Authority

[justaname]

Jim,

Against Heresies 3 1.1

I do not make that suggestion about leadership.

My comment of the ECF's interpretations of Scripture is absolutely correct, one only needs to read them to understand my claim.

The context of Ignatius' subject deals with unbelievers. This does not confirm belief in actual blood and actual flesh. Yet this is not the subject at hand. Please understand I am not attacking views of the Orthodox...simply using these to reflect or deflect the concept of authority.

Yet to give you something to chew on...

Like many of the beliefs and rites of Romanism, transubstantiation was first practiced by pagan religions. The noted historian Durant said that belief in transubstantiation as practiced by the priests of the Roman Catholic system is "one of the oldest ceremonies of primitive religion." The Story Of Civilization, p. 741. The syncretism and mysticism of the Middle East were great factors in influencing the West, particularly Italy. Roman Society From Nero To Marcus Aurelius, Dill. In Egypt priests would consecrate mest cakes which were supposed to be come the flesh of Osiris. Encyclopedia Of Religions, Vol. 2, p. 76. The idea of transubstantiation was also characteristic of the religion of Mithra whose sacraments of cakes and Haoma drink closely parallel the Catholic Eucharistic rite. Ibid. The idea of eating the flesh of deity was most popular among the people of Mexico and Central America long before they ever heard of Christ; and when Spanish missionaries first landed in those countries "their surprise was heightened, when they witnessed a religious rite which reminded them of communion...an image made of flour...and after consecration by priests, was distributed among the people who ate it...declaring it was the flesh of deity..." Prescott's Mexico, Vol. 3.

http://mtc.org/eucharst.html

Not a lot of time to respond...neither am I saying I agree with Bartholomew f. Brewer, Ph.D.

 

[StanJ]

OH! "If God's word doesn't say it than it never happened." Is that your point?

Hey! YOU aren't in the Bible. Therefore, you must not exist!

And that makes about as much sense as you rejecting the historical report of a contemporary of the apostles because the procedure is not spelled out for you in so many words in scripture. Clement's letter is a document which gives us historical information about the church.

The Bible is not an exhaustive encyclopedia of everything that Jesus taught the disciples.

The trinity is not taught in so many words in the Bible. Do you reject it also?

You know screaming your posts doesn't make them any more effective or truthful.

I stated my point, and despite your lack of acceptance or understanding, it remains the same. Apostolic succession is NOT taught in the Bible.

I am in the Bible Jim, I'm called sinner, whosoever and man.

Paul taught that many false teachers already existed at his time but regardless, a few words doesn't make a doctrine of the church, just a false teaching. Maybe if Clement had all scriptures that did exist at that time he wouldn't have written what he did, but I won't speculate on his thoughts or intent, except to deny them credibility when people like you try to make them sound doctrine.

No the Bible is not, as John clearly states in 21:25, but it contains all that is necessary and relevant for us.

No not at all, because it is taught in OTHER words and examples in the Bible. Apostolic succession is NOT.

 

[JimParker]

You know screaming your posts doesn't make them any more effective or truthful.

I stated my point, and despite your lack of acceptance or understanding, it remains the same. Apostolic succession is NOT taught in the Bible.

I am in the Bible Jim, I'm called sinner, whosoever and man.

Paul taught that many false teachers already existed at his time but regardless, a few words doesn't make a doctrine of the church, just a false teaching. Maybe if Clement had all scriptures that did exist at that time he wouldn't have written what he did, but I won't speculate on his thoughts or intent, except to deny them credibility when people like you try to make them sound doctrine.

No the Bible is not, as John clearly states in 21:25, but it contains all that is necessary and relevant for us.

No not at all, because it is taught in OTHER words and examples in the Bible. Apostolic succession is NOT.

<<screaming your posts>>

What are you talking about???

<<Apostolic succession is NOT taught in the Bible.>>

Sure it is.

2Ti 2:2 what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

<<I am in the Bible Jim, I'm called sinner, whosoever and man.>>

Please. Don't try to be cute.

Not every fact is in the Bible.

<< Maybe if Clement had all scriptures that did exist at that time he wouldn't have written what he did,>>

Great. Another genius that knows more than the people who were actually doing the work.

On what basis do you assume that you know better than he knew?

Were you there?

 

[StanJ]

What are you talking about???

The huge font you use is tantamount to screaming, which you should well know.

Sure it is.

2Ti 2:2 what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

That doesn't teach apostolic succession, it just teaches what Paul said; And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable people who will also be qualified to teach others.

Not every fact is in the Bible.

Every fact we need as Christians is in the Bible. Only those who want to control others say it doesn't.

Great. Another genius that knows more than the people who were actually doing the work.

On what basis do you assume that you know better than he knew?

Were you there?

Because He does NOT convey Biblical sentiment.

Karl Keating is NOT either so basing your knowledge on his opinion doesn't really help much.

Yes I was.

 

[JimParker]

The huge font you use is tantamount to screaming, which you should well know.

That doesn't teach apostolic succession, it just teaches what Paul said; And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable people who will also be qualified to teach others.

Every fact we need as Christians is in the Bible. Only those who want to control others say it doesn't.

Because He does NOT convey Biblical sentiment.

Karl Keating is NOT either so basing your knowledge on his opinion doesn't really help much.

Yes I was.

The huge font you use is tantamount to screaming, which you should well know.

That doesn't teach apostolic succession, it just teaches what Paul said; And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable people who will also be qualified to teach others.

Every fact we need as Christians is in the Bible. Only those who want to control others say it doesn't.

Because He does NOT convey Biblical sentiment.

Karl Keating is NOT either so basing your knowledge on his opinion doesn't really help much.

Yes I was.

<<The huge font you use is tantamount to screaming, which you should well know.>>

The font that appears on the screen is so small that I have difficulty reading it. When I make it 18 point, it appears normal.

<<That doesn't teach apostolic succession>>

Apparently not to you. But for most of the church, it has been the norm since the late first century.

<<Every fact we need as Christians is in the Bible.>>

Your "fact finding" does not appear to support that statement.

Which "fact" is correct: Pre-trib, Mid-trib, or Post-trib?

Why didn't anyone in the church know anything about "the Rapture according to Darby" for 1800 years?

How are we born again: Confessing Jesus; being filled with the Holy Ghost and speaking in tongues; Christian baptism?

If the Bible is so clear and contains every fact, then why is there such a diversity of opinion?

Why don't you agree with every other Christian? Are you the only one who is truly taught by the Holy Spirit?

<<Only those who want to control others say it doesn't.>>

It has nothing to do with control. (A common whine of the rebellious and small children whose mommies won't give them ice cream for breakfast) It has to do with insuring that the teaching of Christ is faithfully preserved from generation to generation so that the church doesn't fragment into tens of thousands of sects all claiming to be the teachers of the truly true Gospel.

Your "fact-finding" clearly demonstrates the necessity of the authority of the church to preserve and pass on the apostolic treaching rather than entrusting it to amateurs.

<<Karl Keating is NOT either so basing your knowledge on his opinion doesn't really help much.>>

I don't know who Paul Keating is.

<<Because He does NOT convey Biblical sentiment. Yes I was.>>

Is the Bible sentimental??? You probably still are.

Since you don't back-quote, I have no idea as to what you are referring.

 

[StanJ]

The font that appears on the screen is so small that I have difficulty reading it. When I make it 18 point, it appears normal.

[SIZE=9pt]Use the zoom feature on your browser. It makes it bigger but doesn't effect the size that is posted.[/SIZE]

Apparently not to you. But for most of the church, it has been the norm since the late first century.

[SIZE=9pt]Maybe to the RCC, but they aren't most of the BOC.[/SIZE]

Your "fact finding" does not appear to support that statement.
[SIZE=9pt]Which "fact" is correct: Pre-trib, Mid-trib, or Post-trib?[/SIZE]
[SIZE=9pt]Why didn't anyone in the church know anything about "the Rapture according to Darby" for 1800 years?[/SIZE]
[SIZE=9pt]How are we born again: Confessing Jesus; being filled with the Holy Ghost and speaking in tongues; Christian baptism?[/SIZE]
[SIZE=9pt]If the Bible is so clear and contains every fact, then why is there such a diversity of opinion?[/SIZE]
[SIZE=9pt]Why don't you agree with every other Christian? Are you the only one who is truly taught by the Holy Spirit?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=9pt]The FACTS in the Bible. Sites like this wouldn't exist if every Christian understood or got the facts. There would be nothing to debate.[/SIZE]

It has nothing to do with control. It has to do with insuring that the teaching of Christ is faithfully preserved from generation to generation so that the church doesn't fragment into tens of thousands of sects all claiming to be the teachers of the truly true Gospel.
[SIZE=9pt]Your "fact-finding" clearly demonstrates the necessity of the authority of the church to preserve and pass on the apostolic treaching rather than entrusting it to amateurs.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=9pt]So are you saying God's inspired word is not good enough for us? We need indoctrinated men of the RCC to show us the truth? [/SIZE]

Is the Bible sentimental??? You probably still are.
[SIZE=9pt]Since you don't back-quote, I have no idea as to what you are referring.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=9pt]The noun is not the same as the adjective Jim. For someone who is supposed to have a degree, you should know that.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=9pt]I always quote what I reply to. You should learn to actually use the tools on here for yourself.[/SIZE]

 

[Wormwood]

[SIZE=9pt]The FACTS in the Bible. Sites like this wouldn't exist if every Christian understood or got the facts. There would be nothing to debate.[/SIZE]

Stan, you make me chuckle. If everyone just recognized that Stan has all the facts, then it would save everyone a lot of headache. Or as one person said, "I'm not arguing, I'm simply explaining why I'm right." If only we could all be so enlightened!

 

[StanJ]

Stan, you make me chuckle. If everyone just recognized that Stan has all the facts, then it would save everyone a lot of headache. Or as one person said, "I'm not arguing, I'm simply explaining why I'm right." If only we could all be so enlightened!

You see now if I was a small person I would report this for baiting but you must be bored addressing this so late so I'll just let it slide. This kind of post though is not very helpful when coming from someone who is supposed to MODERATE in all senses of the word.

 

[Wormwood]

StanJ,

I can engage in discussions and point out issues I have with someone's argumentation just like anyone else. I am a participant as well as a moderator. I am simply pointing out that your argument on this topic is that you have the facts and those who disagree with you only have opinions. To be honest, I agree with your position, but your defense for your position is no defense at all. "I'm right, you're wrong" or "The Bible and Jesus agree with me" does not really promote healthy discussion nor is it very convincing. I'm not "baiting" you into anything. I am simply saying that it would be helpful to all of us if you pointed out the Scriptural "facts" for your position rather than just claiming them. Im interested in hearing your rationale for your views and not simply that your views are right and other people are wrong. I think you are an intelligent person, Stan. I just would like to hear what you think and why in these discussions. I believe it would be edifying for all of us.

 

[DogLady19]

<<Apostolic succession is NOT taught in the Bible.>>

Sure it is.

2Ti 2:2 what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

An apostle is a church-planter... and they still exist in this day and age although they are not called that any more except in certain circles of believers. They do not require some formal granting of authority from other church-planters. They do it when God calls them to.

There is only one authority over all of God's specialized ministers... His name is Jesus, the Head of the Church.

The papacy has its roots in Caesarian rule, not Peter, or any other apostle. It was a "can't beat 'em join 'em" kinda ruse... They no longer accept Caesar as God, so we'll make a Caesar in God's image, claim he is a successor of Peter, and put him in charge of a big fancy new house of worship. That way, we maintain control of these Christians who are taking over our empire.

No human being stands between us and God. Jesus is our intercessor. The Holy Spirit helps us understand God's will and His Word. The Father gives grace and forgiveness.

And anyone can be part of planting new congregations of God's people. We already have God's permission. Don't need it from anyone else.

 

[Wormwood]

DogLady19,

Where do you find the biblical definition of an apostle as "church planter"? The Scriptures tell us the requirements of being an Apostle. Consider Acts 1:21-22:

“So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection.”” (Acts 1:21–22, ESV)

Apostles are:
the foundation of the entire church (Eph. 2:20).
those that receive direct revelation from God (Eph. 3:5).
an appointed office by God (2 Tim. 1:11; Col. 1:1; 2 Tim. 1:1; 1 Tim. 2:7; Rom. 1:1)
Those that have seen the resurrected Christ visibly and were sent out by him (Acts 1:22; 1 Cor. 9:1).

 

[JimParker]

An apostle is a church-planter... and they still exist in this day and age although they are not called that any more except in certain circles of believers. They do not require some formal granting of authority from other church-planters. They do it when God calls them to.

There is only one authority over all of God's specialized ministers... His name is Jesus, the Head of the Church.

The papacy has its roots in Caesarian rule, not Peter, or any other apostle. It was a "can't beat 'em join 'em" kinda ruse... They no longer accept Caesar as God, so we'll make a Caesar in God's image, claim he is a successor of Peter, and put him in charge of a big fancy new house of worship. That way, we maintain control of these Christians who are taking over our empire.

No human being stands between us and God. Jesus is our intercessor. The Holy Spirit helps us understand God's will and His Word. The Father gives grace and forgiveness.

And anyone can be part of planting new congregations of God's people. We already have God's permission. Don't need it from anyone else.

<<They do not require some formal granting of authority from other church-planters. They do it when God calls them to.>>

Sure, anyone can go out and start churches. It's legal. But it is not a good practice to accept anyone who says that God called him/her. Consider the results of "apostles" like Charles T. Russell and Joseph Smith or even L. Ron Hubbard. (I could also add Creflo Dollar, Joel Olsteen, Peter Popof, Robert Tilton, and others who make a good living peddling their "Jesus-talk.")

<< There is only one authority over all of God's specialized ministers... His name is Jesus, the Head of the Church.>>

And exactly how does Jesus exercise that authority here on earth? Where is His office?

Jesus appointed apostles for a reason. He was not going to be PHYSICALLY present to rule over the church. The apostles exercised authority over the primitive church in Jesus' place and they appointed elders (presbuteros, elders, English: priests) and overseers (episcopos, modern "bishops) with the authority to insure that the apostolic teaching was transmitted without corruption to the next generation.

<<The papacy has its roots in Caesarian rule..>>

Sorry, but that is utter nonsense and totally without historical evidence. The word "pope" comes from "papa", ie: "father." The senior bishops of the church (Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch, Constantinople, and Rome) were all referred to as "papas." It is a totally ecclesiastic use of the word. The Caesars did not get involved in the argument about the primacy of Peter.

<<we'll make a Caesar in God's image, claim he is a successor of Peter, and put him in charge of a big fancy new house of worship. That way, we maintain control of these Christians who are taking over our empire.>>

You would do well to actually read the history of the church rather than parroting the propaganda of ignorant or purposeful slanderers who, since the Protestant rebellion, have needed an excuse for their refusal to be submitted to the authority of the church leadership which Jesus established and, instead, to establish their own personal "kingdom of God" in their own image and likeness.

You would find that the Protestant rebellion gave the princes of Northern Europe an excuse to go to war with the Catholic states in order to expand their own personal powers and wealth at the expense of several million lives of commoners who were told they were "fighting a holy war for Christ" against the Catholic (or Protestant) "Infidels." (Rather like today's jihadists who imagine they are doing Allah's will by slaughtering "infidels.") The wars of the Reformation gave the secular princes the opportunity to bring an end to the ability of the pope to meddle in their politics. (See: the investiture controversy)

<<And anyone can be part of planting new congregations of God's people. We already have God's permission. Don't need it from anyone else.>>

That opinion is an artifact of the Protestant rebellion (AKA: "Reformation") which opened to door to any heretic, nutcase, or charlatan to have the right to claim that God called him/her to start "the only really truly Christian church since all others have become corrupt." (That was Joesph Smith's line, by the way.)

The product of Protestant Christianity's dedication to that foolishness is the tens of thousands of sects, denominations, and fake-Christian organizations all claiming to be the only ones who really have it right. And an important part of their apologetic, which is necessary to give the illusion of legitimacy to their non-Christian, schismatic behavior, is a litany of false charges against the Roman Catholic Church. They teach that garbage to their congregations in order to distract them from discovering the fact they they have abandoned the church which Jesus founded and have created their own kingdom based on their personal opinions.

But there is a steady flow of Evangelical Christi who have decided to do a real investigation into what the original church was like and are converting to Catholicism and Orthodoxy after finding that those churches have held on to the teaching of the apostles and have maintained it essentially intact to this day.

If the apostolic church is not the authority for believers, then there is no authority and everyone will do what is right in his own eyes. (The Bible addresses that philosophy at 2Th 2:3.) And, of course, all the apostate believers claim that they answer to Jesus and are being led by the Holy Spirit.

On the other hand....

No one has been able to explain to me how a Pentecostal church can say that evidence of salvation is speaking in tongues and a Baptist church can say that speaking in tongues is evidence of demonic possession if they are both under Jesus' authority, being led by the Holy Spirit who has revealed both "truths" to them, and both base their "truth" on the "sola scriptura" of what their inerrant, infallible, (abridged) King James Bible says.

I have often asked those who identify themselves as "Reformed Protestants" who hold to the doctrine of "Sola Scriptura", exactly where in the "sola scriptura" does God authorize the protesting against and reforming of the Church which He founded.

So far, no one has shown me that passage(s) which gives authority for the rebellion against and separation from Jesus' church.

The fact is that, despite protestations to the contrary, nearly every Christian church in existence has a human being at the helm. Every denomination has its very own "pope" which they may cal a "general superintendent" or "senior elder" or "bishop". I have yet to discover any church with the name "Jesus" or "The Holy Spirit" on the door of the senior pastor's office. What I have seen is that every denomination and every independent church has someone in authority and, if you don't like the way that someone in authority runs the organization, you are free to hit the road. If you cause trouble for the Protestant version of a pope, they will throw you out.

I have also observed that every church, again, despite protestations to the contrary, has its own "holy tradition", some of which may go back almost 500 years though none goes back almost 2000 years to the teaching of the apostles as does the "holy tradition" of the catholic churches.

There have been some really evil, wicked, mean and nasty popes. They're all dead. None of them were the church which Jesus established which has survived in spite of such men. And none of them provided sufficient scriptural cause for anyone to separate himself from the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church, which Jesus personally founded, to go do our own thing "in Jesus' name."

Oh, yeah, almost forgot .... Har-UMPH! ;)

And, yes; of course, as far as I can tell, Protestants are "saved."
"...for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” (Rom 10:13)

 

[StanJ]

StanJ,

I can engage in discussions and point out issues I have with someone's argumentation just like anyone else. I am a participant as well as a moderator. I am simply pointing out that your argument on this topic is that you have the facts and those who disagree with you only have opinions. To be honest, I agree with your position, but your defense for your position is no defense at all. "I'm right, you're wrong" or "The Bible and Jesus agree with me" does not really promote healthy discussion nor is it very convincing. I'm not "baiting" you into anything. I am simply saying that it would be helpful to all of us if you pointed out the Scriptural "facts" for your position rather than just claiming them. Im interested in hearing your rationale for your views and not simply that your views are right and other people are wrong. I think you are an intelligent person, Stan. I just would like to hear what you think and why in these discussions. I believe it would be edifying for all of us.

Well I was one as well, and the over arching factor was to be moderaht as well as moderate. I don't recall the particulars of this thread but normally I make my position WITH scripture early of, but if people refuse to reciprocate in kind then I can't be bothered. However this was not my point in my response to you. IMO you are responsible to the overall community and if Admins are monitoring your posts for whatever reason, I will. Unless of course you don't feel I have the right to do so?

 

[Wormwood]

Jesus appointed apostles for a reason. He was not going to be PHYSICALLY present to rule over the church. The apostles exercised authority over the primitive church in Jesus' place and they appointed elders (presbuteros, elders, English: priests) and overseers (episcopos, modern "bishops) with the authority to insure that the apostolic teaching was transmitted without corruption to the next generation.

Or, perhaps it was because they were eyewitnesses (cf. Acts 1:8; 1 John 1). It seems the message, rather than the offices, were the primary emphasis in my estimation.

with the authority to insure that the apostolic teaching was transmitted without corruption to the next generation.

I agree with you. If we have the apostolic teaching in the NT, then how does that justify your stance on papal authority and hierarchy of the RCC?

You would find that the Protestant rebellion gave the princes of Northern Europe an excuse to go to war with the Catholic states in order to expand their own personal powers and wealth at the expense of several million lives of commoners who were told they were "fighting a holy war for Christ" against the Catholic (or Protestant) "Infidels."

Just because princes used Protestantism as an excuse to wage war does not lay the fault at the feet of the Protestants. If anything the RCC should look in the mirror about the events that led to millions of people being disillusioned due to indulgences, simony, and other misdeeds that were causing people to lose trust in church leadership. In fact, Luther and other protestant leaders were seeking to reform the church, not break away from it. There were plans to try to come to resolution at the Council of Trent, but the RCC used that event as a means to further cement their opposition to the Protestant concerns rather than work towards a resolution.

No one has been able to explain to me how a Pentecostal church can say that evidence of salvation is speaking in tongues and a Baptist church can say that speaking in tongues is evidence of demonic possession if they are both under Jesus' authority, being led by the Holy Spirit who has revealed both "truths" to them, and both base their "truth" on the "sola scriptura" of what their inerrant, infallible, (abridged) King James Bible says.

How do you explain the Great Schism and Avignon Controversy? Clearly not everyone has to agree on everything in order to have the Holy Spirit. Paul address debates in his letters and never indicates that disagreement = someone doesn't have the Holy Spirit.

Well I was one as well, and the over arching factor was to be moderaht as well as moderate. I don't recall the particulars of this thread but normally I make my position WITH scripture early of, but if people refuse to reciprocate in kind then I can't be bothered. However this was not my point in my response to you. IMO you are responsible to the overall community and if Admins are monitoring your posts for whatever reason, I will. Unless of course you don't feel I have the right to do so?

Id like to hear your case for your position Stan. I want to agree with you but I find it difficult because I am not seeing your rationale. I hope that makes sense.

 

[StanJ]

Id like to hear your case for your position Stan. I want to agree with you but I find it difficult because I am not seeing your rationale. I hope that makes sense.

I thought I made my position on the OP clear, fairly earlier on WW, but please elucidate and I'll try to clarify for you.
Thanks

 

[DogLady19]

<<They do not require some formal granting of authority from other church-planters. They do it when God calls them to.>>

Sure, anyone can go out and start churches. It's legal. But it is not a good practice to accept anyone who says that God called him/her. Consider the results of "apostles" like Charles T. Russell and Joseph Smith or even L. Ron Hubbard. (I could also add Creflo Dollar, Joel Olsteen, Peter Popof, Robert Tilton, and others who make a good living peddling their "Jesus-talk.")

<< There is only one authority over all of God's specialized ministers... His name is Jesus, the Head of the Church.>>

And exactly how does Jesus exercise that authority here on earth? Where is His office?

Jesus appointed apostles for a reason. He was not going to be PHYSICALLY present to rule over the church. The apostles exercised authority over the primitive church in Jesus' place and they appointed elders (presbuteros, elders, English: priests) and overseers (episcopos, modern "bishops) with the authority to insure that the apostolic teaching was transmitted without corruption to the next generation.

<<The papacy has its roots in Caesarian rule..>>

Sorry, but that is utter nonsense and totally without historical evidence. The word "pope" comes from "papa", ie: "father." The senior bishops of the church (Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch, Constantinople, and Rome) were all referred to as "papas." It is a totally ecclesiastic use of the word. The Caesars did not get involved in the argument about the primacy of Peter.

...

"But it is not a good practice to accept anyone who says that God called him/her." Yes, and that includes people who come from already established churches...

"And exactly how does Jesus exercise that authority here on earth? Where is His office?" Are you implying that His office is in the Vatican???

Jesus rules over the Church. He calls some humans to be shepherds (pastors), church-planters, evangelists, teachers, etc. JESUS calls them (Ephesians 4:11-12)... No human being can put God's calling on another human being's life. THAT is dangerous, and history proves how dangerous it is. You even pointed that out yourself by mentioning Joseph Smith et al.

I withdraw my comment about the caesarian roots of the RCC, but the RCC nonetheless has a shady past with roots in Roman Mithraism of which Constantine was the high priest. Moving Jesus' birth to December 25th and worshipping on Sunday instead of the Sabbath were adoptions of pagan religious practices into the RCC. It took no time at all for the RCC to become part of the ruling class of the Roman Empire itself.

"Papas" is a term reserved for God the Father (Matthew 23:9), not some human being who is a sinner as much as any human...

ALL believers are priests (Revelation 1:6). And even the Catholic Church declared 100AD as the end of the Age of Apostles.

 

[StanJ]

For all intents and purposes, the RCC is a result of the Judeo-Christian mindset that took over in Rome early on, and against which Paul wrote some of his epistles against.

 

[DogLady19]

For all intents and purposes, the RCC is a result of the Judeo-Christian mindset that took over in Rome early on, and against which Paul wrote some of his epistles against.

The RCC was only one sect of Christians established in the Roman Empire during the same time... It was the mind-set of Christians who became politically involved/connected in Roman gov't. The very large remaining sects of Christians did not have the RCC-style mind-set.

This explains the separate letters written to the 7 churches in Revelations. Each had their own mind-set, style, and focus.

 

[JimParker]

"But it is not a good practice to accept anyone who says that God called him/her." Yes, and that includes people who come from already established churches...

"And exactly how does Jesus exercise that authority here on earth? Where is His office?" Are you implying that His office is in the Vatican???

Jesus rules over the Church. He calls some humans to be shepherds (pastors), church-planters, evangelists, teachers, etc. JESUS calls them (Ephesians 4:11-12)... No human being can put God's calling on another human being's life. THAT is dangerous, and history proves how dangerous it is. You even pointed that out yourself by mentioning Joseph Smith et al.

I withdraw my comment about the caesarian roots of the RCC, but the RCC nonetheless has a shady past with roots in Roman Mithraism of which Constantine was the high priest. Moving Jesus' birth to December 25th and worshipping on Sunday instead of the Sabbath were adoptions of pagan religious practices into the RCC. It took no time at all for the RCC to become part of the ruling class of the Roman Empire itself.

"Papas" is a term reserved for God the Father (Matthew 23:9), not some human being who is a sinner as much as any human...

ALL believers are priests (Revelation 1:6). And even the Catholic Church declared 100AD as the end of the Age of Apostles.

MY:it is not a good practice to accept anyone who says that God called him/her.

<<that includes people who come from already established churches...>>

True.

<< Are you implying that His office is in the Vatican??? >>

HAH! I am stating that Jesus is not personally available to be physically present in order to be the "senior pastor" of anyone's church. Some human being or group of human beings is the final earthly authority for the day to day operations and doctrines of every church.

<<Jesus rules over the Church.>>

Jesus is the head of His body, the Church. (Capital "C") But people rule individual churches (lower case "c") and denominations.

And Jesus apparently gives the leaders of His Church a lot of slack to do what they think is best.

<<the RCC nonetheless has a shady past with roots in Roman Mithraism>>

No. It does not. That is anti-Catholic nonsense. I don't understand why so many Protestants insist on believing all the baloney that people make up as excuses to justify their hatred of the RCC. Could it be that, at some level, they know that they have broken away from the church which Jesus established and need to point to some imaginary horror from which to pretend that escape was necessary to save their souls and that they really had no choice in the matter? Do they imagine that Jesus will be convinced?

Does MIthras teach the following? The RCC does.

"I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth and in all things visible and invisible,
and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages,
light of light, true God or true God, Begotten, not made, of one essence with the Father y Whom all things were made.
Who for us men and our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man.
And was crucified under Pontius Pilate and suffered and was buried.
And the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures. and ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father.
And He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead. Whose kingdom shall have no end.
And I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of Life who proceeds from the Father. Who, together with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified, who spoke through the prophets.
And I believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic church; I acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
I look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come."

I could make the argument that all Protestantism has a "shady past" in rebellion, which is equivalent to the sin of witchcraft. (1Sa 15:23) It rebelled against the church which Jesus established and created a new church, founded by men, and "reformed" according to their own beliefs.

<<Moving Jesus' birth to December 25th and worshipping on Sunday instead of the Sabbath were adoptions of pagan religious practices into the RCC>>

More nonsense.

Celebrating Christ's birth in December displaced the pagan celebration of Saturnalia. Do you know of anyone who celebrates saturnalia? See, it worked. :)

The Church, from it earliest days (1st century), celebrated the resurrection of Jesus on the first day of the week. They called it "the Lord's Day."

Jesus IS our sabbath rest.

Heb 4:1-3a Therefore, since the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us be careful that none of you be found to have fallen short of it. For we also have had the good news proclaimed to us, just as they did; but the message they heard was of no value to them, because they did not share the faith of those who obeyed. Now we who have believed enter that rest,..

The Sabbath was never called a day of "worship" anywhere in scripture. It was a day of REST and I have yet to find any Sabbatarian denomination that actually keeps the Sabbath according to the Law of Moses where the explicit instructions as to exactly how to keep the Sabbath holy are found. (Ex 16:29; 20:8; 31:14; 35:1; Lev 23:3; Dt 5:12)

<<"Papas" is a term reserved for God the Father (Matthew 23:9), not some human being who is a sinner as much as any human...>>

That notion arises from the error of taking Jesus' comments out of context and as a pretest to malign the RCC. Jesus referred to Abraham as "father Abraham" in the parable of Lazarus and the rich man. Paul said that he was a father to the Corinthians. So, the standard Protestant jibe at the RCC use of the word "father" being a sin would make both Jesus and Paul sinners.

And, by the way, what do you call your male parent? "Dad," "daddy." "Pop," etc. are all words which mean "father."
Can we say that George Washington is a "Father" of our country? Or would that be a sin also?

IN that same passage Jesus also said to call no man "teacher." Does your church have "Sunday school teachers." (Or Sabbath School teachers) Have you ever addressed any instructor as "teacher" or "professor"?

In the passage from which those words are lifted from their context, Jesus describes people who exalt themselves and demand to be called "Rabbi" (teacher) and "Father" but do not act like teachers and fathers.

Mat 23:2-7 ....for they preach, but do not practice. They bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their finger. They do all their deeds to be seen by men; for they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long, and they love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues, and salutations in the market places, and being called rabbi by men.

Jesus was telling his audience not to imitate them. (And then he lit into the scribe a pharisees for their hypocrisy. See Mat 23:13-33)

<<ALL believers are priests (Revelation 1:6). And even the Catholic Church declared 100AD as the end of the Age of Apostles.>>

1Pe 2:9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's own people, that you may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.

All believers ARE priests of God who have the ministry of reconciliation. (2Co 5:18) So it was many years before 100AD that the church was taught that all were priests of God.

But there is a difference between the responsibilities of those who are priests because they are believers (royal priesthood) and those who hold the office of a priest (or ministers, or reverends, whatever) within a particular church community. The second dedicate their lives to performing the duties of a leader of a church community. The "royal priesthood" generally hold secular jobs.

And there was only church in existence in 100AD. What is commonly referred to as the "Catholic" or "Roman Catholic" church today didn't exist until the schism between the eastern and western branches of the church in the 11th century. Prior to that there was only one Church.

The pride and arrogance of man has created the multitude of denominations, sects, schisms, and cults, not the guidance of the Holy Spirit. And God demonstrates His grace and mercy and love by working through all of them to bring as many as will come to the wedding feast of the Lamb!

 

[StanJ]

The RCC was only one sect of Christians established in the Roman Empire during the same time... It was the mind-set of Christians who became politically involved/connected in Roman gov't. The very large remaining sects of Christians did not have the RCC-style mind-set.

This explains the separate letters written to the 7 churches in Revelations. Each had their own mind-set, style, and focus.

I agree, but I said Rome (as in Rome proper and to whom Paul wrote Romans). Many of the other orthodoxies are IMV, very similar.