Peter the Rock?

[David in NJ]

I need you to show me where the SCRIPTURES say this.

Can you show me where the SCRIPTURES say this?

WHERE do the SCRIPTURES make this claim??
If you can't produce any SCRIPTURAL proof of your claims - you are nothing but a liar . . .

And here's what the Bible says about Liars . . .
Rev. 21:8
“But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters AND ALL LIARS—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.”

Good luck with that . . .

Well, i sure do not want to be held liable before God for lying against His Word.

How about yourself?
Are you willing to believe a lie against the Word that was God???

Let me know and then i will bring forth the from the Holy Scriptures = Our Daily Bread

 

[BreadOfLife]

"Corporate interpretations" by one sect or group is indeed "individual", and that individual has a name. Peter knew that name--because Jesus called him by it, but apparently you do not.

WRONG.

"Corporate", as in Corpus Christi - the Body of Christ.
This is not "individual" interpretation

 

[Illuminator]

I need you to show me where the SCRIPTURES say this.

Can you show me where the SCRIPTURES say this?

WHERE do the SCRIPTURES make this claim??
If you can't produce any SCRIPTURAL proof of your claims - you are nothing but a liar . . .

And here's what the Bible says about Liars . . .
Rev. 21:8
“But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters AND ALL LIARS—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.”

Good luck with that . . .

David in NJ doesn't understand the difference between the material sufficiency of Scripture (which we accept) and the formal sufficiency of Scripture) which is not found anywhere in the Bible.

Material sufficiency means that all the bricks necessary to build doctrine is there in Scripture. However, it also teaches that since the meaning of Scripture is not always clear and that sometimes a doctrine is implied rather than explicit, other things besides Scripture have been handed to us from the apostles: things like Sacred Tradition (which is the mortar that holds the bricks together in the right order and position) and the magisterium or teaching authority of the Church (which is the trowel in the hand of the Master Builder). Taken together, these three things -- Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium -- are formally sufficient for knowing the revealed truth of God.

. . . those who hold to the formal sufficiency of Scripture warn darkly that setting Scripture in the context of Sacred Tradition will inevitably put Scripture under the Church. The fear, in fact, is that to admit the revelatory nature of Sacred Tradition will necessarily subjugate Scripture to merely human agendas.

Read more: https://www.catholicfidelity.com/apologetics-topics/sola-scriptura/material-vs-formal-sufficiency-of-scripture-by-mark-shea/

The Trinity can be proven from Scripture, indeed (material sufficiency), but Scripture Alone as a principle was not formally sufficient to prevent the Arian crisis from occurring. In other words, the decisive factor in these controversies was the appeal to apostolic succession and Tradition, which showed that the Church had always been trinitarian. The Arians could not appeal to any such tradition because their christology was a heretical innovation of the 4th century.

The Arians thus appealed to Scripture Alone. And that is the point Catholics make about this. The Arian formal principle was deficient, so that they could appeal to the Bible Alone and come up with Arianism (just like Jehovah's Witnesses do today). If they had held also to an authoritative Sacred Tradition, this could not have happened because the "tradition of Arianism" was non-existent.

We claim that apostolic Tradition is necessary along with Sacred Scripture. This was the patristic principle, and how they invariably fought the heretics. The biblical arguments provided the "meat" of their arguments, but in the end they would appeal to the Tradition of "what had always been believed everywhere by everyone" (St. Vincent of Lerin's dictum -- the Commonitorium where this comes from is also the most explicit exposition of development of doctrine in the Fathers, and Newman's starting-point).

Edwin Tait, an Anglican, wrote (in substantial agreement with the Catholic view):

Of course the Fathers thought that they could prove their view from Scripture. They also thought that the historic communion of bishops in succession from the Apostles, gathered in Councils (with Rome playing some role, which I don't want to debate here), could be counted on to interpret Scripture correctly. The whole sola scriptura debate only became possible when a sizeable number of influential Christians began proclaiming that the bishops gathered in Council, in communion with Rome, had seriously erred in interpreting Scripture over a period of several centuries. Of course both sides can appeal to the Fathers, because the Fathers never thought of Scriptural sufficiency and the authority of the Church/Tradition as being at odds.​

I agree wholeheartedly. The last sentence is key. This is the "both/and" outlook of the Apostles, Fathers, Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and historic Anglicanism. Many Protestants, however, feel an immediate, logically- and biblically-unnecessary need to dichotomize the two. Entire books are written about the Fathers' supposed belief in sola Scriptura, when in fact they are merely expressing their belief in material sufficiency of Scripture, and its inspiration and sufficiency to refute heretics and false doctrine generally. It is easy to misleadingly present them as sola Scripturists if their statements elsewhere about apostolic Tradition or succession and the binding authority of the Church (especially in council) are ignored. But a half-truth is almost as bad as an untruth (arguably worse, because in most instances the one committing it should know better).

Read more: https://www.catholicfidelity.com/apologetics-topics/sola-scriptura/material-vs-formal-sufficiency-of-scripture-by-mark-shea/

 

[BreadOfLife]

Well, i sure do not want to be held liable before God for lying against His Word.

How about yourself?
Are you willing to believe a lie against the Word that was God???

Let me know and then i will bring forth the from the Holy Scriptures = Our Daily Bread

TRANSLATION:
“I LIED 3 times and have NO Biblical proof for you.”

That’s what I thought . . .

 

[David in NJ]

TRANSLATION:
“I LIED 3 times and have NO Biblical proof for you.”

That’s what I thought . . .

Since you accuse me of lying you will remain as you are and not SEE the Truth.

If you change your mind and want to know just come back with a simple - 'sorry' = and we can move forward under forgiveness.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Since you accuse me of lying you will remain as you are and SEE the Truth.

I asked you for Scriptural evidence for your claims.
As a Sola Scripturist - the onus is on YOU to produce them - and you failed.

Better luck next time . . .

 

[David in NJ]

David in NJ doesn't understand the difference between the material sufficiency of Scripture (which we accept) and the formal sufficiency of Scripture) which is not found anywhere in the Bible.

Material sufficiency means that all the bricks necessary to build doctrine is there in Scripture. However, it also teaches that since the meaning of Scripture is not always clear and that sometimes a doctrine is implied rather than explicit, other things besides Scripture have been handed to us from the apostles: things like Sacred Tradition (which is the mortar that holds the bricks together in the right order and position) and the magisterium or teaching authority of the Church (which is the trowel in the hand of the Master Builder). Taken together, these three things -- Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium -- are formally sufficient for knowing the revealed truth of God.

. . . those who hold to the formal sufficiency of Scripture warn darkly that setting Scripture in the context of Sacred Tradition will inevitably put Scripture under the Church. The fear, in fact, is that to admit the revelatory nature of Sacred Tradition will necessarily subjugate Scripture to merely human agendas.

Read more: https://www.catholicfidelity.com/apologetics-topics/sola-scriptura/material-vs-formal-sufficiency-of-scripture-by-mark-shea/

The Trinity can be proven from Scripture, indeed (material sufficiency), but Scripture Alone as a principle was not formally sufficient to prevent the Arian crisis from occurring. In other words, the decisive factor in these controversies was the appeal to apostolic succession and Tradition, which showed that the Church had always been trinitarian. The Arians could not appeal to any such tradition because their christology was a heretical innovation of the 4th century.

The Arians thus appealed to Scripture Alone. And that is the point Catholics make about this. The Arian formal principle was deficient, so that they could appeal to the Bible Alone and come up with Arianism (just like Jehovah's Witnesses do today). If they had held also to an authoritative Sacred Tradition, this could not have happened because the "tradition of Arianism" was non-existent.

We claim that apostolic Tradition is necessary along with Sacred Scripture. This was the patristic principle, and how they invariably fought the heretics. The biblical arguments provided the "meat" of their arguments, but in the end they would appeal to the Tradition of "what had always been believed everywhere by everyone" (St. Vincent of Lerin's dictum -- the Commonitorium where this comes from is also the most explicit exposition of development of doctrine in the Fathers, and Newman's starting-point).

Edwin Tait, an Anglican, wrote (in substantial agreement with the Catholic view):

Of course the Fathers thought that they could prove their view from Scripture. They also thought that the historic communion of bishops in succession from the Apostles, gathered in Councils (with Rome playing some role, which I don't want to debate here), could be counted on to interpret Scripture correctly. The whole sola scriptura debate only became possible when a sizeable number of influential Christians began proclaiming that the bishops gathered in Council, in communion with Rome, had seriously erred in interpreting Scripture over a period of several centuries. Of course both sides can appeal to the Fathers, because the Fathers never thought of Scriptural sufficiency and the authority of the Church/Tradition as being at odds.​

I agree wholeheartedly. The last sentence is key. This is the "both/and" outlook of the Apostles, Fathers, Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and historic Anglicanism. Many Protestants, however, feel an immediate, logically- and biblically-unnecessary need to dichotomize the two. Entire books are written about the Fathers' supposed belief in sola Scriptura, when in fact they are merely expressing their belief in material sufficiency of Scripture, and its inspiration and sufficiency to refute heretics and false doctrine generally. It is easy to misleadingly present them as sola Scripturists if their statements elsewhere about apostolic Tradition or succession and the binding authority of the Church (especially in council) are ignored. But a half-truth is almost as bad as an untruth (arguably worse, because in most instances the one committing it should know better).

Read more: https://www.catholicfidelity.com/apologetics-topics/sola-scriptura/material-vs-formal-sufficiency-of-scripture-by-mark-shea/

@Illuminator says: "David in NJ doesn't understand the difference between the material sufficiency of Scripture (which we accept) and the formal sufficiency of Scripture) which is not found anywhere in the Bible."

You need to accept the Official Declaration.

How about these THREE:
Genesis 1:3 - "Then God said,"
John 1:1 - "In the beginning was the Word...."
Jeremiah 1:12 - “You have observed correctly,” said the LORD, “for I am watching over My word to accomplish it.”

Please observe correctly : One Elohim + One Word + One Holy Spirit = One Way, One Truth, One Life

 

[The Learner]

It’s so much that has not been said… I will not reveal such… this is just one of the writings of Catholicism..

St. Bernardine of Sienna says:



But it’s so much worse, one would be surprised to know what a confession room really is.. done.

Glories of Mary is an extreme source of very few.

 

[The Learner]

"Corporate interpretations" by one sect or group is indeed "individual", and that individual has a name. Peter knew that name--because Jesus called him by it, but apparently you do not.

Corporate interpretation is what the early church had

 

[David in NJ]

Side note - Hello @David in NJ . Hope all is well with you and yours. God bless.

Glory to God,
Taken

Thank you for your prayers.
We were able to accomplish the driver side front wheel bearing replacement = successfully.

The sleeve gets welded from rust and corrosion and it takes patience and a lot of hammering to break it free.

 

[Taken]

2 Tim 2:
[7] Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things.

The problem is you only accept what Paul wrote, and not all that he said, which is preserved in the passed down offices, which you reject. You contradict yourself.

No, I do not have a problem.
* I am well aware of Jesus’ Chosen TWELVE’s tasked mission….and WHY.
* I am well aware of Jesus’ Chosen Saul/Paul’s tasked mission….and WHY.
* I am well aware of my own Personal History, Scriptural History, and what Applies to whom…and WHY.

You appear more so of unsureness, trying to cover all the bases, so to speak…doing what was given the tribes (Jews) and was offered to Jews and Gentiles alike, adding a dash of man-(Catholic)-made, revolving requirements.

Bottom line, Jesus had several primary things to accomplish:
* Big on His list was to attend to the reconciliation of Israel, Gods People and sent out His Disciples to carry on His mission.
* Gentiles were NOT being “reconciled”, they were being “introduced” TO; the God and Christ of the Israelites….and that Hard and Complicated task was given Saul/Paul.


No I do not contradict myself.

The same reformist rhetoric over and over again...

You have no way of knowing all that Paul said, or any of the other Apostles, or all that Jesus said. All that they said and taught is preserved, for example, in the offices that Paul perpetuated through Timothy and Titus.
You don't even have bishops. So your objection against apostolic succession is just an excuse.

I have no NEED to KNOW everything Paul, the Twelve, Bishops, or anyone else Uttered!

I have exactly what God provided, approved, written in Books I own…. and ….
Gods Word of Truth, Gods Great Power, Gods OWN anointed High Priest….
“IN” me 24-7.

Can’t understand FOR you…but can tell you…
No human man, regardless of whatever “election, appointment, position, title” another man has dubbed him with, NONE supersede what I have “IN” the Lord God.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Illuminator]

No, I do not have a problem.
* I am well aware of Jesus’ Chosen TWELVE’s tasked mission….and WHY.
* I am well aware of Jesus’ Chosen Saul/Paul’s tasked mission….and WHY.
* I am well aware of my own Personal History, Scriptural History, and what Applies to whom…and WHY.

Great, but it doesn't solve your problem of rejecting Oral or Sacred Tradition with fallacious arguments.

You appear more so of unsureness, trying to cover all the bases, so to speak…doing what was given the tribes (Jews) and was offered to Jews and Gentiles alike, adding a dash of man-(Catholic)-made, revolving requirements.

A stupid and baseless insult. Protestants can't agree whether or not baptism is a fundamental doctrine. You can't name any man-(Catholic)-made, revolving requirements without going off in different directions (like you do here).

Bottom line, Jesus had several primary things to accomplish:
* Big on His list was to attend to the reconciliation of Israel, Gods People and sent out His Disciples to carry on His mission.
* Gentiles were NOT being “reconciled”, they were being “introduced” TO; the God and Christ of the Israelites….and that Hard and Complicated task was given Saul/Paul.

How about you explain how your Sunday service fulfills OT Eucharistic prophecies before talking about Christ of the Israelites when your so called reformers threw the Table of the Lord in the trash, and replaced it with a podium.

No I do not contradict myself.

I have no NEED to KNOW everything Paul, the Twelve, Bishops, or anyone else Uttered!

That is not the point. I don't need to know either. I accept in faith ALL that was said by Jesus and the Apostles is preserved in the passing of of the offices they established to be continued until the end of time. If you refuse to believe that you should stop pretending you believe the Bible.

I have exactly what God provided, approved, written in Books I own…. and ….
Gods Word of Truth, Gods Great Power, Gods OWN anointed High Priest….
“IN” me 24-7.

Wonderful. "Word of God" appears some 50-80 times in the Bible. I haven't found one instance where "Word of God" refers to the written word alone. It almost always refers to the spoken word. I'll make it easy for you:
48 Bible results for “"word of god"” from 21st Century King James Version.
No Catholic bias there!

Can’t understand FOR you…but can tell you…
No human man, regardless of whatever “election, appointment, position, title” another man has dubbed him with, NONE supersede what I have “IN” the Lord God.

Good for you, but you still miss the point. If apostolic authority wasn't passed down, you wouldn't have a Bible in the first place. I simply receive the divine message from authorized teachers as it has been passed down, oral and written, whereas you (and every new denomination) has to reconstruct the divine message according to your world view and experiences and largely influenced by the myth of sola scriptura.

from the sublime to the ridiculous.​

 

[RedFan]

What about the Apostle John's subscription to 'My Daily Bread' !!!

Have you ever considered that?

No.
What did you think of the article?

 

[Truthnightmare]

You would have to appeal to history in order to show continuity of Christ's Church.
Where would you like me too start?

1st century Bishop and lifelong student of the Apostle John wrote the following at the end of the 1st century before his martyrdom in Rome:
Ignatius of Antioch
Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 107]).

“Follow your Bishop . . .”
“Obey your clergy . . .”
“The Eucharist . . .”
“The “Catholic Church” . . .
Does that sound like YOU denomination?

In the 2nd century document, Against Heresies - Irenaeus lists all of the Popes from his own time going ALL the way back to Peter, showing this continuity.

Well perhaps it would be better to put a higher emphasis on scripture itself. Yes, let’s do that,

Was Paul a Catholic? No
Paul was of the house of Judah of the tribe of Benjamin.

Philippians 3:5
Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee

Paul never taught us to place divisions upon Christ, yet the opposite.

1 Corinthians
Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment

We were told to not be Baptist, or Pentecostal, Lutheran or Seventh day, Mormons or Catholics.

We were told to simply pick up the cross…

Matthew16
24 Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.

In all honesty, it seems like you believe the church was started on whatever religion you chose to be.

 

[Taken]

Great, but it doesn't solve your problem of rejecting Oral or Sacred Tradition with fallacious arguments.

Oral tradition…I have ZERO issue with people (clergy or not), Orally speaking, teaching, discussing Scripture.
Scripture itself teaches… Test / Verify what you HEAR (from whomever) that IT IS according to Scripture, (which according to Scripture) IS approved by the Source of the Knowledge…
Who IS God Himself. And the SAME POINT which I say and completely am in agreement with scripture.

A stupid and baseless insult. Protestants can't agree whether or not baptism is a fundamental doctrine. You can't name any man-(Catholic)-made, revolving requirements without going off in different directions (like you do here).

The thread title is in regard to “the Rock”.
Regarding “Baptism” that you, not me, have brought up into the discussion, a brief deflection to respond to you going off topic.

~ specific words, morph into other meanings.
Ie…Christening…ie parents agreeing to raise their babe according to the Church, morphed into the babe unknowingly, without confession, receiving the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.
~ “the Church”… is Christ’s Church…morphed by some to only mean (the Catholic Church).
~ “Water Baptism” a symbolic ceremonious gesture of the individual’s desire to be Cleansed of his sins…morphed into replacing the UNSEEN Jesus’ Blood cleansing to a scheduled “Water cleansing”.


* Historically…Parents with a newborn babe, often would have a Priest perform a ceremony, of sprinkling/pouring water over the babe head, while the Priest pronounced a blessing over the babe.
* Traditionally…that was called a “Christening”.
* Traditionally…that was the Parents making an agreement to raise that babe in the Church, and again, (according to the word of God).
* Today…by testimony on this forum, from a well known Catholic…THAT such ceremony was performed on him, (he being a babe and utterly unaware of the ceremony)…but revealed on this forum, THAT was the DAY “he received the Baptism of the Holy Spirit”!

* Protestants primarily VIEW a water Baptism, as A full body immersion.
* Protestants “debate” differing VIEWS as to “IF / whether or not” WATER Baptism IS “necessary”, and “WHAT” exactly a WATER Baptism means.

SCRIPTURALLY - Water Baptism, was first performed by John the Baptist, ie the Baptizer.
* Water Baptism, “WAS” a public (any one watching was a witness), that the individual was revealing his SORROW for having been born IN sin AGAINST God, having a body of sin that COMMITTED sin AGAINST God….and the Gesture of being immersed IN Water was SYMBOLIC (with witnesses), that that individuals desire was to be FORGIVEN and CLEANSED of his SIN AGAINST God.
* According to Scripture…WATER does NOT forgive natural born SIN Against God.
* According to Scripture…WATER does NOT cleanse a natural born mans SIN against God.
* According to Scripture….WATER does NOT cleanse a natural born mans COMMITTED SIN against God.

* John the Baptist’s Water Baptism was a Symbolic Gesture (of a Willing participant)
FORESHADOWING the UNSEEN (to men, but witnessed by the Father, the Son) per the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, TO FORGIVE, and TO CLEANSE (with Christ Jesus’ BLOOD) a willing participant OF their SIN AGAINST God and OF all unrighteousness in that participants…body, soul, spirit.
* Therefore, establishing, distinguishing that man MADE “healed”, MADE “wholly” (body, soul, spirit), “WHOLE”, called “Converted IN Christ”.

A “christening”…..morphing into being called a “baptism”, a receiving of the Holy Spirit…
IS False.

A “water baptism”…pretending it is receiving of the Holy Spirit…
IS False.

Christening’s … Water Baptism’s ARE Scheduled “ceremonies”.
* An Individual receiving the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, IS (according to Scripture)… When an INDIVIDUAL “truly Heartfully” “BELIEVES” (which is where a persons natural spirit (truth) is)…. AND By his own Freewill, “CONFESSES” his TRUE “natural spirit / belief in his heart”…TO Christ the Lord Jesus.

Christ the Lord Jesus IS NOT LAX and immediately will hear such a request, test that what He hears IS true and ACT accordingly to a TRUE confession, BY immediately forgiving, cleansing, BAPTIZING that individual with the HOLY SPIRIT.

Protestants, (some)… Can make their CONFESSION, receive the Baptism of the Hoy Spirit……ANY TIME, ANY PLACE.
(Some)…are moved during a Church Service, during a Revival meeting, during a group gathering in a Bible Study, during a time of despair, loneliness, incarceration, hopelessness (different circumstances) … but moved to Call on the Lord for Forgiveness and For His Offering and Promise of the Holy Spirit Baptism, to be fulfilled IN that person.

Baptism of the Holy Spirit IS Expressly ABOUT an individual’s TRUE Desire to establish a one on one Forever Lasting Relationship with (and according to) that mans Creator, Maker, Savior, Heavenly Lord God Almighty.
“Not ceremonies, Not trinkets, Not any particular place or time, Not another mans (parents/human clerics) desires, words spoken for you, Not without ones knowledge, Not water, Not signatures, Not certificates printed on paper, Not mans records.”

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Brakelite]

Thank you for your opinion brakelite! If you would have given some Scripture to back up your opinion, I would consider what you have been taught by your men about elders/church leaders as plausible. But with no Scripture to back up what you said, it makes what you said your opinion. I prefer to stick with facts.

Here are the facts (not opinion) backed up by Scripture: As stated before Scripture says church elders watch out for our souls and decide if we are going to be excommunicated from The Church or allowed to stay. THEY are to teach sound doctrine, exhort, and rebuke with all authority (Titus). They have been chosen by the Holy Spirit to oversee the flock and are worthy of double honor (Acts 20, 1 Timothy 5). The first elders of The Church, the Apostles and all the elders that were gathered at the Council at Jerusalem, made changes to what all Christians practiced because it seemed good to the Holy Spirit. But your theory is that elders don't compel us to do stuff their way?

In regard to your 4th commandment theory. Here, once again, here are the facts from Scripture instead of opinion: Jesus defended his disciples when the Jews attacked them for not observing the Sabbath and said: “For the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath” (Mt. 12:1–8) also saying “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath” (Mk. 2:27). Colossians 2:17–19: “Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day—things which are a mere shadow of what is to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.”. The NT Christians gathered on The Lords Day, Sunday. They set the example.

So CLEARLY your theory/opinion about Church elders is not backed up by Scripture! If it was, you would have quoted Scripture to back up your theory/opinion. You didn't quote Scripture because there is no Scripture to support you.

None the less....thank you for your time.

Your shallowness is becoming increasingly more apparent the more your post. Nowhere in scripture, either old testament or New, is there any evidence for a change in the 4th Commandment from the Saturday Sabbath to Sunday. And your own church admits as much. But I think you already know this. Sunday is based solely on church tradition. Not scripture.

 

[ScottA]

In post #442 – YOU stated the following:
“No. Preaching by the apostles by the Holy Spirit came later.”

I corrected you by pointing out that it started at Pentecost – and now you’re changing the argument.
Discussion with you is fruitless because you move the goal posts every time you are proven wrong.

So, I release YOU . . .

No, "later" was correct. The apostles were not filled with the Holy Spirit until came. He first came--then they were filled.

 

[ScottA]

WRONG.

"Corporate", as in Corpus Christi - the Body of Christ.
This is not "individual" interpretation

No, "One new man" is the body of Christ. But the Catholic church separately went their own way, as their own body, the body of another.

 

[Taken]

How about you explain how your Sunday service

I don’t have a “Sunday” Service.
I have Christ’s Church, God’s Word, God’s anointed High Priest, Christ (Gods Spirit, Truth, Seed, Power, Wisdom) IN me, 24-7 EVERYDAY.

fulfills OT Eucharistic prophecies before talking about Christ of the Israelites …

Bread and Wine….food and drink…..were set upon a table where Jesus had prearranged for His disciples to come and meet with Him, on the First day of the week, to gather together according to Jewish Tradition of Celebrating the Jewish Feast of unleavened bread.

Grain, bread, food out of the Earth…
Wine, water, drink out of the Earth…
“Sustains” a natural MAN’S BODY’s Life.

Jesus was teaching….”His Body”…”His Blood”….”Sustains” a natural MAN’S SPIRITUAL Life.

What Jesus SAID, was to “REMEMBER” Him, with IMPLICATION whenever you “sustain” your natural body with “food and drink”…
“REMEMBERING” WHAT?
“Remembering it is Christ Jesus WHO “sustains” natural man via Christ Jesus’ “Body and Blood” given FOR a mans “spiritual sustainability”, while that man remains alive upon the face of the earth.

Some people attempt to MIMIC (of sorts), (Gentiles) and Jews as given Them.
Some people line up in a ceremony fashion taking turns receiving a “bite of food and sip of drink”, while others observe.
Times are set, to engage in such a ceremony.

Many protestants, I know, and we as well, are NOT Jews, do not Pretend NON-Jews were seated with Jesus, to celebrate the Feast of Unleavened bread or that it was NON-Jews who participated in Jewish Traditional Feasts.

We (I speak of my family) are according to the Word of God, ARE Converted, ARE made WHOLE.
We observe Christ the Lord’s request to “REMEMBER HIM”, when we “EAT food” and “CONSUME drink”….in a similar fashion, of sitting at a table, speaking the Lords Name, asking His Blessing over our “food and drink”, and Thanking Him FOR His giving of His body and His blood, to sustain our Spiritual Life with Him.
It is TRUSTED His Presence IS with us, ALL participating, ALL in agreement, Without by-standers necessary to “witness”.
* “WE” consume “food and drink” several times throughout a single day. Which is to say, without a ceremony, witnesses, a particular place, etc. We are calling on the Lord for His blessing and our thankfulness in Remembrance of Him.

… when your so called reformers threw the Table of the Lord in the trash, and replaced it with a podium.

Taking note of your hypocrisy….
Boo hoo you complain of being offended, while claiming Protestants have thrown out to the trash the table of the Lord.

The Tabernacle, The design, The House dedicated unto God, The Table of the Lord, the items to set upon the table, the altar, the Table writing IN Stone, the garb, the adornments, The Temple likewise, was Given by God to ISRAEL, via Moses.

The TEMPLE destroyed, by Christ Jesus.
The CHURCH established by Christ Jesus and from that day to this, IS STILLL in the process of being BUILT, daily adding MEMBERS, as stone upon stone.

I indicated (catholics), try to cover all bases…
Trying to somewhat mimic what was given ISRAEL, while literally recognizing Jesus destroyed the TEMPLE man built, then accrediting “catholic men” as having some sort of personal hierarchy control and ownership over …
Christ’s Church….that BY THE WAY IS WITHIN A MAN….
(No gold cups, candle sticks, trinkets, tables, altars, etc. IN a man!)

And the Mary on and on and on thing…absurd.

That is not the point. I don't need to know either. I accept in faith ALL that was said by Jesus and the Apostles is preserved in the passing of of the offices they established to be continued until the end of time. If you refuse to believe that you should stop pretending you believe the Bible.

You obviously have a COMPREHENSION PROBLEM.
You speaking FOR me…over and over and over….is old and disingenuous.

OPEN your ears…
* I believe ALL Scripture IS TRUE!
* I DO NOT believe ALL Scripture APPLIES to ALL People!
* I believe JESUS appointed specific men TO:
Preach the Gospel OF Jesus Christ TO: Jews, Israel, Gentiles, Kings.
* I believe MEN “appointed” men to “assist” them in “speaking and spreading” the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
* I believe MEN “continue” to appoint, elect them in “speaking and spreading” the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Now Listen VERY CAREFULLY

It matters NOT to me, WHO, what man, of his own volition, appointed, elected, given a title, has special garb, stands on a stage, has a microphone, has an audience, parades in the streets, what building he stands in, if there is a table, altar, art works, statues, incense, stained glass, trinkets, wine stash, blah, blah, blah, present….that
WHATEVER the SPEAKER IS SAYING, claiming IS according to Gods Word….
“CAN BE” VERIFIED IN SCRIPTURE.

IF it can NOT be verified in Scripture…
I do NOT consider to TRUST it.

And I have ZERO concern if THAT ^ is likable, agreeable with you or not. It is agreeable with Scripture!

Acts 17:
[11] These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

 

[Taken]

Wonderful. "Word of God" appears some 50-80 times in the Bible. I haven't found one instance where "Word of God" refers to the written word alone. It almost always refers to the spoken word. I'll make it easy for you:
48 Bible results for “"word of god"” from 21st Century King James Version.
No Catholic bias there!


Good for you, but you still miss the point. If apostolic authority wasn't passed down, you wouldn't have a Bible in the first place. I simply receive the divine message from authorized teachers as it has been passed down, oral and written, whereas you (and every new denomination) has to reconstruct the divine message according to your world view and experiences and largely influenced by the myth of sola scriptura.

View attachment 40499
from the sublime to the ridiculous.​

If it were NOT for God’s own Example and Instruction…their would be NO Bible.

God SAID…
Gen 1
[3] And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
God SAID, Repeated numerous times, in Scripture.


Gods EXAMPLE…
EX 31:
[18] And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.

Gods INSTRUCTION…write AND oral.
Ex 17:
[14] And the LORD said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua: for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven.

Make COPIES…
Deut 17
[18] And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites:

Distribute the COPIES.
Esth 3:
[14] The copy of the writing for a commandment to be given in every province was published unto all people, that they should be ready against that day.

IF the WRITINGS ARE DESTROYED….
REWRITE…
Jer 38:
[27] Then the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah, after that the king had burned the roll, and the words which Baruch wrote at the mouth of Jeremiah, saying,
[28] Take thee again another roll, and write in it all the former words that were in the first roll, which Jehoiakim the king of Judah hath burned.

Nothing new….
God spoke, God wrote, God taught men, Men taught men, Men spoke, Men wrote, Men copied writings, Men distributed writings, Men continue to speak, Men continue to copy, Men continue to distribute writings.
Men continue to READ, to HEAR, to VERIFY what they HEAR … IS or IS NOT TRUE according to the writings CALLED Scripture.

Your PRETENSE that IF you can NOT FIND IN SCRIPTURE “the express language of being forbidden from MAKING UP your own “pseudo” SCRIPTURE” is ludicrous, on it’s face.

Your church has NOT “ADDED” their man-devised Doctrines, Letters, INTO the Literal Bible, but instead has a “SIDE BOOK”, from which is taught, “what God really meant”, but forgot to actually Inspire men TO WRITE in what God establish Is Scripture.

Ya think God does not NOTICE the deception? The opening of the Bible, citing some verses, but then TEACHING from a “man-devised” book of made up nonsense?

God without beginning, the creator and maker of Human manKIND has a Human mother, herself naturally born without sin?

Astounding.

Psalms 51:5
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
And in sin my mother conceived me.

Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned—

Romans 3:23
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God…

When the POSITIVE is revealed, it is not necessary to speak or write an ‘exception”…
There is NO EXCEPTION to “reveal” !

All of manKIND are created out of the Dust of the EARTH.
All of manKIND is conceived IN SIN, Are naturally born IN SIN, Have committed SIN…none are excepted.