Where does the Pope get his authority?

[Peterlag]

So, how does that not apply to you, since you are claiming to be such an expert?

The Apostles and Jesus without the education were also claiming to be the expert.

Can you give me any Catholic doctrine that lines up with Scripture?

 

[Augustin56]

The Apostles and Jesus without the education were also claiming to be the expert.

Can you give me any Catholic doctrine that lines up with Scripture?

Your first sentence doesn't make sense. Can you reword it?

I cannot give you a Catholic Doctrine that doesn't line up with Scripture.

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

I cannot give you a Catholic Doctrine that doesn't line up with Scripture.

The rosary is satanic... you need to face that fact.
It's not found anywhere in scripture.

Jesus and His Apostles never instructed anybody to talk to mary bout anything and to do so is a complete was of time since she can't do anything for anybody not that she is physically dead having been separated from this world .

 

[Augustin56]

The rosary is satanic... you need to face that fact.
It's not found anywhere in scripture.

Jesus and His Apostles never instructed anybody to talk to mary bout anything and to do so is a complete was of time since she can't do anything for anybody not that she is physically dead having been separated from this world .

The Rosary is the prayer of the Gospel. ALL of it is in Scripture. The Hail Mary, the Our Father, the Mysteries (Annunciation, Visitation, Nativity, etc.).

You really don't know Scripture, or at least what it means, sad to say. I could train a parrot to recite Scripture, but the parrot would have no idea what it meant. Scripture is not a do-it-yourself kit. It doesn't exist in a vacuum.

 

[Peterlag]

Your first sentence doesn't make sense. Can you reword it?

I cannot give you a Catholic Doctrine that doesn't line up with Scripture.

We are both saying the same thing.

You say your group are the experts with education.
I say I'm an expert without the PhD's.

You say the Jewish leaders thought they were right.
I say the Jewish rulers had the PhD's and Jesus, the Apostles, and me did not have the PhD's.

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

The rosary is the prayer of the gospel

That's you being delusional... Jesus and His Apostles never once taught anybody to pray to mary.

This is satanic traditions satan used to trick "catholics" in to practicing necromancy so they will go to hell when they craok.

catholicism is one of satan's favorite deceptions

 

[BreadOfLife]

John 1:1
Jesus Christ is not a lexical definition of logos. The verse does not say "In the beginning was Jesus." The "Word" is not synonymous with Jesus, or even the "Messiah." The word logos in John 1:1 refers to God's creative self-expression... His reason, purpose and plans, especially as they are brought into action. It refers to God's self-expression or communication of Himself. This has come to pass through His creation and especially the heavens. It has come through the spoken word of the prophets and through Scripture. Most notably it has come into being through His Son. The logos is the expression of God and is His communication of Himself just as a "word" is an outward expression of a person's thoughts. This outward expression of God has now occurred through His Son and thus it's perfectly understandable why Jesus is called the "Word." Jesus is an outward expression of God's reason, wisdom, purpose and plan. For the same reason we call revelation "a word from God" and the Bible "the Word of God."

If we understand that the logos is God's expression... His plan, purpose, reason and wisdom. Then it is clear they were with Him "in the beginning." Scripture says God's wisdom was "from the beginning" and it was common in Hebrew writing to personify a concept such as wisdom. The fact that the logos "became" flesh shows it did not exist that way before. There is no pre-existence for Jesus in this verse other than his figurative "existence" as the plan, purpose or wisdom of God for the salvation of man. The same is true with the "word" in writing. It had no literal pre-existence as a "spirit-book" somehow in eternity past, but came into being as God gave the revelation to people and they wrote it down.

This entire argument is based on a FALSE premise.
I never claimed that “Logos” translated to “Jesus”. I know you fancy yourself as an "expert" in Biblical data and like to use phrases like "lexical definition" - but your dishonesty exposes you.

It would be similar to saying “Dave married his love. She became his wife.”
She became his wife. Does this mean that she NEVER existed? Does it mean that his "love" could not be her because love is an emotion?

