Six ways to measure you church.

[aspen]

Well, if I were to answer the questions in the OP from the point of view of the Jehovah's Witness Church (The author of this thread is a member)

1. The Witnesses have decided to interpret John 17:26 as a literal command by Jesus to use the name of God in the name of their church. Therefore, Witnesses' do use the name Jehovah in their church name - however, as Christians now know, Jehovah is a mistranslation of Yahweh. Also the rest of the verse in John tells us to make His name known through our actions, specifically through our love of neighbor.

2. The Witnesses spread their gospel using their own translation of the Bible - The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, which re-writes passages of scripture that contradict the theology of the Watchtower organization. Matt 28:19 tells us to go forth and baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit - this is much different than the Witnesses' practice of passing out publications of the Watchtower and Awake! and leading Bible Studies.

3. The Witnesses have decided to interpret John 17:14 as a command by Jesus to not be involved in politics. Theologians know that the writer's of the Bible interpret the word 'World' as human popular culture - it is true that politics can certainly be worldly, but the verse is not forbidding us from voting.

4. The Witnesses have decided to interpret John 13:35 to include love between all people - including people of different races and nationalities. I believe we are called to love one another, but this verse is not a call to Pacifism.

5. The Witnesses have decided that John 17:17 is a call for anti-intellectualism. As an intelligent, thinking Christian, I believe that God wants us to know and understand His creation - the truth of science is compatible with God's truth.

6. The Witnesses have decided to interpret 1 Corinthians 6:9, specifically and literally. I believe Paul was talking about the importance of Christians separating themselves from the carnal behaviors practiced by the World. He was speaking literally, but also generally and did not include an exhaustive list of behaviors to avoid.

The criteria set forth by the Jehovah's Witness Church for determining a Church that is lead by the Spirit is not biblical criteria, not does it reflect the true understanding and meaning of the scripture it is based upon.

Amen

 

[biggandyy]

6 ways to measure my church:

1) Metric
2) English
3) Yard stick
4) Laser range finder
5) Blueprints
6) Celcius

 

[JoeinArkansas]

Very good post Biblescribe, I agree. Many think that the carnal religious system and what Jesus is building are the same entity but one must ask themselves, would Jesus build a church that is contrary to what He to what He taught? Many struggle to discern the difference between carnal and spiritual. The Christian religious system is modeled after the old covenant system of worship in many ways with employing such things as clergy, tithing, temple buildings, and some other old covenant ordinances.

Dear Jiggyfly,
I took your advice and decided to spend a little time on this forum. I am glad to read that you see the "carnal religious system" in the world today and agree that it differs from the teachings of Christ. You are right that the Christian churches are modeled after the old covenant system. Christ wanted no part of it when He came to Jerusalem. Today churches with their false teachings are no different. They are both led by Satan who masquerades as an angel of light. I do not know of any organization that calls itself a church to be one that Christ would praise. That is why He tells His true followers to "come out of her my people". We are commanded to separate outselves from those 'churches". All the mainstream doctrines taught in those churches are not scriptural and Christ does not want us in there trying to fix things. He merely want us to "come out" and start following Him. We do not need to be in some public organization in order to follow Christ and to spiritually mature. In fact, being in those organizations completely hinders us from knowing the true Christ. I spend time in the forums to try to find those believers who Christ has made ready to "come out". He does this by coming to them a second time to heal their spiritual vision (Mark 8:22-25). Until Christ comes again to give us sight, we will be led by the hand of the blind and will fall into the ditch with them. Christ must take us by the hand and lead us if we are to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. The churches in this world will only keep us imprisoned by their false doctrines, the end of which is death. In the past few days, I have made many posts related to what I have said here. If you have the time, I recommend you reading them.

Sincerely,
Joe

 

[Axehead]

Sadly, many think the "meeting" is the Church. Some call it a service or a gathering. Being an active church member is abiding in Christ not being an usher that passes the plate or teaches Sunday school, but someone who ministers to others each day as Christ leads them.

Gathering with the saints is when all are regarded as Brethren and everyone is allowed to share their portion of Christ, even the 5 year olds. The "elders" don't bogart the gathering but encourage one another to function in Christ. A gathering of believers is not a seminar or a conference or a group of "pew sitters" who come to see a show each week yet cannot participate. People look for churches that have a "great worship team", others won't go anywhere unless the teaching is premier teaching, then there are others that only go to churches that are evangelizing. Others want contemplative churches, churches that have lots of programs, etc, etc.

Gathering with the family of God is not about what you can get but what you can give. It is like a family gathering together. And if you are mature in Christ you are there to encourage others, pray for others, weep with others, rejoice with others, but this is hard to do if you are a "pew sitter". In fact, it is nigh impossible. You spend an hour or two fellowshipping with the back of someone's head and then when it is all over you hug each other and exclaim to one another, "didn't we have great fellowship and worship". And one by one the "pew sitters" leave the building to go back and live their lives of quiet desperation.

Of course this is not all people, but a vast majority of people are "living lives of quiet desperation" and are looking for the family of God but just think that it might be a better church on another street corner in the city. They think that good churches are found in the yellow pages or their Saturday paper. They have no idea that what they might be looking for, just might be in someone's kitchen or living room or back porch patio. People are not really looking for teaching, evangelism or worship. Their heart cry is deeper. They are looking for simple koinonia (fellowship), someone that they can relate to, someone that will listen. They want to function because they feel that there is a gift inside them but they have never been encouraged to use it. They are tired of being on the treadmill of programs and performance and want to get off but don't know how to express that. Most churches operate like a business and a business has to market a good product because the people want their money's worth. And if they don't think they are getting their money's worth, then someone could lose their JOB or even worse, customers will leave.

In all of this mess, God is calling His remnant out. Out of programs and religious exercises and serving men's visions and goals and paying for all their "great ideas". God is calling them out, unto Him, and to meet in simple ways with others who are hearing the same call. The religious system is in no danger of going away and will always have plenty of people to do their bidding and fill the various volunteer positions. If the volunteers are faithful to the system, they may even get a full-time position.

Can you give me a list of six ways to measure a good family?

I can only think of two.

1. Do they love God with all their heart, soul, mind and strength?
2. Do they love each other as they love themselves.

I would like to add that there are authentic relationships in the religious system, but the religious system itself is not what generates authentic relationships in Christ.

Axehead

 

[brightmorningstar]

At least the OP didn't try measuring in feet or yards.

This list is very flawed!

The true test of the real church is simple...Is it really led by the Spirit? Is it looking to make decisions or disciples? Is there real power from God being exhibited? Do ALL the members function? Do they love as Jesus loved?

Ok good but then so the OP isnt flawed as all the criteria I read there were examples of being lead by the Spirit and loving as Jesus loved.

 

[neophyte]

Ok good but then so the OP isnt flawed as all the criteria I read there were examples of being lead by the Spirit and loving as Jesus loved.

The only Church being lead by the Holy Spirit is in all actually that Church which was infused with the Holy Spirit and that 'Only Church" was there at Pentecost 1st century. Not one Protestant church was there to receive the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

Your Protestant churches can't be the Church formed by Jesus because it lacks the following criteria-

1] The Apostles were chosen by Jesus to be the Teachers of His Church, only His Catholic Church has followed Apostolic Teaching as taught by Jesus.

2] Only Peter was given the "keys'' [ Matt. 16: 18- 19 ]

3] "Jesus said to Simon Peter, " Feed my lambs.... feed my sheep .... feed my sheep [ John 21: 15-17 ]

4] Jesus appointed a person [ man/ shepherd ,small s, Jesus is the Chief Shepherd, large S ] to guide us in matters of the Christian faith until the Real [ Jesus ] returns.- "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven " [ Matt. 16: 19 ] " On behalf of Christ, therefore, we are acting as ambassadors, God, as it were, repealing through us [ 2 Cor. 5:20 ]

5] Jesus wants unity, not a group of conflicting churches with doctrinal differences, as found in the man-made Protestant church system. " That all may be one, even as thou, Father, in me and I in thee; that they also may be one in us [ John 17: 21 ]

6] His One True Church is absolutely Apostolic, only the Catholic Church alone can trace it's lineage directly back to Jesus along with His Apostles/ Successors, no other church can claim this lineage of two-thousand years. " He who hears you, hears me; and he who rejects you, rejects me, and he who rejects me, rejects him who sent me " [ Luke 10:16 ] " All power in heaven..... teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; ..... " [ Matt. 28: 18-20 ]

7] Jesus gave only His Church the power and authority to interpret Holy Scripture with His appointed Apostle teachers and their "ordained ' successors,found only in His Catholic/Apostolic Church. " This, then, you must understand first of all , that no prophesy of Scripture is made by private interpretation" [ 2 Peter 1: 20, 2 Peter 3: 16, John 20:30, 2 Thess. 2: 15 ]

8] Only in the Catholic Church do we find presbyters/priests that are ordained the Bible way. " Every high priest taken from men is appointed for men in the things pertaining to God, that he may offer gifts and sacrifices for sins [ Hebrews 5:1 ]

9] His Church is "One " all having the same doctrinal teachings [ Rom. 12:5 ] only His Apostolic/ Catholic Church has the same unchangable doctrinal teaching.

10]The Church that Jesus formed is Catholic [ Matt28: 19-20, Rev. 5: 9-10 ]

11] Christ's Church is Apostolic [ Eph. 2: 19-20 ]

12] His Catholic/ Apostolic Church is Holy [ Eph. 5: 25-27, Rev. 19: 7-8 ]

Now , will you, from the Bible show me where Jesus gave His Authorrity to any man or woman to invent future churches different from His "One True Church" as described above from those Bible verses.

 

[Foreigner]

Neophyte simply needs to realize that membership in the Catholic Church is not required to be saved, spirit filled, and used mightily by God.

Once he accepts that, everything will be fine.

 

[JohnnyB]

A better way to look at this is to ask if God is visible, living in and among the believers you fellowship with. I believe Axehead said loving God and loving people. We are building His Kingdom, not a man made organization.

One of the worst thing a person can do is create an organization, one with a hierarchy, eg. Catholic, and attempt to place a stamp of approval on it and call it God's church. It is an attempt to copycat the old covenants temple worship system.

The Body does not need a multi million dollar building, on the contrary, we need the Body of Believers to put away their traditions, their man made doctrines, their own desires, and start participating with Him in building His Kingdom.

 

[Axehead]

The only Church being lead by the Holy Spirit is in all actually that Church which was infused with the Holy Spirit and that 'Only Church" was there at Pentecost 1st century. Not one Protestant church was there to receive the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

Individuals receive the Holy Spirit not religious organizations. That is still the way it is today.

Your Protestant churches can't be the Church formed by Jesus because it lacks the following criteria-

1) The Apostles were chosen by Jesus to be the Teachers of His Church, only His Catholic Church has followed Apostolic Teaching as taught by Jesus.

The Bible says, "His Church", NOT "His Catholic Church".

2) Only Peter was given the "keys'' [ Matt. 16: 18- 19 )

Your organizations private interpretation on this serves their purposes only not all those born of the spirit and that is how many know that the Romish church's interpretation is self-serving.

3) "Jesus said to Simon Peter, " Feed my lambs.... feed my sheep .... feed my sheep [ John 21: 15-17 )

1 Peter was written to various churches in Asia Minor and Peter encouraged the "elders" (not Catholic priests) to feed the flock of God.

1Pe 5:1 The elders (mature Christians, not a special class of priests) which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder (not a pope), and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:
1Pe 5:2 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;
1Pe 5:3 Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.

4) Jesus appointed a person [ man/ shepherd ,small s, Jesus is the Chief Shepherd, large S ) to guide us in matters of the Christian faith until the Real [ Jesus ) returns.- "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven " [ Matt. 16: 19 ] " On behalf of Christ, therefore, we are acting as ambassadors, God, as it were, repealing through us [ 2 Cor. 5:20 )

Heb_8:11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

5) Jesus wants unity, not a group of conflicting churches with doctrinal differences, as found in the man-made Protestant church system. " That all may be one, even as thou, Father, in me and I in thee; that they also may be one in us [ John 17: 21 )

Since when does Conformity = Unity?
Schisms and divisions in the Romish Church.

The division within the Roman Catholic Church
For the last decades, problems relating to faith and morality, politics, economics, social, sexual and family decisions, have all been the subject of such differing interpretations among Roman Catholics, that they have led to a split without precedent in the history of the Church. This division calls for careful analysis. It can be compared with the ongoing schisms between it and other Christian churches, in some cases for more than a millennium, and which have also played an important role in the conflicts between various European nations. On the occasion of the European Bishops Synod, we feel it worthwhile to focus on a number of considerations in respect of the division within the Roman Catholic Church.

The majority of Roman Catholics regard not only the Papal teaching on birth control as mistaken - to such an extent even that they have no 'guilt feelings' about it - but also the teaching on pre-marital sex, cohabitation, fertility interventi-ons, divorce and abortion, etc.

The division within the Roman Catholic Church
For the last decades, problems relating to faith and morality, politics, economics, social, sexual and family decisions, have all been the subject of such differing interpretations among Roman Catholics, that they have led to a split without precedent in the history of the Church. This division calls for careful analysis. It can be compared with the ongoing schisms between it and other Christian churches, in some cases for more than a millennium, and which have also played an important role in the conflicts between various European nations. On the occasion of the European Bishops Synod, we feel it worthwhile to focus on a number of considerations in respect of the division within the Roman Catholic Church.

1.1. Our analysis of the division in the Church
Social-religious studies show, without exception, that there is no unanimity among Roman Catholics in following official Church teaching. International and trans-cultural inquiries - such as that carried out by the North American sociologist Greeley - show particularly clearly how the faithful have reached totally different opinions, even in matters which Papal authority regards as closed for discussion (i.e. 'almost dogmas'), such as the ordination of women and married men. In many countries, the majority of the faithful think and act in a manner which the Church's teaching qualifies as 'erroneous'
This is particularly true of matters concerning family and sexual ethics :

§ The majority of Roman Catholics regard not only the Papal teaching on birth control as mistaken - to such an extent even that they have no 'guilt feelings' about it - but also the teaching on pre-marital sex, cohabitation, fertility interventi-ons, divorce and abortion, etc.​

In the political and social field, the divisions are just as clear.

§ Roman Catholic advocates of pacifism and non-violence stand opposed to Roman Catholics who justify war (e.g. the NAVO bombings in the Balkans).​

§ Roman Catholics in favour of ethnic and racial integration find themselves confronted by other Roman Catholics who have other opinions on the subject.​

§ Roman Catholics favouring neo-liberal economic theories (with the market and profit at the centre) stand against other Roman Catholics who give their support to various movements which condemn capitalism and neo-liberalism as modern forms of 'mammon'.​

§ Roman Catholics who see Roman Catholic schools as an expression of religious freedom, and Roman Catholics who see schools for the children of the rich as basic anti-democracy training grounds.​

§ Roman Catholics who fight for an 'ethical state' (or even a confessional state') and Roman Catho-lics who struggle for a (laicised) 'constitutional state'.​

§ Roman Catholic defenders of the social order by force (penal code, imprisonment, capital punishment, armed self-defence) against Roman Catholics who give preference to educative and rehabilitating measures (group therapy, training centres, self-defence committees, publicity campaigns, and so on.)​

In the ecumenical field the divisions, although somewhat misty, are nonetheless consistent.

§ Against Roman Catholics who, together with other Christian churches, organise demon-strations, night vigils, prayer services or discussions, in the search for effective reconciliation and common solutions to serious social justice problems, stand other Roman Catholics who profess to speak on behalf of the 'One True Church', i.e. the Roman Catholic Church, and condemn any contact or meetings with 'dissidents' as concessionary.​

In the field of dialogue with non-Christian religions, which represent three quarters of mankind, the division is almost total.

§ On the one hand, there are Roman Catholics, including theologians and bishops, who believe as a matter of principle that a new programme of evangelisation must take place on the basis of an effective enculturation, whereby Western categories which have conditioned the Christian message for two thousand years, are set aside; on the other hand, there are Catholics who believe that in defending and propagating Christianity, nothing of the Western tradition must be surrendered.​

The contrast is no less apparent in the field of theology itself.

§ In the course of recent decades, supporters of liberation theology, 'native' theology, Asian theology, the theology of earthly reality (peace, politics, ecology etc.), have proposed interpretations of God, original sin, the sacraments, devotion to the Virgin Mary and the saints, and the jubilee year, which diverge greatly from 'Tradition', and which has provoked a way of thinking in the Church which stands in total opposition to the views of the 'traditionalists'.​

http://we-are-church.../forum6engl.htm

http://catholicknigh...lic-church.html

http://catholicknigh...-catholics.html
It has become painfully clear that the reform of the Novus Ordo mass will be a slow and torturous process. The Modernist priests will not relent, and we are just going to have to wait for them all to retire. Bishops in dioceses with more younger priests available will be able to make reforms more quickly. Most bishops do not have this luxury. Full reform nationwide is at least ten to fifteen years away.


Catholic Church Is Cracking Down

http://catholicknigh...cking-down.html

Many Catholics who convert to Episcopalianism
http://catholicknigh.../label/Feminism

Sexual Abuse of Fellow Catholics Causing Division -
The Catholic church’s scandal: modern crisis, ancient roots
http://www.opendemoc...s-ancient-roots

There is no end to the articles on the web of divisions and schisms in the Catholic Church.

6) His One True Church is absolutely Apostolic, only the Catholic Church alone can trace it's lineage directly back to Jesus along with His Apostles/ Successors, no other church can claim this lineage of two-thousand years. " He who hears you, hears me; and he who rejects you, rejects me, and he who rejects me, rejects him who sent me " [ Luke 10:16 ) " All power in heaven..... teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; ..... " [ Matt. 28: 18-20 )

No where is the saying more true, "If you keep repeating something, people are bound to believe it".

7) Jesus gave only His Church the power and authority to interpret Holy Scripture with His appointed Apostle teachers and their "ordained ' successors,found only in His Catholic/Apostolic Church. " This, then, you must understand first of all , that no prophesy of Scripture is made by private interpretation" [ 2 Peter 1: 20, 2 Peter 3: 16, John 20:30, 2 Thess. 2: 15 )

What you fail to see is that the Romish church interpretation IS PRIVATE. But, that's ok, right?

8) Only in the Catholic Church do we find presbyters/priests that are ordained the Bible way. " Every high priest taken from men is appointed for men in the things pertaining to God, that he may offer gifts and sacrifices for sins [ Hebrews 5:1 )

Taken out of context, pure nonsense.

9) His Church is "One " all having the same doctrinal teachings [ Rom. 12:5 ) only His Apostolic/ Catholic Church has the same unchangable doctrinal teaching.

As I said before, CONFORMITY does not equal UNITY and as one can see in my paste of ample links, the Catholic Church really does not even have UNITY.

Axehead

 

[neophyte]

I'm using the Bible to support my position, but I've notice none of you Prots/ Bible Alone followers can ever refute my verses in support of Christ's Universal/ Catholic [ Universal in Greek means Catholic ] Apostolic Church of Matt. 16: 15-19, Matt. 28:19-20, Rev. 5:9-10 ] . I'll bet you a dime to a dollar that not one of you non-Catholics can produce a verse in support of your individual Protestant Church. Why can't you?

Peter is the Rock on which the Church is Built

Mark 3:16; John 1:42 – Jesus renames Simon "Kepha" in Aramaic which literally means "rock." This was an extraordinary thing for Jesus to do, because "rock" was not even a name in Jesus' time. Jesus did this, not to give Simon a strange name, but to identify his new status among the apostles. When God changes a person's name, He changes their status.
Gen. 17:5; 32:28; 2 Kings 23:34; Acts 9:4; 13:9 - for example, in these verses, we see that God changes the following people's names and, as a result, they become special agents of God: Abram to Abraham; Jacob to Israel, Eliakim to Jehoiakim, Saul to Paul.

2 Sam. 22:2-3, 32, 47; 23:3; Psalm 18:2,31,46; 19:4; 28:1; 42:9; 62:2,6,7; 89:26; 94:22; 144:1-2 - in these verses, God is also called "rock." Hence, from these verses, non-Catholics often argue that God, and not Peter, is the rock that Jesus is referring to in Matt. 16:18. This argument not only ignores the plain meaning of the applicable texts, but also assumes words used in Scripture can only have one meaning. This, of course, is not true. For example:
1 Cor. 3:11 - Jesus is called the only foundation of the Church, and yet in Eph. 2:20, the apostles are called the foundation of the Church. Similarly, in 1 Peter 2:25, Jesus is called the Shepherd of the flock, but in Acts 20:28, the apostles are called the shepherds of the flock. These verses show that there are multiple metaphors for the Church, and that words used by the inspired writers of Scripture can have various meanings. Catholics agree that God is the rock of the Church, but this does not mean He cannot confer this distinction upon Peter as well, to facilitate the unity He desires for the Church.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus said in Aramaic, you are "Kepha" and on this "Kepha" I will build my Church. In Aramaic, "kepha" means a massive stone, and "evna" means little pebble. Some non-Catholics argue that, because the Greek word for rock is "petra", that "Petros" actually means "a small rock", and therefore Jesus was attempting to diminish Peter right after blessing him by calling him a small rock. Not only is this nonsensical in the context of Jesus' blessing of Peter, Jesus was speaking Aramaic and used "Kepha," not "evna." Using Petros to translate Kepha was done simply to reflect the masculine noun of Peter.
Moreover, if the translator wanted to identify Peter as the "small rock," he would have used "lithos" which means a little pebble in Greek. Also, Petros and petra were synonyms at the time the Gospel was written, so any attempt to distinguish the two words is inconsequential. Thus, Jesus called Peter the massive rock, not the little pebble, on which He would build the Church. (You don’t even need Matt. 16:18 to prove Peter is the rock because Jesus renamed Simon “rock” in Mark 3:16 and John 1:42!).

Matt. 16:17 - to further demonstrate that Jesus was speaking Aramaic, Jesus says Simon "Bar-Jona." The use of "Bar-Jona" proves that Jesus was speaking Aramaic. In Aramaic, "Bar" means son, and "Jonah" means John or dove (Holy Spirit). See Matt. 27:46 and Mark 15:34 which give another example of Jesus speaking Aramaic as He utters in rabbinical fashion the first verse of Psalm 22 declaring that He is the Christ, the Messiah. This shows that Jesus was indeed speaking Aramaic, as the Jewish people did at that time.

Matt. 16:18 - also, in quoting "on this rock," the Scriptures use the Greek construction "tautee tee" which means on "this" rock; on "this same" rock; or on "this very" rock. "Tautee tee" is a demonstrative construction in Greek, pointing to Peter, the subject of the sentence (and not his confession of faith as some non-Catholics argue) as the very rock on which Jesus builds His Church. The demonstrative (“tautee”) generally refers to its closest antecedent (“Petros”). Also, there is no place in Scripture where “faith” is equated with “rock.”

Matt. 16:18-19 - in addition, to argue that Jesus first blesses Peter for having received divine revelation from the Father, then diminishes him by calling him a small pebble, and then builds him up again by giving him the keys to the kingdom of heaven is entirely illogical, and a gross manipulation of the text to avoid the truth of Peter's leadership in the Church. This is a three-fold blessing of Peter - you are blessed, you are the rock on which I will build my Church, and you will receive the keys to the kingdom of heaven (not you are blessed for receiving Revelation, but you are still an insignificant little pebble, and yet I am going to give you the keys to the kingdom).

Matt. 16:18-19 – to further rebut the Protestant argument that Jesus was speaking about Peter’s confession of faith (not Peter himself) based on the revelation he received, the verses are clear that Jesus, after acknowledging Peter’s receipt of divine revelation, turns the whole discourse to the person of Peter: Blessed are “you” Simon, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to “you,” and I tell “you,” “you” are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church. I will give “you” the keys to the kingdom, and whatever “you” bind and loose on earth will be bound and loosed in heaven. Jesus’ whole discourse relates to the person of Peter, not his confession of faith.

Matt. 16:13 - also, from a geographical perspective, Jesus renames Simon to rock in Caesarea Philippi near a massive rock formation on which Herod built a temple to Caesar. Jesus chose this setting to further emphasize that Peter was indeed the rock on which the Church would be built.

Matt. 7:24 - Jesus, like the wise man, builds His house on the rock (Peter), not on grain of sand (Simon) so the house will not fall.

Luke 6:48 - the house (the Church) built upon the rock (Peter) cannot be shaken by floods (which represent the heresies, schisms, and scandals that the Church has faced over the last 2,000 years). Floods have occurred, but the Church still remains on its solid rock foundation.

Matt. 16:21 - it is also important to note that it was only after Jesus established Peter as leader of the Church that He began to speak of His death and departure. This is because Jesus had now appointed His representative on earth.

John 21:15 - Jesus asks Peter if he loves Jesus "more than these," referring to the other apostles. Jesus singles Peter out as the leader of the apostolic college.

John 21:15-17 - Jesus selects Peter to be the chief shepherd of the apostles when He says to Peter, "feed my lambs," "tend my sheep," "feed my sheep." Peter will shepherd the Church as Jesus’ representative.

Luke 22:31-32 - Jesus also prays that Peter's faith may not fail and charges Peter to be the one to strengthen the other apostles - "Simon, satan demanded to have you (plural, referring to all the apostles) to sift you (plural) like wheat, but I prayed for you (singular) that your (singular) faith may not fail, and when you (singular) have turned again, strengthen your brethren.

Acts 1,2,3,4,5,8,15 - no one questions Peter's authority to speak for the Church, declare anathemas, and resolve doctrinal debates. Peter is the rock on which the Church is built who feeds Jesus’ sheep and whose faith will not fail.

C'mon you anti-Catholics ,step up and show us Catholics where in the Holy Bible [ your sole rule of Faith ] where Jesus gave any future man or woman His Authority to invent any type of a church different from His Church, your silence on this matter will speak for itself, LOL

 

[JohnnyB]

I'm using the Bible to support my position, but I've notice none of you Prots/ Bible Alone followers can ever refute my verses in support of Christ's Universal/ Catholic [ Universal in Greek means Catholic ] Apostolic Church of Matt. 16: 15-19, Matt. 28:19-20, Rev. 5:9-10 ] . I'll bet you a dime to a dollar that not one of you non-Catholics can produce a verse in support of your individual Protestant Church. Why can't you?

Peter is the Rock on which the Church is Built

Mark 3:16; John 1:42 – Jesus renames Simon "Kepha" in Aramaic which literally means "rock." This was an extraordinary thing for Jesus to do, because "rock" was not even a name in Jesus' time. Jesus did this, not to give Simon a strange name, but to identify his new status among the apostles. When God changes a person's name, He changes their status.
Gen. 17:5; 32:28; 2 Kings 23:34; Acts 9:4; 13:9 - for example, in these verses, we see that God changes the following people's names and, as a result, they become special agents of God: Abram to Abraham; Jacob to Israel, Eliakim to Jehoiakim, Saul to Paul.

2 Sam. 22:2-3, 32, 47; 23:3; Psalm 18:2,31,46; 19:4; 28:1; 42:9; 62:2,6,7; 89:26; 94:22; 144:1-2 - in these verses, God is also called "rock." Hence, from these verses, non-Catholics often argue that God, and not Peter, is the rock that Jesus is referring to in Matt. 16:18. This argument not only ignores the plain meaning of the applicable texts, but also assumes words used in Scripture can only have one meaning. This, of course, is not true. For example:
1 Cor. 3:11 - Jesus is called the only foundation of the Church, and yet in Eph. 2:20, the apostles are called the foundation of the Church. Similarly, in 1 Peter 2:25, Jesus is called the Shepherd of the flock, but in Acts 20:28, the apostles are called the shepherds of the flock. These verses show that there are multiple metaphors for the Church, and that words used by the inspired writers of Scripture can have various meanings. Catholics agree that God is the rock of the Church, but this does not mean He cannot confer this distinction upon Peter as well, to facilitate the unity He desires for the Church.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus said in Aramaic, you are "Kepha" and on this "Kepha" I will build my Church. In Aramaic, "kepha" means a massive stone, and "evna" means little pebble. Some non-Catholics argue that, because the Greek word for rock is "petra", that "Petros" actually means "a small rock", and therefore Jesus was attempting to diminish Peter right after blessing him by calling him a small rock. Not only is this nonsensical in the context of Jesus' blessing of Peter, Jesus was speaking Aramaic and used "Kepha," not "evna." Using Petros to translate Kepha was done simply to reflect the masculine noun of Peter.
Moreover, if the translator wanted to identify Peter as the "small rock," he would have used "lithos" which means a little pebble in Greek. Also, Petros and petra were synonyms at the time the Gospel was written, so any attempt to distinguish the two words is inconsequential. Thus, Jesus called Peter the massive rock, not the little pebble, on which He would build the Church. (You don’t even need Matt. 16:18 to prove Peter is the rock because Jesus renamed Simon “rock” in Mark 3:16 and John 1:42!).

Matt. 16:17 - to further demonstrate that Jesus was speaking Aramaic, Jesus says Simon "Bar-Jona." The use of "Bar-Jona" proves that Jesus was speaking Aramaic. In Aramaic, "Bar" means son, and "Jonah" means John or dove (Holy Spirit). See Matt. 27:46 and Mark 15:34 which give another example of Jesus speaking Aramaic as He utters in rabbinical fashion the first verse of Psalm 22 declaring that He is the Christ, the Messiah. This shows that Jesus was indeed speaking Aramaic, as the Jewish people did at that time.

Matt. 16:18 - also, in quoting "on this rock," the Scriptures use the Greek construction "tautee tee" which means on "this" rock; on "this same" rock; or on "this very" rock. "Tautee tee" is a demonstrative construction in Greek, pointing to Peter, the subject of the sentence (and not his confession of faith as some non-Catholics argue) as the very rock on which Jesus builds His Church. The demonstrative (“tautee”) generally refers to its closest antecedent (“Petros”). Also, there is no place in Scripture where “faith” is equated with “rock.”

Matt. 16:18-19 - in addition, to argue that Jesus first blesses Peter for having received divine revelation from the Father, then diminishes him by calling him a small pebble, and then builds him up again by giving him the keys to the kingdom of heaven is entirely illogical, and a gross manipulation of the text to avoid the truth of Peter's leadership in the Church. This is a three-fold blessing of Peter - you are blessed, you are the rock on which I will build my Church, and you will receive the keys to the kingdom of heaven (not you are blessed for receiving Revelation, but you are still an insignificant little pebble, and yet I am going to give you the keys to the kingdom).

Matt. 16:18-19 – to further rebut the Protestant argument that Jesus was speaking about Peter’s confession of faith (not Peter himself) based on the revelation he received, the verses are clear that Jesus, after acknowledging Peter’s receipt of divine revelation, turns the whole discourse to the person of Peter: Blessed are “you” Simon, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to “you,” and I tell “you,” “you” are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church. I will give “you” the keys to the kingdom, and whatever “you” bind and loose on earth will be bound and loosed in heaven. Jesus’ whole discourse relates to the person of Peter, not his confession of faith.

Matt. 16:13 - also, from a geographical perspective, Jesus renames Simon to rock in Caesarea Philippi near a massive rock formation on which Herod built a temple to Caesar. Jesus chose this setting to further emphasize that Peter was indeed the rock on which the Church would be built.

Matt. 7:24 - Jesus, like the wise man, builds His house on the rock (Peter), not on grain of sand (Simon) so the house will not fall.

Luke 6:48 - the house (the Church) built upon the rock (Peter) cannot be shaken by floods (which represent the heresies, schisms, and scandals that the Church has faced over the last 2,000 years). Floods have occurred, but the Church still remains on its solid rock foundation.

Matt. 16:21 - it is also important to note that it was only after Jesus established Peter as leader of the Church that He began to speak of His death and departure. This is because Jesus had now appointed His representative on earth.

John 21:15 - Jesus asks Peter if he loves Jesus "more than these," referring to the other apostles. Jesus singles Peter out as the leader of the apostolic college.

John 21:15-17 - Jesus selects Peter to be the chief shepherd of the apostles when He says to Peter, "feed my lambs," "tend my sheep," "feed my sheep." Peter will shepherd the Church as Jesus’ representative.

Luke 22:31-32 - Jesus also prays that Peter's faith may not fail and charges Peter to be the one to strengthen the other apostles - "Simon, satan demanded to have you (plural, referring to all the apostles) to sift you (plural) like wheat, but I prayed for you (singular) that your (singular) faith may not fail, and when you (singular) have turned again, strengthen your brethren.

Acts 1,2,3,4,5,8,15 - no one questions Peter's authority to speak for the Church, declare anathemas, and resolve doctrinal debates. Peter is the rock on which the Church is built who feeds Jesus’ sheep and whose faith will not fail.

C'mon you anti-Catholics ,step up and show us Catholics where in the Holy Bible [ your sole rule of Faith ] where Jesus gave any future man or woman His Authority to invent any type of a church different from His Church, your silence on this matter will speak for itself, LOL

All authorty in heaven and on earth was given to Christ.

Matthew 28:18 then Jesus came to them and said, " all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me"

All other spiritual authority would be considered of the nicolatians, one in which there is a system of heiarchy and God detests it.

We are all created to serve one another,

Mark 10:42 says those wanting to be great, should become the least, lets see the pope do that.

 

[neophyte]

JohnnyB, is that the best you can do , take a couple of verses out of context. To refute you is easy ,just read Luke 10:16, Why can't any of you Protestants answer the question in my above post ???

 

[Axehead]

JohnnyB, is that the best you can do , take a couple of verses out of context. To refute you is easy ,just read Luke 10:16, Why can't any of you Protestants answer the question in my above post ???

JohnnyB said the right thing. Matthew 16 is a tired old argument. Just because the RCC says one thing means nothing. They have a history of blatantly misrepresenting God's Word for their own lusts. When you take the whole counsel of God you realize that it is all about Christ and that He has retained perfect administration of His Church by His Spirit. Peter's 1st confession about Jesus is what was important. Flesh and Blood had not revealed this unto Peter but the Father in heaven did. And what did He reveal? THOU ART THE CHRIST, THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD.

Jesus Christ is the ROCK and the preponderance of Scripture supports this and the only reason that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church is solely and only because of Jesus Christ. And for 2000 years Hell has not prevailed. In every generation, God has had a remnant that continues to hold forth the Word of Truth which exposes all the PRETENDERS.

Does Peter live in us?
1Jn 4:4 Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

Every disciple of Christ has the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.

Let's read the Lord's response to Peter's 2nd confession.

Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

This is the confession that speaks to all those who would presume to usurp The ROCK's (Jesus Christ) Authority on earth.


So, if anyone needed to be clear about who the Rock is we not only have Peter's 2nd confession but all the scriptures in the OT that tell us who the REAL ROCK IS. And you don't need to use Greek or Hebrew gymnastics to figure it out. I guess if God wanted us all to know Greek, only the Greeks would be saved.

We know it was the mercy of God that Paul had corrected Peter in Galatia, otherwise Peter may have gone off into error for good.

This is not speaking of Peter. Scripture has a way of explaining itself and we are given many details about who the ROCK is.
Deu 32:4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

Deu 32:18 Of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful, and hast forgotten God that formed thee.


Deu 32:30 How should one chase a thousand, and two put ten thousand to flight, except their Rock had sold them, and the LORD had shut them up?
Deu 32:31 For their rock is not as our Rock, even our enemies themselves being judges.

1Sa 2:2 There is none holy as the LORD: for there is none beside thee: neither is there any rock like our God.

2Sa 22:32 For who is God, save the LORD? and who is a rock, save our God?

2Sa 23:3 The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me, He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God.

Psa 18:2 The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my God, my strength, in whom I will trust; my buckler, and the horn of my salvation, and my high tower.

Psa 18:31 For who is God save the LORD? or who is a rock save our God? (nobody)

You see, when Peter was quoting Isaiah 28:16, he knew very well WHO the Rock was.
Isa 28:16 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste. (Peter was not talking about himself). See 1 Peter 2:6-8

Paul had no confusion about who the ROCK was, either.
1Co 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

1Co 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

I have not listed all the scriptures but Paul and Peter were raised on the OT Scriptures and they had no confusion about who the Rock was. The ROCK is ONLY and EVER WILL BE GOD. What the RCC has ascribed to Peter is as bad or worse than what they have ascribed to Mary. The RCC has great antipathy towards the Scriptures because it does explain itself so well. The RCC has made the majority of their doctrines and dogma "originate" from "ORAL TRADITION", precisely because they are not in the Bible and they wish the Bible was never made available to the general public.

Psa 18:46 The LORD liveth; and blessed be my rock; and let the God of my salvation be exalted.

Many try to usurp the Authority of Christ on earth today, but the reality is that He is still in charge (still the ROCK) and they are just pretending that they are in charge. When reality comes knocking on their door, it is going to be one very terrible awakening.

Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.


Eph 1:22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,
Eph 1:23 Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

Axehead

 

[neophyte]

JohnnyB said the right thing. Matthew 16 is a tired old argument. Just because the RCC says one thing means nothing. They have a history of blatantly misrepresenting God's Word for their own lusts. When you take the whole counsel of God you realize that it is all about Christ and that He has retained perfect administration of His Church by His Spirit. Peter's 1st confession about Jesus is what was important. Flesh and Blood had not revealed this unto Peter but the Father in heaven did. And what did He reveal? THOU ART THE CHRIST, THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD.

Jesus Christ is the ROCK and the preponderance of Scripture supports this and the only reason that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church is solely and only because of Jesus Christ. And for 2000 years Hell has not prevailed. In every generation, God has had a remnant that continues to hold forth the Word of Truth which exposes all the PRETENDERS.

Does Peter live in us?
1Jn 4:4 Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

Every disciple of Christ has the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.

Let's read the Lord's response to Peter's 2nd confession.

Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

This is the confession that speaks to all those who would presume to usurp The ROCK's (Jesus Christ) Authority on earth.


So, if anyone needed to be clear about who the Rock is we not only have Peter's 2nd confession but all the scriptures in the OT that tell us who the REAL ROCK IS. And you don't need to use Greek or Hebrew gymnastics to figure it out. I guess if God wanted us all to know Greek, only the Greeks would be saved.

We know it was the mercy of God that Paul had corrected Peter in Galatia, otherwise Peter may have gone off into error for good.

This is not speaking of Peter. Scripture has a way of explaining itself and we are given many details about who the ROCK is.
Deu 32:4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

Deu 32:18 Of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful, and hast forgotten God that formed thee.


Deu 32:30 How should one chase a thousand, and two put ten thousand to flight, except their Rock had sold them, and the LORD had shut them up?
Deu 32:31 For their rock is not as our Rock, even our enemies themselves being judges.

1Sa 2:2 There is none holy as the LORD: for there is none beside thee: neither is there any rock like our God.

2Sa 22:32 For who is God, save the LORD? and who is a rock, save our God?

2Sa 23:3 The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me, He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God.

Psa 18:2 The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my God, my strength, in whom I will trust; my buckler, and the horn of my salvation, and my high tower.

Psa 18:31 For who is God save the LORD? or who is a rock save our God? (nobody)

You see, when Peter was quoting Isaiah 28:16, he knew very well WHO the Rock was.
Isa 28:16 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste. (Peter was not talking about himself). See 1 Peter 2:6-8

Paul had no confusion about who the ROCK was, either.
1Co 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

1Co 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

I have not listed all the scriptures but Paul and Peter were raised on the OT Scriptures and they had no confusion about who the Rock was. The ROCK is ONLY and EVER WILL BE GOD. What the RCC has ascribed to Peter is as bad or worse than what they have ascribed to Mary. The RCC has great antipathy towards the Scriptures because it does explain itself so well. The RCC has made the majority of their doctrines and dogma "originate" from "ORAL TRADITION", precisely because they are not in the Bible and they wish the Bible was never made available to the general public.

Psa 18:46 The LORD liveth; and blessed be my rock; and let the God of my salvation be exalted.

Many try to usurp the Authority of Christ on earth today, but the reality is that He is still in charge (still the ROCK) and they are just pretending that they are in charge. When reality comes knocking on their door, it is going to be one very terrible awakening.

Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.


Eph 1:22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,
Eph 1:23 Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

Axehead

Not only is Johnny B wrong but so are you S00ooo wrong. Are you afraid to acknowledge thatJesus said 'my church' meaning 'one' Church and that Church without a questionable doubt was and still is Apostolic.Yes, that is correct Jesus chose His Teaching Apostles to be the nucleus of His 'One True Church', if you don't believe that, then all you have to do is first pray to the Holy Spirit for guidance , then read the Bible and hopefully you are capable in deducing the most important role of those hand-picked representatives [ 2 Cor. 5:20 ] Axehead if you won't accept the Words of Jesus to His Chief Apostle Peter, then take a look at [ Matt.28:18-20] in that verse we see where Jesus commands His apostles [ means send out ones ] to not only baptise with the Christian formular for this sacrament with the words of in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Teaching everything that Jesus taught them along with offering sacrifices to God for the sins of the people : = The following are other verses that reinforces even more the Sacrament of Holy Orders [ male priesthood ]

" Every high priest taken from among men is appointed for men in the things pertainig to God, that he may offer gifts and sacrifices for sins " [ Hebrews 5: 1 ]

" Wherefore it was right that he should in all things be made like unto his brethren, that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest before God to expiate the sins of the people " [ Hebrews 2: 17 ]

Of course the Apostles ordained priests , for example, Paul, Barnabas, Timothy, Titus and Matthias read these verses - Acts 13:3, 14:22, 1:24-26 and Titus 1: 5 ].

How did the Apostles ordain priests - " Then having fasted and prayed and laid hands on them, they let them go" [ Acts 13:3 ]

I hope you realize that the authority of for the priesthood came directly from Jesus to His apostles - read Luke 10:16.

Only a bishop can give the Sacrament of Holy Orders -Titus 1: 5 , and only select the educated in the Teachings of Christ along with a very good secular education as we find today with our priests. - 1 Tim. 5:22.

Before they died, the Apostles gave their power to others , who in turn, consecrated new bishops . In this way the powers of the priesthood have been handed down during the past 2000 years.

 

[Axehead]

Not only is Johnny B wrong but so are you S00ooo wrong. Are you afraid to acknowledge thatJesus said 'my church' meaning 'one' Church and that Church without a questionable doubt was and still is Apostolic.

Not at all. Jesus said, "My church", meaning "One Church" and that church without question is still Apostolic. But it is a different type of Apostles today that we have. The Apostles today, are not writing scripture inspired by the Holy Scripture. Scripture is complete.

" Every high priest taken from among men is appointed for men in the things pertainig to God, that he may offer gifts and sacrifices for sins " [ Hebrews 5: 1 ]

Jesus was referring to the current Jewish priesthood. The RCC is co-opting this and trying to say that Heb 5:1 is Jesus endorsing a continued "select" priesthood rather than the "new" priesthood of (all) believers. Heb 10:1 puts this in context as well as many other verses.
Heb 10:11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

Of course the Apostles ordained priests , for example, Paul, Barnabas, Timothy, Titus and Matthias read these verses - Acts 13:3, 14:22, 1:24-26 and Titus 1: 5 ].

How did the Apostles ordain priests - " Then having fasted and prayed and laid hands on them, they let them go" [ Acts 13:3 ]

You keep trying but the Bible never says "priests" were ordained.

I hope you realize that the authority of for the priesthood came directly from Jesus to His apostles - read Luke 10:16.

This is true for the priesthood of ALL believers.

Only a bishop can give the Sacrament of Holy Orders -Titus 1: 5 , and only select the educated in the Teachings of Christ along with a very good secular education as we find today with our priests. - 1 Tim. 5:22.

Nothing about any "Sacrament of Holy Orders or good secular educations. You can't be serious.

Before they died, the Apostles gave their power to others , who in turn, consecrated new bishops . In this way the powers of the priesthood have been handed down during the past 2000 years.

My friend, the Apostles have no power to give to anyone. Power and Gifts come from God.

Act 10:25 And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.
Act 10:26 But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.

Axehead

 

[dragonfly]

Hi neophyte,

I have posted very much scripture to you in another thread, about the Church described in the New Testament, so now it is clear you have no intention of obeying Christ's command in Matt 7:24, or, you would not continue the extra-biblical propoganda you've now oft-repeated on this website.

Teaching everything that Jesus taught them along with offering sacrifices to God for the sins of the people

There is no 'along with' anything which Jesus taught. His word was complete apart from the promises He made to His disciples about what the Holy Spirit would show them.

John 16: I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. 13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

God speaks to those in whom He dwells. We are a temple for His habitation, made without hands. Eph 2:21

 

[aspen]

Neophyte,

Can you think of any reason that someone might not connect with God in the Catholic Church? I can. In fact, if Vatican II had not happened I can almost guarantee I would have remained Protestant.

So, if people have a difficult connecting with God in the Catholic Church, why is it wrong for them to seek the same God elsewhere? Protestants are Trinitarian - they know the same God as we do. I agree that Protestants who bash the Catholic Church are ignorant, but it doesn't mean that all people are required to become Catholic - they are required to know Jesus.

I agree with you that some Protestant doctrine is incorrect and limited, but it does teach people about Jesus.

 

[IanLC]

1. Christ centered
2. Biblically founded/sound
3. Holy Spirit led
4. Free in the Holy Spirit
5. Prayer emphasized
6. Evangelism/Outreach/Missions
7. Decent & Order
8. Diverse

 

[Axehead]

Not at all. Jesus said, "My church", meaning "One Church" and that church without question is still Apostolic. But it is a different type of Apostles today that we have. The Apostles today, are not writing scripture inspired by the Holy Scripture. Scripture is complete.

Meant to say "Apostles today are not writing scripture inspired by the Holy Spirit". That is finished.

Axehead



]

 

[neophyte]

Meant to say "Apostles today are not writing scripture inspired by the Holy Spirit". That is finished.

Axehead



]

As I wrote in my last post, you Axehead and your ilk are so terribly wrong.
Answer me this question; -Where in the Bible does it say that public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle?
Scripture verse please???