Where does the Pope get his authority?

[Augustin56]

I think it boils down to this... God created one Church and the Catholics took it over early and corrupted it so bad mostly because they had it all to themselves for 1,600 years that when the groups started splintering from it they could not find the truth since the Catholics had corrupted it so badly. So group after group for the last 400 years have tried to make some sense out of it and most cannot. Even I had to have many teachers before I could put it together. Guys like...

1.) John Sanders
2.) E.W. Bullinger
3.) Andrew Farley
4.) Gregory A. Boyd
5.) Andrew Wommack

Ok. This is good information. But, all of those teachers were born in the 20th century, except E.W. Bullinger, who was born in the 19th century. Wouldn't you prefer someone close in time to the actual events, rather than someone coming along in the last 100 years or so? This begs the question, where did THEY get their information? What was their source? The same broken approach of all Protestants? Do-it-yourself, by your own light?

You claim that Catholics took the Church founded by Christ over, early on. Where did these Catholics come from? And, what is the source of this information? Sounds more like an empty conspiracy story to me. And you say the Catholics "corrupted the truth" and no one could find it...except these modern guys you listed, that came very lately in history? Where would they get different information? An angel? Christ appearing Himself? I'm curious.

 

[Peterlag]

Ok. This is good information. But, all of those teachers were born in the 20th century, except E.W. Bullinger, who was born in the 19th century. Wouldn't you prefer someone close in time to the actual events, rather than someone coming along in the last 100 years or so? This begs the question, where did THEY get their information? What was their source? The same broken approach of all Protestants? Do-it-yourself, by your own light?

You claim that Catholics took the Church founded by Christ over, early on. Where did these Catholics come from? And, what is the source of this information? Sounds more like an empty conspiracy story to me. And you say the Catholics "corrupted the truth" and no one could find it...except these modern guys you listed, that came very lately in history? Where would they get different information? An angel? Christ appearing Himself? I'm curious.

The Scriptures is where we get the biblical data from. Not from the Catholics.

 

[Augustin56]

The Scriptures is where we get the biblical data from. Not from the Catholics.

Okay. Good post. Now keep following that line of thought... The Scriptures are where you get the biblical data. Got it. But the tens of thousands of man-made Protestant denominations cannot agree on what Scripture really says (otherwise they wouldn't bother creating new denominations all the time), so why would you trust your own interpretation? Is there something you know or some special skill you have that gives you a higher certitude than the other bible-only believers? What sets you apart from the others who are taking the same approach?

 

[The Learner]

Much of the Roman Catholic doctrine was assimilated into Protestantism and is still being passed along as Christian groups continue to split off from one another. In a nutshell that is why even the independent church in your neighborhood today most probably believes that there is a trinity, dead people are alive, God is in control of everything that happens, the Four Gospels are written to Christians, and water baptism is relevant. And then there's everything that you know about our sin nature was taught to you by them.

Google Image Result for https://i.ytimg.com/vi/0cDyEDgCZjc/maxresdefault.jpg

 

[The Learner]

@Aunty Jane... Put it this way and I don't care where she got this information from because she's right.

”5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.”

What “form” does God have? As already mentioned, it is spirit form… all who occupy the spirit realm are spirits, including God. Can you deny that? (John 4:24)

How did Jesus “empty himself” to take the form of a servant? Who is he serving? Himself? Can God volunteer to become his own servant? Why would he need to? Do you not understand what redemption is? An immortal God cannot die. There are two things that God cannot do… lie or die.

You are reading the same words that I am, but you are reading right over the ones that challenge your belief.
I am explaining the whole passage… apparently you ignore what you don’t want to acknowledge.

I worship the same God that Jesus did... you have swallowed an ancient lie that goes back centuries to when the great apostasy, foretold by Jesus and his apostles, took over "the church". The triune god idea is borrowed from paganism, not the Bible.

Trinities are found in pagan religions but nowhere in the Bible will you find one.

Yes Jesus can choose to be a servant. It has to do with roles in the godhead.

 

[The Learner]

Ok. Good start. Aunty Jane told you this, or at least you agree with her interpreation. Fine. And, you believe she is right. I believe you are both wrong. Where does the buck stop? Who or what is the determining factor of who is right and who is incorrect? Or does it not matter and anyone can believe anything they want, regardless of whether it is true or not?

You read the Bible through your own light, like all Protestant-based Christians. Tens of thousands of differing, contradictory interpretations result, everyone believing that they have the right one. That cannot be the correct approach, because that means most people are wrong. Given a class of 100 2nd grade students. They are given a math problem: 2 + 2 = _____. They turn their papers into the teacher with 100 differing answers. How many, at most, can be correct? 1.

I think it boils down to authority. Who has the authority, given by God, to correctly interpret Divine Revelation? God cannot fail. God created one Church, the Catholic Church. Protestantism didn't begin till the 16th century, and has continually splintered ever since into literally tens of thousands of different-believing denominations, all based on someone's personal interpretation of Scripture. Reading Scripture through their own light. Hence, a large minority of Christians is separated from Christ's Church and the fullness of truth He gave her. Sad.

Interesting math, in my experience as a Master Teacher, both can get it wrong. I had one smart young lady who claimed she was doing math in base two, If I remember her answer was 10.

 

[The Learner]

Ok. This is good information. But, all of those teachers were born in the 20th century, except E.W. Bullinger, who was born in the 19th century. Wouldn't you prefer someone close in time to the actual events, rather than someone coming along in the last 100 years or so? This begs the question, where did THEY get their information? What was their source? The same broken approach of all Protestants? Do-it-yourself, by your own light?

You claim that Catholics took the Church founded by Christ over, early on. Where did these Catholics come from? And, what is the source of this information? Sounds more like an empty conspiracy story to me. And you say the Catholics "corrupted the truth" and no one could find it...except these modern guys you listed, that came very lately in history? Where would they get different information? An angel? Christ appearing Himself? I'm curious.

 

[The Learner]

The Scriptures is where we get the biblical data from. Not from the Catholics.

https://www.calvarychapelboston.com/Biblical%20Basis%20Trinity%20Bowman.pdf

 

[The Learner]

Okay. Good post. Now keep following that line of thought... The Scriptures are where you get the biblical data. Got it. But the tens of thousands of man-made Protestant denominations cannot agree on what Scripture really says (otherwise they wouldn't bother creating new denominations all the time), so why would you trust your own interpretation? Is there something you know or some special skill you have that gives you a higher certitude than the other bible-only believers? What sets you apart from the others who are taking the same approach?

 

[The Learner]

I need another nap

 

[RedFan]

I think it boils down to this... God created one Church and the Catholics took it over early and corrupted it . . .

Tell us about the takeover. When did it occur? Who were the ones involved in this conspiracy? How did they manage to pull it off? And what was their goal, their motivation in doing so?

 

[Peterlag]

Tell us about the takeover. When did it occur? Who were the ones involved in this conspiracy? How did they manage to pull it off? And what was their goal, their motivation in doing so?

We know the Catholics corrupted Christianity because we now have the Bible in English. We can thank Tyndale for that who was strangled to death while tied at the stake and then his dead body was burned. So we can now read the Scriptures for ourselves to see what the Catholics teach is nonsense. We did not need to be there in the beginning to know when it happened and by who.

 

[Peterlag]

Yes Jesus can choose to be a servant. It has to do with roles in the godhead.

Give me a verse where it is written that God is a servant?

 

[Peterlag]

Okay. Good post. Now keep following that line of thought... The Scriptures are where you get the biblical data. Got it. But the tens of thousands of man-made Protestant denominations cannot agree on what Scripture really says (otherwise they wouldn't bother creating new denominations all the time), so why would you trust your own interpretation? Is there something you know or some special skill you have that gives you a higher certitude than the other bible-only believers? What sets you apart from the others who are taking the same approach?

People on here get upset and attack me personally whenever someone like you asks me that. They get mad not because of your question, but because they quote my answer without quoting your question and they then say see he's boasting of himself as some great one and so he's not humble and so he must be a false teacher. But they can talk all they want because I'm going to answer your question and I'm going to do it by telling the truth.

Yeah I have studied the Scriptures for years day and night sometimes from 8 in the morning until midnight seven days a week resting only to rest my eyes and eat and clean up a bit. I have been to Bible colleges and traveled in 7 different states teaching and learning while most of you were working a good job and spending time with your family. So there's reasons why I'm an expert and most are not. I have searched the Scriptures day and night to be able to piece it together so that I could make sense out of it.

One day I woke up an old man and realized I was light years ahead of the average Christian and came on here to try to help others to understand who the resurrected Christ is and what our relationship is when we are walking in him. That's when I noticed there were many on these sites that are still in grammar school when it comes to biblical concepts and since I'm over their head in many biblical truths is why they cannot understand me. They do not understand that the Bible is not written to everybody. They do not understand they are not sinners in Christ. And they don't know who Jesus is. Why? I can answer that "why" in one word... Catholics.

 

[RedFan]

We know the Catholics corrupted Christianity because we now have the Bible in English. We can thank Tyndale for that who was strangled to death while tied at the stake and then his dead body was burned. So we can now read the Scriptures for ourselves to see what the Catholics teach is nonsense. We did not need to be there in the beginning to know when it happened and by who.

Your answer is, in effect, "we know the takeover happened." But you can't say when, by whom specifically, how, or why -- the only four questions I asked. So your "answer" isn't really responsive. (If I were cross-examining you in court, I would be asking the judge to direct the witness to answer -- and then excuse the witness from the stand if his response was "I don't know.")

 

[Peterlag]

Your answer is, in effect, "we know the takeover happened." But you can't say when, by whom specifically, how, or why -- the only four questions I asked. So your "answer" isn't really responsive. (If I were cross-examining you in court, I would be asking the judge to direct the witness to answer -- and then excuse the witness from the stand if his response was "I don't know.")

When I was younger I asked my Bible teachers who started the Catholic church. They answered me by saying the Devil.

 

[Augustin56]

When I was younger I asked my Bible teachers who started the Catholic church. They answered me by saying the Devil.

Was that a satisfactory answer for you? So, you're attributing to your Bible teachers some sort of infallibility? Just asking...

 

[Peterlag]

Was that a satisfactory answer for you? So, you're attributing to your Bible teachers some sort of infallibility? Just asking...

Someone pressured me to answer who and when the Catholics moved in. Like I'm supposed to know. Was I there? Am I two thousand years old? He wanted an answer as to who started the Catholics. So I gave him my best answer. There are many people who believe this. It's not just me.

 

[Augustin56]

Someone pressured me to answer who and when the Catholics moved in. Like I'm supposed to know. Was I there? Am I two thousand years old? He wanted an answer as to who started the Catholics. So I gave him my best answer. There are many people who believe this. It's not just me.

Well, that's okay. Most people aren't well educated in history, especially history of Christianity, etc. People are all over the board on when/how Christianity started, what was involved, etc. I've heard all sorts of wild stories, including yours (no offense). If only we had had the tools we have today to film and record everything, and store things digitally. There would be no doubt.

I think it's okay not to know, but one has to be careful not to overstate one's case as if it's proven fact, if one doesn't really know. Stating it as a theory is just fine, but should be backed up by some sort of facts, yes? There must be reasons why we believe what we believe.

I would propose that if your premise is true, that Catholics "took over" the Church founded by Christ, then that would have had to have happened very, very early on. St. Ignatius of Antioch, who was ordained and appointed as bishop of Antioch by St. Peter, the Apostle, himself, referred to the Church as the Catholic Church. (https://www.orderofstignatius.org/files/Letters/Ignatius_to_Smyrnaeans.pdf) So, if your premise is true, you would have to claim that St. Ignatious was one of the ones taking over Christ's Church, yes? One step after an Apostle. And then, we would have to ask the question, did he belong to some group separate from the Church founded by Christ, and did St. Peter know this, or was part of this? Would that imply that St. Peter was Catholic, too, and participated in the "takeover?"

 

[RedFan]

When I was younger I asked my Bible teachers who started the Catholic church. They answered me by saying the Devil.

Nice to know. Did they tell you when the Devil did so, who he recruited for this conspiracy, how it was pulled off, and why the conspirators went along?