Jesus is the Son – He is fully God and fully man. He ALWAYS existed with the Father as God, but not as a man. The man Jesus was created at a point in human history.

It always amazes me how anti-Trinitarians like YOU can believe that God merely spoke and the entire universe leapt into existence – but the Triune Godhead is “impossible”.

 

[BreadOfLife]

That's you being delusional... Jesus and His Apostles never once taught anybody to pray to mary.

Jesus and His Apostles never taught that the bible is our "SOLE" Authority (Sola Scriptura).
Jesus and His Apostles never taught that the we are justified by "Faith ALONE" (Sola Fide).

Soooo - why do YOU and every other Protestant believe these anti-Biblical lies, Einstein?

This is satanic traditions satan used to trick "catholics" in to practicing necromancy so they will go to hell when they craok.

catholicism is one of satan's favorite deceptions

Can you define what "necromancy" is?

Yeah - I didn't think so . . .

 

[Augustin56]

We are both saying the same thing.

You say your group are the experts with education.
I say I'm an expert without the PhD's.

You say the Jewish leaders thought they were right.
I say the Jewish rulers had the PhD's and Jesus, the Apostles, and me did not have the PhD's.

Well, there was no such thing as a PhD in Jesus' day. However, there was education. Jesus eduated the Apostles with the fullness of Divine Revelation that God wanted mankind to know. I get your point, though. But the Apostles were not self-appointed. They were chosen by Jesus. Same with today's Pope, bishops, and priests. They were called. That's where we get the word "vocation" from. It's a "calling." Not a self-appointing.

 

[Augustin56]

That's you being delusional... Jesus and His Apostles never once taught anybody to pray to mary. View attachment 42462

This is satanic traditions satan used to trick "catholics" in to practicing necromancy so they will go to hell when they craok.
View attachment 42463
catholicism is one of satan's favorite deceptions

Again, why would they pray to Mary since she was still alive then?

The New Testament presents to us very plain examples of the faithful on earth initiating communication with the saints in heaven. First, we have Hebrews 11-12. Chapter 11 gives us what I call the “hall of faith” wherein the lives of many of the Old Testament saints are recounted. Then, the inspired author encourages these to whom he referred earlier as a people who were being persecuted for their faith (10:32-35), to consider that they are “surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses,” encouraging them to “run the race” of faith set before them. Then, beginning in 12:18, he encourages these New Covenant faithful by reminding them that their covenant—the New Covenant—is far superior to the Old:

For you have not come to what may be touched, a blazing fire … darkness … gloom … and the sound of a trumpet, and a voice whose words made the hearers entreat that no further messages be spoken to them…

But you have come to… the city of the living God… and to innumerable angels… and to the assembly of the first-born who are enrolled in heaven… and to… God… and to the spirits of just men made perfect… and to Jesus…

Notice, in the Old Covenant the faithful approached God alone and with trepidation. But in the New Covenant, the faithful have experienced a radical change for the better. “But you have come to … and to … and to … and to.” In the same way we can initiate prayer and in so doing “come to” God and Jesus, we can also “come to” the angels and “the spirits of just men made perfect.” Those would be the saints in heaven. In the fellowship of the saints, we have the aid and encouragement of the whole family of God.

The Book of Revelation gives us an even better description of this communication between heaven and earth:

The twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints … the elders fell down and worshipped (5:8-14).

These “elders” are offering the prayers of the faithful symbolized by incense filtering upward from the earth to heaven. And because they are seen receiving these prayers, we can reasonably conclude they were both directed to these saints in heaven and that they were initiated by the faithful living on earth. We also see this same phenomenon being performed by the angels in Revelation 8:3-4:

And another angel came and stood at the altar with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God.

The bottom line is this: Both the faithful on earth and our brothers and sisters in heaven (and let’s not forget our “cousins,” the angels) are all acting just as Catholics would expect. Believers on earth are initiating prayers which the saints and angels in heaven are receiving. Is this the necromancy condemned in Deuteronomy and Isaiah? Absolutely not! This is New Testament Christianity.

 

[Peterlag]

Well, there was no such thing as a PhD in Jesus' day. However, there was education. Jesus eduated the Apostles with the fullness of Divine Revelation that God wanted mankind to know. I get your point, though. But the Apostles were not self-appointed. They were chosen by Jesus. Same with today's Pope, bishops, and priests. They were called. That's where we get the word "vocation" from. It's a "calling." Not a self-appointing.

This is what's going to happen when you get to heaven. And that I'm not even sure if you will make it there. But if you do this is what you will say...

"You know Augustin56, that kid Peterlag was right all along and I was following the biggest cult on Earth and I really thought I was the one who was right when all along it was that kid Peterlag."

 

[Peterlag]

This entire argument is based on a FALSE premise.
I never claimed that “Logos” translated to “Jesus”. I know you fancy yourself as an "expert" in Biblical data and like to use phrases like "lexical definition" - but your dishonesty exposes you.

It would be similar to saying “Dave married his love. She became his wife.”
She became his wife. Does this mean that she NEVER existed? Does it mean that his "love" could not be her because love is an emotion?

Jesus is the Son – He is fully God and fully man. He ALWAYS existed with the Father as God, but not as a man. The man Jesus was created at a point in human history.

It always amazes me how anti-Trinitarians like YOU can believe that God merely spoke and the entire universe leapt into existence – but the Triune Godhead is “impossible”.

What did it accomplish to have God come as a man? (That is not even possible. How does a dog come as a cat?) Oh good Lord, help me ask the question. What did it produce to have God come down as a God-Man? Why did He do it?

 

[Peterlag]

That's you being delusional... Jesus and His Apostles never once taught anybody to pray to mary. View attachment 42462

This is satanic traditions satan used to trick "catholics" in to practicing necromancy so they will go to hell when they craok.
View attachment 42463
catholicism is one of satan's favorite deceptions

Well, Big Boy Johnson... we agree on this one.

 

[BreadOfLife]

What did it accomplish to have God come as a man? (That is not even possible. How does a dog come as a cat?)

Jesus said:
Matt. 19:26
“…with God ALL things are possible.”

WHAT part of that do you have difficulty with?

Oh good Lord, help me ask the question. What did it produce to have God come down as a God-Man? Why did He do it?

As Paul wrote:
Rom. 5:12
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned

Only a perfect, sinless man could be the unblemished sacrifice that is required for the propitiation of sin.

Thorough an imperfect man, sin entered the world and infected us ALL.
Conversely, only through a perfect man could sin be defeated. And because of sin, there are NO perfect men, so God became the perfect Man.
Why? Because He loves us (John 3:16).

Jesus is the Lamb of God (John 1:29). He is the perfect, unblemished Lamb.

 

[The Learner]

I'm not surprised. The real difference between us is, you think you have to reinvent the theological wheel yourself. I rely on the 2000 year-old, never changing teachings of Christ given to us through His Apostles and their successors, the bishops. I don't have to invent anything.

John was around in 90 AD and he had disciples known as the Early Church Fathers. So, the errors would be impossible to enter the church.

 

[Peterlag]

Only a perfect, sinless man could be the unblemished sacrifice that is required for the propitiation of sin.

Thorough an imperfect man, sin entered the world and infected us ALL.
Conversely, only through a perfect man could sin be defeated. And because of sin, there are NO perfect men

Jesus is the Lamb of God (John 1:29). He is the perfect, unblemished Lamb.

Look at your own writing. And yes there was a perfect man

Only a perfect, sinless man could be the unblemished sacrifice that is required for the propitiation of sin.

Thorough an imperfect man, sin entered the world and infected us ALL.
Conversely, only through a perfect man could sin be defeated. And because of sin, there are NO perfect men

 

[Peterlag]

John was around in 90 AD and he had disciples known as the Early Church Fathers. So, the errors would be impossible to enter the church.

Most of the church was breaking up while Paul was still alive. Probably by the Catholics or what later became the Catholics.

 

[The Learner]

Peter, your history is nonsense. The cannon of the NT was not defined until around 399 AD. The rest you posted is fiction. I only have seven earned PHDs and dozens of honorary ones too. The Early Church Fathers were taught by the Apostles themselves.

Lest we understand the Son's role in creation as being passive, the inspired author quotes the Father as saying:

You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundations of the earth;
And the heavens are the work of your hands

Thus, the Son is given the same active role in creation attributed to YHWH in Psalm 102. The Son is both agent and active participant in creation. He is, therefore, vastly superior to the angels, who are "ministering spirits" and "servants" (verse 14). First century readers would have had no difficulty in understanding who "laid the foundations of the earth" - only YHWH was the hands-on creator of all things. If Christ is given this honor, He must have been YHWH - yet somehow distinct from the Father who here addresses Him.

2. The Father calls the Son "Lord." While "Lord" (Greek kurios) can merely be a title ascribed to men or angels, it is also the word used in most LXX manuscripts to render the Divine Name, YHWH. This is likely the sense it carries in the LXX translation of Psalm 102. When used in the Bible as an honorific, "lord" always signifies that the one addressed is superior in rank or social station to the speaker. There are no exceptions. Thus, if the Father calls the Son "lord" in this sense, it would mean that He acknowledges the Son as superior to Himself in rank. While this usage is possible, it would seem to contradict the numerous times the Father is spoken as being superior to the Son. It is better, then, to understand "Lord" to mean YHWH, as it was in its original setting.

The person here addressed, as the Lord or Jehovah, and as the Maker of the heavens and the earth, is the same with the Son spoken to, and of, before; for the words are a continuation of the speech to him, though they are taken from another psalm, from Psa_102:25. The phrase, "thou, Lord" is taken from Psa_102:12 and is the same with, "O my God", Psa_102:24 and whereas it is there said, "of old", and here, in the beginning, the sense is the same; and agreeably to the Septuagint, and the apostle, Jarchi interprets it by "at", or "from the beginning"; and so the Targum paraphrases it, "from the beginning", that the creatures were created, &c. that in the beginning of the creation, which is the apostle's meaning; and shows the eternity of Christ, the Lord, the Creator of the earth, who must exist before the foundation of the world; and confutes the notion of the eternity of the world: and the rounding of it shows that the earth is the lower part of the creation; and denotes the stability of it; and points out the wisdom of the Creator in laying such a foundation; and proves the deity of Christ, by whom that, and all things in it, were made. (Gill).

 

[The Learner]

Jehovah's Witnesses

by Sam Shamoun

Hebrews and Jesus as Creator​

The NT states that the Lord Jesus is the Creator of all things. For instance, the inspired author of Hebrews writes:

“But about the Son he says… ‘In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. You will roll them up like a robe; like a garment they will be changed. But you remain the same, and your years will never end.’” Hebrews 1:8a, 10-12.

The author has the Father addressing the Son as the actual Creator of the cosmos. The inspired author applies to the Son an OT passage which refers to Yahweh’s work in creation:

“‘O my God,’ I say, ‘take me not hence in the midst of my days, thou whose years endure throughout all generations!’ Of old thou didst lay the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of thy hands. They will perish, but thou dost endure; they will all wear out like a garment. Thou changest them like raiment, and they pass away; but thou art the same, and thy years have no end.” Psalm 102:24-27 RSV.

Amazingly, the OT elsewhere states that Yahweh ALONE stretched out the heavens:

“He speaks to the sun and it does not shine; he seals off the light of the stars. He ALONE stretches out the heavens and treads on the waves of the sea.” Job 9:7-8 NIV.

For the author of Hebrews to write that the Son personally laid the foundations of the earth and that the heavens are the work of his hands means that the author truly believed that the Son was Yahweh God (yet not the Father), the very eternal Creator himself! Note for instance the following syllogism:

1. Yahweh God created the heavens with his own hands and he alone stretched them out.
2. The Son created the heavens with his own hands.
3. Therefore, the Son is Yahweh God.

 

[The Learner]

Paul draws a contrast between false deities and the Father and Son. Whereas the pagan deities are false, there is to us “one God, the Father”, and “one Lord, Jesus Christ”.

He maintains a distinction of Personality between the Father and Son by assigning a different title of Deity to each, while at the same time distinguishing both from all creation [TA PANTA], each in a different way. Whereas the Father is portrayed as the source of all things, Jesus Christ, the Logos, operates in an intermediate role in both the original creation (John 1:3) as well as the new creation. Jesus said that, “no man comes to the Father, but by me” (John 14:6), thereby portraying himself as the intermediate agency of true Deity.

Hence, because the many “gods and lords” have no existence as true Deity, the eating of meats which had been sacrificed to idols will not adversely affect the Christian. However, not all Christians have the same knowledge, so some might be stumbled by the “tainted meat”, and those who have knowledge should put love first and never cause their brothers to stumble, it would be a sin to do so. (Ray Goldsmith)

A number of scholars and commentators have persuasively argued that in this verse, Paul is recasting the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4) in Christian terms. The Shema is the great monotheistic declaration: "Hear O Israel! YHWH, our God, YHWH is one." In the LXX, this becomes AKOUE ISRAÊL KURIOS hO THEOS hEMÔN KURIOS EIS ESTIN ("Hear Israel! The Lord our God, the Lord is one").

YHWH becomes KURIOS ("Lord") in the LXX. The similarity in language between this verse and 1 Corinthians 8:6 becomes apparent when we set them side by side in the Greek (Deuteronomy 6:4 is on the right; 1 Corinthians 8:6 on the left):

​

As Richard Bauckham notes:

Paul has reproduced all the words of the statement about YHWH in the Shema...but Paul has rearranged the words in such as way as to produce an affirmation of both one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ. It should be quite clear that Paul is including the Lord Jesus Christ in the unique divine identity. He is redefining monotheism as christological monotheism. If he were understood as adding the one Lord to the one God of whom the Shema speaks, from the perspective of Jewish monotheism, he would certainly be producing not christological monotheism but outright ditheism (Bauckham, p. 38).

Paul has redefined the "God" of the Shema as "One God, the Father," and the "Lord" of the Shema as "One Lord, Jesus Christ." As the context is that of religious devotion (whether eating food sacrificed to idols was acceptable or not) and the distinction between pagan deities on the one hand, and God the Father and Jesus Christ on the other, Paul's appeal to the Shema as a proclamation of how the God of Israel was unique is understandable. What was unprecedented was his inclusion of Jesus in the formula - again it must be stressed in the context of devotion - which could only mean that the Lord God (YHWH) was now to be perceived as including both the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Other scholars who have written on Paul's reliance on the Shema in this verse include: F.F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Corinthians; D. R. de Lacey, "'One Lord' in Pauline Christology," in H. H. Rowden, ed., Christ the Lord; J. D. G. Dunn, Christology (though Dunn draws a somewhat different conclusion); L. Hurtado, One God, One Lord and At the Origin of Christian Worship; N. T. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant and What St. Paul Really Said; D. A. Hagner, "Paul's Christology and Jewish Monotheism" in M. Shuster and R. Muller ed., Perspectives on Christology; N. Richardson, Paul's Language about God; B. Witherington, Jesus the Sage; P. Rainbow, "Monotheism and Christology in 1 Corinthians 8:4-6 [unpublished D.Phil. Thesis, Oxford University]; W. A. Elwell, "The Deity of Christ in the Writings of Paul," in Hawthorne, ed., Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation.