TRUTH

[Rex]

Neo do you know this story and the out come?
Do you believe that there is nothing new under the sun, as someone once said?
Do you believe History has an uncanny way of repeating itself?
Here is the sad story of your church.

Israel Demands a King

8 Now it came to pass when Samuel was old that he made his sons judges over Israel. [sup]2 [/sup]The name of his firstborn was Joel, and the name of his second, Abijah; they were judges in Beersheba. [sup]3 [/sup]But his sons did not walk in his ways; they turned aside after dishonest gain, took bribes, and perverted justice.
[sup]4 [/sup]Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah, [sup]5 [/sup]and said to him, “Look, you are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.”
[sup]6 [/sup]But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, “Give us a king to judge us.” So Samuel prayed to the Lord. [sup]7 [/sup]And the Lord said to Samuel, “Heed the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them. [sup]8 [/sup]According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt, even to this day—with which they have forsaken Me and served other gods—so they are doing to you also. [sup]9 [/sup]Now therefore, heed their voice. However, you shall solemnly forewarn them, and show them the behavior of the king who will reign over them.”
[sup]10 [/sup]So Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who asked him for a king. [sup]11 [/sup]And he said, “This will be the behavior of the king who will reign over you: He will take your sons and appoint them for his own chariots and to be his horsemen, and some will run before his chariots. [sup]12 [/sup]He will appoint captains over his thousands and captains over his fifties, will set some to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and some to make his weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. [sup]13 [/sup]He will take your daughters to be perfumers, cooks, and bakers. [sup]14 [/sup]And he will take the best of your fields, your vineyards, and your olive groves, and give them to his servants. [sup]15 [/sup]He will take a tenth of your grain and your vintage, and give it to his officers and servants. [sup]16 [/sup]And he will take your male servants, your female servants, your finest young men,[sup][a][/sup] and your donkeys, and put them to his work. [sup]17 [/sup]He will take a tenth of your sheep. And you will be his servants. [sup]18 [/sup]And you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, and the Lord will not hear you in that day.”
[sup]19 [/sup]Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, “No, but we will have a king over us, [sup]20 [/sup]that we also may be like all the nations, and that our king may judge us and go out before us and fight our battles.”
[sup]21 [/sup]And Samuel heard all the words of the people, and he repeated them in the hearing of the Lord. [sup]22 [/sup]So the Lord said to Samuel, “Heed their voice, and make them a king.”
And Samuel said to the men of Israel, “Every man go to his city.”

 

[Axehead]

Thank you Alan but Jesus left us only "One" church and that Church was Apostolic. Jesus said "my church" not plural usage as in churches, nowhere does Jesus ever say churches and while saying it He was speaking to His apostle Peter.

So, which of the 7 churches in Revelation are THE true church. There were churches in Galatia, Macedonia, Asia, Jerusalem. Which one was the true church? The point is, there was no such thing as a "Mother Church" till Constantine.

Everything that is true in the Christian faith, which of couse came directly from Jesus to His apostles, without any errors is found within Catholicism.The Catholic Church uses as it's two beacons of light ,#1 is God's Tradional Apostolic Teachings and #2 the inerrant Word of God the Holy Bible.

Many people who are not Catholic actually believe nearly all the doctrines of the Catholic Church without knowing it

That would cover a lot of paganism, too.

Please make known to me (since I am a dunderhead) what Catholic teaching I follow or believe "without knowing it".

Funny how you imply non-Catholics are non-thinkers, when they are the ones that are actually using their faculties of reason and thought.

Axehead

 

[Rex]

I don't even care about their church or its practices or beliefs except ONE. Where I draw the line is when this brick and mortar house proclaims that the hands, feet, eyes, mind,, the fullness of Christ is absent outside its doors. That's the threshold I will never tread on. Many hardline Catholics like kepha and neo, will never believe this and so there lies the war of uncompromising hearts.

It's blasphemy to the Spirit that dwells with in me
Matthew 12:31

 

[epostle1]

Um, yeah. Okay. You need to read "Church" as "elect". The 'Church' of Christ is his elect people...those who have him as Lord and Saviour. That way you don't get Catholic people saying that all Protestants are going to hell and vise versa.

Agreed, but the "elect" that excludes a teaching authority is closer to communism. The Church, that includes the elect, is modeled after the Davidic Kingdom, according to scripture. If not, there would never be a Bible.

I'm not quite sure I follow you here...
Yes, obviously Jesus knew when he instituted the Church that sinful people made up the Church. That we 'run' it is debatable, however. Jesus is still the Head of the Church, still present with us through the Spirit. Also, we can know his thoughts and plans for the Church, collectively and individually, through scripture, which we must remember, he left for us. The bible is not just a pretty history tale, it's God's letter to us, to instruct and guide us.

Heaven cannot bind an error. Individuals and collectives make contributions, but without a final authority to bind on matters of faith and morals, you have division and chaos. What you don't follow is the gift of infallibility, which was needed to determine the number of books belonging in the New Testament. You accept that, but you reject what was taught and believed by the same people that put the Bible together.

Okay...I'm sorry, but the above just doesn't make sense, and I think if you truly see it that way, then no wonder you're anti-Protestant.
The 'bible' isn't some magical tome that 'created' the Church.

That's my point. And I am not anti-Protestant.

What it is is a factual and truthful account of God's work in human history, and the message and work of Jesus here on earth. It is those things...Jesus, his work on the cross, his resurrection and gift of grace and the Spirit, that births both Christians individually and corporately as a Church. The reason we can come together as a saved 'elect' people is because of the truth of scripture and the Spirit's affirmation of that truth. If you onlyrely on a 'people'...saved or not, to carry on a 'church' then you run the risk of Chinese whispers.

But relying only on scripture has been the downfall of Protestantism since it began. You are saying Jesus left the Church He founded, (rely on a 'people'...saved or not, to carry on a 'church',) Scripture says He would never leave us, you are saying He did. yet you talk about the truth of scripture.

We have seen in the past with the Catholic Church how lost it can become with fallen people leading it, and again now in Protestantism with all the offshoots that have turned into cults.

Leaders have fallen, (about 10 in all) but no corrupt leader has ever taught a heresy. I'm not going to get into the immorality of the reformers.

People are fallible, even people who have a genuine love of Christ can fall and take wrong turns. That is why it is essential to have God's word...his very truth written down for us to go back to again and again....it helps keep us on his narrow path, knowing that no matter how twisted or lost people might become, through good or bad intentions, that we can always come back to what God had first lain down for his elect people, the Church.

I don't think you understand how sinful people can teach infallibly. Here is a list from the scriptures:

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html#the_church-IV

I do understand what you're saying, but it still troubles me because a lot of Catholics will still run to the Catechisms before biblical verses...they rely on the RCC's interpretation of scripture first, actual scripture second. See....I feel uncomfortable relying on something that is only "primarily" derived from scripture. Our beliefs should be exactly from scripture, 100% from scripture....our doctrines should be formed only through biblical text alone. Any hint of people...be it history, 'modern understanding', tradition....anything at all that comes from and through man, is bound to be faulty...maybe not all the time, maybe not always, but certainly and assuredly enough to see corruption leak in bit by bit. The only way to cut this off at the root is to keep things 100% scriptural.

That concept is not found in scripture.

Um...it's kind of an established fact that you test and reform scripture by scripture.

Well, it sounds nice but it hasn't worked.

You do that along with a lot of praying and perhaps a lot of reading of stuff by authors you know and trust to be Godly men. Of course they are not perfect, so basically it just comes back to reading the bible and praying. God the Holy Spirit is well capable to lead us where we need to be...we just need to search and be willing for him to guide us.

God doesn't lead people to rebel against His Church, He puts up with it because it's all they know and it's not their fault.

 

[Rach1370]

Everything that is true in the Christian faith, which of couse came directly from Jesus to His apostles, without any errors is found within Catholicism.The Catholic Church uses as it's two beacons of light ,#1 is God's Tradional Apostolic Teachings and #2 the inerrant Word of God the Holy Bible.

The big question here, is how do you know about "Traditional Apostolic Teachings", without the bible? We know that human memory is not infallible. We know that even human reporting and historical records are biased. So how do you find your Apostolic Teachings if not through the bible, which we have assurance in? And if we're looking at all the NT to find the teachings of not only Jesus, but the teachings of the Apostles as well, then I must confess that I am again confused. You said in post #16

"Jesus said "my church" not plural usage as in churches, nowhere does Jesus ever say churches and while saying it He was speaking to His apostle Peter."

Ok....maybe he did say that to Peter, we do know that he wanted Peter to take up the Church in Jerusalem, and that's exactly what he did. But we also know that God saw fit to make Peter the first of his original disciples to understand that 'His Church' was not just for the Jews...it was for the Gentiles as well. We then see Paul, who Jesus had 'woke up' spectacularly! Paul went off and spent his entire life preaching to the Gentile nations, bringing them in to God's chosen people. My point with all of this is: you say it's all Peter who is head of 'the Church'....and yet in the NT Peter only writes 2 books. Paul, on the other hand, writes the majority of the books. We have more "Apostolic Tradition" given to us by Paul, then anyone else. Peter's books are fabulous and essential (otherwise they wouldn't be in scripture!), and I love him...he really shows God's love and forgiveness in just his own testimony! But as far as gaining information for Church proceedings, structure and understanding, we find all of this information in Paul's writings.

Many people who are not Catholic actually believe nearly all the doctrines of the Catholic Church without knowing it

Yes, I'd say we do share a lot of doctrines. We agree on who Jesus was, what he came for. We agree about the Trinity, and the nature of God. There are a lot of things we both believe are true. It's the few that a lot of Protestants baulk on. Purgatory, for example. We don't agree with that, because it suggests that Christ's work on the cross was not complete, and the bible tells us it was...that it was sufficient. We also have trouble with the Pope and a lot of the hierarchy because we see it being a little too similar to the structure the Jewish Priests and Pharisees had....and clearly Christ did away with that structure...left in human hands it became a den of sin, and they took advantage of people.

As far as Sola Scriptura/Bible Alone along with the individual personal interpretation of the Bible with this type of religion it would not be Christianity as introduced by Jesus and it was not the Christianity of the early Christians If all Christians abided by this formular as their compass for salvation being that it consisted in each person,s adapting an ideal to his or her own personally, then one man's idea would be just as good as the next guy's.The result of this would be an awful imposistion for anyone to impose his private interpretation on another person who chose to disagree with him.resulting in dissention and confusion as found in most modern churches from man's conception.

As I said before, most of us don't just pick up the bible and find a verse we think will endorse our life style. Sure, some do, but then again there are a lot of Catholics who 'attend church' on Sundays and don't think of God for the rest of the week, living how they choose. It's a human problem, not a denominational one.
Here's the big idea. The bible is given to us by God....it was written by him for us. To guide us, to teach us. We know that: "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."
As a general rule Protestants don't rely on individual interpretation of scripture. We rely on the Holy Spirit, big time. I can't speak for all Protestant Churches....in fact I'll be the first to say that there are many Protestant type 'churches' that I believe have fallen away from the truth of scripture. But that only heightens my point....if we don't stick closely to scripture, we fall away.
But many Churches come together through their 'interpretation' of scripture. And no, it's not always the same...there are many open handed issues the different denominations disagree on...but I think you'll find that despite those differences we come together on the closed handed ones. And I think that is a blessing. Not only do we all share the central values of being a Christian, the differences we have make us dig into scripture and pray for guidance and understanding even more!!

This type of practice would not be Christianity, because this is not Christ's Christianity. Christianity is a revealed faith/religion, as it is to avoid conflicts of opinions and personal "religions" [ie. just the Bible alone ].

I'm sorry....did you really just say that 'religions' that stick to the bible and hold the bible as true and therefore essential (as it's God's truth)...as something that did not come from Christ?? That's so nonsensical I don't know whether to goggle or laugh. Sorry.
We know that Jesus endorsed scripture...he used the OT all the time in his ministry. The entire time he was teaching he was trying to tell people that the whole of the OT pointed at him. And as the whole NT tells us about Jesus and his ministry here on earth, and the purpose of his life and death here, how on earth could that not be 'from Christ' either. How could a message about Jesus and his redeeming work, not be what Jesus wants us to learn, wonder at and worship? The whole bible is about Jesus, and Jesus is the most important things in the world. You'll never, ever be able to convince me, and most other Christians, that the bible, and the truth is contains, is not essential to our faith.

To avoid the religion/faith as revealed by God is a huge mistake, even if that way of Christian faith that you non-Catholic's hang on to could possibly be accepted by God and is as we know accepted by the Catholic Church [ in most cases ] as producing brothers and sisters in Christ doesn't make it the total revealed type of Christianity as introduced by God for all of us.And it is for that reason there must be religious authority in that one true church that Jesus left for "all" of us.
This is why Jesus established an earthly authorative Church, Ask yourself this question of what chance would the human race have for survival if everyone was free to carry into practice his or her own personal concept of either government or morality?
Authority must also exists within God's earthly Church also, because we do not make the rules for our Christian faith God does, a That is the reason Jesus transferred His Authority to His Apostles/Successors. It is clearly seen in the Bible and from the early Christian, Jewish and secular writings.

I'm sorry, but your reasoning has left me dizzy. And to be honest, for all you state that we have no true understanding of the RCC, you've just shown that you have no idea at all how 'the other side' works. Of course we have authority. It's called the Bible. Our Church leaders, the Pastors and Elders uphold the biblical values and truths, distributing Biblical discipline if it's needed.

And yes, Jesus handed authority to his apostles...which we see in the bible,...see where I'm heading with this. If it's from God, then we should be able to back it up from scripture. If we can't find it in scripture, then it's not from God. Simple as that.

 

[epostle1]

The big question here, is how do you know about "Traditional Apostolic Teachings", without the bible? We know that human memory is not infallible. We know that even human reporting and historical records are biased. So how do you find your Apostolic Teachings if not through the bible, which we have assurance in? And if we're looking at all the NT to find the teachings of not only Jesus, but the teachings of the Apostles as well, then I must confess that I am again confused. You said in post #16

What does the Bible teach about the role of Apostolic Tradition?

What did the Church Fathers teach about Apostolic Tradition?

How do we know which Traditions are genuinely apostolic?

Does the fact Jesus tested some traditions by Scripture mean Apostolic Tradition is intrinsically inferior?

Is there a good online collection of what the Fathers said about different subjects?

Where can I get complete texts of the early Church Fathers' writings online?

Is there an encyclopedia of the Fathers and their time online?

Ok....maybe he did say that to Peter, we do know that he wanted Peter to take up the Church in Jerusalem, and that's exactly what he did. But we also know that God saw fit to make Peter the first of his original disciples to understand that 'His Church' was not just for the Jews...it was for the Gentiles as well. We then see Paul, who Jesus had 'woke up' spectacularly! Paul went off and spent his entire life preaching to the Gentile nations, bringing them in to God's chosen people. My point with all of this is: you say it's all Peter who is head of 'the Church'....and yet in the NT Peter only writes 2 books. Paul, on the other hand, writes the majority of the books. We have more "Apostolic Tradition" given to us by Paul, then anyone else. Peter's books are fabulous and essential (otherwise they wouldn't be in scripture!), and I love him...he really shows God's love and forgiveness in just his own testimony! But as far as gaining information for Church proceedings, structure and understanding, we find all of this information in Paul's writings.

There is no power struggle with Peter and Paul. If Jesus gave them equal authority then why are there only one set of keys? We agree that Peter and Paul are pillars of the Church. We can talk all day about who built the Church the most, but that is not a criteria to possess the keys of the kingdom. The relationship between Peter and Paul does not fit our conventional understanding of how authority is distributed. Paul wrote and spoke with authority and it was always to specific people, his writings did not become binding on all believers until after they were canonized by the Catholic Church. In that sense, Paul's writings are of equal authority with Peter's writings.

That includes what they taught and what they wrote. The divine protection for their oral teaching has no expiry date. What they taught has the same divine protection as what they wrote. I can't see how God would grant protection to oral teaching and then let the protection expire. A divine gift is not disposable, it's passed on or it never existed in the first place.

Yes, I'd say we do share a lot of doctrines. We agree on who Jesus was, what he came for. We agree about the Trinity, and the nature of God. There are a lot of things we both believe are true. It's the few that a lot of Protestants baulk on.

"...It's the few that a lot of Protestants baulk on.
1) Purgatory, for example. We don't agree with that, because it suggests that
2) Christ's work on the cross was not complete, and the bible tells us it was...that it was sufficient.
3) We also have trouble with the Pope and a lot of the hierarchy
4) because we see it being a little too similar to the structure the Jewish Priests and Pharisees had....
5) and clearly Christ did away with that structure...
6) left in human hands it became a den of sin, and they took advantage of people.

The answers are in here: http://www.catholic.com/

key in "Fr. Barron" in YouTube for a list of topics.

As I said before, most of us don't just pick up the bible and find a verse we think will endorse our life style. Sure, some do, but then again there are a lot of Catholics who 'attend church' on Sundays and don't think of God for the rest of the week, living how they choose. It's a human problem, not a denominational one.
Here's the big idea. The bible is given to us by God....it was written by him for us. To guide us, to teach us. We know that: "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."

Profitable does not mean exclusive.

 

[dragonfly]

Hi kepha,

If Jesus gave them equal authority then why are there only one set of keys?

I don't know whether to write a rhetorical question, or just tell you. This:

The keys are available to anyone who has believed into Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, and received the Holy Spirit.

You seem to have a lot to learn about what goes on in the Spirit between God and those who know Him.

 

[Rach1370]

What does the Bible teach about the role of Apostolic Tradition?

You actually miss my point. Yes, there are plenty of writings down through history by authors who where Church fathers or studied them. But they are all human, and therefore fallible and liable to bias.
The best way...indeed the only truly factual account about the Apostles, is found only in scripture. We certainly read the other things, a lot are highly beneficial, but we do not base Church doctrine on these other writings...unless they are directly backed up by scripture...which basically means our doctrine comes from scripture.

As far as all your links....I am not ignorant on the RCCs teachings, I just disagree with them, or a lot of them anyway.

There is no power struggle with Peter and Paul. If Jesus gave them equal authority then why are there only one set of keys? We agree that Peter and Paul are pillars of the Church. We can talk all day about who built the Church the most, but that is not a criteria to possess the keys of the kingdom. The relationship between Peter and Paul does not fit our conventional understanding of how authority is distributed. Paul wrote and spoke with authority and it was always to specific people, his writings did not become binding on all believers until after they were canonized by the Catholic Church. In that sense, Paul's writings are of equal authority with Peter's writings.

That includes what they taught and what they wrote. The divine protection for their oral teaching has no expiry date. What they taught has the same divine protection as what they wrote. I can't see how God would grant protection to oral teaching and then let the protection expire. A divine gift is not disposable, it's passed on or it never existed in the first place.

My point was not that Paul is greater than Peter. I was merely trying to point out that saying the Catholic Church was the only true church because of Peter did not really follow through. In fact I would say that there are quite a few things the RCC say about Peter that don't make sense, especially in line with your claim that Church Tradition holds as much authority as scripture does. Take, for example, the call for Priests to be single, and yet we know Peter, who you claim was your first 'Pope' was married...the bible clearly mentions his mother in law, and then later when Paul is talking about his own singleness, he also mentions Peters married state. Many Catholics believe (even if it is not stated directly) that Peter was single. If such a theory has come about, it's come about from an source outside the Bible...tradition perhaps? And clearly it is wrong...it makes you wonder at what else that comes from tradition is erroneous.
Also (and I feel it helps highlight my point)...at some point someone in the RCC Church has said or proclaimed at one point that Peter was the first 'Pope', and from there on in you feel entitled to claim the rest of us are not the 'true Church'...which is basically relegating us to blasphemous heretics. You forget all biblical teaching on what 'being the leader' actually means, on how the gospel breaks down walls, not raises them. Peter would not have given himself a throne to sit on, or royal robes and have people bow down and kiss his ring. He knew that to be a Christ like leader, he needed to serve, put himself last. He also knew, as did all the other apostles, that being 'elect' was about receiving Christ as Saviour and having the Holy Spirit come to reside within you. To say that the RCC is the 'only true Church' you are basically saying that no Protestants have the Spirit or follow and love Jesus. All this, from maybe only one man making a statement about Peter that the Bible simply doesn't back. This....this is why making ALL doctrines based only on scripture is essential.

Profitable does not mean exclusive.

No one said 'exclusive'. We don't ban everything apart from the bible. It's just that as the Word of God, it is the highest authority. We must hold to this, because as God's direct word to us, it is the only thing in the world we can guarantee is true and without fault. No matter how much a person or Church may love Jesus and be true disciples, striving to live as Jesus told them too, there is always the possibility they are mistaken or biased. If you can show me a Church or single person in the world apart from Christ who hasn't made a mistake, then perhaps I may consider your approach. But as I know that no such person exists, I think my case is safe. The bible must be the highest authority.

 

[Axehead]

You actually miss my point. Yes, there are plenty of writings down through history by authors who where Church fathers or studied them. But they are all human, and therefore fallible and liable to bias.
The best way...indeed the only truly factual account about the Apostles, is found only in scripture. We certainly read the other things, a lot are highly beneficial, but we do not base Church doctrine on these other writings...unless they are directly backed up by scripture...which basically means our doctrine comes from scripture.

As far as all your links....I am not ignorant on the RCCs teachings, I just disagree with them, or a lot of them anyway.


My point was not that Paul is greater than Peter. I was merely trying to point out that saying the Catholic Church was the only true church because of Peter did not really follow through. In fact I would say that there are quite a few things the RCC say about Peter that don't make sense, especially in line with your claim that Church Tradition holds as much authority as scripture does. Take, for example, the call for Priests to be single, and yet we know Peter, who you claim was your first 'Pope' was married...the bible clearly mentions his mother in law, and then later when Paul is talking about his own singleness, he also mentions Peters married state. Many Catholics believe (even if it is not stated directly) that Peter was single. If such a theory has come about, it's come about from an source outside the Bible...tradition perhaps? And clearly it is wrong...it makes you wonder at what else that comes from tradition is erroneous.

Also (and I feel it helps highlight my point)...at some point someone in the RCC Church has said or proclaimed at one point that Peter was the first 'Pope', and from there on in you feel entitled to claim the rest of us are not the 'true Church'...which is basically relegating us to blasphemous heretics. You forget all biblical teaching on what 'being the leader' actually means, on how the gospel breaks down walls, not raises them. Peter would not have given himself a throne to sit on, or royal robes and have people bow down and kiss his ring. He knew that to be a Christ like leader, he needed to serve, put himself last. He also knew, as did all the other apostles, that being 'elect' was about receiving Christ as Saviour and having the Holy Spirit come to reside within you. To say that the RCC is the 'only true Church' you are basically saying that no Protestants have the Spirit or follow and love Jesus. All this, from maybe only one man making a statement about Peter that the Bible simply doesn't back. This....this is why making ALL doctrines based only on scripture is essential.

No one said 'exclusive'. We don't ban everything apart from the bible. It's just that as the Word of God, it is the highest authority. We must hold to this, because as God's direct word to us, it is the only thing in the world we can guarantee is true and without fault. No matter how much a person or Church may love Jesus and be true disciples, striving to live as Jesus told them too, there is always the possibility they are mistaken or biased. If you can show me a Church or single person in the world apart from Christ who hasn't made a mistake, then perhaps I may consider your approach. But as I know that no such person exists, I think my case is safe. The bible must be the highest authority.

Excellent post, dragonfly.

Another glaring omission amongst so many is Paul's neglect of mentioning Peter in Rome. Paul does not hesitate to mention Peter's presence in Antioch (Gal 2:11) or Peter's presence in Jerusalem (Gal 1:18). But Paul never even breathes a syllable of Peter in Rome. Other chronological facts simply make it all but impossible that the Fisherman from Galilee was ever in Rome.

The earliest claim that Peter was in Rome is Ignatius (130 A.D.), but his writings are so unreliable in other facts (e.g. Luke succeeded Peter as the bishop of Antioch of Pysidia), that he cannot be trusted. The next clear claim is by Papias (ca. 150 A.D.). So, Peter's supposed residence in the Imperial city is claimed by two unreliable writers who lived some sixty to eighty years after the Apostle's death. And, ironically, they did not consider the avalanche of New Testament evidence against their claims.

Axehead

 

[Rex]

AMen Rach
women certainly have the gift of communication.

They can take three sentences and turn it into a beautiful chapter.

 

[neophyte]

Axehead,,you wrote the following:"Paul's neglect of mentioning Peter in Rome"

Of course Paul never mentioned Peter being in Rome, the reason being is because Peter being a Christian bishop had a huge reward placed on his head by the Roman governing/military machine.
Open your bible and read John 21:!8 I found this verse while answering another question--- it tells us about Peter's crucifixtion.
Earlier in John 21: 15-17 we can read where Jesus gave all authority to Peter to "feed his sheep". It means just what" Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Feed my lambs... feed my sheep ... feed my sheep ...
Later in 18. Jesus is speaking about when Peter was younger he could take care of himself but in his old age Jesus is telling Peter that Peter will also "stretch out [his] your hands," "someone else" [ Roman soldiers}:....." will lead you where you do not want to go"----Peter's crucifixtion.

 

[Axehead]

Axehead,,you wrote the following:"Paul's neglect of mentioning Peter in Rome"

Of course Paul never mentioned Peter being in Rome, the reason being is because Peter being a Christian bishop had a huge reward placed on his head by the Roman governing/military machine.
Open your bible and read John 21:!8 I found this verse while answering another question--- it tells us about Peter's crucifixtion.
Earlier in John 21: 15-17 we can read where Jesus gave all authority to Peter to "feed his sheep". It means just what" Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Feed my lambs... feed my sheep ... feed my sheep ...
Later in 18. Jesus is speaking about when Peter was younger he could take care of himself but in his old age Jesus is telling Peter that Peter will also "stretch out [his] your hands," "someone else" [ Roman soldiers}:....." will lead you where you do not want to go"----Peter's crucifixtion.

Neo, I am always impressed by your eisegesis.

 

[neophyte]

Neo, I am always impressed by your eisegesis.

I've used the word eisegesis much earlier to describe the Protestant belief system. First, many of you Prots agree that Christianity is a Book Alone faith,so explain to me where in the NT does it say that the Christian faith will be based on a Holy Book alone. Now that is what I call big-time Prot eisegesis.

 

[Axehead]

I've used the word eisegesis much earlier to describe the Protestant belief system. First, many of you Prots agree that Christianity is a Book Alone faith,so explain to me where in the NT does it say that the Christian faith will be based on a Holy Book alone. Now that is what I call big-time Prot eisegesis.

Christianity is the Word of God and the Spirit of God and they both agree with one another.

 

[neophyte]

Christianity is the Word of God and the Spirit of God and they both agree with one another.

Christianity is based on Jesus the Christ and Jesus is much more than just a Holy Book. Jesus built a Church also He said 'my church" in Matt.16:15-19 ,show me from that verse where Jesus said; I will write you a Holy Book and the gates of hell shall never prevail against it, talk about eisegesis, you prots are wizards at eisegesis, foolish you are for not believing Jesus with His word from Matt. 18:15-18. Show me from that verse where Jesus says take the problemed brother to the Bible, ,you want more Protestant eisegesis because there is much more Protestant eisegesis and neglect of following the correct Teachings of Jesus.

 

[Axehead]

Christianity is based on Jesus the Christ and Jesus is much more than just a Holy Book. Jesus built a Church also He said 'my church" in Matt.16:15-19 ,show me from that verse where Jesus said; I will write you a Holy Book and the gates of hell shall never prevail against it, talk about eisegesis, you prots are wizards at eisegesis, foolish you are for not believing Jesus with His word from Matt. 18:15-18. Show me from that verse where Jesus says take the problemed brother to the Bible, ,you want more Protestant eisegesis because there is much more Protestant eisegesis and neglect of following the correct Teachings of Jesus.

The gates of hell will not prevail against Jesus Christ nor those who have Him as their foundation (Rock) in their lives.

Mat_7:24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
Mat_7:25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.

Rev_21:5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.

Rev_22:7 Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book.


Rev_22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
Rev_22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Deut_4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.


Pro_30:5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
Pro_30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

I am thankful for God's written word as man has proven that he fails miserably in handing anything down from generation to generation, orally. If the Old Testament and New Testament had never been written down, do you think anyone would have faithfully handed it down orally from generation to generation? Of course not! Really, really important things are not handed down orally. There are writings in all civilizations and especially in Judaism as early on, God thought it was really, really important to get His prophets to write His words down.

We don't see this tradition in men, today. Even the Catholic church does not hand anything down orally. They put it all in writing!!! Can you believe the irony there. Everything they said was handed down orally, they no longer hand down orally. Why, I wonder? Every time they come up with something new that was supposedly handed down orally, they fail to continue to hand it down orally to the next apostolic successor. They write it down instead of continuing to hand it down orally. Do you see the absurdity of it all? Only what was handed down orally comes through them and they are quick to write it down. Not only absurdity of their thesis, but the hypocrisy of it, because they say what is handed down orally is extremely faithful but they do not continue that "faithful" tradition.

Do you know how many times in God's Word He instructed those He called to "Write down my words". Obviously, He knew the future and how His Word would be taken advantage of (diminished, added to) by Satan, who would jump at the chance to do the very first thing he did in the garden, twist and pervert what God had said orally to Adam and Eve. After that, God instructed His Word to be written down many, many times.

Axehead

 

[neophyte]

Yes Axehead , but tell me what was built upon "a " rock, and 'a' could also be understood as a 'small' rock, Peter or a big ' rock' as Jesus. Care to show me from the Bible where Jesus calls Himself a big rock? Jesus changed Peter's name Simon to Peter which means "rock" Jesus said that Peter would be the rock on which He would build His Church. Besides Jesus spoke in Aramaic when talking with Peter , in Aramaic Simon's new name was "Kepha" [ which means a huge rock ] later this name was translated into Greek as "Petros [ John 1:42 ] and into English as Peter.

 

[Rex]

I've used the word eisegesis much earlier to describe the Protestant belief system. First, many of you Prots agree that Christianity is a Book Alone faith,so explain to me where in the NT does it say that the Christian faith will be based on a Holy Book alone. Now that is what I call big-time Prot eisegesis.

In the voice of the world, common sense is not so common anymore.

I like pictures
http://www.welcometo...reaPhilippi.htm

This is where Jesus spoke Matthew 16

sacred precinct of Panias/Caesarea Philippi with the Banias Cave, from which the source of the Jordan River (foreground) once emerged;

(Above) reconstruction of the sacred precinct at Caesarea Philippi (far left: Temple of Augustus, opposite the entrance to the sacred grotto. It had no back wall but opened onto the grotto. The temple thus functioned as a forecourt while the great cave became the inner sanctuary. Left to right from the Augustus temple: Court of Pan and the Nymphs, an open-air shrine constructed by Philip in the 1st century AD after he founded Caesarea Philippi. The back wall of the shrine was a small rock-cut cave surrounded by five cult niches that once held statues of the god Pan. Next is another temple dedicated to Zeus and Pan. Excavators believe it was erected on the 100th anniversary of the founding of the city by Philip. At the end of the terrace we also note was a primitive building dubbed the "Temple of Pan and the Goats" by its excavators from the animal bones, mainly sheep and goats, discovered there in rectangular niches. It is a vivid reminder of the cult of Pan, half man, half goat, and its sacrificial practices celebrating the power and fertility of nature.

(Above) cult niches carved in the cliff-face that once held statues of the god Pan. Three have Greek inscriptions. One refers to Galerius, a priest of Pan, another relates to Echo, the mountain nymph and lover of Pan; yet another refers to Diopan, the god who loved music.

(Above right) Figure of the half-man, half-goat god Pan playing his panpipes.

(Above) All that remains of the temples of Jesus' time are the foundations.

"When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, 'Who do people say the Son of Man is?' They replied, 'Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.' 'But what about you?' he asked. 'Who do you say I am?' Simon Peter answered, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God'" (Matthew 16:13-16).
"Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it"

Big Rock that the source of the Jordan flowed
just like the Rock that Mosses struck in the wilderness.

Gates of Hell
Well that's pretty evident as well

Now just where is it your brick and mortar church located in this picture neo?

Did you notice the temple built on the source, just as you yourself stand with catechism 811
The one holy apostate church claiming to be the source built by mans hands.
Dan 2:45

 

[Axehead]

Yes Axehead , but tell me what was built upon "a " rock, and 'a' could also be understood as a 'small' rock, Peter or a big ' rock' as Jesus. Care to show me from the Bible where Jesus calls Himself a big rock? Jesus changed Peter's name Simon to Peter which means "rock" Jesus said that Peter would be the rock on which He would build His Church. Besides Jesus spoke in Aramaic when talking with Peter , in Aramaic Simon's new name was "Kepha" [ which means a huge rock ] later this name was translated into Greek as "Petros [ John 1:42 ] and into English as Peter.

Peter told us who the Rock was. "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God".

What is built upon the Rock are the Apostles and prophets and the Church". We are not the foundation, we are built on the foundation.

There are four passages in the New Testament where both the foundation and the superstructure of the church are contained in the same context.

The first is Matt 16:18 - where the "foundation" is the "rock" and the "superstructure" is the "church".

Then 1 Cor 3:9-11 presents the church as "God's building" and then as the "temple of God." Here Paul boldly discusses the "foundation" by saying "For other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ."

Does your Bible say "can no man lay?"

Eph 2:19-22 presents the church as "the household of God," a "holy temple" and a "habitation of God." And in the same verses he presents this body of people as "being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief cornerstone..."

"Foundation of the apostles and prophets" - the "of" is [background=yellow]genitive[/background] of possession not locative of position.

In other words, Jesus was Paul's foundation, and Peter's foundation and John's and James' and Andrew's and all the other apostles.

The apostles are not part of the foundation! They are built upon that Foundation.

The Holy Spirit is saying the "apostle's and prophet's foundation (which is Jesus Christ)".

When Paul presented the foundation claimed by all the apostles and prophets - then as an appositive statement he explains who that foundation is: it is "Christ Jesus himself being the chief corner stone."

Finally, I Peter 2:4-8 this apostle presents Jesus as the "living stone, rejected indeed of men, but with God elect, precious" which is Jesus Himself. Then Peter quotes the three major "stone prophecies of Psalms 118, Isaiah 8:14and Isaiah 28:16 and relates them all to Jesus.

Therefore the "rock" upon which Jesus built his "church" was indeed Himself as the fulfillment of all redemptive purposes of God accomplished by Jesus Christ.

Axehead

 

[neophyte]

Axehead, Jesus is standing in front of a massive rock in Caesarea Phillippi upon which stands the "false church" , the temple to the "divine" Caesar Augustus, so Jesus says to Peter: "You are rock" making a correlation. Then after the correlation has been made, He looks at Peter 'and' the massive rock and says:, " And upon this rock I will build my church"
Jesus could not be the foundation in this metaporical description, because in this illustration He presents himself as the " builder". The following is very important , in Scripture Jesus is variously depicted as the 'foundation' [ 1 Cor. 3:11 ] the builder [ Matt. 16:18 ] the cornerstone [ Acts 4:11 ] and the temple itself [ Rev. 21:22 ] We can also see where the apostles and other believers as the foundation [ Eph. 2:20 , Rev. 21:14 ] , the builders [ 1 Cor. 3: 10 ] the building [ 1 Cor.3:9 ] and the temple [ Eph. 2:21]
Many illustrative metaphors are used to explain various aspects of the Church. One can not simply substitute one descriptive figure of speech for another in any one illustration, thereby mixing metaphors. It does great violence to the texual illustration itself and is a good example of roughshod "proof-texting ", wrongly" dividingthe word of truth" [2 tim.2;15 ] . the Bible does not set up a dichomy--' either ' Jesus or Peter, rather, it presents us with both Jesus and Peter as foundation stones . Jesus is establishing the man who will be the focal point of unity within the Church, the foundation. He who builds on sand has a structure that crumbles [ Matt. 7: 24-27 ] Jesus built His Church upon the rock of His choice, and , by His protection, the Catholic/Apostolic Church has stood the test of time.The powers of hell have failed to destroy or corrupt it's doctrine.