Where does the Pope get his authority?

Peterlag · Mar 15, 2024

Augustin56 said:
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.

Water baptism is a carryover from part of the Levitical Law. There are many examples of people in the Old Testament who would wash themselves with water as a final step to being clean. Water baptism was an outward sign of washing, and then you would be clean to God. Baptism in water, and the need to be circumcised passed away with the coming of Pentecost, as did the other Levitical Laws. To be led by the spirit is to not be under the yoke of bondage with the extreme of legalism, seeking the works of the flesh from the old covenant concerning the past Law administration that was written to Israel.

It's clear from the gospels that water baptism had to do with the kingdom, which was ministered by John who was known as the Baptizer, and not a minister for the Church of God. John who was a prophet functioning under the old covenant was appointed by God to prepare and confirm the promises made to Israel. His message was to tell those who lived under the old covenant that the king had come and “the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” He used water as a sign to baptize those who believed the promised Messiah would be coming in just a matter of months and to illustrate that he would be the Christ, who would baptize them not with material water, but with holy spirit, which is “power from on high.” From the habit of tradition, and only for a short period of time, a small handful of people were baptized with water into the New Testament, but never again afterwards.

In the epistles written just a little bit past the beginning of the New Testament is where we read the only time water baptism is mentioned is to note there is no more need for it, and that we are now to be baptized with holy spirit. And this is why in Acts 2:38, Peter commands “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ.” In Acts 8:16, Peter and John “baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” In Acts 10:48, Peter “commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.” In Romans 6:3, it declares “that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ.” There is not one exception to this practice where we see water baptism, which belonged to the time period when Christ walked the earth, being used once the Church of God had become established. To suggest water baptism has anything to do with the only begotten resurrected Son of God, who is functioning within the New Testament as the head of the body of Christ, has led to nothing but confusion and has provided a bomb that has blown the local churches into pieces.

Augustin56 · Mar 15, 2024

Peterlag said:
WOW... you guys are so dug in I would not even know where to begin to untangle this stuff for you.

Let me translate for you: "WOW...you guys disagree with my personal understanding so much that I cannot even begin to understand what you're saying. It's totally foreign to me."

It's okay to disagree, Peter. All that means is that we cannot both be correct. If we believed the other was correct and we were wrong, we'd change our beliefs, wouldn't we (assuming we're intellectually honest, of course.).

Peterlag · Mar 15, 2024

Augustin56 said:
Let me translate for you: "WOW...you guys disagree with my personal understanding so much that I cannot even begin to understand what you're saying. It's totally foreign to me."

It's okay to disagree, Peter. All that means is that we cannot both be correct. If we believed the other was correct and we were wrong, we'd change our beliefs, wouldn't we (assuming we're intellectually honest, of course.).

I met a diehard Catholic co-worker 25 years ago and when I saw the rosary instead of introducing myself to him. I said I hate Catholics. We were good friends for 25 years. This is what I told him years ago. I said this is what you are going to say when we get to heaven (assuming you make it) because I know I will be there. You are going to say sitting maybe on a big rock... you will smile and lean toward me and take a deep breath and say you know Peter, you were right about everything.

Augustin56 · Mar 15, 2024

Peterlag said:
I met a diehard Catholic co-worker 25 years ago and when I saw the rosary instead of introducing myself to him. I said I hate Catholics. We were good friends for 25 years. This is what I told him years ago. I said this is what you are going to say when we get to heaven (assuming you make it) because I know I will be there. You are going to say sitting maybe on a big rock... you will smile and lean toward me and take a deep breath and say you know Peter, you were right about everything.

That's cute, but, Peter, friendly heads-up! Be careful not to judge anyone's soul, including your own. That's way, way above our pay grade. God will judge souls when we die, not us.

In philosophy, when one is trying to solve problems or figure things out, there is a principle called Occam's Razor, which says that the simplest solution/answer is usually the right one. I might recommend you use this when trying to figure out Christianity. I would try to get past all the secret consipracy theories ("Oh, the Catholics took over the Church in the beginning!") type of stuff, especially without facts to support it. Just my recommendation...

Berserk · Mar 15, 2024

Peterlag said:
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.

Don't pontificate when unliike myself, you don't know the original languages Aramaic and Greek).
In Aramaic the pun is "Cephas"/ Cepha"). The evangelical scholarly consensus rightly recognizes Peter as the foundational "rock."
Jesus is the builder. Builer on what? On the missionary efforts of Cephas the Rock.

RedFan · Mar 15, 2024

Peterlag said:
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.

Well, I don't know how to make it any clearer. Your thesis that "the Catholics" took over and corrupted "the Church" presumes that "the Church" wasn't always in line with Catholicism. That's a proposition you need to back up. You say it happened. You don't know when, you don't know how, you don't know why, you don't know who was involved -- and you can't explain why Christ would allow his Church to be stolen for over a thousand years. Fair enough.

I am not one of those who believe "Peter was the first guy in charge," but I wouldn't dream of making the argument you are making from Matt. 16:18. Whether or not the author of Matthew's gospel was present (he doesn't say he was), you and I weren't present when Christ and Peter had their "rock" discussion -- presumably in Aramaic, not in Greek, so the different Greek words are the author's interpretive gloss unless the Aramaic words are different too. Are they? Either you establish that first, or you are wasting our time pointing to the Greek. (You do see that, don't you?)

Peterlag · Mar 15, 2024

RedFan said:
Well, I don't know how to make it any clearer. Your thesis that "the Catholics" took over and corrupted "the Church" presumes that "the Church" wasn't always in line with Catholicism. That's a proposition you need to back up. You say it happened. You don't know when, you don't know how, you don't know why, you don't know who was involved -- and you can't explain why Christ would allow his Church to be stolen for over a thousand years. Fair enough.

I am not one of those who believe "Peter was the first guy in charge," but I wouldn't dream of making the argument you are making from Matt. 16:18. Whether or not the author of Matthew's gospel was present (he doesn't say he was), you and I weren't present when Christ and Peter had their "rock" discussion -- presumably in Aramaic, not in Greek, so the different Greek words are the author's interpretive gloss unless the Aramaic words are different too. Are they? Either you establish that first, or you are wasting our time pointing to the Greek. (You do see that, don't you?)

There are tons of Scripture, in fact the whole New Testament written by Peter, Paul, and John tell us the Christ is the head of the one body. For someone to pull 1 verse out of the Bible and try to say otherwise is beyond terrible biblical understanding. It tells me there's no biblical understanding at all.

RedFan · Mar 15, 2024

Peterlag said:
There are tons of Scripture, in fact the whole New Testament written by Peter, Paul, and John tell us the Christ is the head of the one body. For someone to pull 1 verse out of the Bible and try to say otherwise is beyond terrible biblical understanding. It tells me there's no biblical understanding at all.

I agree with you. But let's not wander on the road to Mecca. You still have a remarkable proposition to support.

Aunty Jane · Mar 15, 2024

RedFan said:
I agree with you. But let's not wander on the road to Mecca. You still have a remarkable proposition to support.

Why did you ignore a detailed explanation directed to you in post #377?

There you have a scriptural “support” for the proposition you mentioned.

RedFan · Mar 15, 2024

Aunty Jane said:
Why did you ignore a detailed explanation directed to you in post #377?

There you have a scriptural “support” for the proposition you mentioned.

I didn't ignore it. I found it nonresponsive to my four questions of @Peterlag.

Peterlag · Mar 15, 2024

Berserk said:
Don't pontificate when unliike myself, you don't know the original languages Aramaic and Greek).
In Aramaic the pun is "Cephas"/ Cepha"). The evangelical scholarly consensus rightly recognizes Peter as the foundational "rock."
Jesus is the builder. Builer on what? On the missionary efforts of Cephas the Rock.

As an expert in understand all of the New Testament and being able to see how it all fits together is why I disagree with you.

Behold · Mar 15, 2024

Augustin56 said:
That's cute, but, Peter, friendly heads-up! Be careful not to judge anyone's soul, including your own. That's way, way above our pay grade. God will judge souls when we die, not us.

More Catholic deception..

Do you have anything else to offer @Augustin56 ?

And no, im not talking about what "church fathers told you to believe".

Listen, God does not judge souls.

Here is what God judges...

John 3:36

And what does Jesus judge?

"works"., at the Bema seat

And what judges you, @Augustin56 ?

Your own words.

Peterlag · Mar 15, 2024

Augustin56 said:
That's cute, but, Peter, friendly heads-up! Be careful not to judge anyone's soul, including your own. That's way, way above our pay grade. God will judge souls when we die, not us.

In philosophy, when one is trying to solve problems or figure things out, there is a principle called Occam's Razor, which says that the simplest solution/answer is usually the right one. I might recommend you use this when trying to figure out Christianity. I would try to get past all the secret consipracy theories ("Oh, the Catholics took over the Church in the beginning!") type of stuff, especially without facts to support it. Just my recommendation...

Facts!!! I have nothing but facts... as an expert in understand all of the New Testament and being able to see how it all fits together is why I disagree with you.

Augustin56 · Mar 15, 2024

Peterlag said:
Facts!!! I have nothing but facts... as an expert in understand all of the New Testament and being able to see how it all fits together is why I disagree with you.

Oh, you do! Great! Then you can answer RedFan's post above with the facts! Who, where, when, and how did these Catholics supposedly corrupt Christ's Church?

RedFan asked you, "...Your thesis that "the Catholics" took over and corrupted "the Church" presumes that "the Church" wasn't always in line with Catholicism. That's a proposition you need to back up. You say it happened. You don't know when, you don't know how, you don't know why, you don't know who was involved -- and you can't explain why Christ would allow his Church to be stolen for over a thousand years."

Let's have the facts, please!

BTW, many Protestant theologians claimed to be experts and formally studied Scripture in universities for years. Yet, they discovered through honest study that they were wrong and because they were intellectually honest, they became Catholic. I can name several, including some with PhD's from Protestant seminaries. For example, Dr. Scott Hahn. A very strong anti-Catholic in his younger years, probably more so than you. In fact, he set out to show how wrong Catholicism was and was honest enough to find out what the Catholic Church actually taught (vs. the common lies he always heard that it taught). He even asked his professors and friends to answer questions he couldn't overcome and they had no answers. Listen to Dr. Hahn's personal testimony when you have time, here:

If you are sincerely seeking Jesus, your time may yet come to enter into the fullness of the faith given mankind by Christ. I am praying for you, that the anti-Catholic scales fall off of your eyes, so that you may be surprised by Christ's gift to us, His Mystical Body, the Church.

Peterlag · Mar 15, 2024

Augustin56 said:
Oh, you do! Great! Then you can answer RedFan's post above with the facts! Who, where, when, and how did these Catholics supposedly corrupt Christ's Church?

RedFan asked you, "...Your thesis that "the Catholics" took over and corrupted "the Church" presumes that "the Church" wasn't always in line with Catholicism. That's a proposition you need to back up. You say it happened. You don't know when, you don't know how, you don't know why, you don't know who was involved -- and you can't explain why Christ would allow his Church to be stolen for over a thousand years."

Let's have the facts, please!

BTW, many Protestant theologians claimed to be experts and formally studied Scripture in universities for years. Yet, they discovered through honest study that they were wrong and because they were intellectually honest, they became Catholic. I can name several, including some with PhD's from Protestant seminaries. For example, Dr. Scott Hahn. A very strong anti-Catholic in his younger years, probably more so than you. In fact, he set out to show how wrong Catholicism was and was honest enough to find out what the Catholic Church actually taught (vs. the common lies he always heard that it taught). He even asked his professors and friends to answer questions he couldn't overcome and they had no answers. Listen to Dr. Hahn's personal testimony when you have time, here:

If you are sincerely seeking Jesus, your time may yet come to enter into the fullness of the faith given mankind by Christ. I am praying for you, that the anti-Catholic scales fall off of your eyes, so that you may be surprised by Christ's gift to us, His Mystical Body, the Church.

You guys can't use any of this when did it happened and can you prove it on me because I know the Scriptures and the power of God. And so I know that the Catholics don't teach the Scriptures or the power of God. They still leave Jesus on the bloody tree for heavens sake. He rose from the dead. He's not on the cross anymore.

RedFan · Mar 15, 2024

Peterlag said:
You guys can't use any of this when did it happened and can you prove it on me because I know the Scriptures and the power of God. And so I know that the Catholics don't teach the Scriptures or the power of God. They still leave Jesus on the bloody tree for heavens sake. He rose from the dead. He's not on the cross anymore.

That's your answer? Next I suppose you'll tell us that you slept in a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Augustin56 · Mar 15, 2024

Peterlag said:
You guys can't use any of this when did it happened and can you prove it on me because I know the Scriptures and the power of God. And so I know that the Catholics don't teach the Scriptures or the power of God. They still leave Jesus on the bloody tree for heavens sake. He rose from the dead. He's not on the cross anymore.

Peter, I'm sure you didn't know, but there are about 7000 (give or take) Catholic seminaries worldwide, all of which teach Scriipture. All priests are taught Scripture. And they're all taught about the power of God. And, many, many more things about God. Priests typically have a degree in philosophy (often a Master's degree) and graduate level studies in theology, including Scripture.

Peterlag · Mar 15, 2024

Augustin56 said:
Peter, I'm sure you didn't know, but there are about 7000 (give or take) Catholic seminaries worldwide, all of which teach Scriipture. All priests are taught Scripture. And they're all taught about the power of God. And, many, many more things about God. Priests typically have a degree in philosophy (often a Master's degree) and graduate level studies in theology, including Scripture.

That's the whole damn problem. The Scriptures are simple and even a child could understand them. You have to go to school to be educated into being able to make in complicated and a mystery.

RedFan · Mar 16, 2024

Peterlag said:
That's the whole damn problem. The Scriptures are simple and even a child could understand them. You have to go to school to be educated into being able to make in complicated and a mystery.

I don't think that "The Scriptures are simple and even a child could understand them." I doubt you really think so either. According to what you said in Post #354,

Peterlag said:
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.

Why would you "search[] the Scriptures day and night to be able to piece it together so that I could make sense out of it" if even a child could make sense out of it?

Augustin56 · Mar 16, 2024

Peterlag said:
That's the whole damn problem. The Scriptures are simple and even a child could understand them. You have to go to school to be educated into being able to make in complicated and a mystery.

Peter, if the Scriptures were so easy to interpret, there would be one (1) Protestant denonmination, with everyone believing the same thing. However, the opposite is true. there are literally tens of thousands of man-made, doctrinally contradicting/disagreeing denominations, all based on someone's personal interpretation of Scripture and all coming up with different interpretations to the point where they had to make up a different denomination. Nice try, though.

You might want to read Acts 30-31: “So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, ‘Do you understand what you are reading?’ And he said, ‘How can I, unless some one guides me?’ And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.”

This pretty well seems to fly in the facer of your "The Scriptures are simple and even a child could understand them" comment, does it not?

Where does the Pope get his authority?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads