Where does the Pope get his authority?
- Thread starter Hobie
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
There can be a little educated guessing here. Note the word educated guessing based on what we know about human nature, the devil, things Paul said and the copies of the Word. Paul said "This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me;..." So it was breaking up right under their feet while they were alive. Human nature tells me it was not holy one day and then the next it was evil. It took years for the Catholics to get total control. Killing and torturing their way across the globe took hundreds of years. Even late into the 4th century there were Bishops saying Jesus is not God. And the sin nature was Augustine well into the 4th century. It seems like you and the other guy talking to me about this think it happened over night and that it should have been recorded or it would have been nice to know when it happened. For you guys it did not happen. The Catholics are the same holy church that Christ started. I disagree.
Augustin56
Well-Known Member
Peter, we're only responding to what you claimed, that Christ's Church was taken over early on. Now, you're saying it took centuries ("4th century there were bishops..."?
Anyway, you refer to "evil Catholics" referring to some bishops in the 4th century that denied Christ, etc. How does that disprove the Catholic Church? From the very beginning, there were Judas Iscariots, and Jesus hand-picked him. It would be more accurate to view the Church along the lines of a gym, that had the world's best facilities, equipment and programs, hands down! Yet, some people visit and see certain individuals, including some "trainers" sitting around weighing 400 lbs and look like they couldn't walk across the room without being winded. So, they conclude, "Well, this gym is horrible! Look at those fat slobs over there! This gym isn't doing them any good! How can it be the best?!" Yet, the fault isn't with the gym, it's with the individuals, who upon closer investigation, refuse to use the equipment or follow the programs outlined by the gym! Instead, they sit around eating donuts and drinking milk shakes, talking about the others exercising.
Jesus identifies as one with His Church, and He doesn't play shell games. His Church was here from the beginning, and He promised that it would never teach doctrinal error. (Matt. 16:18) IF some nefarious group, whom you label as "Catholics" took over the Church and introduced error into its doctrines, then Christ wasn't true to His promise. And if that's true, we're all wasting our time. I would argue that He did keep His promise.
We are dancing around the issue. If "the Catholics" corrupted and took over "the Church," which is @Peterlag's thesis, he should be able to explain how and why this Italian cabal (well, I guess I don't really know if @Peterlag thinks it was put together in Italy) came to be. Before they implemented their nefarious plan, what did "the Church" look like? How were these "Catholics" any different, doctrinally, from "the Church" at that time? And why did they want it changed to their way of thinking?
I am not Roman Catholic. But I can't see how @Peterlag could be right. He has put quite a thesis out there, and I am anxious to see him defend it. Not by saying that many people agree with him. Not by saying he had Bible teachers tell him the Devil founded Catholicism. But historically and logically. With all the doctrinal disputes in the first several centuries of Christianity that never gained the status of orthodoxy, how is it that this supposedly "evil doctrine" called Catholicism managed to triumph and co-opt the Church of Christ for over a thousand years? Was Christ just asleep at the switch?
I am not Roman Catholic. But I can't see how @Peterlag could be right. He has put quite a thesis out there, and I am anxious to see him defend it. Not by saying that many people agree with him. Not by saying he had Bible teachers tell him the Devil founded Catholicism. But historically and logically. With all the doctrinal disputes in the first several centuries of Christianity that never gained the status of orthodoxy, how is it that this supposedly "evil doctrine" called Catholicism managed to triumph and co-opt the Church of Christ for over a thousand years? Was Christ just asleep at the switch?
Let's say you come home and find your house robbed and most of your stuff thrown on the floor and your television, computers and all the wife's jewellery is missing from the bedroom. Do you then say I was not robbed because I don't know when this was done or by who. I first posted this on page 100 and have posted it many times all over this site and I will post it again here.
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.
You believe the Catholics teach Christian data.
I do not know of anything that they teach that's Christian.
Augustin56
Well-Known Member
Peter, the only reason that the Protestants assimilated much of the Cathlolic ("Roman" is not part of the official name of the Church, btw) is that the Catholic Church had the fullness of Divine Revelation in its teaching. This Divine Revelation was given to the Apostles, who passed it on to their successors, the bishops, who have done likewise for 2000 years now. Anything Protestants changed that contradicted the original teaching was/is material heresy, straight up. Heresy usually crops up when someone wants to reinvent Divine Revelation in their own image, through their own viewpoints. (Can we say personal interpretation of Scripture here?) Divine Revelation ceased with the death of the last Apostle. Some, like the Mormons, claim they received additional Divine Revelation.
Augustin56
Well-Known Member
Some of my friends... not me but I do wonder say that Catholics are not born again and therefore may not even make heaven. That would be such a terrible thing. I can think of another huge religion who have billions of followers who are probably going to be very surprised to learn who they thought was God was the Devil.
WOW... you guys are so dug in I would not even know where to begin to untangle this stuff for you.
(1) Fundamentalists here overlook the most decisive phrase proving that Peter is the Rock on which Christ will build His church: "You are Peter (= "Rock")..." Jesus would not have used this phrase to set up His announcement about the Rock, if He meant that He Himself was the foundational rock!
(2) Peter, and Peter alone, is given "the keys of the kingdom of heaven" and that is as foundational as it gets.
(3) Jesus changes Simon's name to "Rock" (= Aramaic "Cephas") precisely to authorize him to serve as the foundational rock.
(2) Peter, and Peter alone, is given "the keys of the kingdom of heaven" and that is as foundational as it gets.
(3) Jesus changes Simon's name to "Rock" (= Aramaic "Cephas") precisely to authorize him to serve as the foundational rock.
He meant what Peter said is what He would build His church on. Everywhere else in the Bible Jesus is the Rock What Does the Bible Say About Jesus Is The Rock?
He was even foreshadowed in the Old Testament as the Rock from which flowed water. the other disciples would
have said something if that were true about Peter being a rock.
The various meanings of "rock" elsewhere are irrelevant to its meaning in Matthew 16, that Peter, not Jesus, is Jesus' rock.
I know the Catholics have never been right about anything so I looked up the two Greek words.
The one for Peter is not the same for Rock. E. W. Bullinger's Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament tells me this and he's got a note that says the following...
Peter, who was so called, not because of firmness of character, but for the very opposite reason. Peter was like a rolling stone in one place today and in another tomorrow, restless and changeable. Christ is the Rock. page 650
LOL, you just gave the best reason not to nickname Peter "the rock!"
What you don't get is this: the issue is how Jesus refers to Himself in the Gospels. He refers to Himself as "the cornerstone" (Mark 12:10) and reserves the "Rock" designation for Peter. "Rock" (Aramaic "kepha") mnever means "rolling stone!"
The Greek shows two different words. One word for Peter and another different word for Rock. To put Peter and the Rock together and say that the two words are the same is deception. It's not handling the Word of God honestly.
Last edited:
Aunty Jane
Well-Known Member
Jesus answers that actually.....
In his parable of the “wheat and the weeds” he identified the players in his scenario....
Matt 13:24-30....
“He presented another illustration to them, saying: “The Kingdom of the heavens may be likened to a man who sowed fine seed in his field. 25 While men were sleeping, his enemy came and oversowed weeds in among the wheat and left. 26 When the stalk sprouted and produced fruit, then the weeds also appeared. 27 So the slaves of the master of the house came and said to him, ‘Master, did you not sow fine seed in your field? How, then, does it have weeds?’ 28 He said to them, ‘An enemy, a man, did this.’ The slaves said to him, ‘Do you want us, then, to go out and collect them?’ 29 He said, ‘No, for fear that while collecting the weeds, you uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and in the harvest season, I will tell the reapers: First collect the weeds and bind them in bundles to burn them up; then gather the wheat into my storehouse.’”
This is one of the few parables that the disciples asked Jesus to explain...which he did....
Matt 13:36-43...
“Then after dismissing the crowds, he went into the house. His disciples came to him and said: “Explain to us the illustration of the weeds in the field.” 37 In response he said: “The sower of the fine seed is the Son of man; 38 the field is the world. As for the fine seed, these are the sons of the Kingdom, but the weeds are the sons of the wicked one, 39 and the enemy who sowed them is the Devil. The harvest is a conclusion of a system of things, and the reapers are angels. 40 Therefore, just as the weeds are collected and burned with fire, so it will be in the conclusion of the system of things. 41 The Son of man will send his angels, and they will collect out from his Kingdom all things that cause stumbling and people who practice lawlessness, 42 and they will pitch them into the fiery furnace. There is where their weeping and the gnashing of their teeth will be. 43 At that time the righteous ones will shine as brightly as the sun in the Kingdom of their Father. Let the one who has ears listen.”
So to answer your question, see what Jesus said by way of his explanation.
“While men were sleeping” is when the “weeds” were “sown by the devil”. Spiritual sleepiness is indicated here....the opposite of being spiritually awake.
Understanding the parable from a Jewish point of view, the “weeds” are believed to be a noxious plant called “bearded darnell”...it was the blight of ME farmers as it was called “wheat’s evil twin”.....sometimes deliberately sown in a neighbor’s crop to ruin his harvest.
In the early growing period it was indistinguishable from wheat....but after some time its identity was detected, but by then the root systems were so entwined, that it was impossible to uproot the weeds without taking the wheat with them......so the only thing to do was wait till the harvest and separate them then, disposing of the weeds, and putting the reduced wheat harvest into the storehouse.
As you may know, the devil is a deceiver and can portray himself as an”angel of light”....when he sowed his “weeds” (counterfeit Christianity) he did so when there was spiritual drowsiness among those who led the church. It was prophesied also by the apostles that men would infiltrate the congregations and lead them away into false beliefs and practices. (2 Thess 2:1-3; 2 Peter 2:1-3; 1 Tim 4:1-3)
The Catholic Church came out of that apostasy. It did not resemble anything taught by Jesus Christ but was a fusion of weakened Chriatianity and pagan Roman sun worship......still very visible in the church to this day.
Don't obfuscate the issue, my friend. A Catholic takeover of "the Church" can only be shown by proof that "the Church" wasn't always "Catholic" -- in substance, not merely in name (apologies to Ignatius). That has to be your starting point (just as the disheveled condition of my house not always being that way is a predicate to any robbery conclusion). And if you intend to prove the takeover, that is where you need to focus your energies. In a nutshell, we are considering whether Catholicism is (a) original Christian doctrine, or (b) a corruption of original Christian doctrine that Christ allowed to happen and reign supreme for over a thousand years.
In your attempt to prove (b) over (a), keep in mind that traditions not mentioned in what we now call the New Testament could easily have grown up in Christianity side by side with the NT. So whether Catholicism holds to tenets not mentioned in Scripture is largely immaterial; such tenets would have to be contradicted by Scripture rather than merely not found in Scripture before they are deemed evidence of corruption of original Christian doctrine -- and then only if the "contradictory" Scriptures are unambiguously pointing in the other direction.
I don't understand what you are writing above. I have noticed in my life that the more someone is into the Catholic stuff the more I cannot understand them when they talk. When the Catholics took the Christian church is not important. The fact that they did is true. We know this because everything the Catholics teach is not what the Bible says. They corrupt everything. Someone on here a few pages above brought up Peter and the Rock. Just another example of Catholics always getting it wrong. The Greek word for Peter is not the same Greek word for Rock. It's deception and evil to knock Christ out of his own church who is the head and say Peter was the first guy in charge.
Augustin56
Well-Known Member
Tell your friends that the real meaning of "born again" is Baptism. All Catholics are Baptized, and, therefore, born again. Point them to John 3:5, "Jesus answered, “Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit." The earliest Church Fathers who were either disciples of the Apostles or writers of the second century preached without exception that the water in John 3:5 is Baptism.
Similar threads
