you like me to post a list?
"...gates of Hades shall not prevail..." does not mean "gates of Hades will one day be mounted. "
The CC is the most hated, the more maligned and misrepresented than any other church. Just look at this forum, for starters. Then the daily news. I got this just now:

IN DEFENSE OF CHIEFS’ HARRISON BUTKER

Bill Donohue A heralded Catholic football player defends traditional moral values at a Catholic college—how novel—and within no time he’s being bashed all over the place. Had he endorsed transgenderism, or Hamas, he would now be praised to high heaven. The man is

www.catholicleague.org

It's a good summary of where our society is at today.

Many people don't believe there ever was a pope, but the pagan Romans certainly knew. They killed most of them, right up to the end of the 2nd century. Next you will try to tell me they weren't singled out.

I'm an avid follower of the war in Ukraine. It's been prophesied at Fatima in 1917. But I'm afraid to talk about that because it will temp the anti-Mary "Bible-Christians" to claim all the miracles were caused by satan. So I don't.

No matter how bad things get, we have God's promises that the Church can never be destroyed. No dictator, no revolts, no army, no government and no forum can destroy the historic Church. One either believes the Bible or they don't.

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

A very clever exposition of error. The question you need to answer, is what is the fruit of such a belief? How does accepting such a belief impact on one's understanding of Jesus and His sinlessness?

Positively. The contents of Ark of the Covenant foreshadows Jesus, that BofL explained in detail, that you failed to address.

And finally, the whole justification is not built on a "thus saith the Lord", but on the basis of symbols and signs and human surmising.

That's your opinion.

And that from a church that relies more on tradition than it does scripture, and willing to adjust scripture to suit theories, such as in

Another baseless fabrication. Plus, your definition of "tradition" is patently false.
So you are saying the Ark of the Covenant is a mere sign or symbol and doesn't foreshadow Jesus??? Is that how you read scripture???

In most editions of the Douay-Rheims Bible, Genesis 3:15, in which God is addressing the serpent, reads like this:

"I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel."

In the New American Bible, KJV as in all other modern Bibles, it reads like this:

"I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel."

The essential difference between these two renderings -- or at least the one people always ask about -- concerning who will crush the serpent's head and who the serpent is trying to strike. The Douay-Rheims uses feminine pronouns -- she and her -- implying that the woman is the person being spoken of in this part of the verse. All modern translations use masculine pronouns -- he and his -- implying that the seed of the woman is the of that part of the verse.

The reason for the difference in the renderings is a manuscript difference. Modern translations follow what the original Hebrew of the passage says. The Douay-Rheims, however, is following a manuscript variant found in many early Fathers and some editions of the Vulgate (but not the original; Jerome followed the Hebrew text in his edition of the Vulgate). The variant probably originated as a copyist error when a scribe failed to take note that the subject of the verse had shifted from the woman to the seed of the woman.

People notice this variant today because the expression found in the Douay-Rheims has been the basis of some popular Catholic art, showing a serene Mary standing over a crushed serpent.

This is because Christians have recognized (all the way back to the first century) that the woman and her seed mentioned in Genesis 3:15 do not simply stand for Eve and one of her righteous sons (either Abel or Seth). They prophetically foreshadow Mary and Jesus. Thus, just as the first half of the verse, speaking of the enmity between the serpent and the woman, has been applied to Mary, the second half, speaking of the head crushing and heel striking, has also been applied to Mary due to the manuscript variant, though it properly applies to Jesus, given the original Hebrew.

This does not mean that the idea cannot be validly applied to Mary as well. Through her cooperation in the incarnation of Christ, so that the Son of God (who, from the cross, directly crushed the head of the serpent) became her seed, Mary did crush the head of the serpent. In the same way, the serpent struck at Christ on the cross, and indirectly struck at Mary's heart as well, who had to witness the death of her own Son (cf. John 19:25-27). As the holy priest Simeon had told her years before:

"Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign that is spoken against -- and a sword will pierce through your own soul also -- that thoughts out of many hearts may be revealed" (Luke 2:34b-35).

Thus Jesus crushed the serpent directly and was directly struck by the serpent; Mary, through her cooperation in the incarnation and her witnessing the sufferings and death of her Son, indirectly crushed the serpent and was indirectly struck by the serpent.

This has long been recognized by Catholics. The footnotes provided a couple of hundred years ago by Bishop Challoner in his revision of the Douay state, "The sense [of these two readings] is the same: for it is by her seed, Jesus Christ, that the woman crushes the serpent's head."

 

[Titus]

Jesus refers to Peter as the head of His Church in Matt. 16:19,

Show me the greek word Head in Matthew 16:18-19?

You cannot.

You just claim it, essentially doing what catholics do, make stuff up and tell, others they don't know the Scriptures.

Let's see it,

You also contradicted the word of God,
Colossians 1:18,
- and Jesus is the  Head of the body the  church

Since you say Peter is the Head.
Jesus will not step down from His FIRST POSITION!!!!

Therefore 2 Heads on 1 Body.
You are not making sense

 

[RedFan]

Are you saying the Church has not been attacked??? From within and from without??? Would you like me to post a list?

No, and no, and no. I am saying that the "gates" of hell are entry points and defensive barricades, and they "prevail" against an attacker only by keeping it out. Hell is the attackee in Jesus's comment, not the attacker.

 

[Augustin56]

Show me the greek word Head in Matthew 16:18-19?

You cannot.

You just claim it, essentially doing what catholics do, make stuff up and tell, others they don't know the Scriptures.

Let's see it,

You also contradicted the word of God,
Colossians 1:18,
- and Jesus is the  Head of the body the  church

Since you say Peter is the Head.
Jesus will not step down from His FIRST POSITION!!!!

Therefore 2 Heads on 1 Body.
You are not making sense

We don't need to use the word "head" to show that Peter was given authority over Christ's Church. We need only show the principle, which I have done, clearly. Same with the word Trinity. The word Trinity is nowhere in Scripture, but the principle most certainly is.

And, quoting Col. 1:18 to prove your point only proves mine. You don't the know how to correctly interpret Scripture. Jesus is our King and is certainly the Head of His Church, the Catholic Church. But He appointed a second-in-command position to govern His Church until He comes again. In Matt. 16:19, He gives Peter the "keys" to the kingdom of heaven and tells him that whatever he binds on earth will be bound in heaven and whatever he looses on earth will be loosed in heaven. Kings in those days had second-in-commands, whose symbol of their office and authority was a large key or two, about 2-3 feet long that they carried over their shoulder. See Isaiah 22:22 for an example of this. Whenever the king was unavailable (off to war, visiting another kingdom, ill, etc.), the second-in-command ran the kingdom with the king's authority. Upon the king's return, the king upheld whatever his second-in-command ruled. So, there is no "competition" between Jesus and the office of Pope that Jesus established, as you imagine.

You might want to read 2 Peter 1:20-21, where Peter warns against "personal interpretation of Scripture," which is what all Protestantism is based upon, and why there are literally thousands of different-believing, doctrinally contradicting, man-made denominations today. That cannot possibly be the grounding for the fullness of truth that Christ gave His Apostles. It was the Catholic Church that wrote the New Testament and decided, in the late 4th century, which books belonged in the New Testament and which didn't. (They prayed to the Holy Spirit for guidance and analyzed over 300 docuents, letters, etc., coming up with the 27 we all agree on as being worthy of being called Scripture.) If you trust the Catholic Church to tell you which books belong in the New Testament, why not trust the same Catholic Church to teach you what it means?

 

[Titus]

that Peter was given authority over Christ's Church. We need only show the principle, which I have done, cl

Sir, you are full of beans.
Your argument is we(catholics) say so, therefore we're right.

NO SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE FOR YOUR INTERPRETATION

 

[Titus]

Kings in those days had second-in-commands, whose symbol of their office and authority was a large key or two, about 2-3 feet long that they carried over their shoulder. See Isaiah 22:22

Above is the basis of your argument.

Not one Scripture teaches the KING OF KINGS has a second little weakling of a finite physical man!!!

Comparing physical kings and kingdoms to God the King over His spiritual Kingdom CANNOT BE COMPARED AT ALL!!!
Totally incompatable!

You are claiming the King of Kings needs a man to help Him rule over His kingdom

 

[Titus]

You don't the know how to correctly interpret Scripture. Jesus is our King and is certainly the Head of His Church, the Catholic Church. BUT HE APPOINTED A SECOND-IN-COMMAND POSITION TO GOVERN HIS CHURCH UNTIL HE COMES AGAIN

No man is reigning, governing on earth in Jesus' place currently over His church!!!

Matthew 28:18,
- and Jesus came up and spoke to them saying ALL AUTHORITY has been given to ME in heaven and on earth

Ephesians 1:20-23,
- this Power He exercised in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Jesus at the right hand in heavenly realms
far above every rule and authority and power and dominion and every name that is named not only in THIS AGE but also in the one to come,
and God put ALL THINGS under Christs feet and gave Jesus TO THE CHURCH AS THE HEAD OVER ALL, ALL, ALL, THINGS
Now the church is His body the fullness of Him who fills all in all

 

[amigo de christo]

Then you are accusing Jesus of lying. Jesus promised that the "gates of hell" would never "prevail" against His Church. Yet, you claim they have. The Catholic Church, which is the original Church, personally founded by Christ, recieved the entirety of Divine Revelation from Christ. It has never claimed the right to change any of Christ's teachings, and it never has.

Protestantism didn't begin until the 16th century. And every Protestant Reformer (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc.) were CATHOLICS before they turned their back on Christ's Church. They pridefully believed that they had the authority to change the doctrines of Christ according to their own interpretations. And what has been the result? Literally tens of thousands of man-made, doctrinally contradicting Protestant denominations (and counting), with NO unity of faith or belief. How can that possibly be the grounding for the fullness of truth which Christ brought us? Simply, it can't. Any truth you know about Christ came FROM the Catholic Church. Unless you claim that Christ came back and appeared to you personally? Or an angel? The New Testament came from the Catholic Church which preceded it. If you trust the Catholic Church to tell you which books belonged in the New Testament (which it decided in the late 4th century) then why not trust the Catholic Church to tell you how to interpret it? The Catholic Church has the interpretation of the Apostles. Not some bozo coming along 16 or more centuries later, personally interpreting Scripture according to his own light, out of context.

If the Catholic interpretation of Scripture is at odds with your personal interpretation of Scripture, your first reaction should be to assume that YOU are wrong, and you should seek to find out why. Not assume yours is correct.

a harlot can cliam many things . the true CHURCH of JESUS CHRIST has endured through all ages .
the RCC aint IT .
The inteprepation of men gone wrong has been the problem all along . Time to learn that for you .

 

[amigo de christo]

Well, the church was wrong, in many many ways. What was Luther's 90 odd thesis all about that he nailed to the church door? Have you read them?

I agree with that. We just don't agree as to who has that rule. Priests, prelates, bishops, pastors, who do not themselves live according to truth?

And when the church lives and behaves and teaches theories and fables similar to a pagan and tax collector? God gave you a modicum of intelligence to know that when the church itself fulfills what the apostle Paul warned about, the great falling away...
KJV 2 Timothy 3:1-5
1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

Such was the state of the church in the time of the reformers.

Folks bess get in the bible for themselves .
TIME FOR A REFORMATION AGAIN my friend . its time to do a mass exodus from that which the well favored harlot
has influenced , and time for a ENTRODUS into that bible . more and more are now rising up
to point us to come Home to the HARLOT . even the beloved candace owens , WHO I KNEW
as well as others would head that way . ITS ALL OVER NAR its all over the place now .
But evertime one warns , HE gets told JUDGE NOT , HUG and lets have unity . BIBLE
and TIME . or BIBLE TIME .

 

[amigo de christo]

A very clever exposition of error. The question you need to answer, is what is the fruit of such a belief? How does accepting such a belief impact on one's understanding of Jesus and His sinlessness? And finally, the whole justification is not built on a "thus saith the Lord", but on the basis of symbols and signs and human surmising. And that from a church that relies more on tradition than it does scripture, and willing to adjust scripture to suit theories, such as in
KJV Genesis 3:15
15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel....
Genesis 3:15
[15]I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel. Douay Rhiems

The well favored harlot rests not . she been real busy and specially in these latter days we now live in my friend .
JUDGE NOT , JUDGE NOT , UNITY UNITY COMMON GROUND . it destroyed and it will finish off all who go into that realm .
WHEN YE SEE A HO , WARN A BRO . and i see the work of A HO and many a ho within all realms of society
and all religoins and all denominations as well . WHEN YA SEE A HO , WARN A BRO .

 

[amigo de christo]

Sir, you are full of beans.
Your argument is we(catholics) say so, therefore we're right.

NO SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE FOR YOUR INTERPRETATION

beans are loaded with healthy fiber . that man is not loaded with healthy doctrine . but i suppose beans is
a kinder word . We better all watch out . for the influence of the well favored harlot
has reached DEEP into all fabrics , all realms , all religoins of the world . many do her work now
and many dont even realize THEY DO . How i did try and warn us BOTH SIDES WERE UNDER HER INFLUENCE all along .

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

Above is the basis of your argument.

Not one Scripture teaches the KING OF KINGS has a second little weakling of a finite physical man!!!

Comparing physical kings and kingdoms to God the King over His spiritual Kingdom CANNOT BE COMPARED AT ALL!!!
Totally incompatable!

You are claiming the King of Kings needs a man to help Him rule over His kingdom

Yes, the King of Kings chose a man to help Him rule over the kingdom on earth while Jesus rules heaven and earth. Your false dichotomy is man made and contradicts scripture and all of Christian history.

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

beans are loaded with healthy fiber . that man is not loaded with healthy doctrine . but i suppose beans is
a kinder word . We better all watch out . for the influence of the well favored harlot
has reached DEEP into all fabrics , all realms , all religoins of the world . many do her work now
and many dont even realize THEY DO . How i did try and warn us BOTH SIDES WERE UNDER HER INFLUENCE all along .

I think it's time to join the hundreds of members that probably have you on ignore. Good bye.

 

[amigo de christo]

I think it's time to join the hundreds of members that probably have you on ignore. Good bye.

true it is i am on ignore by many . For years this has been the case , and yet for years i refuse to conform .
BIBLE TIME jude . BIBLE TIME .

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

No man is reigning, governing on earth in Jesus' place currently over His church!!!

Catholics don't claim Peter and his successors replace Jesus, your presupposition is false and very annoying.

Matthew 28:18,
- and Jesus came up and spoke to them saying ALL AUTHORITY has been given to ME in heaven and on earth

By leaving out "therefore go and teach all nations" you butcher the Scriptures. Jesus clearly gave HIS AUTHORITY to teach and baptize to weak human beings. This is what you deny so you can assert your private opinions as dogmatic.

Ephesians 1:20-23,
- this Power He exercised in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Jesus at the right hand in heavenly realms
far above every rule and authority and power and dominion and every name that is named not only in THIS AGE but also in the one to come,

Ephesians 1:20-23 does not rule out the authority that Jesus gave to His Church on earth, but affirms it.

1 Cor. 3:11 – Jesus is called the only foundation of the Church, and yet in Ephesians 2:20, the apostles, weak human beings, are called the foundation of the Church.
Similarly, in 1 Peter 2:25, Jesus is called the Shepherd of the flock, but in Acts 20:28, the apostles are called the shepherds of the flock.

These verses show that there are multiple metaphors for the Church, and that words used by the inspired writers of Scripture can have various meanings. Catholics agree that God is the rock of the Church, but this does not mean He cannot confer this distinction upon Peter as well, to facilitate the unity He desires for the Church.
You have no "Peter", no unity and I suspect you are too proud to submit to ANY authority beyond yourself.
Eph. 2:20, the apostles, weak human beings, are called the foundation of the Church.

and God put ALL THINGS under Christs feet and gave Jesus TO THE CHURCH AS THE HEAD OVER ALL, ALL, ALL, THINGS

No, God did not give Jesus to the Church. The Church offers Jesus to humanity.

Now the church is His body the fullness of Him who fills all in all

Yet you deny that weak human beings can be the foundation of His Church here on earth, so you have no business quoting Ephesians, and no business butchering Matthew 28.

 

[Augustin56]

Sir, you are full of beans.
Your argument is we(catholics) say so, therefore we're right.

NO SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE FOR YOUR INTERPRETATION

No, it's not because we say it is. That would be credulity. We don't ascribe to credulity.

We say it is because history and theology say it is. Ignoring history leads you folks into all sorts of error. For example, where did the Bible come from? Did God reach a big Hand down and give King James the first Bible? Hardly. Or how many Churches did Jesus found? And when did another Church pop up on the historical horizon (hint: 1054 A.D.).

Nowhere in Scripture does Scripture say that everything we are to believe or everything that Jesus taught is IN Scripture. Jesus didn't write a book to spread His truths. He founded a (ONE) Church in which to do so. And it is this Church that He founded, that wrote the New Testament and decided it should be worthy of being called Scripture. We call that the New Testament. The New Testament came from the oral teachings of Christ, which He gave to the Apostles, who gave it to their successors, the bishops, who did likewise, for 2000 years now. SOME of what was orally taught was written down. That's the New Testament.